When Titans Clash
James Nicoll
http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-fanfic.html
Praises fanfic.
http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
Does not.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Charlton Wilbur
JN> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
JN> http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-fanfic.html
JN> Praises fanfic.
JN> http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
JN> Does not.
What I think Yngve misses is that when someone writes a fanfic about
something that's been long in the public domain, we don't call it fanfic.
For example:
_A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and _The Tempest_, by Neal Gaiman
_Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_, by Tom Stoppard
_Falstaff_ by Giuseppe Verdi
_West Side Story_ by Leonard Bernstein
_Grendel_ by John Gardner
_Elektra_ by Richard Strauss
I could go on, but I won't.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Aaron Denney
> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
Titans? I can maybe see that being applied to Doctorow, but who the
hell is Yngve? (Besides a louse.)
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Remus Shepherd
> http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-fanfic.html
> Praises fanfic.
From Mr. Doctorow's article:
"Writers sometimes speak of their characters running away from them,
taking on a life of their own. They say that these characters -- drawn
from real people in our lives and mixed up with our own imagination --
are autonomous pieces of themselves. It's a short leap from there to
mystical nonsense about protecting our notional, fictional children
from grubby fans who'd set them to screwing each other or bowing and
scraping before some thinly veiled version of the fanfic writer
herself.
There's something to the idea of the autonomous character. Big chunks
of our wetware are devoted to simulating other people, trying to
figure out if we are likely to fight or fondle them. It's unsurprising
that when you ask your brain to model some other person, it rises to
the task. But that's exactly what happens to a reader when you hand
your book over to him: he simulates your characters in his head,
trying to interpret that character's actions through his own lens."
The obvious solution, then, is to make characters who are aware of this
and can take care of themselves.
I *love* it when I'm two years ahead of the rest of the world. ;)
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Indefensible Positions -- a story of superheroic philosophy.
http://indepos.comicgenesis.com/
Joe Bednorz
<87iramk...@mithril.chromatico.net>:
>>>>>> "JN" == James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> writes:
>
> JN> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
> JN> http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-fanfic.html
>
> JN> Praises fanfic.
>
> JN> http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> JN> Does not.
>
>What I think Yngve misses is that when someone writes a fanfic about
>something that's been long in the public domain, we don't call it fanfic.
>
>For example:
>
> _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and _The Tempest_, by Neal[sic] Gaiman
Also "Snow, Glass, Apples" by Neil [Note Spelling] Gaiman
<http://www.holycow.com/dreaming/stories/snow.html>
and
"I, Cthulhu or What’s A Tentacle-Faced Thing Like Me Doing In A Sunken
City Like This (Latitude 47 ° 9’ S, Longitude 126 ° 43’ W)?" by Neil
Gaiman
<http://www.neilgaiman.com/exclusive/shortstories/chulthhustory>
>
>I could go on, but I won't.
>
That's okay. I did.
--
Links to Gigabytes of free books on line, emphasis on SF:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the Best,
Joe Bednorz
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
>
> http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-fanfic.html
>
> Praises fanfic.
>
> http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> Does not.
Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.
Charlton Wilbur
JB> On 21 May 2007 15:12:13 -0400, Charlton Wilbur wrote in
JB> <87iramk...@mithril.chromatico.net>:
>> Neal[sic] Gaiman
JB> Neil [Note Spelling] Gaiman
Yes, I know this, too. I've just been emailing back and forth
recently (for different reasons) with two people who spell it Neal...
Sea Wasp
Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
"get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
really quite heartwarming.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Keith Morrison
fingers and typed:
>> Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
>> from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
>> that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.
>
> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
>"get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
>really quite heartwarming.
Well, perhaps a compromise can be made: people will stop reading Yngve,
that way he doesn't have to worry about them appropriating his characters.
I'll give him some credit though: before I heard about his rather silly
rant, I'd never heard of him. Now I do. Not that I'll read any of his
stuff.
Gerry Quinn
cwi...@chromatico.net says...
You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern works
either. They are literary or artistic works that create something new
inspired by another work.
Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
creates a new universe apart from the original.
- Gerry Quinn
James Nicoll
Charlton Wilbur
G> You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
G> works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
G> something new inspired by another work.
G> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
G> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
Aha. So fanfic you like is literature. Gotcha.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:MPG.20bd0c921...@news1.eircom.net:
> In article <87iramk...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> cwi...@chromatico.net says...
>...
>> What I think Yngve misses is that when someone writes a fanfic
>> about something that's been long in the public domain, we don't
>> call it fanfic.
>> For example:
>> _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and _The Tempest_, by Neal
>> Gaiman _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_, by Tom
>> Stoppard _Falstaff_ by Giuseppe Verdi
>> _West Side Story_ by Leonard Bernstein
>> _Grendel_ by John Gardner
>> _Elektra_ by Richard Strauss
>> I could go on, but I won't.
> You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
> works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
> something new inspired by another work.
> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
This seems to veer close to Amis and Conquest's
"SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
"But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what constitutes
"creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like Stoppard's, where the
Shakespearian characters do exactly the same things in exactly the
same ways as in the play, with any additional material added
interstitially? How is that the creation of a new universe in a way
that doing the same thing with Mary Sue and the crew of the
Enterprise is not? (Other than the fact Stoppard's work is probably
better: a difference of degree, rather than kind.)
I have no particular brief for fanfic, and don't read much fiction
of any sort that hasn't gone through the filtering of editors and
commercial publication. (Though I've encountered some good fanfic,
recommended by readers I trust, just as I've found some good
unpublished fiction much the same way.) Sturgeon's Law certainly
applies to fanfic-- possibly more intensively, given the fact that
there's some economic incentive for those who can write publishable
fiction to spend their time on material that is legally publishable.
But that doesn't in itself make a work derivative of Star Trek
qualitatively different from one derivative of Thomas Kyd's
reworking of Saxo Grammaticus.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Gary Thompson
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:23 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
> > <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
>
>
> >> Praises fanfic.
>
> >>http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> >> Does not.
>
> > Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
> > from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
> > that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.
>
> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
> "get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
> really quite heartwarming.
>
Battlestar Galactica is having a fanfilm *contest*, for God's sake--
complete with stock footage you are allowed to incorporate into your
work.
Gary Thompson
<kei...@idontwantnosteenkingspam.qiniq.com> wrote:
>
> Well, perhaps a compromise can be made: people will stop reading Yngve,
> that way he doesn't have to worry about them appropriating his characters.
>
> I'll give him some credit though: before I heard about his rather silly
> rant, I'd never heard of him. Now I do. Not that I'll read any of his
> stuff.
