Alec Austin ([info]alecaustin) wrote,
@ 2008-08-13 23:13:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:fanfic, hierarchies of taste, writing

Fanfic vs. 'Original' Work
So [info]sartorias was asking for topics for post-Bittercon discussions, and I brought up the question of what the differences (in motivation & content) were between fanfic and writing that isn't fanfic but is still responding to/in dialogue with prior works. One thing led to another, and here I am trying to write up a conversation-starter.

So you know where I'm coming from: I don't write fanfic any more. This isn't a value judgment, just a statement of fact. The last time I wrote/composed fanfic was when I was... six, I think? My parents still have notebooks which have me continuing the adventures of Jason January & the Space Cadets, as well as even older notebooks containing my great-aunt's transcription and illustrations of stories I dictated to her about generals of the Three Kingdoms period when I was very young. When I did write fanfic, it was motivated by the feeling that there wasn't enough of a particular kind of story - not enough stories in which Jason January foiled Hercules Canute, or in which Tsao Tsao was the hero instead of the much-maligned villain. This seems to be one motivation for writing fanfic. Others - perhaps more common - include the subversion & reinterpretation of the surface message or meanings of a text, 'correcting' perceived errors or failures on the part of the source text's creator(s), and personal gratification, aesthetic or otherwise. This list is probably far from complete.

The reasons I listed for why authors might write fanfic could also drive authors to compose 'original' works that respond to or are in dialogue with a pre-existing text, of course. (Most, if not all, of my fiction is driven by the twin desires to revisit or reinterpret works that I love or to subvert genre tropes that annoy me.) Essentially, my question is: Aside from legal, monetary, and hierarchy of taste issues (i.e. the perception that 'real fiction' > fanfic), why do writers choose to write some stories as fanfic as other stories as independent works? When and why is playing with someone else's toys more appealing than creating/copying your own, and when is the reverse true?

Inquiring Alecs would like to know.




(Post a new comment)


[info]hand2hand
2008-08-14 11:05 am UTC (link)
from what I've observed, the distinction between the impulses you describe in fanfiction and original fiction are somewhat artificial and imposed by the modern era's rules about intellectual property, profit and income, and also the primacy of the Author that we inherited from the Romantic Age in Europe.

in today's world, if i wrote a novel about King Arthur, it would not be classified as fan fiction. if I write about Mal from Firefly, it is. When Hollywood, or the latest stable of comic writers and illustrators, with the total permission and backing of the creators, redo Batman numerous times, it's not fan fiction. But if I write stories about Batman and show them to my friends without selling them, that's fan fiction.

In general today, fanfiction, IMHO of course, is about playing with existing characters and universes that we already love, exploring them, and knowing that the communities that you mention give us an audience for that activity.

My orig fiction starts from a different place in terms of creating characters and worlds from scratch, but as you say, I think writing is writing. And sometimes there's a huge genius talent that changes everything. All vampire novels are written in the shadow of Stoker's Dracula. Most fantasy can't escape the shadow of Tolkien. But this is not a bad thing. :).

Traditional jazz music with its emphasis on improvisation is another art form where quoting and homage are widespread. Thanks for the thinky. Found your post via [info]sartorias.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]alecaustin
2008-08-15 03:29 am UTC (link)
Most fantasy can't escape the shadow of Tolkien. But this is not a bad thing.

Nope. If enough people respond to Stoker or Tolkien (and each other), what you get is a genre or sub-genre - which is another way of saying that you have an ongoing conversation or discourse. And there are few things better than a good conversation.

The connection between intellectual property and fanfiction is an interesting and strained one, because (as [info]mrissa notes below) mere authorship/ownership doesn't necessarily confer audience acceptance of the direction that you take your work, though it does provide a foundation from which offshoots can grow. Part of the difference between Arthur & Mal is that Mal is more clearly defined and linked to a textual canon, while Arthur has been interpreted and reinterpreted so many times that there's no there there - just a collection of names, tropes, themes, and incidents to rearrange and remix as you will. Essentially, Arthuriana has become so diffuse over the years that it's become its own subgenre.

I don't know enough about the state of modern media fandom to make any definitive claims about Firefly (or even Trek or Potter) fanfic communities, but I'd hazard a guess that the proximity of the source texts and the (relative) lack of dispute over major canonical questions means that the scale of the discourse probably tends to be smaller/more intimate (shipping, slash, filling in the negative space left in the margins of the text) than the major deviations in focus that can be seen in the Arthurian space by comparing works like Jo Walton's The King's Peace with, say, The Mists of Avalon or The Crystal Cave.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mrissa
2008-08-14 12:03 pm UTC (link)
I don't write fanfic any more, either, although I was older than you for my last fanfic (13); on the other hand, that was assigned in school. (Hmm. I wonder if schools today would be more careful about doing something like that or less.)

