Harry Potter and the Morass of Rationality

[David DeLaney]

Passing this along for those who have given up checking HP&tMoR more than once
or twice a month: Eliezer has emitted a couple bursts of info in the last week.
One on Christmas,
"Update 12/25: Decided not to split 78. It's finished at >17,000 words, but I
want to finish at least Ch. 79 before publishing anything, because 78 ends on
a major cliffhanger. On the plus side, I think the end of Ch. 78 gets us back
into the main flow of action again. All of this has taught me a valuable
lesson about writing structure, "never recurse more than once" - you can have
X happen so that Y can happen, but never have W happen so that X can happen so
that Y can happen. Anything worth setting up can be set up in one step.",
and one on Wednesday,
"Ch. 79 done at 6,700 words. I think I'll see if I can get this entire arc
done before I start posting it - if not, I'll give up and post before too
long, but I'm encouraged by how fast Ch. 79 went.".

So there's at least two more chapters that should show up Soon. Assuming he
doesn't get bogged down in chapter 80 of course.

Dave "this has been a Public Singularity Announcement. you may now return to
your regularly scheduled vastenings" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Kip Williams]

David DeLaney wrote:
> Passing this along for those who have given up checking HP&tMoR more than once
> or twice a month: Eliezer has emitted a couple bursts of info in the last week.

...

Thanks for that! My Google Reader will tell me if he posts more
chapters, but I don't seem to have his meta feed.


Kip W
rasfw

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 12/30/11 11:29 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
All of this has taught me a valuable
> lesson about writing structure, "never recurse more than once" - you can have
> X happen so that Y can happen, but never have W happen so that X can happen so
> that Y can happen. Anything worth setting up can be set up in one step.",

I guess he won't be writing villains (or heroes) with multiple Xanatos
Gambits, then. As opposed to a couple things I'm working on that will
end in Thirty Xanatos Pileups.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[David Goldfarb]

In article <tkwLq.38158$Q83....@newsfe17.iad>,

Likewise. I'm subscribed to the RSS feed, which will tell me when
new chapters are actually up, but it doesn't tell me when the
"Author's Notes" page changes. (And that happens infrequently
enough that I don't bother checking it regularly.)

--
David Goldfarb | "All love is unrequited."
goldf...@gmail.com |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Rising Star"

[Michael Grosberg]

On Dec 31, 6:29 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> Passing this along for those who have given up checking HP&tMoR more than > once or twice a month

I gave up on it altogether. The rationality / game theory / science
aspect of it has been gone these last few chapters. I no longer know
what's it about, really.

[David DeLaney]

These show up at the bottom of his author page, click on "Less Wrong" at the
top of any of the fic's pages.

Dave "various other interesting links on his author page exist as well" DeLaney

[Kip Williams]

David DeLaney wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:37:45 -0500, Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David DeLaney wrote:
>>> Passing this along for those who have given up checking HP&tMoR more than once
>>> or twice a month: Eliezer has emitted a couple bursts of info in the last
>>> week.
>> ...
>>
>> Thanks for that! My Google Reader will tell me if he posts more
>> chapters, but I don't seem to have his meta feed.
>
> These show up at the bottom of his author page, click on "Less Wrong" at the
> top of any of the fic's pages.

As I said, though, they don't show up to a feed. Short of going to his
page every day and checking, I don't have a convenient way of knowing
when he makes changes to those, whereas if he posts a new chapter, I
will know it fairly quickly.


Kip W
rasfw

[Andrew Plotkin]

Here, David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:37:45 -0500, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >David DeLaney wrote:
> >>Passing this along for those who have given up checking HP&tMoR more than once
> >>or twice a month: Eliezer has emitted a couple bursts of info in the last
> >> week.
> >...
> >
> >Thanks for that! My Google Reader will tell me if he posts more
> >chapters, but I don't seem to have his meta feed.
>
> These show up at the bottom of his author page, click on "Less Wrong" at the
> top of any of the fic's pages.

Unfortunately there's no feed (no way to get those to show up in
Google Reader or whatever).

--Z

--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*

[William December Starr]

In article <jdm5vp$tqi$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

> I guess he won't be writing villains (or heroes) with multiple
> Xanatos Gambits, then. As opposed to a couple things I'm working
> on that will end in Thirty Xanatos Pileups.

All of which are trumped by a Plan 9 From Outer Space maneuver?
(Wherein one stalks into the enemy HQ and punches out their leader.)

By the way, the Xanatos Gambit is a form of, or at least a close
relative of, Crazy Prepared. There there a meme name for somebody
(a) _as a matter of policy_ living operating solely by reaction and
improvisation and (b) winning/prospering often enough to be said to
be a successful at it? I'm not sure I can even think of any
examples[1]; as I understand it even the modern incarnation of the
Joker still often makes and tries to stick to multi-stage plans.
Gods, I bet it'd be a bitch to write.

-- wds

[David Johnston]

On 12/31/2011 8:41 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article<jdm5vp$tqi$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>
>> I guess he won't be writing villains (or heroes) with multiple
>> Xanatos Gambits, then. As opposed to a couple things I'm working
>> on that will end in Thirty Xanatos Pileups.
>
> All of which are trumped by a Plan 9 From Outer Space maneuver?
> (Wherein one stalks into the enemy HQ and punches out their leader.)
>
> By the way, the Xanatos Gambit is a form of, or at least a close
> relative of, Crazy Prepared. There there a meme name for somebody
> (a) _as a matter of policy_ living operating solely by reaction and
> improvisation and (b) winning/prospering often enough to be said to
> be a successful at it?

You mean Indiana Jones's lifeplan?

[Kay Shapero]

In article <f0cd45a9-9278-427a-a629-13ed4b243f23
@n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, grosberg...@gmail.com says...

I gave up a double handful of chapters into the mix, about the time they
were setting up for war games (a bit after the education of Draco Malfoy
- which I did like) and I realized I'd hit the eight deadly words.
Potentially interesting concept, but...

--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Address munged, to email use kay at the above domain (everything after
the www.)

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/2/12 2:58 AM, Kay Shapero wrote:
> In article<f0cd45a9-9278-427a-a629-13ed4b243f23
> @n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, grosberg...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Dec 31, 6:29 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>> Passing this along for those who have given up checking HP&tMoR more than
>>> once or twice a month
>>
>> I gave up on it altogether. The rationality / game theory / science
>> aspect of it has been gone these last few chapters. I no longer know
>> what's it about, really.
>
> I gave up a double handful of chapters into the mix, about the time they
> were setting up for war games (a bit after the education of Draco Malfoy
> - which I did like) and I realized I'd hit the eight deadly words.
> Potentially interesting concept, but...
>

Hermione was the only character I was really interested in by the end
of my reading (up through chapter 70-something)

[David Johnston]

On 1/2/2012 7:28 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

>
> Hermione was the only character I was really interested in by the end of
> my reading (up through chapter 70-something)
>

I decided Potter was an annoyingly smug little snot in the first chapter
and closed the window.

[Mark Zenier]

In article <jdokkr$on9$1...@panix3.panix.com>,

I think I've seen "Schweikian" or "Svejkian", from _The Good Soldier
v
Svejk_? (a.k.a. _The Good Soldier Schweik_ (Schwiek?))

(That's supposed to be an "S with a Caron", but that stands zero
chance of surviving my ad-hoc posting process.)

Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

It was him getting away with mouthing off to MacGonagall that really
frosted me. I read as much as I did because I'd said that if Sailor
Gryffindor appeared in the story, I'd read it at least to that point.
Then I got rooked, so that rather annoyed me.

[Kip Williams]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 1/2/12 12:08 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 1/2/2012 7:28 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hermione was the only character I was really interested in by the end of
>>> my reading (up through chapter 70-something)
>>>
>>
>> I decided Potter was an annoyingly smug little snot in the first chapter
>> and closed the window.
>
> It was him getting away with mouthing off to MacGonagall that really
> frosted me. I read as much as I did because I'd said that if Sailor
> Gryffindor appeared in the story, I'd read it at least to that point.
> Then I got rooked, so that rather annoyed me.

Yeah, he should have known his entire world view was mistaken as soon as
he saw the first magic trick, and changed his entire personality
forthwith to suit people who know he's in a book.


Kip W
rasfw

[David Johnston]

On 1/2/2012 10:33 AM, Kip Williams wrote:

>> It was him getting away with mouthing off to MacGonagall that really
>> frosted me. I read as much as I did because I'd said that if Sailor
>> Gryffindor appeared in the story, I'd read it at least to that point.
>> Then I got rooked, so that rather annoyed me.
>
> Yeah, he should have known his entire world view was mistaken as soon as
> he saw the first magic trick, and changed his entire personality
> forthwith to suit people who know he's in a book.

Why not? After all, Professor McGonagall changed her personality to
accomodate him and became an easily confused pushover.

[David DeLaney]

Well yeah. This is a Harry that wasn't brought up under a staircase; he's
got a -different- set of social dysfunctions, and you're not supposed to
actually like him to start off with. He's an annoyingly smug little know-it-
all, who's gonna get smacked down about various things and have his world
view forcibly expanded repeatedly as he encounters various bits of the
wizarding world (and they him).

Dave

[James Silverton]

On 1/2/2012 12:19 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 1/2/12 12:08 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 1/2/2012 7:28 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hermione was the only character I was really interested in by the end of
>>> my reading (up through chapter 70-something)
>>>
>>
>> I decided Potter was an annoyingly smug little snot in the first chapter
>> and closed the window.
>
> It was him getting away with mouthing off to MacGonagall that really
> frosted me. I read as much as I did because I'd said that if Sailor
> Gryffindor appeared in the story, I'd read it at least to that point.
> Then I got rooked, so that rather annoyed me.
>

Be fair; the Harry Potter books are *children's* stories. I have only
read the very first and that because I was surprised how well it sold.
Perhaps, the style improved in later books but it reminded me of the
"school stories" of my very long ago childhood in Britain.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net

[W. Citoan]

They're not talking about Rowling's books. They are talking about the
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality fanfic.