Never heard of him either. Looks like he posted here a couple times,
but didn't stick around long enough to learn not to top post.
khog...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:23 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
> > <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
>
>
> >> Praises fanfic.
>
> >>http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> >> Does not.
>
> > Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
> > from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
> > that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.
>
> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
> "get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
> really quite heartwarming.
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sea Wasp,
I knew I would find you somewhere! Here you are! Do you remember
our arguments about the 10,000 modern humans appearing in North Africa
and moving out and covering the planet? I believe you hit me pretty
hard on that statement. I said I had done the research, and you of
course speared me. (The stitches are out now by the way.) FINALLY,
Cambridge University released their findings. (They knew what the
findings were years ago, but it does present problems as I said it
would and will.) Go to:
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/ Go to news archive on the left
hand side, hit it and then hit May 2007. Scroll down to DNA links
Aborigines to African Walkabout. This is the answer I was telling you
about, and why it was in the book as it was (Fictional reason of
course, but still partly true.) They had known it for a while but
waited until the Australian and New Guinea studies came back in. They
said to be sure, I think they didn't want the issues it brings up,
brought up. But someone was going to tell, so they released their
findings first. Doesn't mean my fiction is true, but it was a proper
vehicle to set up the story. We are all one species, there are no
"races", only the evolution by climate and survival changes make us
different as I said. Regards, K.W.
Sea Wasp
No, and a quick google shows no such exchange with me. Perhaps you
are confusing me with someone else.
I know that humanity went through a choke point (as proven by
mitochondrial studies) and that humanity originated in Africa, so I
doubt I would have gotten into an argument on that point.
khog...@yahoo.com
> khogan...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On May 21, 6:53 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
> >>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:23 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
> >>><jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
>
> >>>>http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-f...
>
> >>>> Praises fanfic.
>
> >>>>http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> >>>> Does not.
>
> >>>Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
> >>>from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
> >>>that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.
>
> >> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
> >>"get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
> >>really quite heartwarming.
>
> >>--
> >> Sea Wasp
> >> /^\
> >> ;;;
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Sea Wasp,
> > I knew I would find you somewhere! Here you are! Do you remember
> > our arguments about the 10,000 modern humans appearing in North Africa
> > and moving out and covering the planet?
>
> No, and a quick google shows no such exchange with me. Perhaps you
> are confusing me with someone else.
>
> I know that humanity went through a choke point (as proven by
> mitochondrial studies) and that humanity originated in Africa, so I
> doubt I would have gotten into an argument on that point.
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Live Journal:http://seawasp.livejournal.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I must go back and see, I thought the stinger was still in me! HA!
Glad to see you alive and well! Regards, K.W.
Gerry Quinn
cwi...@chromatico.net says...
> >>>>> "G" == Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> writes:
>
> G> You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
> G> works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
> G> something new inspired by another work.
>
> G> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
> G> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> Aha. So fanfic you like is literature. Gotcha.
No, I make a distinction. Try reading the posts you respond to.
- Gerry Quinn
Aaron Denney
The distinction you make is not actually the distinction you apply,
nor is there a good definition for parasitises in this context.
Does "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" create a new universe?
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Gerry Quinn
msch...@condor.depaul.edu says...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> news:MPG.20bd0c921...@news1.eircom.net:
>
> > In article <87iramk...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> > cwi...@chromatico.net says...
> >...
> >> What I think Yngve misses is that when someone writes a fanfic
> >> about something that's been long in the public domain, we don't
> >> call it fanfic.
>
> >> For example:
>
> >> _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and _The Tempest_, by Neal
> >> Gaiman _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_, by Tom
> >> Stoppard _Falstaff_ by Giuseppe Verdi
> >> _West Side Story_ by Leonard Bernstein
> >> _Grendel_ by John Gardner
> >> _Elektra_ by Richard Strauss
>
> >> I could go on, but I won't.
>
> > You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
> > works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
> > something new inspired by another work.
>
> > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
> > literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> This seems to veer close to Amis and Conquest's
>
> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said with
somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at all.
> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what constitutes
> "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like Stoppard's, where the
> Shakespearian characters do exactly the same things in exactly the
> same ways as in the play, with any additional material added
> interstitially? How is that the creation of a new universe in a way
> that doing the same thing with Mary Sue and the crew of the
> Enterprise is not? (Other than the fact Stoppard's work is probably
> better: a difference of degree, rather than kind.)
Candidly, I haven't read or seen 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are
Dead'. But I have read and seen 'Hamlet', and Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern have only bit parts, almost if not entirely offstage. So
your argument is nonsense, unless tertiary sources entirely
misrepresent Stoppard's play.
To some extent I will concede that 'better' comes into it, a bit. But
that's because 'better' tends to coincide with 'creation of a new
universe'. If you can't use the original in a worthwhile fashion,
don't contaminate it with sleazy 'stalking'.
John Updike's excellent _Gertrude and Claudius_ is another example of a
work based on 'Hamlet' that is not fanfic. Again, it goes beyond the
events of the play and builds a new world based on its iconic
structures, using the original characters only as reference points.
> I have no particular brief for fanfic, and don't read much fiction
> of any sort that hasn't gone through the filtering of editors and
> commercial publication. (Though I've encountered some good fanfic,
> recommended by readers I trust, just as I've found some good
> unpublished fiction much the same way.) Sturgeon's Law certainly
> applies to fanfic-- possibly more intensively, given the fact that
> there's some economic incentive for those who can write publishable
> fiction to spend their time on material that is legally publishable.
> But that doesn't in itself make a work derivative of Star Trek
> qualitatively different from one derivative of Thomas Kyd's
> reworking of Saxo Grammaticus.
This is good, not imbecile or sick
Maybe it's time I stopped writing fanfic.
- Gerry Quinn
David Johnston
wrote:
I don't understand the distinction. I've read plenty of fanfic that
created a new universe. Sometimes a radically different new universe.
Michael S. Schiffer
> In article <Xns99387DF746BB...@130.133.1.4>,
> msch...@condor.depaul.edu says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
>> news:MPG.20bd0c921...@news1.eircom.net:
>...
>> > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
>> > literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
>> This seems to veer close to Amis and Conquest's
>> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
>> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
> Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> all.
>> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
>> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
>> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
>> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
>> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
>> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
>> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
>> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
>> of degree, rather than kind.)
> Candidly, I haven't read or seen 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
> are Dead'. But I have read and seen 'Hamlet', and Rosencrantz
> and Guildenstern have only bit parts, almost if not entirely
> offstage.
