Are OC's the kiss-of-death in BtVS fanfics?
-Andy-
I have a number of original characters (OC's) scattered
throughout my assorted Buffy fanfics. Usually minor
characters (at least 6 mini-Slayers, a store
owner/clerk, a bartender, a couple wiccans. That kind of
character. Someone who appears for a few scenes and
interacts with the main characters. They don't require a
lot of effort to define/write.
But what about a fic where one of the main characters is
an OC? Is anyone going to read a fic with a character
like that?
How different is my writing going to have to be to
successfully support an OC set in the Buffyverse?
Just wondering...
-Andy-
--
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
-- Excepting Alice
Don Sample
"-Andy-" <see2...@spamdelicious.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just a random thought/query...
>
> I have a number of original characters (OC's) scattered
> throughout my assorted Buffy fanfics. Usually minor
> characters (at least 6 mini-Slayers, a store
> owner/clerk, a bartender, a couple wiccans. That kind of
> character. Someone who appears for a few scenes and
> interacts with the main characters. They don't require a
> lot of effort to define/write.
>
> But what about a fic where one of the main characters is
> an OC? Is anyone going to read a fic with a character
> like that?
>
> How different is my writing going to have to be to
> successfully support an OC set in the Buffyverse?
>
> Just wondering...
>
> -Andy-
Too often an OC tends to slip into a Mary Sue mould, but if it's well
written, I have no problems with an OC as a protagonist of a fic. I've
been following both The Apprentice, and Persephone the Vampire Slayer.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
I haven't found my antagonist in the sourcework too). The only OC who's
ever figured significantly in more than one of my fanfiction stories is
Doctor Who's father, who is featured in three crossovers and whose actions
then impact my entire multiverse. People seem to like him. But he was
always only a supporting character for the fanfiction heroes and never
intended to be more than that, so if what you're thinking of is an OC
who's a story/series protagonist that's out of my experience.
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
"You put the Queen on your money; you're British."
Eric Jablow
> Just a random thought/query...
>
> I have a number of original characters (OC's) scattered
> throughout my assorted Buffy fanfics. Usually minor
> characters (at least 6 mini-Slayers, a store
> owner/clerk, a bartender, a couple wiccans. That kind of
> character. Someone who appears for a few scenes and
> interacts with the main characters. They don't require a
> lot of effort to define/write.
There are some very bad stories with original characters,
usually of the Mary Sue or Murray Soo variety. There are
also some very good stories with original characters.
Consider "Not Like Jimmy Olsen", by Blair Provence.
A new SHS student tries to pick her way through the
SHS cliques, gets involved in school with Cordelia
and the Cordettes, and ends up hiding under Giles'
desk during a demon attack. It's as realistic as it
could be; everyone keeps her out of the fight.
Just treat your spear-carriers with respect.
--
Respectfully,
Eric Jablow
Replca
>There are some very bad stories with original characters,
>usually of the Mary Sue or Murray Soo variety. There are
>also some very good stories with original characters.
>Consider "Not Like Jimmy Olsen", by Blair Provence.
>A new SHS student tries to pick her way through the
>SHS cliques, gets involved in school with Cordelia
>and the Cordettes, and ends up hiding under Giles'
>desk during a demon attack. It's as realistic as it
>could be; everyone keeps her out of the fight.
>
very quickly that they aren't a Mary Sue. I do read OCs if they are not what
the story is really about. "Not Like Jimmy Olsen" is a very good example of a
good OC. It was an outsider's view of the Scoobies. The Scoobies weren't the
lead but the story was still all about them.
-Andy-
with:
> I don't read Mary Sues, ever. If there is an OC then
> you have to prove to me very quickly that they aren't
> a Mary Sue.
If it's a blatant Mary Sue, where the fic writer states
that they are doing that up front that's fine/easy to
do...
But how do you "prove very quickly" that an OC isn't a
Mary Sue without giving away the plot and skipping
character development? I don't think they are always
obvious right from the beginning...
"This is Freddy. He's that guy who snored in the back
of the lecture hall during Buffy's Psych classes with
Dr. Walsh. He has no clue what is going on until he
stumbles into a cemetary after a drunken binge one
night and bumps into a vampire, preventing it from
killing Buffy. Oh yeah, He's not a Marty Stue - I don't
drink and I've never taken a Psych class."
Hmmm...
Paul Farrington
That fic sounds interesting. Anyone have a link?
Thanks.
Replca
>Mary Sue without giving away the plot and skipping
>character development? I don't think they are always
>obvious right from the beginning...
If the OC has character development then they aren't Mary Sue. I know I
probably skip some stories where the OC isn't Mary Sue because I've assumed
they were. It isn't always obvious at the start. If the writing is good to
begin with then I will continue reading a story and only stop if the OC starts
to become Mary Sue.
Anytime the author puts 'not a Mary Sue' in the notes I automatically assume
that they are. It's entirely unfair of me but I've found that authors that
feel the need to put that in their notes are only deluding themselves.
In my opinion an author that uses an OC as the main character has to be a very
good author in order to make it work.
BTR1701
> Just a random thought/query...
>
> I have a number of original characters (OC's) scattered
> throughout my assorted Buffy fanfics. Usually minor
> characters (at least 6 mini-Slayers, a store
> owner/clerk, a bartender, a couple wiccans. That kind of
> character. Someone who appears for a few scenes and
> interacts with the main characters. They don't require a
> lot of effort to define/write.
>
> But what about a fic where one of the main characters is
> an OC? Is anyone going to read a fic with a character
> like that?
The story I'm writing ("Blood Prey") has several original characters in
it (Delilah King and Madeline, Faith's first Watcher), plus several
non-Buffy characters from the Stephen King universe (Mark Petrie, Roland
Deschain and Randall Flagg/Walter o'Dim).
It doesn't seem to be hurting for readers. I keep getting e-mails from
people wanting to know when I'm going to post more on my site.
Lawrence Payne
news:Xns95F295F3C...@216.196.97.131...
Forgive me if this sounds a little ego driven, but after giving this topic
some thought, this is the only way I can really come at it.
When I did Trial of the Century [A Hank Summers Joint], I was faced with the
same dilemma. Hank is canon but he is a complete mystery. We know him; but
we know next to nothing about him at the same time. I thought that was a
good thing when I started writing it. Midway through Ch2, I ran into the
same problem you have. Do I create a whole bunch of new characters or stick
to known ones only? Will the readers like it? Would anyone even want to
read a piece if fanfic with a bunch of characters they don't know in it?
I decided to write in the new characters, but that created a new problem.
Now I have to give these 'people' background, looks, personalities, and a
connection to Hank's life all while avoiding the dreaded Marty Stu label.
While I was doing that, I realized I had to 'invent' Hank too. In all
reality he was an OC but he was also the main character. Having Hank be an
unknown both gave me the freedom to do whatever I wanted (within reason) and
it tied my hand. Will people accuse me of Marty Stu-ing Hank? Not if I
make him a real person and not just a cliché.
The point I trying to make here is this: If your going to create new
characters then you have to give them real personalities (flaws as well as
skills), a realistic look (everybody in the BV is not a supermodel), and a
connection to the fandom your writing in. They don't have to be related to
a main character (if I see one more Herimonie is Willow's long lost sister
I'll scream), but they do need to be real people.
Your writing will change only in the sense that you have to give them some
type of backstory and a connection to the history. You can't just have
Buffy saying, "Hi Larry. Let's go kill some vampires then we'll make out
behind a crypt." (I can dream!) Everyone will go, "Who The H@]] Is LARRY?"
Spend some time/writing space making 'Larry' a real person first. And don't
forget to give your readers a reason why Buffy would fall madly in love with
me other than my intense good looks. ...I mean... *his* intense good looks.
:)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
BTR1701
<payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Would anyone even want to read a piece if fanfic with
> a bunch of characters they don't know in it?
The first thing is to stop thinking of your story as "fanfic". Think of
it as a story, just like any other you might write. If it's well-written
and engaging, it really shouldn't matter which characters you use-- your
own or someone else's. Making yourself dependent on only characters that
someone else has already thought up and fleshed out limits both you and
your work.