- W. Citoan
--
What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expected generally happens.
-- Benjamin Disraeli

[James Silverton]

A new one to me! What's a fanfic?

[W. Citoan]

James Silverton wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 1:51 PM, W. Citoan wrote:
> > James Silverton wrote:
> >>
> >> Be fair; the Harry Potter books are *children's* stories. I have
> >> only read the very first and that because I was surprised how well
> >> it sold. Perhaps, the style improved in later books but it
> >> reminded me of the "school stories" of my very long ago childhood
> >> in Britain.
> >
> > They're not talking about Rowling's books. They are talking about
> > the Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality fanfic.
>

> A new one to me! What's a fanfic?

Fan fiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction

Non-professional fiction written typically (but not necessarily as it
can also be a reaction against) by fans using professional fiction
characters or settings.

- W. Citoan
--
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
-- Albert Einstein

[David Johnston]

On 1/2/2012 10:59 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 12:19 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 1/2/12 12:08 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2012 7:28 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hermione was the only character I was really interested in by the
>>>> end of
>>>> my reading (up through chapter 70-something)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I decided Potter was an annoyingly smug little snot in the first chapter
>>> and closed the window.
>>
>> It was him getting away with mouthing off to MacGonagall that really
>> frosted me. I read as much as I did because I'd said that if Sailor
>> Gryffindor appeared in the story, I'd read it at least to that point.
>> Then I got rooked, so that rather annoyed me.
>>
>
> Be fair; the Harry Potter books are *children's* stories.

We aren't talking about the real Harry Potter books.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

That wasn't the mouthing off bit. Asking for proof was perfectly
reasonable. Playing emotional blackmail, no, that's not, and that's
exactly what he did.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

The original books I felt were very well written, even the first --
which reminded me in several ways of Roald Dahl, and that's not an easy
bar to clear.

And here we're not discussing the original HP but a fanfic thereof.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Given how often this particular fic's been mentioned I'm boggled you
don't know what it is.

It's fiction written by fans of a given series/movie/etc. using the
setting and characters of the fandom they're into (or often of several
fandoms, for crossover fic). Fanfic ranges from outright porn to stuff
that's honestly better than the original material.

I've written a lot of it. Lots of what I've written as fic has also
ended up as pieces of original work, too.

[Kip Williams]

James Silverton wrote:
> Be fair; the Harry Potter books are *children's* stories. I have only
> read the very first and that because I was surprised how well it sold.
> Perhaps, the style improved in later books but it reminded me of the
> "school stories" of my very long ago childhood in Britain.

The style improved and tightened up. Best of all, Rowling stopped
inserting lengthy explanations and descriptions of each and every prop
encountered.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

They were taken aback. Logic and scientific method were as alien to them
as magic was to him.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 1/2/12 12:33 PM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> On 1/2/12 12:08 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2012 7:28 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hermione was the only character I was really interested in by the
>>>>> end of
>>>>> my reading (up through chapter 70-something)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I decided Potter was an annoyingly smug little snot in the first
>>>> chapter
>>>> and closed the window.
>>>
>>> It was him getting away with mouthing off to MacGonagall that really
>>> frosted me. I read as much as I did because I'd said that if Sailor
>>> Gryffindor appeared in the story, I'd read it at least to that point.
>>> Then I got rooked, so that rather annoyed me.
>>
>> Yeah, he should have known his entire world view was mistaken as soon as
>> he saw the first magic trick, and changed his entire personality
>> forthwith to suit people who know he's in a book.
>
> That wasn't the mouthing off bit. Asking for proof was perfectly
> reasonable. Playing emotional blackmail, no, that's not, and that's
> exactly what he did.

So you're annoyed because he wasn't perfect. I thought that was part of
the point � he's more like a human being.


Kip W
rasfw

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:46:16 -0700, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

>> Be fair; the Harry Potter books are *children's* stories.
>
>We aren't talking about the real Harry Potter books.

So I infer the pretend Harry Potter books must be worse than the real
ones.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:08:22 -0700, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>

wrote:

>> Hermione was the only character I was really interested in by the end of
>> my reading (up through chapter 70-something)
>>
>
>I decided Potter was an annoyingly smug little snot in the first chapter
>and closed the window.

That could have changed. But making his Muggle family idiots seemed
to be designed for very young readers.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:26:51 -0500, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com>

>the point � he's more like a human being.

I'd have said "playing emotional blackmail against *McGonagall* and
winning" was the flaw there. She's a very old teacher, they simply
don't spend that long in the job without being able to handle that
sort of thing, and that sort of child.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by infinity is
to contemplate the extent of human stupidity." -- Voltaire

[David Johnston]

Yes, that read to me as the author turning the characters from the
series into dimwitted punching bags for his Mary Sue. Is the author
telling me that Snape, a character modelled on Rowling's unpleasant Chem
teacher and who developed a buttload of improved potions techniques, has
no idea of the basics of the scientific method or that a society
established by learned medieval scholars had no familiarity with the
Greek philosophers that they passed down to their students and thus
nobody knows a syllogism from their butthole? That they have no
theories, however wacky and misguided, about where what they do comes
from? That they haven't been influenced by mundane society even as they
make their bus/train connection to a boarding school?

Yes, over the course of the real series Potter gains very little
fundamental understanding of how magical society thinks what they do
works. He's entirely focussed on whether it works and not why. Well
there's a good reason for that. He's a nice guy...but he's still
basically a jock. A mediocre student with lightning reflexes and a few
tricks he knows really well because they are winning combat/gaming
tools. If Hermione ever tried to explain where magic came from to him
or what happens to the extra mass of an animagus, he'd automatically
tune her out. He doesn't care about knowing. He cares about winning.

This does not mean that as a whole they were a society of idiots who
never heard of logic and have no systematic way of developing new
technologies.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

> the point — he's more like a human being.

I'm annoyed because he was a manipulative, arrogant jerk, unlike the
original Harry, who was a nice guy.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

That's part of it, though one could say that somehow none of the prior
generations had ever had a rational questioning child before.

[Kip Williams]

Perhaps. It worked for me, but that doesn't always mean much.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

So you keep saying. The original Harry mostly didn't have a clue and
stuck immediately to those who did. In this version, he has been given a
brain. It seems to make a difference.


Kip W
rasfw

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:01:27 -0500, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com>

It didn't stop me reading, but it did make me recalibrate my
willing-suspense-of-disbelief-ometer. Which turned out useful later
on.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"You could say that Apple charges for incremental upgrades while
Microsoft charges for excremental ones" -- Daniel James, uk.c.h

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Because it's true, naturally.

> The original Harry mostly didn't have a clue and
> stuck immediately to those who did. In this version, he has been given a
> brain. It seems to make a difference.

The original Harry wasn't a SOOOPER-GENIUS, no, but one doesn't have to
make the alternative genius Harry a twit. My fanfic character Erik
Nygard was an abrasive, self-insert Mary Sue genius but not to THAT
extent. For that matter my published character A.J. Baker isn't that
annoying, and he's pretty annoying early on (he mellows out some).

As others have noted, part of the problem is that he plays emotional
blackmail games AND WINS against Minerval McGonagall, which he simply
shouldn't. Yes, she's sympathetic -- to characters that show
vulnerability. This Harry had a good life, no immediate reason for
McGonagall to feel sorry for him, and I find it utterly out of character
for her to cave that easily. The somewhat more subtle attempt to get
more goodies out of her by reasoning around her in circles, that made a
bit more sense, but the prior event left a very sour taste in my mouth;
his later character development made it worse, at least up through ...
um... well, double digit chapters, anyway.

>
>
> Kip W
> rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Whereas I like the fact that he's a lot less of a sap than the original.
He doesn't spend years in a magic environment still gaping slack-jawed
every time somebody pulls a rabbit out of a hat. He hits the ground
running and starts learning.

To each his own.


Kip W
rasfw

[David DeLaney]

>A new one to me! What's a fanfic?

A fanfic is fiction written by a fan. As is probably to be expected, MORE than
90% of them are perfectly dreadful and/or in that particular fan's "first
million words" phase. Some are famous for being dreadful beyond description -
look up The Eye of Argon or My Immortal, on tvtropes.org (standard warning -
have extra time available when you go there).

The one we're talking about appears to be the exception that proves the rule
to destruction; Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. I'd give an URL,
but it's easier to just tell you to Google the word 'rationality'; it'll be
in, usually, the top five returned links... (Currently #4, for me and for what
Google thinks I look for.)

"Petunia married a professor, and Harry grew up reading science and science
fiction. Then came the Hogwarts letter, introducing strange new opportunities
to exploit. And new friends, like Hermione, and Professor McGonagall, and
Professor Quirrell."

It's demonstrably not for everyone. But it's at least spelled right,
gramatically correct, readable like popcorn, and the Author Tracts dropped into
it are interesting ones about science and psychology and rationality...

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

So do I. One of the things I did like about the fic. But he could have
done PRECISELY the same thing without being a total ass. The PCs in my
HP RPG who came from such backgrounds did exactly that. Even the one who
was Edward Elric, never noted for his tact and diplomacy.

[Andrew Plotkin]

Here, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 1/2/12 10:16 PM, Kip Williams wrote:
> > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >
> > Whereas I like the fact that he's a lot less of a sap than the original.
> > He doesn't spend years in a magic environment still gaping slack-jawed
> > every time somebody pulls a rabbit out of a hat. He hits the ground
> > running and starts learning.
>
> So do I. One of the things I did like about the fic. But he could have
> done PRECISELY the same thing without being a total ass.