Stoppard fills in what happens when they're offstage. But when
they interact with the main characters, they say Shakespeare's
lines, and Hamlet, Gertrude, et al. say Shakespeare's lines right
back at them. The play takes place in the same universe as
Shakespeare's-- it expands the stage, to give us the philosophical
perspective of bit characters (not just Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern, but also the Players, particularly the Player King).
Just as a Star Trek fanfic might propose to say what was happening
on the lower decks while Kirk and Spock were dealing with the alien
of the week, or show what Kirk and Spock were up to between
adventures.
Some of those speculations strike me as a little unlikely for the
characters in question. But then, it seems likewise unlikely that
Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had long existential
discussions about coin-flipping, or competed to see who could
answer a question with a question the longest. Stoppard's play is
more ambitious and certainly more literary than any amateur work
I've read, but like other fanfic it depends on being able to play
with Shakespeare's toys. It doesn't stand alone. (He might have
chosen to write a standalone play exploring the same themes, but it
would be a different play.)
> So your argument is nonsense, unless tertiary sources
> entirely misrepresent Stoppard's play.
The play is readily available in print, and on DVD as a film
adaptation directed by Stoppard himself. There's no need to take
my word for it.
> To some extent I will concede that 'better' comes into it, a
> bit. But that's because 'better' tends to coincide with
> 'creation of a new universe'. If you can't use the original in
> a worthwhile fashion, don't contaminate it with sleazy
> 'stalking'.
"Worthwhile" strikes me as pretty much the same thing as "good" in
the verse. Sure, it's better to do something good (or worthwhile)
than something bad (or worthless). But that just gets back to
Sturgeon's Law. Some people will be better at derivative works
than others.
> John Updike's excellent _Gertrude and Claudius_ is another
> example of a work based on 'Hamlet' that is not fanfic. Again,
> it goes beyond the events of the play and builds a new world
> based on its iconic structures, using the original characters
> only as reference points.
>...
What I've seen of fanfic can go pretty far in altering characters
and events in the service of whatever themes or ideas the author is
interested in exploring, or using an established setting as general
background for a story.
In any case, given the vast amounts of amateur fanfic generated,
I'd be surprised if there's any particular approach that hasn't
been tried at some point or another. As well as Stoppard or
Updike? Probably not. But I don't actually know-- and unless
you've done a lot more reading of fanfic than you'd likely care to
do, neither do you.
Mike
Peter Trei
[...]
>
> I must go back and see, I thought the stinger was still in me! HA!
> Glad to see you alive and well! Regards, K.W.
KW: Just so you're aware, you posted this message around 15 times in
a row. Don't take it personally; this is a common error for people
starting out on Google groups. Each time you hit 'send', it gets
posted, but you don't get the feedback right away.
Thanks for getting off of your old website interface; this is much
better.
Peter Trei
Gerry Quinn
> news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
> >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > all.
>
> >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> >> of degree, rather than kind.)
The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
who gets executed.
> Some of those speculations strike me as a little unlikely for the
> characters in question. But then, it seems likewise unlikely that
> Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had long existential
> discussions about coin-flipping, or competed to see who could
> answer a question with a question the longest. Stoppard's play is
> more ambitious and certainly more literary than any amateur work
> I've read, but like other fanfic it depends on being able to play
> with Shakespeare's toys. It doesn't stand alone. (He might have
> chosen to write a standalone play exploring the same themes, but it
> would be a different play.)
Calling Stoppard's play fanfic doesn't make it so.
> > To some extent I will concede that 'better' comes into it, a
> > bit. But that's because 'better' tends to coincide with
> > 'creation of a new universe'. If you can't use the original in
> > a worthwhile fashion, don't contaminate it with sleazy
> > 'stalking'.
>
> "Worthwhile" strikes me as pretty much the same thing as "good" in
> the verse. Sure, it's better to do something good (or worthwhile)
> than something bad (or worthless). But that just gets back to
> Sturgeon's Law. Some people will be better at derivative works
> than others.
Just because there's no bright line between fanfic and literature that
uses other works as a jumping off point doesn't demonstrate that there
is no distinction.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
> G> In article <87lkfgk...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> G> cwi...@chromatico.net says...
>
> >> >>>>> "G" == Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> writes:
>
> G> You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
> G> works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
> G> something new inspired by another work.
>
> G> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
> G> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> >> Aha. So fanfic you like is literature. Gotcha.
>
> G> to.
>
> And the distinction you make is so vague and subjective as to be
> meaningless; merely couching your prejudices in quasi-critical
> language does not make them objective.
>
> If you don't like a work, you can make the case that it parasitizes
> the original, and is thus fanfic; if you do like it, or you think it
> has literary merit, you can make the case that it creates a new
> universe apart from the original.
>
It is you who seems to be asserting that there is no such thing as
critical thinking and that all assessments of quality are subjective
and therefore meaningless.
Or do you have a means of objectively assessing literary merit (one
that will presumably surprise most critics by giving a high score to
fanfic)?
- Gerry Quinn
Gary Thompson
> In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
> mschi...@condor.depaul.edu says...
>
>
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> >news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
> > >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> > >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > > all.
>
> > >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> > >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> > >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> > >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> > >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> > >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> > >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> > >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> > >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
> The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> who gets executed.
I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not
fanfic (I certainly hope this thread doesn't sour you on it, either.
Judging by a quick persual of your stated tastes, I think you'd quite
like it). But I think it does beg the question: if I were to write a
masterful, existential piece involving, say, catastrophe theory and
the mind, but were to set it as a dialogue between two ensigns on the
Enterprise during _The Trouble with Tribbles_, and posted it in
fanfiction.net...would it be fanfic?
Gary Thompson
> In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
>
>
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> >news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
> > >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> > >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > > all.
>
> > >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> > >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> > >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> > >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> > >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> > >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> > >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> > >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> > >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
> The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> who gets executed.
I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not
Gary Thompson
> In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
>
>
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> >news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
> > >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> > >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > > all.
>
> > >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> > >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> > >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> > >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> > >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> > >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> > >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> > >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> > >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
> The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> who gets executed.
I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not
Gary Thompson
> In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
>
>
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> >news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
> > >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> > >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > > all.
>
> > >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> > >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> > >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> > >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> > >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> > >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> > >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> > >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> > >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
> The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> who gets executed.
I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <87lkfgh...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
That hardly matters when you are claiming that quality is NOT your
dividing line between fanfic and literature.
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B...@130.133.1.4>,
>msch...@condor.depaul.edu says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
>> news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
>
>> >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
>> >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>>
>> > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
>> > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
>> > all.
>>
>> >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
>> >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
>> >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
>> >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
>> >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
>> >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
>> >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
>> >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
>> >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
>The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
>Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
>Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
>'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
>who gets executed.