And on a more fundamental level, why as a writer (or a reader) would you
want to only be limited by already-established characters? The single
greatest thing about telling stories like this is that you have the
freedom to go beyond what's presented on the show. Why squander that
opportunity?
> I decided to write in the new characters, but that created a new problem.
> Now I have to give these 'people' background, looks, personalities, and a
> connection to Hank's life all while avoiding the dreaded Marty Stu label.
I'm not sure I understand this assumption that just because an author
uses a character that isn't already established, it's somehow "less
than" or a product of the author's ego or somesuch.
Eric Jablow
Paul Farrington <paul@eastNO_SPAMshore.com> wrote:
> > usually of the Mary Sue or Murray Soo variety. There are
> > also some very good stories with original characters.
> > Consider "Not Like Jimmy Olsen", by Blair Provence.
> > A new SHS student tries to pick her way through the
> > SHS cliques, gets involved in school with Cordelia
> > and the Cordettes, and ends up hiding under Giles'
> > desk during a demon attack. It's as realistic as it
> > could be; everyone keeps her out of the fight.
> >
> > Just treat your spear-carriers with respect.
> >
>
> That fic sounds interesting. Anyone have a link?
> Thanks.
Sorry. You'll find the story on the "Buffy
Fanfiction Archive" here:
http://archive.shriftweb.org/archive/3/noteven.html
And, i got the title wrong. It's "Not Even Jimmy
Olsen".
--
Respectfully,
Eric Jablow
-Andy-
BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You know... that is an interesting 'question'. Other than original
characters being traditionally considered "bad" by canon purists I'm not
sure why they get a bad rap. Other than the ones that are obviously Mary
Sue's.
Maybe it's that American tendency to be suspicious of anything that
requires "thinking". To accept an original character as a major part of
a fic is to accept a change in the pre-digested direction most fics go.
(If that made no sense... just pretend it did :-).)
We don't castigate authors for their original characters... but a
critical reader will have issues with a writer doing a "Mary Sue" if we
catch them.
-Andy-
BTR1701
<see2...@spamworm.yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <BTR1702-FA3E90...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <42043dc7$1...@127.0.0.1>, "Lawrence Payne"
> > <payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I decided to write in the new characters, but that
> > > created a new problem. Now I have to give these 'people'
> > > background, looks, personalities, and a connection to Hank's
> > > life all while avoiding the dreaded Marty Stu label.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand this assumption that just because an author
> > uses a character that isn't already established, it's somehow "less
> > than" or a product of the author's ego or somesuch.
>
> You know... that is an interesting 'question'. Other than original
> characters being traditionally considered "bad" by canon purists I'm not
> sure why they get a bad rap.
I don't either, considering the show itself did this all the time. When
Tara showed up in the fourth season, she was the equivalent of an
original character: a new addition to the core group who nevertheless
had an important part to play in the overall story.
If you can accept those types of characters on the show, why not in a
story?
Lawrence Payne
news:BTR1702-462A08...@news.east.earthlink.net...
Apples and Oranges. You're talking about an OC created by Josh and ME, not
an OC created by a fanfic writer. It's Josh's universe he can do whatever
he wants (i.e. killing Tara) and we HAVE to go along with it.
This topic has already been batted around the group. Read this:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.creative/browse_frm/thread/8694237fbf9fdcda/3845422a7872e767?q=character+real+people&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.creative%2Fsearch%3Fgroup%3Dalt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.creative%26q%3Dcharacter+real+people%26qt_g%3D1%26searchnow%3DSearch+this+group%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#3845422a7872e767
first. Start with the 'Characters vs People' post and read all below that.
Its the definition of fanfic writer versus author and why our two worlds are
different.
To answer Andy's particular question, they get a bad rap because so many
people do it badly. It's the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. So many fanfic
writers create these silly new characters that are obvious fantasy versions
of themselves that we, meaning the readers of the fandom, have become jaded.
Some new guy/gal is introduced in Ch1. He's a Ninja and a Wizard and a
Weapons Expert. Then
[insert-author's-favorite-male/female-mainstay-character's-name-here] falls
madly in love with the new guy/gal by Ch 4. Give me a break! It happens so
often that the minute you see something even close to that happening you
just quit reading. That's why they have a bad rep.
BTR1701
<payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
First, it's Joss, not Josh and second, why is that a meaningful
distinction?
> It's Josh's universe he can do whatever he wants (i.e.
> killing Tara) and we HAVE to go along with it.
Yeah, and in the "universe" of my story, the same applies. I can kill
Faith or any character I like and the reader has to go along with it.
They could stop reading, of course, but then so can the viewer of the
show if he/she doesn't like what Joss has done.
Joss is the author in one and I'm the author in the other.
> This topic has already been batted around the group. Read this:
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.creative/browse_
> frm/thread/8694237fbf9fdcda/3845422a7872e767?q=character+real+people&_done
> =%2Fgroup%2Falt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.creative%2Fsearch%3Fgroup%3Dalt.tv.buffy
> -v-slayer.creative%26q%3Dcharacter+real+people%26qt_g%3D1%26searchnow%3DSe
> arch+this+group%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#3845422a7872e767
> first. Start with the 'Characters vs People' post and read all below
> that.
> Its the definition of fanfic writer versus author and why our two worlds
> are different.
I personally don't subscribe to the notion that there are two different
definitions. A story is a story and the one who writes it is the author.
Stephen King once wrote a story using the character of Sherlock Holmes.
Did he suddenly stop being an author and turn into this mysterious
"fanfic writer" when he did so?
The answer is obviously no.
And conversely, there is at least one instance where a TV
writer/producer did exactly what you complain of with one of his
characters. Gene Roddenberry admitted he created the character of Wesley
Crusher on "Star Trek: TNG" as an idealized version of himself as a boy.
And the kid was annoying beyond belief. Every week this snot-nosed kid
would manage to save the Enterprise, the galaxy and all of humanity from
certain destruction.
But Roddenberry wasn't a fanfic writer. He was an author, according to
your definitions. So obviously those definitions (artificial though they
may be) aren't really relevant to how this kind of ego-driven character
arises and is treated.
> To answer Andy's particular question, they get a bad rap because so many
> people do it badly.
If that's the criteria, then the entire genre should get a bad rap
because in the few months I've been perusing this group and the related
web sites, it's quite clear that many people do the entire concept
badly. For every good story out there, you have to wade through dozens
of bad ones.
> Some new guy/gal is introduced in Ch1. He's a Ninja and a Wizard and a
> Weapons Expert. Then [insert-author's-favorite-male/female-mainstay
> -character's-name-here] falls madly in love with the new guy/gal by Ch 4.
That's just bad writing and I'd be very surprised indeed to find
something like that in an otherwise well-written story. The point being,
it's not the use of the character that makes the story bad. If what you
describe is the case, the story is likely to be horrible with or without
the inclusion of the original character.
jil...@hotmail.com
> story?
As I recall, Tara wasn't accepted at first. But that led to hot
sensual scenes, which made them happy. Certainly people freaked over
the arrival of Riley. Most of the Spuffy-fics that take place during
his tenure involve changing him into a totally different personality,
to make him someone Buffy should not be attracted to... often someone
much like Spike. Few people are creative enough to come up with ways
to make Buffy interested in Spike without making other characters into
the baddies.
And the reaction to Riley's WIFE! Heheheh. Of course, they were most
angry because her true statements woke Buffy up to the fact that she
should not be destroying herself by abusing Spike and his love, and the
only way out was to stop being with Spike, who thought anything she did
with him was fine, as long as it ended in mind-numbing sex.
BTR1701
"jil...@hotmail.com" <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <see2go4me-0062D...@news.giganews.com>,
> -Andy- <see2...@spamworm.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't either, considering the show itself did this all the time.
> > When Tara showed up in the fourth season, she was the equivalent
> > of an original character: a new addition to the core group who
> > nevertheless had an important part to play in the overall story.
> >
> > If you can accept those types of characters on the show, why
> > not in a story?