And, at some point, the eleven-year-old kid will figure out how to do
that.

--Z

--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:27:21 -0500, David DeLaney
<d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in
<news:slrnjg52k...@gatekeeper.vic.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> A fanfic is fiction written by a fan. As is probably to be
> expected, MORE than 90% of them are perfectly dreadful
> and/or in that particular fan's "first million words"
> phase. Some are famous for being dreadful beyond

> description - look up The Eye of Argon [...]

But that one is *splendidly* dreadful. (Actually, that's
why it survives: there really is a story, albeit one told by
a demented thesaurus.)

Brian

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:08:22 -0700, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>On 1/2/2012 7:28 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> Hermione was the only character I was really interested in by the end of
>>> my reading (up through chapter 70-something)
>>
>>I decided Potter was an annoyingly smug little snot in the first chapter
>>and closed the window.
>

> Well yeah. This is a Harry that wasn't brought up under a staircase; he's
> got a -different- set of social dysfunctions, and you're not supposed to
> actually like him to start off with. He's an annoyingly smug little know-it-
> all,

This is actually what I liked during the first few chapters - in the
same way I liked Artemis Fowl. I have to admit I was a bit disappointed
when HPMOR did not turn out to be Artemis-Fowl-in-Hogwarts. What a mess
would that be!
To tell the truth, I was a bit disappointed when Artemis Fowl started to
lose his edge sometime after "The Opal Deception".

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

[Michael Grosberg]

On Jan 2, 7:59 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> Well yeah. This is a Harry that wasn't brought up under a staircase; he's
> got a -different- set of social dysfunctions, and you're not supposed to
> actually like him to start off with. He's an annoyingly smug little know-it-

> all, who's gonna get smacked down about various things and have his world
> view forcibly expanded repeatedly as he encounters various bits of the
> wizarding world (and they him).

He wasn't getting smacked enough IMO. There was the plot line about
how it was impossible to transfigure a part of an object until MOR-
Harry taught himself to do it. This should not have worked IMO. I
expected Harry to fail - to realize that magic is a sort of high-level
API, not a basic force - but he managed to do it just by thinking on
subatomic particles, a total cop-out. Currently it's just too much of
a power fantasy - MOR Harry just can't fail. Sure, he's a naive
dickhead, but an overpowered one.

[Scott Lurndal]

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
>James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On 1/2/2012 1:51 PM, W. Citoan wrote:
>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>> Be fair; the Harry Potter books are *children's* stories. I have only
>>>> read the very first and that because I was surprised how well it
>>>> sold. Perhaps, the style improved in later books but it reminded me
>>>> of the "school stories" of my very long ago childhood in Britain.
>>>
>>> They're not talking about Rowling's books. They are talking about the
>>> Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality fanfic.
>>
>>A new one to me! What's a fanfic?
>
>A fanfic is fiction written by a fan. As is probably to be expected, MORE than
>90% of them are perfectly dreadful and/or in that particular fan's "first
>million words" phase. Some are famous for being dreadful beyond description -
>look up The Eye of Argon or My Immortal, on tvtropes.org (standard warning -
>have extra time available when you go there).

Then there is the sub-genre of cross-over fanfic. A cross between two authors,
two television universes, or some of each. Some good, most dreadful. I'd
recommend positively Don Sample's _Harry Potter and the Key of Dagon_ which
is a cross-over of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Harry Potter; it's well
written and plotted. He has several SG-1/BtVS shorter crossovers that aren't
bad at all.

Others, well there was the rather clever title for a Bujold/Weber crossover
_The Short Victorious Vor_ which didn't live up to the clever title, and a
short one where Samatha Carter (of SG-1) meets up with her Uncle Andrew when
time-travelling to WWII Germany (Hogans Heroes crossover) which was rather well
done.

I probably lasted about 40 chapters into HPatmoR before losing interest.

scott

[Michael Grosberg]

On Dec 31 2011, 3:06 pm, Michael Grosberg <grosberg.mich...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:29 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > Passing this along for those who have given up checking HP&tMoR more than > once or twice a month
>
> I gave up on it altogether. The rationality / game theory / science
> aspect of it has been gone these last few chapters. I no longer know
> what's it about, really.

And now that I think of it, one of the reasons I gave up on it is I
found better works to satisfy my need for deconstructions of the
wizarding world. Patrick Rothfuss' _The Name of the Wind_ has the same
annoyingly overpowered/socially inept protagonist as MOR's Harry, but
where it really shines is in the magical system Rothfuss came up with,
which is original and more amenable to scientific experimentation. Lev
Grossman's _the Magicians_ and the sequel _The Magician King_ raise
the question of where magic comes form and why does it work in the
first place, and surprisingly, give a satisfying answer.

[Michael Grosberg]

On Jan 3, 7:27 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> It's demonstrably not for everyone. But it's at least spelled right,
> gramatically correct,

Although I believe Eliezer has a problem of using commas where he
should be using semicolons.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

This is certainly part of the problem. I was unconvinced by his ability
to do it, because -- put bluntly -- I had not in any way been convinced
that Harry Potter had a mind of the Third Stage of Development, and thus
the idea that he could envision subatomic particles in sufficient
accuracy and detail that he could accomplish what was described didn't
work for me; equally, if he wasn't envisioning it in that detail and
complexity, I was unconvinced that just waving some quantum equations at
the problem would make it go away.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/3/12 4:06 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
>> James Silverton<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2012 1:51 PM, W. Citoan wrote:
>>>> James Silverton wrote:
>>>>> Be fair; the Harry Potter books are *children's* stories. I have only
>>>>> read the very first and that because I was surprised how well it
>>>>> sold. Perhaps, the style improved in later books but it reminded me
>>>>> of the "school stories" of my very long ago childhood in Britain.
>>>>
>>>> They're not talking about Rowling's books. They are talking about the
>>>> Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality fanfic.
>>>
>>> A new one to me! What's a fanfic?
>>
>> A fanfic is fiction written by a fan. As is probably to be expected, MORE than
>> 90% of them are perfectly dreadful and/or in that particular fan's "first
>> million words" phase. Some are famous for being dreadful beyond description -
>> look up The Eye of Argon or My Immortal, on tvtropes.org (standard warning -
>> have extra time available when you go there).
>
> Then there is the sub-genre of cross-over fanfic.

My wife (with some help from me) did a Fullmetal Alchemist/CSI Miami
crossover (and another, mostly on her own, that was FMA/Torchwood/Doctor
Who). Together we also did Saint Seiya, then added in Yoroiden Samurai
Troopers, then finally added in DBZ.

I also -- because someone said it couldn't be done -- wrote the first
chapter or two of "Little Gundam on the Prairie", but that one I never
finished.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:27:21 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>>A new one to me! What's a fanfic?
>
>A fanfic is fiction written by a fan.

Is Scalzi's _Fuzzy Nation_ fanfic?

[Suzanne Blom]

On 1/2/2012 12:59 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 1/2/2012 1:51 PM, W. Citoan wrote:

>> They're not talking about Rowling's books. They are talking about the
>> Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality fanfic.
>

> A new one to me! What's a fanfic?
>

Because the definitions so far offered seem to assume some knowledge of
what is being talked about, let me try.

Fanfic is fan fiction written by (or as) an amateur. That is to say,
somebody who is absolutely passionate about some piece of writing, or a
movie, or a TV series--called the canon--is disappointed that they can't
read more about the characters and world so they write their own
continuation, or a story that somehow didn't get into the canon though
it happened at the same time, or maybe even, what really happened or
should have happened instead of what is shown in the canon.

The longer the canon, the more room there is for people to write in the
interstices, which is why TV series are a favorite place for fanfic.
(Of course, as has been noted many times, the Harry Potter books are
also lengthy.)

That is the basic idea. However, once one has done that, why not put
several of your favorite worlds together; or imagine what would happen
if you were in the world of the canon; or...

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/3/12 5:54 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:27:21 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
> DeLaney) wrote:
>
>>> A new one to me! What's a fanfic?
>>
>> A fanfic is fiction written by a fan.
>
> Is Scalzi's _Fuzzy Nation_ fanfic?
>

I wouldn't call it that, mainly because it's basically just a rewrite;
fics rarely if ever go in that direction. They may rewrite a PARTICULAR
PLOT POINT that they found noisome, but in general fanfic is an
EXTENSION of the original(s) in one direction or another.

_The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not in, IIRC,
Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's published
automatically removes it from the fanfic category. That's not my
position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 01:17:09 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not in, IIRC,
> Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's published
> automatically removes it from the fanfic category.

The fact that it was commissioned and paid for, even moreso.

It's pro-fic, as surely as tonight's episode of PARENTHOOD.

> That's not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)

Damn straight.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/3/12 8:28 PM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2012-01-04 01:17:09 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>
>> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not in, IIRC,
>> Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's published
>> automatically removes it from the fanfic category.
>
> The fact that it was commissioned and paid for, even moreso.
>
> It's pro-fic, as surely as tonight's episode of PARENTHOOD.
>
>> That's not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable
>> one.)
>
> Damn straight.

Wait, that's wrong. This is Usenet. Kurt's position is idiotic and all
right-thinking people would understand that!

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <je0fsn$hfe$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
says...

>
> On 1/3/12 8:28 PM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
> > On 2012-01-04 01:17:09 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

> >> That's not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable
> >> one.)
> >
> > Damn straight.
>
> Wait, that's wrong. This is Usenet. Kurt's position is idiotic and all
> right-thinking people would understand that!

Now that's more like it! Carry on.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Walter Bushell]

In article <je0fsn$hfe$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> On 1/3/12 8:28 PM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
> > On 2012-01-04 01:17:09 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> >
> >> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not in, IIRC,
> >> Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's published
> >> automatically removes it from the fanfic category.
> >
> > The fact that it was commissioned and paid for, even moreso.
> >
> > It's pro-fic, as surely as tonight's episode of PARENTHOOD.
> >
> >> That's not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable
> >> one.)
> >
> > Damn straight.
>
> Wait, that's wrong. This is Usenet. Kurt's position is idiotic and all
> right-thinking people would understand that!