He didn't say it was a Mary Sue. He asked how it was the creation of
a new universe in a way that Mary Sue's insertion onto the Enterprise
was not.
>
>> Some of those speculations strike me as a little unlikely for the
>> characters in question. But then, it seems likewise unlikely that
>> Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had long existential
>> discussions about coin-flipping, or competed to see who could
>> answer a question with a question the longest. Stoppard's play is
>> more ambitious and certainly more literary than any amateur work
>> I've read, but like other fanfic it depends on being able to play
>> with Shakespeare's toys. It doesn't stand alone. (He might have
>> chosen to write a standalone play exploring the same themes, but it
>> would be a different play.)
>
>Calling Stoppard's play fanfic doesn't make it so.
However it being an unauthorised derivative work DOES make it
fanfic...in every way except one. He got paid for it.
>> "Worthwhile" strikes me as pretty much the same thing as "good" in
>> the verse. Sure, it's better to do something good (or worthwhile)
>> than something bad (or worthless). But that just gets back to
>> Sturgeon's Law. Some people will be better at derivative works
>> than others.
>
>Just because there's no bright line between fanfic and literature that
>uses other works as a jumping off point doesn't demonstrate that there
>is no distinction.
There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
Gary Thompson
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stupid google groups. Sorry about the multi-posting..
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>Stupid google groups. Sorry about the multi-posting..
And worse, GG appears to have stopped using References headers, which
completely breaks threading.
Do yourself (and the rest of us) a favour and get a real NNTP server.
News.individual.net is a good one.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
I like my coffee how I like my women...
but I can't get coffee that's independent, intelligent and has a
career of its own. - Eric Jarvis, urs
William December Starr
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> said:
> cwi...@chromatico.net (Charlton Wilbur) says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> writes:
>>
>>> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
>>> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
>>
>> Aha. So fanfic you like is literature. Gotcha.
>
> No, I make a distinction. Try reading the posts you respond to.
I just re-read the post that Charlton was responding to. He's still
right.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
khog...@yahoo.com
Peter,
Good to hear from you! I KNOW! I had to go back and delete them
all as it kept showing it did not post when it did! I will know
better next time. Good to hear from you, keep going after them! K.W.
Jasper Janssen
<kei...@idontwantnosteenkingspam.qiniq.com> wrote:
>Yeah verily, on Mon, 21 May 2007 19:53:24 -0400, Sea Wasp did exercise
>fingers and typed:
>> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
>>"get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
>>really quite heartwarming.
>
>Well, perhaps a compromise can be made: people will stop reading Yngve,
>that way he doesn't have to worry about them appropriating his characters.
When did they start reading him, exactly? I've never even heard of any
writer named Yngwe (Which sounds suspiciously, for that matter, like a
nordic-ised spelling of a Tolkien character and thus, all by itself, a
fanfic derivation of a work in copyright).
Jasper
Thomas Lindgren
Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> writes:
FWIW, there are eight households just in Stockholm with a last name of
Yngve or Yngwe, and it's a perfectly ordinary, if somewhat old
fashioned, first name too.
I seem to recall seeing a book or two by A.R. Yngve (in Swedish) in
the local bookstore. Due to a perhaps unreasonable prejudice against
local produce, I haven't investigated further.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren "Too jaded to question stagnation"
Jacob W. Haller
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
> creates a new universe apart from the original.
Are there any published works that you've read that you would consider
fanfic? (Philip Jose Farmer did a fair amount of mucking around in
other peoples' universes, but I don't know if you would consider any of
those works as qualifying as fanfic or not, for instance.)
-jwgh
--
"Only in America could something like that not happen in America."
-- Matt McIrvin, 29 November 2005
Andrew Plotkin
> To back up a bit:
>
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
> > creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> Are there any published works that you've read that you would consider
> fanfic? (Philip Jose Farmer did a fair amount of mucking around in
> other peoples' universes, but I don't know if you would consider any of
> those works as qualifying as fanfic or not, for instance.)
By this definition, every sequel and second-book-of-trilogy is fanfic.
Tolkien wrote somewhere between three and ten books, depending on how
you count (and that's just through the Silmarillion); he abjectly
failed to create an original universe for two to nine of them.
You can of course patch it to say "by a different author," but you
still have that contemptuous "parasitizes" in there. If your standard
of originality (and literature!) is that a work must take place in an
original universe, what allows you to exempt an author from the charge
of parasitizing his earlier work?
Oh, you also managed to include all of historical fiction. (Not that
they care what SF fans think, I'm sure.)
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
9/11 did change everything. Since 9/12, the biggest threat to American
society has been the American president. I'd call that a change.
Andrew Plotkin
>
> When did they start reading him, exactly? I've never even heard of any
> writer named Yngwe (Which sounds suspiciously, for that matter, like a
> nordic-ised spelling of a Tolkien character and thus, all by itself, a
> fanfic derivation of a work in copyright).
Wait, you're worried about people ripping off Nordic names *from
Tolkien*?
( http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exholpoe.html#ex3 is what I'm
alluding to, here)
Gerry Quinn
da...@block.net says...
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:59:49 +0100, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> wrote:
> >In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B...@130.133.1.4>,
> >msch...@condor.depaul.edu says...
> >> >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> >> >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> >> >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> >> >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> >> >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> >> >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> >> >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> >> >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> >> >> of degree, rather than kind.)
> >
> >The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> >Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> >Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> >'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> >who gets executed.
>
> He didn't say it was a Mary Sue. He asked how it was the creation of
> a new universe in a way that Mary Sue's insertion onto the Enterprise
> was not.
Then what did he mean by the Mary Sue reference? And I answered it -
it is Shakespeare's Elsinore that is interstitial in Stoppard's
universe.
> >Calling Stoppard's play fanfic doesn't make it so.
>
> However it being an unauthorised derivative work DOES make it
> fanfic...in every way except one. He got paid for it.
No it doesn't. Not all unauthorised derivative works are fanfic, and
fanfic would still be fanfic if the author somehow managed to get paid.
Also, the word 'unauthorised' is misleading, since no authorisation was
required.
> >Just because there's no bright line between fanfic and literature that
> >uses other works as a jumping off point doesn't demonstrate that there
> >is no distinction.
>
> There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
for writing it.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
da...@block.net says...
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:05:20 +0100, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> wrote:
> >In article <87lkfgh...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> >cwi...@chromatico.net says...
> >> If you don't like a work, you can make the case that it parasitizes
> >> the original, and is thus fanfic; if you do like it, or you think it
> >> has literary merit, you can make the case that it creates a new
> >> universe apart from the original.