>
> As I recall, Tara wasn't accepted at first. But that led to hot
> sensual scenes, which made them happy. Certainly people freaked over
> the arrival of Riley. Most of the Spuffy-fics that take place during
> his tenure involve changing him into a totally different personality,
> to make him someone Buffy should not be attracted to... often someone
> much like Spike. Few people are creative enough to come up with ways
> to make Buffy interested in Spike without making other characters into
> the baddies.
>
> And the reaction to Riley's WIFE! Heheheh Of course, they were most
> angry because her true statements woke Buffy up to the fact that she
> should not be destroying herself by abusing Spike and his love, and the
> only way out was to stop being with Spike, who thought anything she did
> with him was fine, as long as it ended in mind-numbing sex.
All true enough but (most) fans of the show nevertheless didn't have a
personal viewing policy in place which said, "I will only watch this
show so long as only the series regulars appear on it. If at any time
there is a guest star, I will stop watching."
That's essentially what some folks here have said about stories with
characters other than the core group: they automatically refuse to read
them.
jil...@hotmail.com
BTR1701 wrote:
> All true enough but (most) fans of the show nevertheless didn't have
a
> personal viewing policy in place which said, "I will only watch this
> show so long as only the series regulars appear on it. If at any time
> there is a guest star, I will stop watching."
>
> That's essentially what some folks here have said about stories with
> characters other than the core group: they automatically refuse to
read
> them.
Essentially the difference is in how people view fanfic as opposed to
canon. Fanfic=wishverse. And each person has his or her own wishes.
Lawrence Payne
> In article <420562a2$1...@127.0.0.1>, "Lawrence Payne"
> <payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Apples and Oranges. You're talking about an OC created by Josh and ME,
>> not an OC created by a fanfic writer.
>
> First, it's Joss, not Josh and second, why is that a meaningful
> distinction?
>
After reading this post I can only conclude one of two things.
A) You didn't read the stuff previously posted in the link.
B) You read it, but you didn't get it.
It's just a definition of terms. There is nothing good or bad about one or
the other. One is not more or less creative than the other. They are both
equal, just different. Like Mandarin vs. Florida Oranges, authors vs.
fanfic writers are just two different flavors of the same preverbal fruit.
Both are great forms of art, and they both spring from the creative mind.
They are just two different outlets each with its own set of rules.
Authors create *everything* themselves while fanfic writers build on *what
already exists.*
>
> Yeah, and in the "universe" of my story, the same applies. I can kill
> Faith or any character I like and the reader has to go along with it.
> They could stop reading, of course, but then so can the viewer of the
> show if he/she doesn't like what Joss has done.
>
> Joss is the author in one and I'm the author in the other.
Your work is not separate from his. The "universe" of your story is built
on his work. Faith is not an OC. You did not create her from your mind.
Someone else, namely Joss (I'm bad at proofreading remember :) ), created
her. It is his character, his history, and his backdrop. You are using his
creation and his universe as the foundation for your story. You can do
whatever you want within your fic, but you MUST do two things at the top.
First, you have to admit that they are not your characters, and second, you
have to label it correctly (canon, AU, UC, etc...).
If you change the known history to fit your story then it has to be labeled
an AU fic. Otherwise, your readers who know the history will call you on
your mistake. Like I said in the old post, there is no fanfic police force.
No one will fine/punish you, but your readers will call you on any
history/congruency mistakes. And they will. You know as well as anyone
that there are entire groups of people who do nothing but debate BV history.
> I personally don't subscribe to the notion that there are two different
> definitions. A story is a story and the one who writes it is the author.
>
> Stephen King once wrote a story using the character of Sherlock Holmes.
> Did he suddenly stop being an author and turn into this mysterious
> "fanfic writer" when he did so?
Sherlock Holmes is public domain. Anyone can use it without written consent
or declaration.
>
> The answer is obviously no.
>
> And conversely, there is at least one instance where a TV
> writer/producer did exactly what you complain of with one of his
> characters. Gene Roddenberry admitted he created the character of Wesley
> Crusher on "Star Trek: TNG" as an idealized version of himself as a boy.
> And the kid was annoying beyond belief. Every week this snot-nosed kid
> would manage to save the Enterprise, the galaxy and all of humanity from
> certain destruction.
>
> But Roddenberry wasn't a fanfic writer. He was an author, according to
> your definitions. So obviously those definitions (artificial though they
> may be) aren't really relevant to how this kind of ego-driven character
> arises and is treated.
>
Again it's his story. He can do whatever he wants. Whether others like it
or not is up to the audience. In Roddenberry's case it worked.
>> Some new guy/gal is introduced in Ch1. He's a Ninja and a Wizard and a
>> Weapons Expert. Then [insert-author's-favorite-male/female-mainstay
>> -character's-name-here] falls madly in love with the new guy/gal by Ch 4.
>
> That's just bad writing and I'd be very surprised indeed to find
> something like that in an otherwise well-written story. The point being,
> it's not the use of the character that makes the story bad. If what you
> describe is the case, the story is likely to be horrible with or without
> the inclusion of the original character.
And that is why it is hated. The people do Mary/Marty Sue/Stu are not very
imaginative or even good storytellers. If they were they wouldn't create
such obvious dribble. Again I'm not talking about all authors who create
new characters (I'm one of them remember) just the MS crowd.
Lawrence Payne
spellchecker. Sorry %-)
BTR1701
<payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-3D5CD7...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <420562a2$1...@127.0.0.1>, "Lawrence Payne"
> > <payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Apples and Oranges. You're talking about an OC created by Josh and
> >> ME, not an OC created by a fanfic writer.
> >
> > First, it's Joss, not Josh and second, why is that a meaningful
> > distinction?
> >
>
> After reading this post I can only conclude one of two things.
>
> A) You didn't read the stuff previously posted in the link.
>
> B) You read it, but you didn't get it.
>
> It's just a definition of terms.
I got it. I just find it to be a meaningless distinction.
> There is nothing good or bad about one or the other. One is not more
> or less creative than the other. They are both equal, just different.
> Like Mandarin vs. Florida Oranges, authors vs. fanfic writers are
> just two different flavors of the same preverbal fruit. Both are
> great forms of art, and they both spring from the creative mind.
> They are just two different outlets each with its own set of rules.
>
> Authors create *everything* themselves while fanfic writers build on
> *what already exists.*
So when Joss Whedon turns out his X-Men comics every month, he's a
fanfic writer?
> > Yeah, and in the "universe" of my story, the same applies. I can kill
> > Faith or any character I like and the reader has to go along with it.
> > They could stop reading, of course, but then so can the viewer of the
> > show if he/she doesn't like what Joss has done.
> >
> > Joss is the author in one and I'm the author in the other.
>
> Your work is not separate from his. The "universe" of your story is
> built on his work. Faith is not an OC. You did not create her from your mind.
Yeah, and Joss didn't create Wolverine from his mind, yet most people
consider him the author of the X-Men stories he writes. Says so right on
the inside cover of the comic book.
> Someone else, namely Joss (I'm bad at proofreading remember :) ), created
> her. It is his character, his history, and his backdrop. You are using
> his creation and his universe as the foundation for your story.
Actually, I'm just using Faith, not his universe.
> You can do
> whatever you want within your fic, but you MUST do two things at the top.
> First, you have to admit that they are not your characters, and second,
> you have to label it correctly (canon, AU, UC, etc...).
Well, I never denied that Faith was someone else's creation but many of
the other characters *are* mine.
As for labeling it, I don't have to do that at all and I'm not certain
why you think I have to. People can read my story or not as they choose.
If they require some kind of label before starting, they're going to be
disappointed.
> If you change the known history to fit your story then it has to be
> labeled an AU fic. Otherwise, your readers who know the history will call you on
> your mistake. Like I said in the old post, there is no fanfic police
> force.
> No one will fine/punish you, but your readers will call you on any
> history/congruency mistakes. And they will. You know as well as anyone
> that there are entire groups of people who do nothing but debate BV
> history.
>
> > I personally don't subscribe to the notion that there are two different
> > definitions. A story is a story and the one who writes it is the
> > author.
> >
> > Stephen King once wrote a story using the character of Sherlock Holmes.