What about us left, down, future, past or up thinkers?

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 03:09:11 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

> On 1/3/12 8:28 PM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2012-01-04 01:17:09 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>>
>>> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not in, IIRC,
>>> Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's published
>>> automatically removes it from the fanfic category.
>>
>> The fact that it was commissioned and paid for, even moreso.
>>
>> It's pro-fic, as surely as tonight's episode of PARENTHOOD.
>>
>>> That's not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable
>>> one.)
>>
>> Damn straight.
>
> Wait, that's wrong. This is Usenet. Kurt's position is idiotic and all
> right-thinking people would understand that!

Nice save. We were about to revoke your privileges.

[David DeLaney]

Though if that's the biggest problem it has, it's still superior to over 99%
of the fanfiction out there...

Dave "so he's no G. Heyer or R. Stout" DeLaney

[David DeLaney]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>>A new one to me! What's a fanfic?
>>
>>A fanfic is fiction written by a fan.
>
>Is Scalzi's _Fuzzy Nation_ fanfic?

Oh definitely. And, even better, he managed to get it published later on.

[David DeLaney]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Wait, that's wrong. This is Usenet. Kurt's position is idiotic and all
>> right-thinking people would understand that!
>
>What about us left, down, future, past or up thinkers?

You limit it to only six directions of thought? Er. I mean half-axes?

Dave "because there are way more kinds of half-axed thinking going on" DeLaney

[Kip Williams]

David DeLaney wrote:
> Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Wait, that's wrong. This is Usenet. Kurt's position is idiotic and all
>>> right-thinking people would understand that!
>>
>> What about us left, down, future, past or up thinkers?
>
> You limit it to only six directions of thought? Er. I mean half-axes?
>
> Dave "because there are way more kinds of half-axed thinking going on" DeLaney

Splitter!


Kip W
rasfw

[David Goldfarb]

In article <2195442d-48ea-4852...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

I don't recall noticing that, and it's the sort of thing I think
I would notice. Can you give some examples?

--
David Goldfarb |"I know you miss the Wainwrights, Bobby, but they
goldf...@gmail.com | were weak and stupid people -- and that's why
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | we have wolves and other large predators."
| -- The Far Side

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:

> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not
> in, IIRC, Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's
> published automatically removes it from the fanfic category. That's
> not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)

As short-hand to describe what I thought had happened to one series,
I've told a number of friends that it started out promising but quickly
degenerated to writing fanfic in their own universe. So apparently I
don't consider the books being professionally published to be a bar.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Michael Grosberg <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> He wasn't getting smacked enough IMO. There was the plot line about
> how it was impossible to transfigure a part of an object until MOR-
> Harry taught himself to do it. This should not have worked IMO. I
> expected Harry to fail - to realize that magic is a sort of high-level
> API, not a basic force - but he managed to do it just by thinking on
> subatomic particles, a total cop-out. Currently it's just too much of
> a power fantasy - MOR Harry just can't fail. Sure, he's a naive
> dickhead, but an overpowered one.

But he did *not* transfigure it by thinking about subatomic particles -
this approach just did not work. Not even by thinking about quantum wave
function. He had to use little known, obscure QM representation (the
point presumably being that this reflect the physial reality).

[David Johnston]

On 1/4/2012 8:05 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>
>> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not
>> in, IIRC, Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's
>> published automatically removes it from the fanfic category. That's
>> not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)
>
> As short-hand to describe what I thought had happened to one series,
> I've told a number of friends that it started out promising but quickly
> degenerated to writing fanfic in their own universe. So apparently I
> don't consider the books being professionally published to be a bar.

That or you sometimes commit metaphor.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 15:05:08 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>
>> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not
>> in, IIRC, Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's
>> published automatically removes it from the fanfic category. That's
>> not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)
>
> As short-hand to describe what I thought had happened to one series,
> I've told a number of friends that it started out promising but quickly
> degenerated to writing fanfic in their own universe. So apparently I
> don't consider the books being professionally published to be a bar.

Yeah, but there, aren't you essentially using "fanfic" as a reference
to quality, saying it's self-indulgent and not up to the writer's
previous standards?

You're saying that it's the kind of thing you'd imagine to be fanfic,
leaving out a few words.

Or does fanfic no longer require a fan to be doing it?

This is what bugs me about the broadening of the term -- it was coined
to mean something specific, and was a useful term as such. It
distinguished between authorized, professional work and unauthorized
work done by fans. But once you start expanding it to any work that the
author enjoyed doing, including work done on professional assignment,
or even (in this case) by the person who created and presumably owns
the material, then the usefulness of the original term is gone. You
might as well just call it "fiction," because you've expanded the
boundaries to include everything.

And then you need a new term to describe what the term was coined to
describe in the first place.

I don't spend too much time in fanfic circles (except by Ryk's
standards, where my entire career is fanfic), but my sense of how the
word is used is far more in keeping with the original coining. If
someone says they wrote a fanfic story, the listener (if they
understand the term at all) doesn't assume they were commissioned to
write a novel featuring characters of their own creation and set in a
world they own, they assume that it's an unauthorized story written by
a fan of the characters and setting.

Expanding the term by using it as a comparative (as you seem to be
doing) or just as a way to say authors have influences (as Ryk seems
to) isn't seen as the accepted meaning -- it's an allusion to the real
meaning in your case, just as someone might refer to a professional
production as "amateur hour" without literally meaning that the
perpetrators are amateurs, or a recognition of the commonalities among
writers in Ryk's case.

But if someone says "fanfic," people don't assume it refers to the new
Harry Dresden novel, even though Jim Butcher is a fan of the things
he's influenced by, or to episodes of STAR TREK written by
screenwriters who grew up fans of the franchise. Or even of Heinlein's
late works where he returns to older characters and plays with them
like a fan might.

People assume it means an unauthorized work written by fans, not with
the intent of selling it.

Or so it seems to me.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:

> On 2012-01-04 15:05:08 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>
>>> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not
>>> in, IIRC, Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's
>>> published automatically removes it from the fanfic category. That's
>>> not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)
>>
>> As short-hand to describe what I thought had happened to one series,
>> I've told a number of friends that it started out promising but quickly
>> degenerated to writing fanfic in their own universe. So apparently I
>> don't consider the books being professionally published to be a bar.
>
> Yeah, but there, aren't you essentially using "fanfic" as a reference
> to quality, saying it's self-indulgent and not up to the writer's
> previous standards?

Pretty much that, yes.

> You're saying that it's the kind of thing you'd imagine to be fanfic,
> leaving out a few words.
>
> Or does fanfic no longer require a fan to be doing it?

These people didn't hold up to my standards, but they weren't hacks; so
they were probably fans of their own work.

> This is what bugs me about the broadening of the term -- it was coined
> to mean something specific, and was a useful term as such. It
> distinguished between authorized, professional work and unauthorized
> work done by fans. But once you start expanding it to any work that
> the author enjoyed doing, including work done on professional
> assignment, or even (in this case) by the person who created and
> presumably owns the material, then the usefulness of the original term
> is gone. You might as well just call it "fiction," because you've
> expanded the boundaries to include everything.

"Enjoyed" is not at all the issue. "Not up to professional standards in
particular ways (largely focusing on self-indulgence)" is the issue.

> And then you need a new term to describe what the term was coined to
> describe in the first place.
>
> I don't spend too much time in fanfic circles (except by Ryk's
> standards, where my entire career is fanfic), but my sense of how the
> word is used is far more in keeping with the original coining. If
> someone says they wrote a fanfic story, the listener (if they
> understand the term at all) doesn't assume they were commissioned to
> write a novel featuring characters of their own creation and set in a
> world they own, they assume that it's an unauthorized story written by
> a fan of the characters and setting.
>
> Expanding the term by using it as a comparative (as you seem to be
> doing) or just as a way to say authors have influences (as Ryk seems
> to) isn't seen as the accepted meaning -- it's an allusion to the real
> meaning in your case, just as someone might refer to a professional
> production as "amateur hour" without literally meaning that the
> perpetrators are amateurs, or a recognition of the commonalities among
> writers in Ryk's case.

Writing stories involving characters not your own seems to me to be the
core of "fanfic". In particular I don't hear people describe bad
slushpile stories in original universes as "fanfic"; it doesn't mean
just "bad". Maybe there's another layer on top of that. I know some
people say it has to be non-commercial, but I'm pretty sure that's a red
herring.

And "fanfic" is what lots of people who LIKE it call it, too; so it
certainly doesn't mean just "bad" to them.

> But if someone says "fanfic," people don't assume it refers to the new
> Harry Dresden novel, even though Jim Butcher is a fan of the things
> he's influenced by, or to episodes of STAR TREK written by
> screenwriters who grew up fans of the franchise. Or even of Heinlein's
> late works where he returns to older characters and plays with them
> like a fan might.
>
> People assume it means an unauthorized work written by fans, not with
> the intent of selling it.

To a lot of people, it has a lot of overtones of "badly written",
especially self-indulgent.

> Or so it seems to me.

I don't know of an example off-hand, but there *must* be stories written
as fanfic and eventually professionally published by now. Which is a
big part of why I think the professional aspect can't be a gating
factor.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/4/12 1:14 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> I don't know of an example off-hand, but there *must* be stories written
> as fanfic and eventually professionally published by now.

The first examples I encountered were the "Star Trek: The New Voyages"
anthologies edited by Marshak and Culbreath. Undeniable fanfic --
published originally in paper fanzines -- and published professionally.