> >>
> >> Try thinking critically about what you actually say before blathering.
> >
> >It is you who seems to be asserting that there is no such thing as
> >critical thinking and that all assessments of quality are subjective
> >and therefore meaningless.
>
> That hardly matters when you are claiming that quality is NOT your
> dividing line between fanfic and literature.
But it matters to the claim made by the poster I was responding to.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
quu...@yahoo.com says...
> On May 23, 9:59 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
> > mschi...@condor.depaul.edu says...
> > The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> > Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> > Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> > 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> > who gets executed.
>
> I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not
> fanfic (I certainly hope this thread doesn't sour you on it, either.
> Judging by a quick persual of your stated tastes, I think you'd quite
> like it). But I think it does beg the question: if I were to write a
> masterful, existential piece involving, say, catastrophe theory and
> the mind, but were to set it as a dialogue between two ensigns on the
> Enterprise during _The Trouble with Tribbles_, and posted it in
> fanfiction.net...would it be fanfic?
That's difficult to answer. I think it will depend on the apparent
purpose to which the Enterprise material is put.
Then again, there are hours that cannot clearly be categorised as day
or night. There are doubtless stories that cannot be categorised as
literature or fanfic. But that does not invalidate the categories.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
says...
> To back up a bit:
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
> > creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> Are there any published works that you've read that you would consider
> fanfic? (Philip Jose Farmer did a fair amount of mucking around in
> other peoples' universes, but I don't know if you would consider any of
> those works as qualifying as fanfic or not, for instance.)
I haven't read much of Farmer anyway. There are certainly works which
use others as a starting point, and I have read some of those, e.g.
Updike's _Gerturude and Claudius_, but I really wouldn't be interested
in picking up something that came across as fanfic.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
says...
> Here, Jacob W. Haller <yo...@jwgh.org> wrote:
> > To back up a bit:
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> >
> > > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
> > > creates a new universe apart from the original.
> >
> > Are there any published works that you've read that you would consider
> > fanfic? (Philip Jose Farmer did a fair amount of mucking around in
> > other peoples' universes, but I don't know if you would consider any of
> > those works as qualifying as fanfic or not, for instance.)
>
> By this definition, every sequel and second-book-of-trilogy is fanfic.
> Tolkien wrote somewhere between three and ten books, depending on how
> you count (and that's just through the Silmarillion); he abjectly
> failed to create an original universe for two to nine of them.
>
> You can of course patch it to say "by a different author," but you
> still have that contemptuous "parasitizes" in there. If your standard
> of originality (and literature!) is that a work must take place in an
> original universe, what allows you to exempt an author from the charge
> of parasitizing his earlier work?
Simple: one considers the author's work as a whole.
> Oh, you also managed to include all of historical fiction. (Not that
> they care what SF fans think, I'm sure.)
I don't see how.
- Gerry Quinn
Jacob W. Haller
> I haven't read much of Farmer anyway. There are certainly works which
> use others as a starting point, and I have read some of those, e.g.
> Updike's _Gerturude and Claudius_, but I really wouldn't be interested
> in picking up something that came across as fanfic.
OK, do you have an example of a published work that you didn't pick up
because it came across as fanfic?
Kurt Busiek
> I've never even heard of any
> writer named Yngwe (Which sounds suspiciously, for that matter, like a
> nordic-ised spelling of a Tolkien character and thus, all by itself, a
> fanfic derivation of a work in copyright).
It's a not-uncommon Scandinavian name.
See also: Yngwie Malmsteen.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
> In article <lat85397edqh2t14d...@4ax.com>,
> da...@block.net says...
>> There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
>
> Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
> for writing it.
If the category is "fanfic," part of the definition is whether someone
gets paid for it.
Whether "fanfic" is a literary form, though, is open to question. I
see no difference in process in writing fanfic and writing, say, a
sequel to SENSE & SENSIBILITY and then selling it to a publisher --
they're both the same literary form, but they're not both fanfic.
But if you're looking for the dividing line between, say, writing Star
Trek fiction for the amusement of self and friends and writing it for
legitimate publication, you're not talking about a difference in
literary form. You are talking about a difference in legal and
financial status.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
> Then again, there are hours that cannot clearly be categorised as day
> or night. There are doubtless stories that cannot be categorised as
> literature or fanfic. But that does not invalidate the categories.
I don't think they're separate categories.
Some fanfic is (or at least, conceivably can be) literature. Some
isn't. The two terms describe overlapping sets, not categories
distinct from one another.
kdb
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <f348u8$6br$2...@reader2.panix.com>, erky...@eblong.com
> says...
> >
> > still have that contemptuous "parasitizes" in there. If your standard
> > of originality (and literature!) is that a work must take place in an
> > original universe, what allows you to exempt an author from the charge
> > of parasitizing his earlier work?
>
> Simple: one considers the author's work as a whole.
Well... okay, but then "the whole" includes stuff the author hasn't
yet written. Which is an easy dividing line to *draw* -- at least,
until we get personality version control technology -- but it doesn't
make any sense to me as an underlying structure of literature. It
implies that you can't even start to think about an author's work
until he's dead.
I could equally well say "one considers each original universe as a
whole", and then fanfic is inside the line. There's nothing magic
about an author's scalp that causes the stuff inside it to be
artistically coherent or consistent.
(I may not have observed before, but I should, that one virulent
strain of what we call "the Brain Eater" is when an author slips from
writing his own stories to writing fanfic of his own stories. That
statement is too interesting (if I say so myself) to define into
logical nullity.)
> > Oh, you also managed to include all of historical fiction. (Not that
> > they care what SF fans think, I'm sure.)
>
> I don't see how.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "an original universe".
But outside of SF/F/H, a whole lot of stories are supposed to take
place in the same universe, to wit, the real one.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't subjected you to searches without a warrant,
it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're an American.
David Johnston
wrote:
I just said what he meant. That Mary Sue is just as much the creation
of a new universe as is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
And I answered it -
>it is Shakespeare's Elsinore that is interstitial in Stoppard's
>universe.
>
>> >Calling Stoppard's play fanfic doesn't make it so.
>>
>> However it being an unauthorised derivative work DOES make it
>> fanfic...in every way except one. He got paid for it.
>
>No it doesn't. Not all unauthorised derivative works are fanfic,
The ones you get paid for aren't.
and
>fanfic would still be fanfic if the author somehow managed to get paid.
What do you think fanfic is? There are two elements to fanfic. One
is "Using characters and situations originated by someone else". The
other is "Being an amateur". If you get paid for your fanfic (and by
"paid" I mean by an actual publisher, not self publishing), that makes
you a professional.