I do write independent stories that are in conversation with preexisting work, and one of the reasons is that most of what I would want to say to high fantasy as a genre, or to Veronica Mars, or to an Octavia Butler short story, is going in such a different direction that the serial numbers would get rubbed off naturally. To me the appeal of something set in a favorite world or series is partly the fidelity, and this is what annoyed me about the end of Veronica Mars: there were big chunks of Season 3 that felt about as real as a little kid labeling dolls Veronica and Logan and marching them around. I did not feel that the characters had been developed consistently. Whether it's the original creator doing that or not, it annoys me. It would drive me buggy to do it myself.

One of the things I most want to do when I'm responding to another work is deal with how a subtly (or not so subtly!) different character would react to a similar situation, particularly if it diverges sharply. So it's not only potentially more profitable to write original fiction, it's more in line with what I want to do anyway.

The example people give of "out of copyright fanfic" -- say King Arthur or Robin Hood or Tam Lin -- are not really characters in the sense that Miles Vorkosigan is a character. They are sets of potential characters. They are collections of actions and a few known traits. You can have extremely different King Arthurs that are both consistent with as much of the legend as can be made self-consistent. For Miles Vorkosigans to diverge that much, I think you'd need to insert a biiiig chunk of time for him to have gone through divergent experiences.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]timprov
2008-08-14 12:16 pm UTC (link)
"And now Veronica, I have you in my clutches, to have my wicked way with you, the way I want to."

"No, no, go away, I hate you! And yet... I find you strangely attractive."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mrissa
2008-08-14 12:18 pm UTC (link)
"California princesses are always attracted to money and power, and I have both."

Um. Let's not start referring to the Season 3 version as Dark Helmet Logan, all right?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]alecaustin
2008-08-15 03:46 am UTC (link)
I definitely agree with you on Robin Hood/King Arthur/Tam Lin not being characters any more - they're more like archetypes, with clouds of conventions and precedents floating around them to be drawn on (or not) as you choose.

[M]ost of what I would want to say to high fantasy as a genre, or to Veronica Mars, or to an Octavia Butler short story, is going in such a different direction that the serial numbers would get rubbed off naturally.

This tends to be true of my work as well, as I'll freely admit. Even when I feel the need to respond to something as inherently fanfic-friendly as Neon Genesis Evangelion, I don't feel the desire (or need) to play with someone else's toys to do so. Divergences from and variations on a source text are what interest me, as those deviations invariably have further ramifications, sending ripples outward until what started with changing a single variable has created something almost wholly new. And at that point, I'm usually the only person who can see the connection between the source text and what I've come up with. So why present it as fanfic?*

*: I imagine that there would probably be a wide range of reasonable answers to this question if I was part of a fanfic community, but I'm, uh, not. So.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mrissa
2008-08-15 12:12 pm UTC (link)
And I'm torn here, because on the one hand, I don't want to discourage fanfic or disparage fanfic. I don't have a problem with fanfic. On the other hand, I would much rather try to keep a certain degree of pressure towards original fiction in place. Even if you're rabidly pro-fanfic (where I am merely not anti-fanfic), original fiction gives new material to write fanfic with, on a much larger scale than the vast majority of other pieces of fanfic would.

The other reason I want to keep some pressure towards original fiction is -- well, this has happened to me before: an author I like and respect as an author and as a person wrote a Firefly/Serenity novel. (I will not be coy here; it was Steve Brust.) I am not a Firefly/Serenity fan. At all: I've seen the movie and because of it have negative amounts of interest in seeing the show. But to get the most out of Steve's book -- or possibly to make any sense of it at all, I don't know -- I'd have to go watch the show. Right up front. On top of whatever other references he wanted to make, whether they were to Hamlet or Marx or Cowboy Bebop. The fact that this novel is fanfic for a show I don't watch has erected a barrier between me and the work of one of my favorite authors. It's not an insurmountable barrier, but it's a pretty high one. And in some ways the act of filing the serial numbers off not only gives the author freedom, it gives the reader assurances that much of what they need for the book will be contained in the book.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]drawgirl
2008-08-14 05:33 pm UTC (link)
Am I right to assume that in that part "personal gratification, aesthetic or otherwise", the 'otherwise' is an Alec Austin way of saying "you get to take character you like and make them have sex!" cuz, that's a whooooole lotta the fan fiction out there.
...
...
I suppose I could have just said "shipping!"

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]alecaustin
2008-08-15 03:03 am UTC (link)
Shipping is part of it, for sure, but things get complex real quick when communities get involved and start riffing off of each other. Some communities build structures that are more baroque and elaborate than the source text itself.

That said, there's definitely a lot of 'OMG, I can make X & Y get it on!' going around too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mount_oregano
2008-08-14 09:43 pm UTC (link)
I've done a little fanfiction, and that was well into adulthood. I've stopped only because there's no money in it, but in every other sense it was just as satisfying to write as "original" fiction, except that the readers are a special delight.

What I liked was trying to work within a narrow space -- known characters, known relationships, known events -- and then making a story within that space.

Then, to try to promote a novel that's looking for a publisher, I wrote a couple of short stories set between the chapters. That is, I fanfictioned myself. And one of the stories was published in Asimov's.

Technically, it was just like writing "real" fan fiction with all the problems and advantages of dealing with a pre-existing universe and canon, except that I got paid. Or, it's all just writing, except sometimes you make up as much as you want, and sometimes you take certain things as given.