> > Did he suddenly stop being an author and turn into this mysterious
> > "fanfic writer" when he did so?
>
> Sherlock Holmes is public domain. Anyone can use it without written
> consent or declaration.
What does that have to do with anything? Nothing in your criteria said
anything about copyright:
"Your work is not separate from his. The "universe" of your story is
built on his work. Faith is not an OC. You did not create her from your
mind."
The same could be said of King and Holmes: "His work is not separate
from Conan-Doyle's. The "universe" of his story is built on
Conan-Doyle's work. Holmes is not an OC. King did not create him from
his own mind."
> > And conversely, there is at least one instance where a TV
> > writer/producer did exactly what you complain of with one of his
> > characters. Gene Roddenberry admitted he created the character of
> > Wesley Crusher on "Star Trek: TNG" as an idealized version of himself as a
> > boy. And the kid was annoying beyond belief. Every week this snot-nosed kid
> > would manage to save the Enterprise, the galaxy and all of humanity
> > from certain destruction.
> >
> > But Roddenberry wasn't a fanfic writer. He was an author, according to
> > your definitions. So obviously those definitions (artificial though
> > they may be) aren't really relevant to how this kind of ego-driven character
> > arises and is treated.
> >
>
> Again it's his story. He can do whatever he wants.
And my story is my story. I can do whatever I want.
I'm not sure what the criteria is here since everything you say seems to
apply to everyone.
> Whether others like it or not is up to the audience.
The same is true of my audience.
> In Roddenberry's case it worked.
Debateable.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: I'm not sure I understand this assumption that just because an author
: than" or a product of the author's ego or somesuch.
Yes, such an assumeption is just as fallacious as the reverse.
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
"Power, pitch, yaw and roll."
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: Maybe it's that American tendency to be suspicious of anything that
: a fic is to accept a change in the pre-digested direction most fics go.
: (If that made no sense... just pretend it did :-).)
Only in that mainstream America looks down on fanfiction because one isn't
creating something "original". My belief is that the real stigma is that
one isn't creating something saleable.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: Sherlock Holmes is public domain. Anyone can use it without written consent
: or declaration.
That's a specious distinction by the terms of your own argument. Did King
create Holmes or not? No, Arthur Conan Doyle did. If use of a character of
another's creation is fnafiction, then King's use of Holmes is fanfiction.
Malory's use of King Arthur was fanfiction. Virgil's use of Aeneas was
fanfiction. Shakespeare's use of Puck, Theseus and Hippolyta was
fanfiction.
Mind you, if you say all those things, you're right. All those works *are*
fanfiction. They weren't called that at the time because intellectual
property law didn't require the distinction. The only practical difference
between 'Le Morte d'Arthur' and 'Blood Prey' is there was no legal
mechanism keeping Tom from making money off the work (had it been
published during his lifetime).
(In any case, I don't believe Sherlock Holmes *is* in the public domain. I
understand, though it's been in excess of fifty years since Doyle's death,
nevertheless as of the TNG episode 'Ship in a Bottle' his family still
controlled the franchise.)
Lawrence Payne
and space.
"PAUL GADZIKOWSKI" <scar...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42075...@news.iglou.com...
> : I'm not sure I understand this assumption that just because an author
> : uses a character that isn't already established, it's somehow "less
> : than" or a product of the author's ego or somesuch.
>
> Yes, such an assumeption is just as fallacious as the reverse.
>
I say again, this is strictly about the MS crowd.
After I've seen it in fic #1000, I can "smell" it coming a mile away. Is
that an assumption on my part? Yes. When I make a snap judgment about it I
do so because I'm jaded. When I read clear to Ch4 and I see it clear as
day, I stop reading.
"PAUL GADZIKOWSKI" <scar...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:42075...@news.iglou.com...
> Lawrence Payne <payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Sherlock Holmes is public domain. Anyone can use it without written
> consent
> : or declaration.
>
> That's a specious distinction by the terms of your own argument. Did King
> create Holmes or not? No, Arthur Conan Doyle did. If use of a character of
> another's creation is fnafiction, then King's use of Holmes is fanfiction.
> Malory's use of King Arthur was fanfiction. Virgil's use of Aeneas was
> fanfiction. Shakespeare's use of Puck, Theseus and Hippolyta was
> fanfiction.
>
> Mind you, if you say all those things, you're right. All those works *are*
> fanfiction. They weren't called that at the time because intellectual
> property law didn't require the distinction. The only practical difference
> between 'Le Morte d'Arthur' and 'Blood Prey' is there was no legal
> mechanism keeping Tom from making money off the work (had it been
> published during his lifetime).
>
> (In any case, I don't believe Sherlock Holmes *is* in the public domain. I
> understand, though it's been in excess of fifty years since Doyle's death,
> nevertheless as of the TNG episode 'Ship in a Bottle' his family still
> controlled the franchise.)
Don't confuse legal issues with direct meaning. In Doyle's and Malory's
time, there was no issue of legal public domain and copywrite law. Disney,
in essence, created that controversy with their licensing of Mickey Mouse.
That is when the "split" really created.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know/understand the full legalities involved
with modern versus old copyright law. I do know two things. One, Disney
and the King family, meaning Dr. Martin Luther King (along with many
others), can and will sue anyone using their (the great doctor's or the
mouse's) image without consent for copywrite infringement. Ex. Disney sued
Marilyn Manson for his "use" of the classic "mouse ears" as a backdrop in
his concert tour. And two, the disclaimer in fics may or may not hold legal
sway, but we put them there because we are acknowledging that we are
building on someone else's work and that we are not doing so for personal
profit of any kind.
Between you and me, I really don't understand where all this controversy is
coming from. The distinction is in definition only. Any connotation of
better or worse is solely in the mind of the reader.
> : Maybe it's that American tendency to be suspicious of anything that
> : requires "thinking". To accept an original character as a major part of
> : a fic is to accept a change in the pre-digested direction most fics go.
> : (If that made no sense... just pretend it did :-).)
>
> Only in that mainstream America looks down on fanfiction because one isn't
> creating something "original". My belief is that the real stigma is that
> one isn't creating something saleable.
Maybe that's where all this pushback is coming from.
> Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com since 1995
> http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
Side Note: The Cylons are biomechanical beings that can pass as human.
Perfect plot twist. and the ep where Starbuck is crashed on that planet and
figures out how to fly the fighter, Classic! I love the new BSG!!
BTR1701
<scar...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
> Lawrence Payne <payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Sherlock Holmes is public domain. Anyone can use it without written
> : consent or declaration.
>
> That's a specious distinction by the terms of your own argument. Did King
> create Holmes or not? No, Arthur Conan Doyle did. If use of a character
> of another's creation is fnafiction, then King's use of Holmes is
> fanfiction. Malory's use of King Arthur was fanfiction. Virgil's
> use of Aeneas was fanfiction. Shakespeare's use of Puck,
> Theseus and Hippolyta was fanfiction.
More to the point, none of those people would be considered "authors"
under Lawrence's definition.
> Mind you, if you say all those things, you're right. All those works
> *are* fanfiction. They weren't called that at the time because
> intellectual property law didn't require the distinction.
It still doesn't. I took intellectual property in law school and there
was no such distinction.
BTR1701
<payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul: I'm going to put all three responses into the same post. Saves
> typing and space.
>
> "PAUL GADZIKOWSKI" <scar...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
> news:42075...@news.iglou.com...
>
> > : I'm not sure I understand this assumption that just because an author
> > : uses a character that isn't already established, it's somehow "less
> > : than" or a product of the author's ego or somesuch.
> >
> > Yes, such an assumption is just as fallacious as the reverse.
> I say again, this is strictly about the MS crowd.
What is MS? Microsoft? [Seriously, I don't know what that means.]
> I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know/understand the full legalities involved
> with modern versus old copyright law. I do know two things. One, Disney
> and the King family, meaning Dr. Martin Luther King (along with many
> others), can and will sue anyone using their (the great doctor's or the
> mouse's) image without consent for copywrite infringement. Ex. Disney
> sued Marilyn Manson for his "use" of the classic "mouse ears" as a backdrop in
> his concert tour. And two, the disclaimer in fics may or may not hold
> legal sway,
Take it from a lawyer-- "may not" is where the smart money goes.