By Kurt's standards, it stopped being fanfic the moment the contract
was signed. The advantage of his definition is that it is, as he points
out, more focused and thus more useful in a specific conversational sense.

On the other hand, I really have a hard time considering something
published in a fanzine, typed up by some die-hard Trekkie to satisfy
their need for More Trek, to NOT be a fanfic even if a miracle occurs
and that same story then gets published.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:

> On 1/4/12 1:14 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> I don't know of an example off-hand, but there *must* be stories written
>> as fanfic and eventually professionally published by now.
>
> The first examples I encountered were the "Star Trek: The New Voyages" anthologies edited by Marshak and Culbreath. Undeniable fanfic --
> published originally in paper fanzines -- and published professionally.
>
> By Kurt's standards, it stopped being fanfic the moment the
> contract was signed. The advantage of his definition is that it is, as
> he points out, more focused and thus more useful in a specific
> conversational sense.
>
> On the other hand, I really have a hard time considering
> something published in a fanzine, typed up by some die-hard Trekkie to
> satisfy their need for More Trek, to NOT be a fanfic even if a miracle
> occurs and that same story then gets published.

To the extent that there isn't much of that, perhaps it doesn't matter
exactly how we classify it.

But in general, lots of the discussion around authors' motives gets
complicated when the category changes without a change in intent. Plus,
the intent isn't determinable (though what the author *says* they
intended is of interest). Similarly, if we start pulling out of
'fanfic' the ones that got professionally published, we'll bias the
quality stats.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 18:14:31 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-01-04 15:05:08 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not
>>>> in, IIRC, Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's
>>>> published automatically removes it from the fanfic category. That's
>>>> not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)
>>>
>>> As short-hand to describe what I thought had happened to one series,
>>> I've told a number of friends that it started out promising but quickly
>>> degenerated to writing fanfic in their own universe. So apparently I
>>> don't consider the books being professionally published to be a bar.
>>
>> Yeah, but there, aren't you essentially using "fanfic" as a reference
>> to quality, saying it's self-indulgent and not up to the writer's
>> previous standards?
>
> Pretty much that, yes.
>
>> You're saying that it's the kind of thing you'd imagine to be fanfic,
>> leaving out a few words.
>>
>> Or does fanfic no longer require a fan to be doing it?
>
> These people didn't hold up to my standards, but they weren't hacks; so
> they were probably fans of their own work.

I think that's an un-useful way to use the word "fan."

>> This is what bugs me about the broadening of the term -- it was coined
>> to mean something specific, and was a useful term as such. It
>> distinguished between authorized, professional work and unauthorized
>> work done by fans. But once you start expanding it to any work that
>> the author enjoyed doing, including work done on professional
>> assignment, or even (in this case) by the person who created and
>> presumably owns the material, then the usefulness of the original term
>> is gone. You might as well just call it "fiction," because you've
>> expanded the boundaries to include everything.
>
> "Enjoyed" is not at all the issue. "Not up to professional standards in
> particular ways (largely focusing on self-indulgence)" is the issue.

So you're using the term as a measure of quality, but as someone else
noted, it's a metaphoric use -- you're saying it's the sort of thing
you'd expect from an unprofessional writer, but not actually claiming
the writer isn't a pro.

Ryk is using it differently, to say that if we write what we enjoy,
we're fans of it, and therefore it's all fanfic, which, as noted,
strikes me as watering down the term to the point of uselessness.

>> And then you need a new term to describe what the term was coined to
>> describe in the first place.
>>
>> I don't spend too much time in fanfic circles (except by Ryk's
>> standards, where my entire career is fanfic), but my sense of how the
>> word is used is far more in keeping with the original coining. If
>> someone says they wrote a fanfic story, the listener (if they
>> understand the term at all) doesn't assume they were commissioned to
>> write a novel featuring characters of their own creation and set in a
>> world they own, they assume that it's an unauthorized story written by
>> a fan of the characters and setting.
>>
>> Expanding the term by using it as a comparative (as you seem to be
>> doing) or just as a way to say authors have influences (as Ryk seems
>> to) isn't seen as the accepted meaning -- it's an allusion to the real
>> meaning in your case, just as someone might refer to a professional
>> production as "amateur hour" without literally meaning that the
>> perpetrators are amateurs, or a recognition of the commonalities among
>> writers in Ryk's case.
>
> Writing stories involving characters not your own seems to me to be the
> core of "fanfic".

I think "unauthorized" and "not intended for sale to the owners" need
to be in there, too. Otherwise, Harlan Ellison's "City on the Edge of
Forever" is fanfic, because he didn't own the characters. And if I
pitch a Spider-Man story to Marvel, it's fanfic.

I don't think either of those are fanfic, whatever Harlan or I may have
felt about the Trek characters and Spider-Man. They were professional
work, or an effort to gain professional work.

> In particular I don't hear people describe bad
> slushpile stories in original universes as "fanfic"; it doesn't mean
> just "bad". Maybe there's another layer on top of that. I know some
> people say it has to be non-commercial, but I'm pretty sure that's a red
> herring.
>
> And "fanfic" is what lots of people who LIKE it call it, too; so it
> certainly doesn't mean just "bad" to them.
>
>> But if someone says "fanfic," people don't assume it refers to the new
>> Harry Dresden novel, even though Jim Butcher is a fan of the things
>> he's influenced by, or to episodes of STAR TREK written by
>> screenwriters who grew up fans of the franchise. Or even of Heinlein's
>> late works where he returns to older characters and plays with them
>> like a fan might.
>>
>> People assume it means an unauthorized work written by fans, not with
>> the intent of selling it.
>
> To a lot of people, it has a lot of overtones of "badly written",
> especially self-indulgent.

I think that's the metaphoric use discussed above -- first you need the
concept of fan-written stories to establish a reputation for low
quality, and then you can use the term as a comparison.

>> Or so it seems to me.
>
> I don't know of an example off-hand, but there *must* be stories written
> as fanfic and eventually professionally published by now.

There are.

> Which is a
> big part of why I think the professional aspect can't be a gating
> factor.

Why not? If I write a story about Marvel superheroes for my own
amusement (as I did with THE BATTLE OF LEXINGTON, a comic Scott McCloud
and I did for fun when we were in high school), that's fanfic. If I
write a story to sell to Marvel, that's not. There's a clear difference
in intent.

Is the TV show JUSTIFIED fanfic, because Elmore Leonard isn't writing
the episodes?

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 18:23:06 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

> On 1/4/12 1:14 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> I don't know of an example off-hand, but there *must* be stories written
>> as fanfic and eventually professionally published by now.
>
> The first examples I encountered were the "Star Trek: The New Voyages"
> anthologies edited by Marshak and Culbreath. Undeniable fanfic --
> published originally in paper fanzines -- and published professionally.
>
> By Kurt's standards, it stopped being fanfic the moment the contract
> was signed.

If I remember the discussion we had about this years ago, then I
ultimately settled on a distinction that it was written as fanfic, and
can certainly be regarded as fanfic that later got picked up and
published for profit.

But it's still not the same thing as, say, Peter David's STAR TREK
novels and comics. He's written Trek fanfic and he's written
professional Trek stories, and we can easily draw a distinction between
them.

> The advantage of his definition is that it is, as he points out, more
> focused and thus more useful in a specific conversational sense.
>
> On the other hand, I really have a hard time considering something
> published in a fanzine, typed up by some die-hard Trekkie to satisfy
> their need for More Trek, to NOT be a fanfic even if a miracle occurs
> and that same story then gets published.

I'm happy to grant you that, if it's a sticking point. If it was done
as fanfic, it can be called fanfic forever, even if it was later
published for profit by an authorized rights holder.

That seems like a minor side-issue to me, compared to saying that
EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is fanfic because Leigh Brackett didn't own the
Star Wars franchise.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:

> I'm happy to grant you that, if it's a sticking point. If it was done
> as fanfic, it can be called fanfic forever, even if it was later
> published for profit by an authorized rights holder.

Seems reasonable. Also, the number of cases is at least so far fairly
small, so it doesn't really make much difference.

> That seems like a minor side-issue to me, compared to saying that
> EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is fanfic because Leigh Brackett didn't own the
> Star Wars franchise.

Well, could be hack-work instead :-).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:

> On 2012-01-04 18:14:31 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>
>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2012-01-04 15:05:08 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>>
>>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not
>>>>> in, IIRC, Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's
>>>>> published automatically removes it from the fanfic category. That's
>>>>> not my position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)
>>>>
>>>> As short-hand to describe what I thought had happened to one series,
>>>> I've told a number of friends that it started out promising but quickly
>>>> degenerated to writing fanfic in their own universe. So apparently I
>>>> don't consider the books being professionally published to be a bar.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but there, aren't you essentially using "fanfic" as a reference
>>> to quality, saying it's self-indulgent and not up to the writer's
>>> previous standards?
>>
>> Pretty much that, yes.
>>
>>> You're saying that it's the kind of thing you'd imagine to be fanfic,
>>> leaving out a few words.
>>>
>>> Or does fanfic no longer require a fan to be doing it?
>>
>> These people didn't hold up to my standards, but they weren't hacks; so
>> they were probably fans of their own work.
>
> I think that's an un-useful way to use the word "fan."

Oh, dear; I think that's the *core* meaning of fan. Perhaps I should
add, "a little too much..." to the above case, though.