>Also, the word 'unauthorised' is misleading, since no authorisation was
>required.
No authorisation is required for Sherlock Holmes fanfic these days
either, but it's still fanfic.
>
>> >Just because there's no bright line between fanfic and literature that
>> >uses other works as a jumping off point doesn't demonstrate that there
>> >is no distinction.
>>
>> There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
>
>Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
>for writing it.
Uh-hunh. What makes you think fanfic is a literary form? I have read
fanfic short stories, and fanfic novels. I have read fanfic poetry,
song lyrics and prose. I've even heard of a fanfic video. Fanfic is
not a literary form. The distinction between fanfic and professional
fiction, is legal. It is not one of style, format or quality,
although fanfic is more _likely_ to be bad simply because it includes
everything that would end up in the slushpile of a real publisher.
Kurt Busiek
> What do you think fanfic is? There are two elements to fanfic. One
> is "Using characters and situations originated by someone else". The
> other is "Being an amateur". If you get paid for your fanfic (and by
> "paid" I mean by an actual publisher, not self publishing), that makes
> you a professional.
...
> The distinction between fanfic and professional
> fiction, is legal. It is not one of style, format or quality,
> although fanfic is more _likely_ to be bad simply because it includes
> everything that would end up in the slushpile of a real publisher.
Not everything. Unpublished novels that do not use characters and
situations originated by someone else often end up there too.
But your main point -- that fanfic is not a subset defined by quality,
but by a combination of direct derivation and amateur status -- makes
perfect sense to me.
kdb
Sea Wasp
> To back up a bit:
>
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>
>>Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
>>creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
>
> Are there any published works that you've read that you would consider
> fanfic? (Philip Jose Farmer did a fair amount of mucking around in
> other peoples' universes, but I don't know if you would consider any of
> those works as qualifying as fanfic or not, for instance.)
If anyone read my reply to the gentleman, you know I consider
essentially everything I write fanfic. I just file off the serial
numbers better on some of the published stuff.
But then there's media tie-in novels, which are clearly sanctioned
published fanfic.
And for the pure-quill stuff, there's the Star Trek: New Voyages
books (I think there were two volumes) which included actual,
undeniable, taken-from-fanzine fanfics.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp
> On 2007-05-24 08:43:07 -0700, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> said:
>
>> In article <lat85397edqh2t14d...@4ax.com>,
>> da...@block.net says...
>>
>>> There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
>> for writing it.
>
>
> If the category is "fanfic," part of the definition is whether someone
> gets paid for it.
I don't agree. And an obvious counterexample is "Star Trek: The New
Voyages", published in the 80s and consisting of undeniable fanfic.
But the authors were paid.
Sea Wasp
So, now that I'm a professional writer, I cannot -- by definition --
write fanfic?
David Johnston
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> But your main point -- that fanfic is not a subset defined by quality,
>> but by a combination of direct derivation and amateur status -- makes
>> perfect sense to me.
>
> So, now that I'm a professional writer, I cannot -- by definition --
>write fanfic?
Nah. The derivative stuff you write for nothing but fun, knowing you
almost certainly won't be able to sell it would still be fanfic.
Soldiers CAN go for recreational hikes, and for all I know some do.
David Johnston
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>> If the category is "fanfic," part of the definition is whether someone
>> gets paid for it.
>
> I don't agree. And an obvious counterexample is "Star Trek: The New
>Voyages", published in the 80s and consisting of undeniable fanfic.
>But the authors were paid.
They were distributed as fanfic for years before someone tracked down
the authors and offered to pay for them.
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2007-05-24 08:43:07 -0700, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> said:
>>
>>> In article <lat85397edqh2t14d...@4ax.com>,
>>> da...@block.net says...
>>>
>>>> There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
>>> for writing it.
>>
>>
>> If the category is "fanfic," part of the definition is whether someone
>> gets paid for it.
>
> I don't agree. And an obvious counterexample is "Star Trek: The New
> Voyages", published in the 80s and consisting of undeniable fanfic. But
> the authors were paid.
If they were paid, it's not fanfic.
It may have been fanfic when they wrote it, but it's not fanfic any
more once they get paid; it's a professional sale.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
Sure you can. If you're not writing it professionally.
But if someone pays me to write STAR WARS stories, it's not fanfic,
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> writes:
>> When did they start reading him, exactly? I've never even heard of any
>> writer named Yngwe (Which sounds suspiciously, for that matter, like a
>> nordic-ised spelling of a Tolkien character and thus, all by itself, a
>> fanfic derivation of a work in copyright).
>
>FWIW, there are eight households just in Stockholm with a last name of
>Yngve or Yngwe, and it's a perfectly ordinary, if somewhat old
>fashioned, first name too.
Damn. There goes that parenthetical shot straight to hell.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>>
>> When did they start reading him, exactly? I've never even heard of any
>> writer named Yngwe (Which sounds suspiciously, for that matter, like a
>> nordic-ised spelling of a Tolkien character and thus, all by itself, a
>> fanfic derivation of a work in copyright).
>
>Wait, you're worried about people ripping off Nordic names *from
>Tolkien*?
Worried? Hardly. I was trying to make a joke about the irony.
Jasper
Sea Wasp
Well, I totally disagree. It's fanfic whether you get paid or not.
Are you saying that there would be no fanfic if everyone got paid?
Kurt Busiek
>> Sure you can. If you're not writing it professionally.
>>
>> But if someone pays me to write STAR WARS stories, it's not fanfic,
>> it's a professional sale.
>
> Well, I totally disagree.
That's okay. I note that even in the Wikipedia entry on fanfic, they
acknowledge there's disagreement on the subject.
> It's fanfic whether you get paid or not. Are you saying that there
> would be no fanfic if everyone got paid?
Yeah. Getting paid makes it pro-fic.
It seems to me that the defining attributes of fanfic are:
1. Someone else's characters/setting/whatever.
2. Unauthorized by the rights holder, if there is one.
3. Not written as a professional sample or submission.
4. Unpaid.
If it's paid for by someone who owns the rights (or is licensing them),
it just got authorized. But even if it's paid for by someone who
doesn't own or control the rights, it may not be legally publishable,
but it's still paid work. If you pay me to write Battlestar Galactica
screenplays, it's paid work even if you can't do anything with them
once I deliver them. [Not that you're likely to commision BSG work
from me, nor would I be likely to accept if you did.]
I think it's entirely possible for something to change from one
category to another -- just as a first novel transforms from a wannabe
submission into professional work once a publisher pays for and
publishes it, fanfic can become pro-fic by dint of getting paid for.