> but we put them there because we are acknowledging that we are
> building on someone else's work and that we are not doing so for personal
> profit of any kind.
>
> Between you and me, I really don't understand where all this controversy
> is coming from. The distinction is in definition only.
It's not a controversy. It's a discussion. And no one's disputing your
definition. For my part, I just question the need for it. It's creating
distinction for distinction's sake. It's meaningless.
Now I'll respond to some points you made in that thread you wanted me to
read earlier:
> if you create a new vampire villian, you've created a BuffyVerse vampire.
> Not an Anita Blake, or a Bram Stoker vampire. they have a whole different
> set of "rules". Those rules were created by someone else. The
> original author.
This may or may not be true. In my story, I've taken bits and pieces
from various settings and combined them.
For example, I never liked the way the faces of the vampires on "Buffy"
shifted right before they bit someone. To me, they all ended up looking
like retarded Klingons. So in my story, that doesn't happen. I took what
I liked from Whedon's universe (the instantaneous distintegration upon
death, for example) and combined it with what I liked of Stephen King's
"Salem's Lot" vampires (glowing silver eyes, the stench of death and
decay surrounding them, crosses that glow when in the presence of the
undead, etc.-- no Vampire Slayer in her right mind would want to have
sex with one of *those* vampires, let me assure you.)
The result is a wholly new and different set of rules, descriptions,
guidelines, whatever you want to call it. It belongs to neither King nor
Whedon, yet draws from both.
> Remember, we have to put a Disclaimer on ever fic we write.
> Again I say you don't *have* to (No ff cops), but you do need to.
I disagree.
> Just to declare to the audience that you don't "speak for" the
> true author/creator.
My audience already knows that. Or more precisely, they know it if they
have the intellect of a snow pea. Anyone who doesn't... well, not my
problem.
As I said, from a legal standpoint, those disclaimers are worthless. And
since everyone knows I neither created Buffy nor wrote Stephen King's
books, putting a bunch of stuff in there to "declare I'm not speaking
for them" is equally a waste of time.
> That is the real difference. We build on
> what already exist. Authors create everything themselves.
So again, I ask you: is Joss Whedon the author of his X-Men comics? Or
is he a fanfic writer? He certainly didn't create either the characters
or the universe they inhabit.
-Andy-
> "Lawrence Payne" <payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I say again, this is strictly about the MS crowd.
>
> What is MS? Microsoft? [Seriously, I don't know what
> that means.]
In the context of this discussion? I'm assuming "Mary
Sue" (Unless Bill Gates has corned the market on fan
fiction also?). We do tend to use acronyms around here
(on top of the ones found on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer.).
Like (very roughly):
OC = Original character = non-canonical character in
a work of fanfiction invented by the writer of
that fic.
OoC = Out-of-Character = a depiction of the behavior/
personality of a canonical character that
doesn't "ring true" for that character (subject
to interpretation of course - just like Mary
Sues, I believe everyone has their own level of
tolerance for this kind of thing.)
AU = Alternate Universe
AR = Alternate Reality
>> but we put them there because we are acknowledging
>> that we are building on someone else's work and that
>> we are not doing so for personal profit of any kind.
A disclaimer is strictly a courtesy, not a legal
anything. Anyone who writes fan fiction should be aware
of the legal issues. But most seem to not be.
>> if you create a new vampire villian, you've created
> This may or may not be true. In my story, I've taken
> bits and pieces from various settings and combined
> them.
[snip]
> death, for example) and combined it with what I liked
> of Stephen King's "Salem's Lot" vampires
> The result is a wholly new and different set of
> rules, descriptions, guidelines, whatever you want to
> call it. It belongs to neither King nor Whedon, yet
> draws from both.
Sounds like a (mild) crossover to me. People do it all
the time - take things from different fandom "parts
bins" and mix them together in different ways. Not
everybody likes that sort of thing... but there's
nothing wrong with it.
>> Remember, we have to put a Disclaimer on ever fic we
>> write. Again I say you don't *have* to (No ff cops),
>> but you do need to.
It's not a "need" or "have to". It's a tradition/custom
of the fanfic community to acknowledge the creators of
the fandoms we are writing in.
> As I said, from a legal standpoint, those disclaimers
> are worthless.
I don't think there was any argument about that. At
least not here.
> And since everyone knows I neither created Buffy
> nor wrote Stephen King's books, putting a bunch of
> stuff in there to "declare I'm not speaking for
> them" is equally a waste of time.
Personally speaking... I might put a bit more in my
disclaimers but all I "need" in a disclaimer is a
statement to the effect: "I borrowed some stuff from A
and I borrowed some stuff from B. The rest is my idea."
I don't need excruciating details. (Anyone who wants to
know that kind of thing about any of my fics can find
it on my blog but I don't force it down their
throats...) If I'm familiar with A and not B and I'm
curious, at least I know where to look if I want to
know where your borrowed ideas came from.
Lawrence Payne
> I got it. I just find it to be a meaningless distinction.
Then why all this typing? If its means nothing to you, why respond?
>> There is nothing good or bad about one or the other. One is not more
>> or less creative than the other. They are both equal, just different.
>> Like Mandarin vs. Florida Oranges, authors vs. fanfic writers are
>> just two different flavors of the same preverbal fruit. Both are
>> great forms of art, and they both spring from the creative mind.
>> They are just two different outlets each with its own set of rules.
>>
>> Authors create *everything* themselves while fanfic writers build on
>> *what already exists.*
>
> So when Joss Whedon turns out his X-Men comics every month, he's a
> fanfic writer?
He is a hired writer legally working, for profit, for that company.
Everything he creates for them is his original work. You, me, and everyone
else here, are not.
At the same time, he HAS to stick to the known confines of the Marvel
universe. He can't change to the Dragonball universe, for example (meaning
walking and talking animals as the norm), and write X-Men stories based on
that. The readers will leave in droves.
So by your example, yes he is an author, but again, that distinction is in
label only.
>> > Yeah, and in the "universe" of my story, the same applies. I can kill
>> > Faith or any character I like and the reader has to go along with it.
>> > They could stop reading, of course, but then so can the viewer of the
>> > show if he/she doesn't like what Joss has done.
>> >
>> > Joss is the author in one and I'm the author in the other.
>>
>> Your work is not separate from his. The "universe" of your story is
>> built on his work. Faith is not an OC. You did not create her from your
>> mind.
>
> Yeah, and Joss didn't create Wolverine from his mind, yet most people
> consider him the author of the X-Men stories he writes. Says so right on
> the inside cover of the comic book.
Joss still has to use Wolverine's rules. He can kill him if he likes, or
ignore him and create a new crop of OCs, but the character was created
before he got there so he has to stick to known conventions. If he changes
those convention (takes his claws away) he does so with the express consent
of the Marvel Comics.
>> Someone else, namely Joss (I'm bad at proofreading remember :) ), created
>> her. It is his character, his history, and his backdrop. You are using
>> his creation and his universe as the foundation for your story.
>
> Actually, I'm just using Faith, not his universe.
This is just plain wrong. Your Faith is a Slayer correct? Did you create
her? Did you create how she became a Slayer? Did you create the Slayer
mythos? Did you create the rules of Slayer lore? Is "Kissing Toast" yours
too? Did you create him? NO! Joss did. You are using his creation, his
rules, his mythos, and his characters. In other words, you are using his
universe. More importantly, you are doing so without his express permission
and consent, but you are also not doing so for profit. That makes you, and
all of us, a fanfic writer. I say again, that distinction is in definition
only. Any good or bad connation you bring to it exist solely in your head.
>> You can do
>> whatever you want within your fic, but you MUST do two things at the top.
>> First, you have to admit that they are not your characters, and second,
>> you have to label it correctly (canon, AU, UC, etc...).
>
> Well, I never denied that Faith was someone else's creation but many of
> the other characters *are* mine.