Sort of like writing historical fiction. Any event that takes place in 1943 has to work around WWII.

If I've muddied the waters, I think I've achieved my goal.

(Reply to this)


[info]dmdomini
2008-08-14 11:31 pm UTC (link)
Well, I do Anne McCaffrey fanfic, and I do original fiction. The fanfic I liken to playing with my Anne McCaffrey action figures; I find that I like the rules of the world she has created, or the particular characters she created, that I want to write something more in that world, or with those characters; I want another story set there, or with those cool "people" she's populated her world with. It's kind of like wanting to go to a particular place to eat tonight...a sort of hankering. Also, I come up with ideas that depend on some rule or rules that Anne McCaffrey has put in place in one of her universes, so there's no way for me to write original fic with that idea without constructing an entirely new universe that's basically a rip-off of hers, because the idea is heavily dependant on a unique rule set she has already set up. Also, in regards to exploring an idea...the result of the exploration depends on the environment. You can explore an idea in the context of another author's world in fanfic, and the result will feel and taste one way, and you can also explore the idea in your own worlds, and get an entirely different result.

So one reason to keep the idea in another author's world is so that you can explore the idea within *THAT* particular world's constraints.

A reason to take the idea out of that author's world and into one of your own worlds is so that you can mess with some baseline rules in the world the idea is being used in, which, depending on what rules you're messing with, could seriously make the story AU if you attempted to place it in another author's world.

Does this make sense?

So, for me, writing fanfic as opposed to original fic boils down to this...when I fanfic, I usually want to re-visit another author's world specifically, to get another "fix" or the world, or of a particular well-loved character. I'm playing with my imaginary action figures in my head, just like a little kid, except I'm adult. And when I'm not doing that, playing with the world and characters in general because I'm looking for another "fix" or bored, it's because the idea I have only works when using the rules already put in place by the author...the idea, the plot, the story arises from the environment, so you need that environment to tell the story properly.

When I write original fic, I typically want to take an idea that either was not provoked by another author's works at all, so I need to put it into its own universe, or I have an idea that was provoked by an author, but the way I want to explore it totally breaks the other author's world...maybe they're a light, fluffy read, and I want to take the idea somewhere dark and sinister. Or maybe they explored the idea one way, but ignored several other ways the same idea could play out. So I'd take the idea and run it a totally different way, in original fiction.

So...the ideas that are truly transplantable I tend to put into my original fic. I keep fanfic down only to stories that require that author's universe to work. The two types of writing really aren't interchangable for me.

~~Domini, aka almostferal.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dmdomini
2008-08-14 11:48 pm UTC (link)
To slightly expand the above with a concrete example...most of my fanfic is in Anne McCaffrey's Talent universe. One of my fics, Boxed: A Story of Talent arises from a throw-away line in The Rowan about how the other Talents/psychics monitored the child Rowan because she was a Prime-level Talent (the strongest type of Talent for those who aren't familiar with this series), and she had tragically lost her parents and sibling in a mudslide at the age of 3. They monitored her thoughts telepathically, and they monitored her electronically through her favorite toy, and it was implied that if her personality was "deviant" they would burn out her Talent. Nothing is mentioned of how they decide if a person is deviant or not. I was thinking about this throw-away line (Anne McCaffrey doesn't go into any of the ethical ramifications of raising a child like this, the story has its focus elsewhere and skips over all of this very quickly), and to be honest, although losing your parents at the age of 3 is tragic, the Rowan was damn lucky to be raised with a loving foster family afterwards, even if her foster mother died when she was 18. To be honest, if she'd turned out "deviant" because of this, I'd be a bit disgusted with the character, since I turned out ok and my life was far less stable than hers "was". So, I went on to think...in this Talent universe, if they were so concerned about an incident that happened to Rowan when she was three, how would they treat a character that was Prime-level who had been well and truly abused? Well, I could develop that sort of idea into its own story, the powerful psychic that grew up in an abusive environment, but to be honest, there's so many abused main characters out there that I don't really see it holding its own as the subject of an original novel. What I was really interested in was how Anne McCaffrey's canon Talent characters would react to a character that was well and truly broken in some ways; Anne McCaffrey is not well known for writing mal-adjusted characters. Her "bad guys" are shallow; she can't get into their heads, she can't see through their eyes. They're about as 2-D as you can get. So I wanted to play with her characters specifically, and with the rules of her Talent world in regards to a Prime-level character who had been through much worse than Rowan. I wanted to see AMC's "good guys" burn out a young girl's telepathy and telekinesis because they couldn't risk her going nuts because it would hurt the reputation of the FT&T and all of the other psychics and Talents in the organization. I wanted to see how those canon characters would react to this, and also how this poor burned-out girl would see these canon characters that Anne McCaffrey readers already know and love.

Basically, this is an idea that would only work within the framework of AMC's world. So I started to develop it into fanfic, rather than original fic, because it just wouldn't work as original fic. (With me writing it at least; perhaps another writer would have the drive to pull it off as an original work.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…