In that case, it was written as fanfic, but it's not any more.
kdb
David Johnston
<seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>> Sure you can. If you're not writing it professionally.
>>
>> But if someone pays me to write STAR WARS stories, it's not fanfic, it's
>> a professional sale.
>>
>> kdb
>>
>
> Well, I totally disagree. It's fanfic whether you get paid or not.
>Are you saying that there would be no fanfic if everyone got paid?
Yes, that's what he's saying. That's what I'm saying too.
J Moreno
> If anyone read my reply to the gentleman, you know I consider
> essentially everything I write fanfic. I just file off the serial
> numbers better on some of the published stuff.
Hmn, if you don't mind answering, what would be the serial numbers for
_Diamonds are Forever_?
--
JM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
khog...@yahoo.com
That would be a really bad idea. James Bond fans are fanatics. They
tie people to stakes and pile up books around them, splash a little
accelerant and light 'er up if you mess with Ian. Hmmm, sounds like a
religion. K.W.
"Being futile is futile." -- Ken Hogan
Thomas Lindgren
My sincere apologies for that; for all A.R. Yngve fans out there
in the dark, warm narcotic internet night, here is his oeuvre:
http://www.sfbok.se/kat/author/2000/2422.htm
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren "Too jaded to question stagnation"
Gerry Quinn
says...
The same argument can be made to deny the distinction between day and
night.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
says...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> > I haven't read much of Farmer anyway. There are certainly works which
> > use others as a starting point, and I have read some of those, e.g.
> > Updike's _Gerturude and Claudius_, but I really wouldn't be interested
> > in picking up something that came across as fanfic.
>
> OK, do you have an example of a published work that you didn't pick up
> because it came across as fanfic?
That self-published Star Wars (or was it Trek) one that created a
rumpus a year or two ago?
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
says...
> Here, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > In article <f348u8$6br$2...@reader2.panix.com>, erky...@eblong.com
> > says...
> > >
> > > You can of course patch it to say "by a different author," but you
> > > still have that contemptuous "parasitizes" in there. If your standard
> > > of originality (and literature!) is that a work must take place in an
> > > original universe, what allows you to exempt an author from the charge
> > > of parasitizing his earlier work?
> >
> > Simple: one considers the author's work as a whole.
>
> Well... okay, but then "the whole" includes stuff the author hasn't
> yet written. Which is an easy dividing line to *draw* -- at least,
> until we get personality version control technology -- but it doesn't
> make any sense to me as an underlying structure of literature. It
> implies that you can't even start to think about an author's work
> until he's dead.
One assumes the author's modifications to his own work maintain or
attempt to maintain its integrity. When the body resorbs some of its
own tissues and redeploys the protein elsewhere, we do not think it the
same as when a parasite consumes tissues in order to foster its own
growth.
> > > Oh, you also managed to include all of historical fiction. (Not that
> > > they care what SF fans think, I'm sure.)
> >
> > I don't see how.
>
> Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "an original universe".
> But outside of SF/F/H, a whole lot of stories are supposed to take
> place in the same universe, to wit, the real one.
Not really - a few of them (secret histories etc.) adopt that conceit,
but others seem to take place in a similar, parallel world. One might
argue though that real historical characters are put in the position
that original artistic works are placed in fanfic, so it is indeed
possible to raise some analogous questions regarding integrity.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
flower...@yahoo.com says...
> On 2007-05-22, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> >
> > You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern works
> > either. They are literary or artistic works that create something new
> > inspired by another work.
> >
> > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
> > creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> of Shakespeare's _Tempest_ and reworks it as an examination of the
> interactions between indigenous peoples and colonisers from a more
> advanced society. Another takes the characters and plot of _Spiderman
> 2_ and reworks it as an examination of gender relationships in society.
> Both involve the same amount of innovation, and yet one is classed as
> "literature" and one as "fanfic". Why?
I don't know, as I haven't seen either. Perhaps you should tell me.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
says...
> On 2007-05-24 08:43:07 -0700, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> said:
>
> > In article <lat85397edqh2t14d...@4ax.com>,
> > da...@block.net says...
> >> There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
> >
> > Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
> > for writing it.
>
> If the category is "fanfic," part of the definition is whether someone
> gets paid for it.
None of the six definitions given when I type "define fanfic" into
Google say that. The fifth even seems to give a counterexample,
> Whether "fanfic" is a literary form, though, is open to question. I
> see no difference in process in writing fanfic and writing, say, a
> sequel to SENSE & SENSIBILITY and then selling it to a publisher --
> they're both the same literary form, but they're not both fanfic.
>
> But if you're looking for the dividing line between, say, writing Star
> Trek fiction for the amusement of self and friends and writing it for
> legitimate publication, you're not talking about a difference in
> literary form. You are talking about a difference in legal and
> financial status.
But that does not affect what is written in any way.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
da...@block.net says...
> >No it doesn't. Not all unauthorised derivative works are fanfic,
>
> The ones you get paid for aren't.
>
> and
> >fanfic would still be fanfic if the author somehow managed to get paid.
>
> What do you think fanfic is? There are two elements to fanfic. One
> is "Using characters and situations originated by someone else". The
> other is "Being an amateur". If you get paid for your fanfic (and by
> "paid" I mean by an actual publisher, not self publishing), that makes
> you a professional.
That's not what the definitions found on Google say.
- Gerry Quinn
Sea Wasp
Then it's a definitional clash that will not be resolved.
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> If anyone read my reply to the gentleman, you know I consider
>>essentially everything I write fanfic. I just file off the serial
>>numbers better on some of the published stuff.
>
>
> Hmn, if you don't mind answering, what would be the serial numbers for
> _Diamonds are Forever_?
>
Heh. There's about five separate things that got pureed to produce
_Diamonds_. The Oz series of course provided some of the material.
Narnia. Jodi is strongly based on an actual friend of mine. Naturally,
some of the background is stolen directly from Digital Knight's
background (Nowe is very similar to Eonae) -- I could integrate it
into the DK universe without too much effort. A couple of
cave-adventure stories strongly figured in it.
It's early in the morning, unfortunately, and my brain's kinda fuzzy;
I know I'm missing a major one that I had to work on taking apart.
Sea Wasp
> On May 24, 11:35 pm, p...@newsreaders.com (J Moreno) wrote:
>
>>Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If anyone read my reply to the gentleman, you know I consider
>>>essentially everything I write fanfic. I just file off the serial
>>>numbers better on some of the published stuff.
>>
>>Hmn, if you don't mind answering, what would be the serial numbers for
>>_Diamonds are Forever_?
>>
>>--
>>JM
>>"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
>
>
> That would be a really bad idea. James Bond fans are fanatics.