Two sentences ago you said you weren't? You said you were using Faith but
not his universe. Does your Faith fly? Does she were a bright orange cap
with a big "F" on it and solve crimes in Cali City? I hope not. :)
The two are tied together. Faith exists within a universe with rules. Her
powers are based on those rules. You're using those rules/mythos/lore in
your story. Hence you are using his universe and his creation.
> As for labeling it, I don't have to do that at all and I'm not certain
> why you think I have to. People can read my story or not as they choose.
> If they require some kind of label before starting, they're going to be
> disappointed.
3 Reasons:
1) Acknowledging that you are building/using someone else's creative work
(or intellectual property if you like) in your story.
2) To state that you are not doing so for profit.
3) As a 'nod-of-the-hat' to the true creator of the lore.
It also subconsciously says to the reader that you are not arrogant enough
to say that you didn't build the entire lore yourself.
Again, no fanfic police, but people may just say 'forget it' and not read
your fic if you don't. No point in losing readers over a two second cut and
paste job.
Read my post to Paul Gadzikowski for the copywrite discussion. It is what
all of this is based on.
>> > And conversely, there is at least one instance where a TV
>> > writer/producer did exactly what you complain of with one of his
>> > characters. Gene Roddenberry admitted he created the character of
>> > Wesley Crusher on "Star Trek: TNG" as an idealized version of himself
>> > as a
>> > boy. And the kid was annoying beyond belief. Every week this snot-nosed
>> > kid
>> > would manage to save the Enterprise, the galaxy and all of humanity
>> > from certain destruction.
>> >
>> > But Roddenberry wasn't a fanfic writer. He was an author, according to
>> > your definitions. So obviously those definitions (artificial though
>> > they may be) aren't really relevant to how this kind of ego-driven
>> > character
>> > arises and is treated.
>> >
>>
>> Again it's his story. He can do whatever he wants.
>
> And my story is my story. I can do whatever I want.
No One Said You Couldn't!! I really don't understand why this is such a
sensitive issue. Why does everyone hop to that thought right away? I'm not
going around saying you can't write whatever you want. I'm just giving
words to something that was ALREADY OUT THERE. It just wasn't *directly*
defined before. *WE* fanfic writers can do whatever *WE* want in *OUR*
stories, but *WE* have to acknowledge that *WE* are building on someone
else's work. Any good or bad feeling that you, or anyone else, gleams from
that are ONLY IN *YOUR* HEAD.
> I'm not sure what the criteria is here since everything you say seems to
> apply to everyone.
If you think you created a truly original story that is in no way, shape, or
form, built on, based on, connected to, or in any way uses characters from
the shows BtVS and Angel, then it is wrong to advertise it here. This group
is for BV stories only, not original works. If Blood Prey is not a
BuffyVerse fic, it's spam here. So which is it? a BV tale or not?
Look, I'm not ordering you, or anyone else, around. I'm just defining
something that has long gone undefined. If you find contention with my
definition, fine. We disagree. But remember, I'm talking about myself here
too. I happen to think of myself as a very creative person. I just make
the mental distinction between the two type of writing. I love fanfiction.
I also love original works. Again, the difference lies solely in
definition.
>> Whether others like it or not is up to the audience.
>
> The same is true of my audience.
>
>> In Roddenberry's case it worked.
>
> Debateable.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Lawrence Payne
> Personally speaking... I might put a bit more in my
> disclaimers but all I "need" in a disclaimer is a
> statement to the effect: "I borrowed some stuff from A
> and I borrowed some stuff from B. The rest is my idea."
>
> I don't need excruciating details. (Anyone who wants to
> know that kind of thing about any of my fics can find
> it on my blog but I don't force it down their
> throats...) If I'm familiar with A and not B and I'm
> curious, at least I know where to look if I want to
> know where your borrowed ideas came from.
You know when Sample puts '#include <std.disclaimer>' in his headers.
That's fine. Even if it is programming langauge syntax. :)
BTR1701
<payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-16C907...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> > I got it. I just find it to be a meaningless distinction.
>
> Then why all this typing? If its means nothing to you, why respond?
>
> >> There is nothing good or bad about one or the other. One is not more
> >> or less creative than the other. They are both equal, just different.
> >> Like Mandarin vs. Florida Oranges, authors vs. fanfic writers are
> >> just two different flavors of the same preverbal fruit. Both are
> >> great forms of art, and they both spring from the creative mind.
> >> They are just two different outlets each with its own set of rules.
> >>
> >> Authors create *everything* themselves while fanfic writers build on
> >> *what already exists.*
> >
> > So when Joss Whedon turns out his X-Men comics every month, he's a
> > fanfic writer?
>
> He is a hired writer legally working, for profit, for that company.
> Everything he creates for them is his original work. You, me, and
> everyone else here, are not.
So now there's a whole *new* set of criteria that go with your
definitions of "author" and "fanfic writer"?
You never once mentioned work-for-hire in this discussion until right
this instant. Up till now, the distinction was only original work vs.
using another's characters. Now money has suddenly entered into the
equation?
> At the same time, he HAS to stick to the known confines of the Marvel
> universe. He can't change to the Dragonball universe, for example
> (meaning walking and talking animals as the norm), and write
> X-Men stories based on that. The readers will leave in droves.
True but what relevance does that have to whether he is an author or not?
> So by your example, yes he is an author, but again, that distinction is
> in label only.
Then why bother with the label in the first place? What's the ultimate
point to it?
> >> > Yeah, and in the "universe" of my story, the same applies. I can
> >> > kill Faith or any character I like and the reader has to go along with
> >> > it. They could stop reading, of course, but then so can the viewer of
> >> > the show if he/she doesn't like what Joss has done.
> >> >
> >> > Joss is the author in one and I'm the author in the other.
> >>
> >> Your work is not separate from his. The "universe" of your story is
> >> built on his work. Faith is not an OC. You did not create her from
> >> your mind.
> >
> > Yeah, and Joss didn't create Wolverine from his mind, yet most people
> > consider him the author of the X-Men stories he writes. Says so right
> > on the inside cover of the comic book.
>
> Joss still has to use Wolverine's rules. He can kill him if he likes, or
> ignore him and create a new crop of OCs, but the character was created
> before he got there so he has to stick to known conventions. If he
> changes those convention (takes his claws away) he does so with the
> express consent of the Marvel Comics.
So basically your "author" vs. "fanfic writer" distinction rests on
legalities?
> >> Someone else, namely Joss (I'm bad at proofreading remember :) ),
> >> created
> >> her. It is his character, his history, and his backdrop. You are using
> >> his creation and his universe as the foundation for your story.
> >
> > Actually, I'm just using Faith, not his universe.
>
> This is just plain wrong. Your Faith is a Slayer correct? Did you
> create her? Did you create how she became a Slayer? Did you create
> the Slayer mythos? Did you create the rules of Slayer lore? Is "Kissing Toast"
> yours too? Did you create him? NO! Joss did. You are using his creation,
> his rules, his mythos, and his characters. In other words, you are using his
> universe.
My only point was that the story is predominantly set in Stephen King's
universe, not Whedon's.
> More importantly, you are doing so without his express
> permission and consent, but you are also not doing so
> for profit. That makes you, and all of us, a fanfic writer.
And it also makes me an author. As I said, I don't dispute these
distinctions, I just don't see the point in making them in the first
place.
> > Well, I never denied that Faith was someone else's creation but many of
> > the other characters *are* mine.
>
> Two sentences ago you said you weren't?
I don't understand this question. I said I wasn't what? In any event, my
statement stands: I never denied that Faith was someone else's creation.
> The two are tied together. Faith exists within a universe with rules.
But not necessarily the same rules as Whedon's universe. For example, in
Whedon's universe, crosses are merely an annoyance to vampires. In my
story, crosses glow intensely with the power of the White when in the
presence of the undead and their touch is fatal to a vampire if it lasts
long enough.
> Her powers are based on those rules.
Even Faith's powers in my work aren't consistent with what we've seen on
the "Buffy" show. With a few limited exceptions, Buffy and Kendra and
Faith were all portrayed as being somewhat-stronger-than-average humans.
