Wherefore Fan Fic?

[przed]

So, I'm taking in the local SF convention, Ad Astra, with sooguy, my partner's cousin and my sometime con-going buddy. I'm venting about the fact that the blurb for the panel on Fan Fiction ends with the line: "Is this phenomenon sad or enterprising?" Said con-going buddy admits that he finds the endeavour of fan fiction on the "sad" end of the spectrum, and further that he doesn't understand a) why anyone would write stories using characters that one does not own, and thus that you can't seek to publish professionally b) why people bother writing if they are not in fact seeking to publish professionally. And this from a person who knows that I have for years been involved in writing rather a lot of fan fiction.

Leaving aside the notion that, whether intentionally or accidentally, I had just been insulted, it has left me thinking, yet again, about just who gets to decide what constitutes valid writing.

It goes beyond what is "good writing," if one can even begin to define what that is. Some of the finest prose I've encountered has been in fandom, while I've run into atrocious writing between the covers of professionally published books. (The reverse is, of course also true; we've all run into our fair share of truly dire fanfic.) I can't help but think that at least part of it comes down to a matter of gender. The overwhelming number of fanfic writers are female, therefore it must be a trivial pursuit.

Interestingly, the friend whose comments sparked this also admitted that he found, for example, Holmes pastiches in professional books a perfectly acceptable form of expression and not at all sad. Interestingly, Holmes fandom (and it is a fandom) has always had a high percentage of men.

I think when it comes right down to it, I'm just depressed and irritated that I've had to defend a pursuit that I consider a rather important part of my life to someone who I consider a friend.

Comments

[elke-tanzer.livejournal.com]

Ugh. {{{{{{{{{hugs}}}}}}}}}}}

I am valid and so are my hobbies. Period. So are you and yours.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{more hugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

[przed.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Elke.

I *know* our hobbies are valid, it's just sometimes wearing to have to defend them.

{{hugs back}}

[sooguy.livejournal.com]

What can I say - I'm sorry.

I wasn't very articulate today trying to explain what it was about fan fiction that bothers me. I won't try to rehash any of it here.

I wasn't trying to invalidate your writing experience. I see your passion for it every time you talk about it. I respect that.

I've just had bad experience with every other fan-fic writer I have met and one very particular person in particular. I wasn't trying to paint everyone with the same brush even though that's how it came off sounding.

Enjoy your panel tomorrow, I am going to stay clear of it. I don't want to sour you on what you enjoy anymore than I already have.

[przed.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't have had any problem if, like Don, you'd said that it isn't your thing and left it at that. But to actually call it "sad" was a tangible reminder of why most of us stay in the fan fiction closet rather than spend energy defending the form as "real" writing.

Mostl, I think it's a topic we both need to simply avoid discussing in the future.

[morgandawn.livejournal.com]

A friend does not devalue what you do. He can say: not something I find worth spending my time on. Not interested. But as long as you are not asking him to share the experience, he should have nothing more to say than: hey, enjoy.

"friends" who do engage in this type of behavior are often projecting their own worries ("what if *I* am a sad pathetic loser") or showing their self-centerdness ("I shall tell her she is lame and it shall be well done").

And in the end, it is only their seams they are showing, the cracks in their perfect mirrors they are revealing.

[przed.livejournal.com]

I think part of the reason it's bothered me is that I do think about why I write fanfic over original fiction, and it is a decision I've consciously made. Given that, it's hard to feel slapped down by someone whom you thought accepted what you do.

In the end, I think I'm just gong to have to realize that the lad and I have an occasionally fraught relationship, accept his apology and move on.

[morgandawn.livejournal.com]

Well I too have put my foot into it when freely discussing with my friends. What I think is a vigorous defense of my position -- next thing I know, I've insulted someone's great-Aunt and possibly even threw in something about a goat. Not intentionally of course....

Seriously, I used to have very certain opinions -- and maybe as I get older and more creaky in my thinking, I find pretty much everything people spend their time on -- worthy. Who am I to judge?

Except for those guys checking the chakras on their pet chickens.

[st-crispins.livejournal.com]

My comment is too long to fit here, so I refer you (and your friend) to:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/st_crispins/9618.html#cutid1

[przed.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I couldn't have said it better.

[graculus.livejournal.com]

So any pursuit that doesn't make you money is futile? Because that would seem to be the logical extrapolation of that point of view...

[przed.livejournal.com]

His argument slides between "it's not valuable if you aren't paid" to "it's not valuable if you haven't sought out the widest possible audience." To which I would ask, valuable to whom? And how wide an audience does it have to be?

Ah well, I'm letting go.

[sooguy.livejournal.com]

I know we are trying to put this behind us, but I would like to clarify what I said on this one point.

I never said you had to be paid for something to be of value. I don't think my own website is any less valuable because no one pays me for it, nor do I think Don's movie reviews are worth any less if he writes them for himself than getting paid for them.

Second, you misundertand my argument about seeking out the widest possible audience. I simply said its sad a good writer such as yourself may never be read by someone like me since I am not into fanfic. The same could be said about a SF writer or a Mystery writer who may not get a wider audience. I was just making an observation - not a condemnation of fanfic.

I am sorry if you heard something different. It's the last thing I'll say on the subject.

[przed.livejournal.com]

Clarification made. And yeah, really we just need to avoid this topic from now on.