Fleming and I both stole the title from DeBeers, I think.
Kurt Busiek
True. In this case, though, it strikes me more like the distinction
between "night" and "Thursday."
kdb
Kurt Busiek
> In article <200705241011498930-kurt@busiekcomics>, ku...@busiek.comics
> says...
>> On 2007-05-24 08:43:07 -0700, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> said:
>>
>>> In article <lat85397edqh2t14d...@4ax.com>,
>>> da...@block.net says...
>>>> There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
>>>
>>> Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
>>> for writing it.
>>
>> If the category is "fanfic," part of the definition is whether someone
>> gets paid for it.
>
> None of the six definitions given when I type "define fanfic" into
> Google say that. The fifth even seems to give a counterexample,
I don't find those definitions specific enough; they're written with an
eye toward defining what the definition-writer is thinking of, but not
excluding stuff he hasn't considered.
The first one, for example, covers the Dark Horse line of STAR WARS
comics, since the people who write them are fans of the material,
they're an extension of an admired work and are often posted on the
Internet (though not legally). Those, however, are fully-licensed,
authorized works written as professional assignments.
The fifth entry seemed to be an argument over fanfic, so maybe I get
results in a different order than you do.
The Wikipedia entry notes various disagreements over what counts and
what doesn't, suggesting that anyone who takes a firm position on what
is and isn't fanfic will find others who disagree with him, much as has
happened here. But it does try to take into account things that those
one- or two-line definitions aren't considering, and the definition it
settles on does include the ideas that fanfic is not usually authorized
and not usually published for profit (at least not legally).
I'd take out the caveats, myself -- if it's authorized and legally
published for profit, then BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES is fanfic, and
that doesn't seem to me a useful definition.
>> But if you're looking for the dividing line between, say, writing Star
>> Trek fiction for the amusement of self and friends and writing it for
>> legitimate publication, you're not talking about a difference in
>> literary form. You are talking about a difference in legal and
>> financial status.
>
> But that does not affect what is written in any way.
That's correct. "Fanfic" doesn't describe literary quality. It
describes a relationship with the source. If Writer X writes a Foonman
story and sells it to FOONMAN MONTHLY, and Writer Y independently
writes essentially the same story and puts it up on the 'net for fun,
the latter is fanfic and the former isn't, without the definition
affecting what was written.
kdb
Aaron Denney
> One assumes the author's modifications to his own work maintain or
> attempt to maintain its integrity. When the body resorbs some of its
> own tissues and redeploys the protein elsewhere, we do not think it the
> same as when a parasite consumes tissues in order to foster its own
> growth.
How is there ever "consumption"? The original is always still there,
exactly as it was.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <200705241011498930-kurt@busiekcomics>, ku...@busiek.comics
>says...
>> On 2007-05-24 08:43:07 -0700, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> said:
>>
>> > In article <lat85397edqh2t14d...@4ax.com>,
>> > da...@block.net says...
>> >> There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
>> >
>> > Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
>> > for writing it.
>>
>> If the category is "fanfic," part of the definition is whether someone
>> gets paid for it.
>
>None of the six definitions given when I type "define fanfic" into
>Google say that. The fifth even seems to give a counterexample,
fan·fic (fnfk)
n. Informal
Fiction written by fans as an extension of an admired work or series
of works, especially a television show, often posted on the Internet
or published in fanzines.
A "fan" is not a professional. That doesn't mean a professional can't
be a fan in his spare time, but if he's writing for formal
publication, he is not writing fanfic.
>
>> Whether "fanfic" is a literary form, though, is open to question. I
>> see no difference in process in writing fanfic and writing, say, a
>> sequel to SENSE & SENSIBILITY and then selling it to a publisher --
>> they're both the same literary form, but they're not both fanfic.
>>
>> But if you're looking for the dividing line between, say, writing Star
>> Trek fiction for the amusement of self and friends and writing it for
>> legitimate publication, you're not talking about a difference in
>> literary form. You are talking about a difference in legal and
>> financial status.
>
>But that does not affect what is written in any way.
Yes, that's what I've been saying. Fanfic is no different in form or
genre from the professional stuff.
David Johnston
wrote:
>In article <1hyma1l.vgh62t12lkgffN%yo...@jwgh.org>, yo...@jwgh.org
He asked for published, not self-published.
Gene Ward Smith
news:irua53h6ddmrnqbro...@4ax.com:
> When did they start reading him, exactly? I've never even
heard of any
> writer named Yngwe (Which sounds suspiciously, for that
matter, like a
> nordic-ised spelling of a Tolkien character and thus, all by
itself, a
> fanfic derivation of a work in copyright).
It's clearly fanfic--Yngve was the louse in The Incomplete
Enchanter.
Sea Wasp
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:25:50 +0100, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <200705241011498930-kurt@busiekcomics>, ku...@busiek.comics
>>says...
>>
>>>On 2007-05-24 08:43:07 -0700, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <lat85397edqh2t14d...@4ax.com>,
>>>>da...@block.net says...
>>>>
>>>>>There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
>>>>for writing it.
>>>
>>>If the category is "fanfic," part of the definition is whether someone
>>>gets paid for it.
>>
>>None of the six definitions given when I type "define fanfic" into
>>Google say that. The fifth even seems to give a counterexample,
>
>
> fan·fic (fnfk)
> n. Informal
> Fiction written by fans as an extension of an admired work or series
> of works, especially a television show, often posted on the Internet
> or published in fanzines.
>
> A "fan" is not a professional. That doesn't mean a professional can't
> be a fan in his spare time, but if he's writing for formal
> publication, he is not writing fanfic.
>
I think I can be both at the same time.
If one insists on a definition that leaves something as not-fanfic,
I'll allow this: Fanfic you did because you wanted to write the story
as a story. Non-fanfic you wrote because someone told you to and you
wanted the money. So Lee Goldberg, a common anti-fanficcer who makes
most of his money from media tie-ins, would then not be writing fanfic
unless he actually wanted to write stories about that particular show/etc.
Kurt Busiek
> If one insists on a definition that leaves something as not-fanfic,
> I'll allow this: Fanfic you did because you wanted to write the story
> as a story. Non-fanfic you wrote because someone told you to and you
> wanted the money.
That would make the bulk of my work fanfic. I want the money, but I
also want to write the story as a story. And they're hiring me to, but
rarely are they telling me what to write.
I think any definition of "fanfic" that includes this month's SUPERMAN
isn't very useful.
Professional work doesn't preclude wanting to write the story.
Professional work is work you get paid for -- including work you get
paid for after the fact, like, say, GONE WITH THE WIND.
kdb