Sure Buffy bent a rifle barrel once but for the most part her strength
wasn't shown to be all that spectacular. She was often thwarted by
locked doors and normal drywall-type walls.
In my story, Faith is *strong*. As Riley once put it: Spider Man strong.
> > As for labeling it, I don't have to do that at all and I'm not certain
> > why you think I have to. People can read my story or not as they
> > choose. If they require some kind of label before starting,
> > they're going to be disappointed.
>
> 3 Reasons:
> 1) Acknowledging that you are building/using someone else's
> creative work
That's taken care of with simple common sense.
> 2) To state that you are not doing so for profit.
Meaningless.
> 3) As a 'nod-of-the-hat' to the true creator of the lore.
Taken care of by the very fact that I've spent many hours of my life
writing it. I wouldn't waste my time if the underlying material weren't
worthwhile and worthy of emulation to begin with.
> It also subconsciously says to the reader that you are not arrogant
> enough to say that you didn't build the entire lore yourself.
I hold my reader to a high standard (as I'd like to think they hold me)
and assume a certain minimum level of intelligence. My readers don't
need subconscious cues. They know these things from the outset.
That's one reason why I don't post my story here or on other forums
(save for one excerpt and that was done at the specific request of
someone who was having problems with the PDF file). If someone wants to
read what I wrote, they have to seek it out. They have to know who I am,
what the story is about and where to find it. By the time the story is
downloaded to their computer and page one is up on their monitor, they
already know all the things your disclaimer is meant to say to the
reader.
I've only written one story and when I'm done with it, I'll likely not
write another. I started it as a personal experiment just to see if I
could do it and along the way, a few people found it intriguing enough
to want to follow along as I made the journey. So from the beginning, I
didn't really care if *anyone* read it. The point in writing it was more
to achieve a personal goal than anything else. If someone, somewhere
happens to enjoy it also, well that's just a bonus as far as I'm
concerned.
> Again, no fanfic police, but people may just say 'forget it' and not read
> your fic if you don't.
Yep. Only the discriminating need apply. ;-)
> >> > But Roddenberry wasn't a fanfic writer. He was an author, according
> >> > to your definitions. So obviously those definitions (artificial though
> >> > they may be) aren't really relevant to how this kind of ego-driven
> >> > character arises and is treated.
> >> Again it's his story. He can do whatever he wants.
> >
> > And my story is my story. I can do whatever I want.
>
> No One Said You Couldn't!! I really don't understand why this is such a
> sensitive issue.
It's not sensitive. No one is getting worked up or upset here. It's just
a discussion. Don't worry.
You made a point and I made a counterpoint. You said it was
Roddenberry's story and he could do what he wanted. I merely pointed out
that the same criteria applies to me, therefore the criteria doesn't
distinguish between us.
> *WE* have to acknowledge that *WE* are building on someone
> else's work.
Which everyone does, either express or implied. All I'm saying is that
doesn't exclude one from the category of "author".
> > I'm not sure what the criteria is here since everything you say seems
> > to apply to everyone.
>
> If you think you created a truly original story that is in no way, shape,
> or form, built on, based on, connected to, or in any way uses characters
> from the shows BtVS and Angel, then it is wrong to advertise it here.
I never claimed that. What I have claimed is that a person who does tell
a story that *is* based on characters from those shows is nevertheless
the author of that story.
> This group
> is for BV stories only, not original works. If Blood Prey is not a
> BuffyVerse fic, it's spam here. So which is it? a BV tale or not?
I don't post it here anymore (with the one exception noted above) so
it's really a moot point. As for it being spam, well you'll have to read
it and come to your own conclusion as to which category it belongs.
> Look, I'm not ordering you, or anyone else, around. I'm just defining
> something that has long gone undefined.
And the point of the debate is why bother making that distinction? What
purpose does it serve?
jil...@hotmail.com
BTR1701 wrote:
> So again, I ask you: is Joss Whedon the author of his X-Men comics?
Or
> is he a fanfic writer? He certainly didn't create either the
characters
> or the universe they inhabit.
Dah-ling... the answer is clear. He gets paid to write and he has
certain restrictions placed upon him by the owners of the franchise or
the publishers.
BTR1701
"jil...@hotmail.com" <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
None of which were Lawrence's original criteria.
He said the distinction between a fanfic writer and an author is that a
fanfic writer uses characters created by others and an author uses
characters that are wholly original.
Lawrence Payne
"BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-085C84...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> And the point of the debate is why bother making that distinction? What
> purpose does it serve?
>
You keep coming back to this point. Why make the distinction? That has
already been stated. I said it in the old post to Mr. Ogden; I said it in
these posts; and I will say it again one last time.
Question: Why make the distinction?
Answer: It defines something that was not *formally* defined before.
Mr. Ogden asked a question that, at its core, had deeper meaning than what
he intended. The distinction needed to be made so that the rest of the
discussion could continue. It was stated on this topic, OCs in fanfics,
because it is central to the discussion. Fanfics have a different set of
"rules" then original works. It's the, "Faith wouldn't say/do that"
complaint versus the, "I don't like want you did with
[insert-your-OC-character-name-here]" complaint.
Faith already exist. She has a look, mannerisms, a distinct way of
speaking, and a distinct way of talking that is unique to her. That
personality was created by someone other than you. When someone is
evaluating your work, they are using that pre-established personality as
their basis. Original works create all of the past and all of the
character's history, looks, mannerisms, and personalities themselves so
there is no OOC discussion to be had. That is the only difference.
Is it based on money? Yes. The modern world has created the notion/idea of
intellectual property. Ex. Before his new legal troubles, Michael Jackson
was accused of stealing someone else's intellectual property, namely a song.
He was found innocent on that charge because he could prove that he wrote
it. Does a writer who works for a company and creates new
characters/stories/ideas for that company own his/her ideas or does the
company know them? That debate changes depending on the situation and who
is doing he suing. It's something you lawyers love to bat around in the
courts all the time. So delving into the past and continuously looking for
currently examples to discredit the definition is pointless. For the last
time, *it is just a definition.*
Note This: You ignored my question at the top about why all the
typing/debating. You ignored every good/bad, better/worse,
positive/negative connotation line I used. And you ignored every time I
said it is just a definition of terms. From this I can only conclude that
you view the term fanfic writer in a negative way.
You want to wear the label of author. Fine. Go right ahead. I'm not
stopping you. I can't stop you. I don't care one way or another. You and
your "distinguished readers" can do your thing. But know this, this
distinction and all of the debating you did/are doing over it is
unnecessary. It is based on *your* negative feeling about the term fanfic
writer. I don't have those feeling. For me, it no different than calling
something round a ball or a sphere. They both convey the same thought,
round object. Fanfic writer and author both convey the same thought,
creative writing. For the last time, one is not better or worse than the
other, just different. Any good or bad connotation exists solely and
exclusively in your head.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: "PAUL GADZIKOWSKI" <scar...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote
:> Did King
:> create Holmes or not? No, Arthur Conan Doyle did. If use of a character of
:> another's creation is fnafiction, then King's use of Holmes is fanfiction.
:> Malory's use of King Arthur was fanfiction. Virgil's use of Aeneas was
:> fanfiction. Shakespeare's use of Puck, Theseus and Hippolyta was
:> fanfiction.
:>
:> Mind you, if you say all those things, you're right. All those works *are*
:> fanfiction. They weren't called that at the time because intellectual
:> property law didn't require the distinction. The only practical difference
:> between 'Le Morte d'Arthur' and 'Blood Prey' is there was no legal
:> mechanism keeping Tom from making money off the work (had it been
:> published during his lifetime).
: Don't confuse legal issues with direct meaning. In Doyle's and Malory's
: in essence, created that controversy with their licensing of Mickey Mouse.
: That is when the "split" really created.
I'm not following you here, so maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. It
seems to me you're saying that the legal issues created by modern
intellectual property law are the distinction. But that's what I'm saying
- I admitted that when I recognized that we have a word arisen to make the
distinction, 'fanfiction' - but I'm saying that that's the *only*
distinction. You can't say, if it is what you mean to say, that any given
fanfiction writer's work is any different as a creative exercise from
King's use of Sherlock Holmes or from Malory's use of King Arthur and
associated characters (except, of course, in a quality judgment in your
capacity as a reader). As a legal exercise, yes; as a creative exercise,
no.