>>> This is what bugs me about the broadening of the term -- it was coined
>>> to mean something specific, and was a useful term as such. It
>>> distinguished between authorized, professional work and unauthorized
>>> work done by fans. But once you start expanding it to any work that
>>> the author enjoyed doing, including work done on professional
>>> assignment, or even (in this case) by the person who created and
>>> presumably owns the material, then the usefulness of the original term
>>> is gone. You might as well just call it "fiction," because you've
>>> expanded the boundaries to include everything.
>>
>> "Enjoyed" is not at all the issue. "Not up to professional standards in
>> particular ways (largely focusing on self-indulgence)" is the issue.
>
> So you're using the term as a measure of quality, but as someone else
> noted, it's a metaphoric use -- you're saying it's the sort of thing
> you'd expect from an unprofessional writer, but not actually claiming
> the writer isn't a pro.
>
> Ryk is using it differently, to say that if we write what we enjoy,
> we're fans of it, and therefore it's all fanfic, which, as noted,
> strikes me as watering down the term to the point of uselessness.

I agree, and I'm reasonably sure he's doing that tactically, in an
attempt to disable the word.

I kind of think they *are*, is the thing. They're either hack-work
(something you don't care about done just for money), or fanfic. The
impulse to do them is some blend of the two.

>> In particular I don't hear people describe bad
>> slushpile stories in original universes as "fanfic"; it doesn't mean
>> just "bad". Maybe there's another layer on top of that. I know some
>> people say it has to be non-commercial, but I'm pretty sure that's a red
>> herring.
>>
>> And "fanfic" is what lots of people who LIKE it call it, too; so it
>> certainly doesn't mean just "bad" to them.
>>
>>> But if someone says "fanfic," people don't assume it refers to the new
>>> Harry Dresden novel, even though Jim Butcher is a fan of the things
>>> he's influenced by, or to episodes of STAR TREK written by
>>> screenwriters who grew up fans of the franchise. Or even of Heinlein's
>>> late works where he returns to older characters and plays with them
>>> like a fan might.
>>>
>>> People assume it means an unauthorized work written by fans, not with
>>> the intent of selling it.
>>
>> To a lot of people, it has a lot of overtones of "badly written",
>> especially self-indulgent.
>
> I think that's the metaphoric use discussed above -- first you need
> the concept of fan-written stories to establish a reputation for low
> quality, and then you can use the term as a comparison.

That's the historical development, at least. I rather think that the
urge to tell more stories with other people's characters is highly
suspect.

>>> Or so it seems to me.
>>
>> I don't know of an example off-hand, but there *must* be stories written
>> as fanfic and eventually professionally published by now.
>
> There are.

And others have provided examples; I thought there would be.

>> Which is a
>> big part of why I think the professional aspect can't be a gating
>> factor.
>
> Why not? If I write a story about Marvel superheroes for my own
> amusement (as I did with THE BATTLE OF LEXINGTON, a comic Scott
> McCloud and I did for fun when we were in high school), that's
> fanfic. If I write a story to sell to Marvel, that's not. There's a
> clear difference in intent.

Circular; does the definition of fanfic bear on commercial intent? I
think that's just what we're discussing.

> Is the TV show JUSTIFIED fanfic, because Elmore Leonard isn't writing
> the episodes?

Arguably, all TV shows partake of the fanfic nature, since they're
nearly all done using other people's characters. (Or else the hack-work
nature, which may be more accurate.)

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/4/12 2:58 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Kurt Busiek<ku...@busiek.com> writes:

>> Ryk is using it differently, to say that if we write what we enjoy,
>> we're fans of it, and therefore it's all fanfic, which, as noted,
>> strikes me as watering down the term to the point of uselessness.
>
> I agree, and I'm reasonably sure he's doing that tactically, in an
> attempt to disable the word.
>

I don't do anything tactically that I'm aware of, and I am not
attempting to disable anything.

[David Johnston]

On 1/4/2012 12:58 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>> I don't think either of those are fanfic, whatever Harlan or I may
>> have felt about the Trek characters and Spider-Man. They were
>> professional work, or an effort to gain professional work.
>
> I kind of think they *are*, is the thing. They're either hack-work
> (something you don't care about done just for money), or fanfic. The
> impulse to do them is some blend of the two.

But that isn't consistent with your definition of fanfic as bad.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 19:58:35 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-01-04 18:14:31 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>
>>> These people didn't hold up to my standards, but they weren't hacks; so
>>> they were probably fans of their own work.
>>
>> I think that's an un-useful way to use the word "fan."
>
> Oh, dear; I think that's the *core* meaning of fan. Perhaps I should
> add, "a little too much..." to the above case, though.

I don't think that's the core meaning of fan, and certainly not the way
we use the term.

We get fannish about things we're the audience for, not the creators
of. We may be proud of the things we create, but we're the creators,
the sculptors, the puppeteers. That's a different vantage point than
the fans.

>> Ryk is using it differently, to say that if we write what we enjoy,
>> we're fans of it, and therefore it's all fanfic, which, as noted,
>> strikes me as watering down the term to the point of uselessness.
>
> I agree, and I'm reasonably sure he's doing that tactically, in an
> attempt to disable the word.

I don't. I think he's just focusing on the commonality of enthusiasm,
and missing -- to my mind, at least -- the point of making the
distinction the term was coined to make.

We already have a word for fiction influenced by stuff the author has
been affected by in his or her life; it's "fiction."

>> I think "unauthorized" and "not intended for sale to the owners" need
>> to be in there, too. Otherwise, Harlan Ellison's "City on the Edge of
>> Forever" is fanfic, because he didn't own the characters. And if I
>> pitch a Spider-Man story to Marvel, it's fanfic.
>>
>> I don't think either of those are fanfic, whatever Harlan or I may
>> have felt about the Trek characters and Spider-Man. They were
>> professional work, or an effort to gain professional work.
>
> I kind of think they *are*, is the thing. They're either hack-work
> (something you don't care about done just for money), or fanfic.

I disagree completely. You think fanfic is junky, and you can't have a
good opinion of hackwork, I'd guess, so you leave no room for a
professional job done to high standards, with enthusiasm but not done
out of fannishness.

I'm a fan of Spider-Man, but I don't write Spider-Man stories to
express that fannishness or because I want more of what I'm a fan of --
I bring enthusiasm to the job, but it's a different process than doing
things out of fannishness. This is why I'm resisting equating
enthusiasm or influence to fandom -- they may have overlap, but they're
not interchangeable ideas.

>> Why not? If I write a story about Marvel superheroes for my own
>> amusement (as I did with THE BATTLE OF LEXINGTON, a comic Scott
>> McCloud and I did for fun when we were in high school), that's
>> fanfic. If I write a story to sell to Marvel, that's not. There's a
>> clear difference in intent.
>
> Circular; does the definition of fanfic bear on commercial intent? I
> think that's just what we're discussing.

I think "circular" and "definitional" have some overlap, too, but I
think it's definitional. The term fanfic was coined to describe stories
that did not fall into the category of professional story pitches or
work done for hire.

>> Is the TV show JUSTIFIED fanfic, because Elmore Leonard isn't writing
>> the episodes?
>
> Arguably, all TV shows partake of the fanfic nature, since they're
> nearly all done using other people's characters. (Or else the hack-work
> nature, which may be more accurate.)

"Partake of the…nature" strikes me as a way of saying that the writer
has to be drawing on some enthusiasm, but that you're not prepared to
dive right in and call them fanfic. So you seem to see a difference.
They're not fanfic, but they have some areas of overlap.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 20:00:00 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> That seems like a minor side-issue to me, compared to saying that
>> EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is fanfic because Leigh Brackett didn't own the
>> Star Wars franchise.
>
> Well, could be hack-work instead :-).

Or professional writing.

There's no need to pick a denigrating category to assign all work with
characters one doesn't own to; that's just dismissive and insulting.

And again, it's an un-useful redefinition of what were useful words
once, but if they're redefined that way, they no longer serve the
purpose they used to serve well. Before the term fanfic existed, we
were perfectly able to describe professional assignments as such; we
don't need to stretch the term fanfic out of shape to include pro-fic.
Let it describe what it was meant to describe in the first place; the
stuff still exists, and it's good to have a term for it that
distinguishes it from the stuff it was meant to distinguish it from.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Having watched the term develop for decades, I'll freely admit to being
confused about exaclty what it means.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/4/12 3:54 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> David Johnston<Da...@block.net> writes:
>
>> On 1/4/2012 12:58 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't think either of those are fanfic, whatever Harlan or I may
>>>> have felt about the Trek characters and Spider-Man. They were
>>>> professional work, or an effort to gain professional work.
>>>
>>> I kind of think they *are*, is the thing. They're either hack-work
>>> (something you don't care about done just for money), or fanfic. The
>>> impulse to do them is some blend of the two.
>>
>> But that isn't consistent with your definition of fanfic as bad.
>
> Having watched the term develop for decades, I'll freely admit to being
> confused about exaclty what it means.

The simple, focused definition:

Fiction produced by fans of a work deriving directly from that work, or
works in the case of crossovers.

More focused -- I think the Kurt definition:
UNAUTHORIZED fiction produced by fans of a work or works deriving
directly from that work or works.

There is -- and should be -- no judgment of quality in the term
"fanfic". Fanfic in its usual sense is of course a living slushpile,
which means -- like the regular publisher's slushpile -- most of it is
toxically bad. However, like the regular publisher's slushpile, there
are also towering masterpieces of literature hidden therein.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:

> On 2012-01-04 19:58:35 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>
>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2012-01-04 18:14:31 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>>
>>>> These people didn't hold up to my standards, but they weren't hacks; so
>>>> they were probably fans of their own work.
>>>
>>> I think that's an un-useful way to use the word "fan."
>>
>> Oh, dear; I think that's the *core* meaning of fan. Perhaps I should
>> add, "a little too much..." to the above case, though.
>
> I don't think that's the core meaning of fan, and certainly not the
> way we use the term.
>
> We get fannish about things we're the audience for, not the creators
> of. We may be proud of the things we create, but we're the creators,
> the sculptors, the puppeteers. That's a different vantage point than
> the fans.

Yes, precisely; that's why "fans of their own work" is such a key point.