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

Hi there. I chased a link here from st_crispins; hope you don't mind.

I'm extremely amused by your post for several reasons: first of all, because I'm a professional writer whose publications include "a Sherlock Holmes pastiche" ("Tiger! Tiger!" in last year's Shadows Over Baker Street (http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0345455282)), and second of all, because I maintain that the only difference between a certain sort of professional metafiction and fanfiction is that the pro writers stay in public domain or file off the serial numbers in ways that allow us to get paid for it.

For other examples of what I'm talking about, check out Ben Rosenbaum's brilliant "The Deathtrap of Dr. Nefario" (http://www.infinitematrix.net/stories/shorts/dr_nefario.html) and Kely Link's shiny and difficult "The Girl Detective" (http://www.eventhorizon.com/sfzine/fiction/girl_detective/pages/01.html).

I'm a firm believer in the folk tradition, and that one story, or one song, or one painting, or whatever, grows out ofa dialogue with older artistic expression. In modern days, we have the cult of the "sole creator," as if art existed in a vacuum, irrespective of other art--and that's a lie--you can't have Marlowe without Ovid, and you can't have Shakespeare without Marlowe.

Likewise you can't have Zimmer-Bradley without T.H.White, and you can't have White without Geoffrey.

However, comma, this doesn't mean that I'm in favor of violating copyrights, author's rights, or taking money out of the pockets of hard-working artists. And I will admit, in my own limited experience, sometimes its a little weird to see other writers playing with one's creations and doing things with them you never would have intended. Blah blah blah disclaimer blah.

But, you know. That doesn't change the fact that art is a dialogue.

And frankly, making money is not what everything in my life is about. I imagine fanfiction is nice as a genre in that fanfiction writers never have to worry about sellthrough or earning out their advances, and if you get a bad review, it's unlikely to affect your ability to pay the mortgage.

Not that I dislike my job, mind you. I'm just not going to judge people who are writing fanfiction as being any more lazy/sad/inept than the ones who spend every Saturday parked in front of the television for four hours watching the game and getting tipsy on Schlitz. And it's (imho) a more productive hobby, over all. At least writing fanfiction, you might learn something.

I mean, hell. You wanna talk futile artistic endeavors that will probably never make me one red cent?

I write poetry.

[st-crispins.livejournal.com]

However, comma, this doesn't mean that I'm in favor of violating copyrights, author's rights, or taking money out of the pockets of hard-working artists.

I do have sympathy with this and I think the question of negotiation of meaning and ownership between print fiction writers and fan fiction writers who wish to play in the same ball park (or one located close by) is a complex and difficult one. Certainly, fan fiction writers must negotiate boundaries and respect each other as well.

However, in terms of television and film I have no sympathy because the ball parks are located so far away in public space and are so different in terms of money, status, and cultural reach. Good and successful fan fiction does not threaten either the earning power or the cultural value of a film or television property. In fact, fan fiction supports, promotes and potentially increases the value of that property.

But then, the Hollywood folks ---at least the smart ones --have figured this out already.

In MFU, for example, Norman Felton who still owns half the property, has never objected to any fan activities and was even a guest at our conventions. He knows there are zines out there and he's never had a problem with that.

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

Bingo, and I think you've nailed it on the head.

[przed.livejournal.com]

I'm going to try this again, 'cause LJ ate my last two attempts. But first, I have to say you've just done me a great service. I heard Neil Gaiman read his Holmes story and TorCon this past August and wasn't sure where it was being published. I'll be running out to get this anthology immediately.

As for the rest...I definitely agree that if you decide to play in the sandbox created by a single creator, it's a different ballgame. At least within that creator's lifetime. Then it does require definite negotiation and respect by the would-be fanfic writers for the creator's wishes. That, or you "file off the serial numbers"--I love that phrase--so you can deal with similar issues without violating the copyright.

What I would object to is an estate holding a copyright indefinitely past the creator's lifetime, as corporations like Disney would prefer. That does greatly reduce the dialogue process between writers across generations. If the Iliad had been copyright protected, than we would have had neither Chaucer's Troilus and Cresseyde nor Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida, and the world would be a sadder place. Neither would we have had your Holmes pastiche, or countless others, if Conan Doyle's work had not passed into the public domain.

When it comes right down to it, every writer is influenced by other writers and traditions, be they folk tale, current books or television shows. It all comes down to how far you want to separate yourself from those influences.

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

<>What I would object to is an estate holding a copyright indefinitely past the creator's lifetime, as corporations like Disney would prefer.

Yes. I would actually prefer to see copyright limited to creator's-lifetime plus, say, 50 years (it's 75 now). That seems to me sufficient time for the spouse and kids to mine the artist's work. But I really think that anything printed more than a hundred years ago should move into the public domain.

Neil's story is getting a lot of buzz. It's very good--it's Neil, after all--but I think I figured out the twist a little too soon to really get the proper effect. I'm still working my way through the book slowly.

And media-based fanfic, or vids (I've seen some of yours, by the way, and they're very good), or other fan endeavors--I don't see that it hurts anybody. If anything, it may drum up interest for lesser-known properties, or keep them alive past their normal expiration date.

Our legends and archetypes play out in the popular media rather than in ballads and tales. It's a long-standing tradition to engage other work in dialogue. I'd go so far as to say it's part of how the brain thinks, actually.