>>> Ryk is using it differently, to say that if we write what we enjoy,
>>> we're fans of it, and therefore it's all fanfic, which, as noted,
>>> strikes me as watering down the term to the point of uselessness.
>>
>> I agree, and I'm reasonably sure he's doing that tactically, in an
>> attempt to disable the word.
>
> I don't. I think he's just focusing on the commonality of enthusiasm,
> and missing -- to my mind, at least -- the point of making the
> distinction the term was coined to make.

And he denies my theory, so I'm wrong on that.

> We already have a word for fiction influenced by stuff the author has
> been affected by in his or her life; it's "fiction."

Yeah; or more to the point, no word for the other kind, that's
completely NOT influenced by anything else. Perhaps "incomprehensible"
would do for that case.

>>> I think "unauthorized" and "not intended for sale to the owners" need
>>> to be in there, too. Otherwise, Harlan Ellison's "City on the Edge of
>>> Forever" is fanfic, because he didn't own the characters. And if I
>>> pitch a Spider-Man story to Marvel, it's fanfic.
>>>
>>> I don't think either of those are fanfic, whatever Harlan or I may
>>> have felt about the Trek characters and Spider-Man. They were
>>> professional work, or an effort to gain professional work.
>>
>> I kind of think they *are*, is the thing. They're either hack-work
>> (something you don't care about done just for money), or fanfic.
>
> I disagree completely. You think fanfic is junky, and you can't have a
> good opinion of hackwork, I'd guess, so you leave no room for a
> professional job done to high standards, with enthusiasm but not done
> out of fannishness.

Sure I can; I call it "original work".

> I'm a fan of Spider-Man, but I don't write Spider-Man stories to express that fannishness or because I want more of what I'm a fan of --
> I bring enthusiasm to the job, but it's a different process than doing
> things out of fannishness. This is why I'm resisting equating
> enthusiasm or influence to fandom -- they may have overlap, but
> they're not interchangeable ideas.
>
>>> Why not? If I write a story about Marvel superheroes for my own
>>> amusement (as I did with THE BATTLE OF LEXINGTON, a comic Scott
>>> McCloud and I did for fun when we were in high school), that's
>>> fanfic. If I write a story to sell to Marvel, that's not. There's a
>>> clear difference in intent.
>>
>> Circular; does the definition of fanfic bear on commercial intent? I
>> think that's just what we're discussing.
>
> I think "circular" and "definitional" have some overlap, too, but I
> think it's definitional. The term fanfic was coined to describe
> stories that did not fall into the category of professional story
> pitches or work done for hire.

And I think the motivations and processes are essentially the same
(except for hack-work; money is the *other* reason why people do
things).

>>> Is the TV show JUSTIFIED fanfic, because Elmore Leonard isn't writing
>>> the episodes?
>>
>> Arguably, all TV shows partake of the fanfic nature, since they're
>> nearly all done using other people's characters. (Or else the hack-work
>> nature, which may be more accurate.)
>
> "Partake of the…nature" strikes me as a way of saying that the writer
> has to be drawing on some enthusiasm, but that you're not prepared to
> dive right in and call them fanfic. So you seem to see a
> difference. They're not fanfic, but they have some areas of overlap.

I suspect I'm missing areas of understanding why authors do things.
Maybe. I can't tell, really, despite hearing quite a lot from actual
authors both in person and online.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/4/12 3:59 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Kurt Busiek<ku...@busiek.com> writes:

>> "Partake of the…nature" strikes me as a way of saying that the writer
>> has to be drawing on some enthusiasm, but that you're not prepared to
>> dive right in and call them fanfic. So you seem to see a
>> difference. They're not fanfic, but they have some areas of overlap.
>
> I suspect I'm missing areas of understanding why authors do things.

1) Money.
2) Enthusiasm over the subject area
3) Promote some idea
4) To make someone else happy
5) To fulfill an obligation (see also 1 above)
6) Fame (note that practicality and sanity are not prerequisites of
authors)

Any or all of the above, and others I haven't stated.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:

> On 2012-01-04 20:00:00 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>
>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>>
>>> That seems like a minor side-issue to me, compared to saying that
>>> EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is fanfic because Leigh Brackett didn't own the
>>> Star Wars franchise.
>>
>> Well, could be hack-work instead :-).
>
> Or professional writing.

Yahbut, there's a very useful distinction between Twain writing to earn
a living (clearly professional writing) and a ghost-writer dashing out a
men's adventure book every week all year to make a living. Isn't there?
It seems to me very much the case that sometimes people write things
they really want to write about, and get paid for it, and other times
write things other people want solely for the money. The examples are
intended to be extreme cases; certainly in the real world there will be
intermediate cases; people excuse Zelazny's second Amber series largely
because he had children in college, for example.

> There's no need to pick a denigrating category to assign all work with
> characters one doesn't own to; that's just dismissive and insulting.

Yeah, well, I have kind of a failure to comprehend why sombody would
waste their time playing in another writer's sandbox that way.

> And again, it's an un-useful redefinition of what were useful words
> once, but if they're redefined that way, they no longer serve the
> purpose they used to serve well. Before the term fanfic existed, we
> were perfectly able to describe professional assignments as such; we
> don't need to stretch the term fanfic out of shape to include
> pro-fic. Let it describe what it was meant to describe in the first
> place; the stuff still exists, and it's good to have a term for it
> that distinguishes it from the stuff it was meant to distinguish it
> from.

I think the coming of fanfic gave us insights into why people write that
we didn't previously have, and has changed the landscape of how people
view these things because of that.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2012-01-04 15:59:18 -0500, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) said:

> On 1/4/12 3:54 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> David Johnston<Da...@block.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 1/4/2012 12:58 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't think either of those are fanfic, whatever Harlan or I may
>>>>> have felt about the Trek characters and Spider-Man. They were
>>>>> professional work, or an effort to gain professional work.
>>>>
>>>> I kind of think they *are*, is the thing. They're either hack-work
>>>> (something you don't care about done just for money), or fanfic. The
>>>> impulse to do them is some blend of the two.
>>>
>>> But that isn't consistent with your definition of fanfic as bad.
>>
>> Having watched the term develop for decades, I'll freely admit to being
>> confused about exaclty what it means.
>
> The simple, focused definition:
>
> Fiction produced by fans of a work deriving directly from that work,
> or works in the case of crossovers.
>
> More focused -- I think the Kurt definition:
> UNAUTHORIZED fiction produced by fans of a work or works deriving
> directly from that work or works.

And mine would be, "UNAUTHORIZED fiction produced by fans of a work or
works deriving directly from that work or works, by someone other than
the original creator of the work or works." I don't believe it counts
as fanfic if it's by the originator even if he or she no longer owns
the original.

> There is -- and should be -- no judgment of quality in the term
> "fanfic". Fanfic in its usual sense is of course a living slushpile,
> which means -- like the regular publisher's slushpile -- most of it is
> toxically bad. However, like the regular publisher's slushpile, there
> are also towering masterpieces of literature hidden therein.

Indeed.



--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2012-01-04 16:03:39 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet said:

> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-01-04 20:00:00 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>
>>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> That seems like a minor side-issue to me, compared to saying that
>>>> EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is fanfic because Leigh Brackett didn't own the
>>>> Star Wars franchise.
>>>
>>> Well, could be hack-work instead :-).
>>
>> Or professional writing.
>
> Yahbut, there's a very useful distinction between Twain writing to earn
> a living (clearly professional writing) and a ghost-writer dashing out a
> men's adventure book every week all year to make a living. Isn't there?

No.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/4/12 4:03 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Yeah, well, I have kind of a failure to comprehend why sombody would
> waste their time playing in another writer's sandbox that way.
>

Because it's FUN.

Because they see something in the other writer's sandbox that the other
writer didn't, and feel it should be expanded upon.

Because they have a story to tell that needs part of that sandbox.

Because it's a challenge. Don't let anyone convince you it's easier;
it's not. It's a DIFFERENT challenge than writing something in your own
universe, but it's not by any means easier.

There are a THOUSAND reasons to do so. I left out "because they'll be
well paid to do so", of course.

And then there's the question of "when am I *NOT* playing in someone's
sandbox, or at least not stealing the toys out of his sandbox?". It's
not a cut and dried answer.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I don't quite agree; I think it's quite possible (actually, I KNOW it
is, having done it) to have the Fanfic Impulse make you write something
in your own universe that's not sanctioned (in the sense that you won't
take it as canon) and not intended for publication, and in that case I
have no better word for it than fanfic.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

I've done that (see "The Unwanted Wardrobe" et al.), but I don't
consider it fanfic.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 20:59:18 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

> On 1/4/12 3:54 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> David Johnston<Da...@block.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 1/4/2012 12:58 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't think either of those are fanfic, whatever Harlan or I may
>>>>> have felt about the Trek characters and Spider-Man. They were
>>>>> professional work, or an effort to gain professional work.
>>>>
>>>> I kind of think they *are*, is the thing. They're either hack-work
>>>> (something you don't care about done just for money), or fanfic. The
>>>> impulse to do them is some blend of the two.
>>>
>>> But that isn't consistent with your definition of fanfic as bad.
>>
>> Having watched the term develop for decades, I'll freely admit to being
>> confused about exaclty what it means.
>
> The simple, focused definition:
>
> Fiction produced by fans of a work deriving directly from that work,
> or works in the case of crossovers.
>
> More focused -- I think the Kurt definition:
> UNAUTHORIZED fiction produced by fans of a work or works deriving
> directly from that work or works.

I'd add one more caveat, though I'm not sure how to phrase it, that the
work is not being produced with the intention of securing professional
work. If a screenwriter writes a NEW GIRL spec script as a submission,
that's unauthorized, but whether or not he's a fan of the show, he's
not writing it as fanfic, but as a professional sample.

What complicates this more is that spec scripts aren't written for the
show they're being submitted to. If I want a job writing BATMAN, I'd
write a Batman pitch and submit it to the Batman editor at DC. But if
Joe Screenwriter wants a job writing 2 BROKE GIRLS, he can't show them
a 2BG spec, because they have legal reasons not to read scripts for
their own show that weren't assigned. So the guy writes a NEW GIRL spec
or a HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER spec, and the 2 BROKE GIRLS producer can
read that as a script sample, judging the writer's skill, without
considering buying that actual script.

So in that case, he's written unauthorized fiction deriving from a
work, and he's using it to seek paying work from someone other than the
rights holder of the work he derived it from. But it's still a
professional sample, an attempt to get work.

It's possible, I'd assume, for something like that to be fanfic as well
as a pro submission, but it's also possible for it not to be, so I'd
put something in the definition to cover that.

> There is -- and should be -- no judgment of quality in the term
> "fanfic". Fanfic in its usual sense is of course a living slushpile,
> which means -- like the regular publisher's slushpile -- most of it is
> toxically bad. However, like the regular publisher's slushpile, there
> are also towering masterpieces of literature hidden therein.

One would hope. In both cases.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 20:59:28 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-01-04 19:58:35 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>
>>> I kind of think they *are*, is the thing. They're either hack-work
>>> (something you don't care about done just for money), or fanfic.
>>
>> I disagree completely. You think fanfic is junky, and you can't have a
>> good opinion of hackwork, I'd guess, so you leave no room for a
>> professional job done to high standards, with enthusiasm but not done
>> out of fannishness.
>
> Sure I can; I call it "original work".

I wouldn't call the screenplay for EMPIRE "original work," since it's
derivative, but I wouldn't call it hackwork or fanfic either. It's a
professional job done to high standards.

I don't think "original work" and "hackwork" are exclusive, either. I
think they overlap considerably.

So my disagreement continues.

>> I think "circular" and "definitional" have some overlap, too, but I
>> think it's definitional. The term fanfic was coined to describe
>> stories that did not fall into the category of professional story
>> pitches or work done for hire.
>
> And I think the motivations and processes are essentially the same
> (except for hack-work; money is the *other* reason why people do
> things).

Having done all of these things, I think you're mistaken.

>> "Partake of the…nature" strikes me as a way of saying that the writer
>> has to be drawing on some enthusiasm, but that you're not prepared to
>> dive right in and call them fanfic. So you seem to see a
>> difference. They're not fanfic, but they have some areas of overlap.
>
> I suspect I'm missing areas of understanding why authors do things.

I suspect you are.

[David Johnston]

On 1/4/2012 1:54 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> David Johnston<Da...@block.net> writes:
>
>> On 1/4/2012 12:58 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't think either of those are fanfic, whatever Harlan or I may
>>>> have felt about the Trek characters and Spider-Man. They were
>>>> professional work, or an effort to gain professional work.
>>>
>>> I kind of think they *are*, is the thing. They're either hack-work
>>> (something you don't care about done just for money), or fanfic. The
>>> impulse to do them is some blend of the two.
>>
>> But that isn't consistent with your definition of fanfic as bad.
>
> Having watched the term develop for decades, I'll freely admit to being
> confused about exaclty what it means.

Fanfiction is derivative work written by amateurs. What's confusing
about that?

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 21:03:39 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012-01-04 20:00:00 +0000, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:
>>
>>> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> That seems like a minor side-issue to me, compared to saying that
>>>> EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is fanfic because Leigh Brackett didn't own the
>>>> Star Wars franchise.
>>>
>>> Well, could be hack-work instead :-).
>>
>> Or professional writing.
>
> Yahbut, there's a very useful distinction between Twain writing to earn
> a living (clearly professional writing) and a ghost-writer dashing out a
> men's adventure book every week all year to make a living. Isn't there?

There may well be, just as there's a distinction between writing a
mystery and writing a romance, but we don't need to distort the term
"fanfic" to be a part of it.

Some people write very good stuff quickly, some people agonize over
every phrase and produce crap anyway. Some people write terrific stuff
they don't own, some people write crap they do own.

> It seems to me very much the case that sometimes people write things
> they really want to write about, and get paid for it, and other times
> write things other people want solely for the money.

I think those aren't mutually exclusive categories either.

And I don't think it's useful to class "things they really want to
write about" as "fanfic." That's equating enthusiasm with fannishness,
and while there's overlap there, it's not so much that it makes the
terms interchangeable.

>> There's no need to pick a denigrating category to assign all work with
>> characters one doesn't own to; that's just dismissive and insulting.
>
> Yeah, well, I have kind of a failure to comprehend why sombody would
> waste their time playing in another writer's sandbox that way.

The definitions of the terms probably shouldn't be chosen to fit your
prejudices, though.

You may fail to comprehend it; that doesn't mean the work deserves
denigrating. Much of it may, but so does much work that the creators
own.

>> And again, it's an un-useful redefinition of what were useful words
>> once, but if they're redefined that way, they no longer serve the
>> purpose they used to serve well. Before the term fanfic existed, we
>> were perfectly able to describe professional assignments as such; we
>> don't need to stretch the term fanfic out of shape to include
>> pro-fic. Let it describe what it was meant to describe in the first
>> place; the stuff still exists, and it's good to have a term for it
>> that distinguishes it from the stuff it was meant to distinguish it
>> from.
>
> I think the coming of fanfic gave us insights into why people write that
> we didn't previously have, and has changed the landscape of how people
> view these things because of that.

I think the term "fanfic" is a useful term as originally coined, and
expanding the definition to the point that it no longer serves to make
the distinction it was coined to make is a mistake.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 21:16:37 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

You've tossed another idea into the pit, here -- the idea of canon.

I've written non-canon stories that aren't fanfic, so I don't think
writing something non-canon equates to writing something not
sanctioned. They're stories -- if they don't fit together and you're
fine with that, so be it.

[David Johnston]

On 1/4/2012 2:43 PM, Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2012-01-04 21:16:37 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>
>> On 1/4/12 4:09 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>> And mine would be, "UNAUTHORIZED fiction produced by fans of a work or
>>> works deriving directly from that work or works, by someone other than
>>> the original creator of the work or works." I don't believe it counts as
>>> fanfic if it's by the originator even if he or she no longer owns the
>>> original.
>>
>> I don't quite agree; I think it's quite possible (actually, I KNOW it
>> is, having done it) to have the Fanfic Impulse make you write
>> something in your own universe that's not sanctioned (in the sense
>> that you won't take it as canon) and not intended for publication, and
>> in that case I have no better word for it than fanfic.
>
> You've tossed another idea into the pit, here -- the idea of canon.
>
> I've written non-canon stories that aren't fanfic,

You've written hoaxes, dreams, and imaginary stories?

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

He's definitely written dreams and imaginary stories; I'm drawing a
blank on hoaxes right now.

[Kurt Busiek]

I think the time of the "hoax" story (classically a situation on the
cover that turns out to be a sham inside) had largely passed by the
time my career really got going.

I've certainly written dreams as dreams -- and I wrote SUPERMAN #666,
which was an in-canon dream, since external forces were controlling and
influencing the dream.

And while I don't think I've written anything that was labeled an
"imaginary story," I've written stuff like the Julie Schwartz tribute
stories in the DC COMICS PRESENTS event (mine actually matches up,
mostly, to Silver Age continuity but the project as a whoile is'nt
considered canon), and my part in the SILVER AGE event, which I don't
think was in canon.

The "Imaginary stories" begat the "Elseworlds," and my SUPERMAN: SECRET
IDENTITY story gets classed as an Elseworlds even though we
successfully avoided using the label. It's non-canon as all get out,
and one of the best things I've ever written.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:17:09 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>> Is Scalzi's _Fuzzy Nation_ fanfic?
>>
>
> I wouldn't call it that, mainly because it's basically just a rewrite;
>fics rarely if ever go in that direction. They may rewrite a PARTICULAR
>PLOT POINT that they found noisome, but in general fanfic is an
>EXTENSION of the original(s) in one direction or another.

>
> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not in, IIRC,
>Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's published
>automatically removes it from the fanfic category. That's not my
>position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)

How about a novel which is obviously "The Prisoner of Zenda", or "The
Count of Monte Cristo"? Obviously done with love?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:10:29 -0600, Suzanne Blom <bo...@sueblom.net>
wrote:

>Fanfic is fan fiction written by (or as) an amateur. That is to say,
>somebody who is absolutely passionate about some piece of writing, or a
>movie, or a TV series--called the canon--is disappointed that they can't
>read more about the characters and world so they write their own
>continuation, or a story that somehow didn't get into the canon though
>it happened at the same time, or maybe even, what really happened or
>should have happened instead of what is shown in the canon.

Sometimes a pro will write something for the fun of it - then see if
it is salable (Brust did that). And sometimes some fan will write
something for the fun of it, then gets told to try to sell it - and
succeeds!!!

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2012-01-04 22:52:50 +0000, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:

> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:17:09 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> Is Scalzi's _Fuzzy Nation_ fanfic?
>>
>> I wouldn't call it that, mainly because it's basically just a rewrite;
>> fics rarely if ever go in that direction. They may rewrite a PARTICULAR
>> PLOT POINT that they found noisome, but in general fanfic is an
>> EXTENSION of the original(s) in one direction or another.
>>
>> _The Wizard of Karres_ would be fanfic, in my view (and not in, IIRC,
>> Kurt Busiek's, because he believes that the fact that it's published
>> automatically removes it from the fanfic category. That's not my
>> position but it's a perfectly valid and understandable one.)
>
> How about a novel which is obviously "The Prisoner of Zenda", or "The
> Count of Monte Cristo"? Obviously done with love?

Those are authorized, since the source material is public domain, and
anyone can authorize themselves to use it.