And I go so far as to say (and have, previously on this newsgroup) that
fanfiction is and of a right ought to be fair use under intellectual
property law, whose original underlying intent was always that the creator
protection offered thereby should expire after a reasonable time limit so
that good ideas and cultural icons pass into the public domain where they
belong.
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.
"Power, pitch, yaw and roll."
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
:> Mind you, if you say all those things, you're right. All those works
:> intellectual property law didn't require the distinction.
:
: It still doesn't. I took intellectual property in law school and there
: was no such distinction.
In the field of law, perhaps not, yet; but if the distinction weren't
required there wouldn't be the word.
Speaker-to-Customers
> Just a random thought/query...
>
> I have a number of original characters (OC's) scattered
> throughout my assorted Buffy fanfics. Usually minor
> characters (at least 6 mini-Slayers, a store
> owner/clerk, a bartender, a couple wiccans. That kind of
> character. Someone who appears for a few scenes and
> interacts with the main characters. They don't require a
> lot of effort to define/write.
>
> But what about a fic where one of the main characters is
> an OC? Is anyone going to read a fic with a character
> like that?
>
> How different is my writing going to have to be to
> successfully support an OC set in the Buffyverse?
>
> Just wondering...
>
> -Andy-
>
Going back to your original point and ignoring the debate about the
nature of fanfic; I think the answer to your question is a qualified
"Yes". Or maybe "No".
I have estimated, on the basis of the number of people shown by my site
stats as making repeated and lengthy visits to my website, that I have
approximately 1,500 regular readers of my standard Buffyverse fanfic.
However the equivalent figure for my "Roxyverse" fictions, centred on
OCs with the Buffy characters making only guest appearances, is 6.
When I receive enthusiastic feedback for the conventional Buffy stuff,
imploring me to write more, I used to suggest that the reader try the
"Roxyverse" stories. Almost always I'd get a reply "maybe one day".
Only twice did anyone actually take me up on that suggestion. I don't
even bother these days.
So, yes, OCs are the kiss of death.
On the other hand Enigmaticblue almost always has an OC or two in a very
significant role in her stories and it doesn't seem to put anyone off at
all. She's done it for as long as she's been writing and she's still
managed to acquire an extremely large readership (she's very good).
Caro's OCs Mike and Harry in her "Seven Years in the Desert" series have
a large and enthusiastic fanbase of their own.
So, no, OCs are not the kiss of death.
The only way you're going to find out which will apply in your case is
to try it and see. I'd recommend that you slip the OC in gradually, not
making it obvious that (s)he will be a major character until after
readers have had a chance to get to know him/her.
Speaker-to-Customers
BTR1701
<payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is my final post on this topic.
>
> "BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:BTR1702-085C84...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> > And the point of the debate is why bother making that distinction? What
> > purpose does it serve?
> >
>
> You keep coming back to this point. Why make the distinction? That has
> already been stated. I said it in the old post to Mr. Ogden; I said it
> in these posts; and I will say it again one last time.
>
> Question: Why make the distinction?
> Answer: It defines something that was not *formally* defined before.
That's circular. Why define it? So it can be defined.
My question is why does it need to be defined? What purpose does it
serve?
> Mr. Ogden asked a question that, at its core, had deeper meaning than
> what he intended. The distinction needed to be made so that the rest of the
> discussion could continue. It was stated on this topic, OCs in fanfics,
> because it is central to the discussion. Fanfics have a different set of
> "rules" then original works. It's the, "Faith wouldn't say/do that"
> complaint versus the, "I don't like want you did with
> [insert-your-OC-character-name-here]" complaint.
>
> Faith already exist. She has a look, mannerisms, a distinct way of
> speaking, and a distinct way of talking that is unique to her. That
> personality was created by someone other than you. When someone is
> evaluating your work, they are using that pre-established personality as
> their basis.
The same is true of any story written by any author. Someone writing a
Western has to stick within the conventions of the genre. Their
characters have to abide by certain rules of look, mannerism and
behavior and are limited by the genre. They have to ride horses, for
example, instead of Corvettes.
Every author has limitations he/she has to abide by in order to tell a
coherent and believable story. But they are still authors, nevertheless.
> Does a writer who works for a company and creates new
> characters/stories/ideas for that company own his/her ideas or does the
> company know them? That debate changes depending on the situation and
> who is doing he suing.
Actually, it's fairly well-established. The person who paid for the work
owns it.
> It's something you lawyers love to bat around in the
> courts all the time. So delving into the past and continuously looking
> for currently examples to discredit the definition is pointless. For the
> last time, *it is just a definition.*
You just spent several paragraphs defining your distinction between
original characters versus the use of established characters, then you
throw it all out and say the real distinction is merely money and law.
In any event, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that
the fact that I'm not getting a paycheck for writing my story means I'm
not the author of it.
I guess the bottom line is, you have your definitions. I have mine.
>
> Note This: You ignored my question at the top about why all the
> typing/debating. You ignored every good/bad, better/worse,
> positive/negative connotation line I used.
Because it doesn't apply to me. You kept trying to imply that I was
somehow taking offense when I wasn't.
> And you ignored every time I
> said it is just a definition of terms.
No, I didn't. I said several time that I realize you're trying to define
something. I just didn't understand why it needed defining.
> From this I can only conclude
> that you view the term fanfic writer in a negative way.
That would be a faulty conclusion on your part.
> You want to wear the label of author. Fine. Go right ahead. I'm not
> stopping you. I can't stop you. I don't care one way or another. You
> and your "distinguished readers" can do your thing. But know this, this
> distinction and all of the debating you did/are doing over it is
> unnecessary. It is based on *your* negative feeling about the term
> fanfic writer.
Again, a conclusion based on an erroneous reading of the evidence.
It seems that you *want* me to say I think you're demeaning me with your
definitions and you're frustrated that not once through this entire
thread have I done so.
Jane Davitt
> -Andy- wrote:
>
>> Just a random thought/query...
>>
>> I have a number of original characters (OC's) scattered throughout my
>> assorted Buffy fanfics. Usually minor characters (at least 6
>> mini-Slayers, a store owner/clerk, a bartender, a couple wiccans. That
>> kind of character. Someone who appears for a few scenes and interacts
>> with the main characters. They don't require a lot of effort to
>> define/write.
>>
>> But what about a fic where one of the main characters is an OC? Is
>> anyone going to read a fic with a character like that?
>>
>> How different is my writing going to have to be to successfully
>> support an OC set in the Buffyverse?
>>
>> Just wondering...
>>
>> -Andy-
I've had enthusiastic reactions to OCs in minor roles (John in the
co-written Act of Nature, Matthew in Preying on my Mind...); I think
people like them in longer fics to provide a bit of spice. But normally
they're reading Buffyverse fics for the Buffyverse characters and seem
not to like OC's replacing the canon characters.
Jane
--
-Andy-
on 08
Feb 2005 with:
[examples snipped]
> So, yes, OCs are the kiss of death.
>
>
> On the other hand Enigmaticblue almost always has an
> OC or two in a very significant role in her stories
> and it doesn't seem to put anyone off at all.
Fandom? URL?
> Caro's OCs Mike and Harry in her "Seven Years in the
> Desert" series have a large and enthusiastic fanbase
> of their own.
>
> So, no, OCs are not the kiss of death.
Hmmm... my fics don't generate a huge amount of
feedback in the first place. My 17 stories on "Twisting
the Hellmouth" (all 120K words of them) have gotten 94
'reviews' and 28K hits in the last year. There are
single fics there that have gotten 5-10 times as much
attention. So I don't have a whole lot of audience to
lose anyway...
> The only way you're going to find out which will
> apply in your case is to try it and see.
Hmmm... the gradual buildup... won't work with the fic
I'm already working on with an OC... (The curious can
see it here (It started out as my incomplete NaNoWriMo
story):
http://www.tthfanfic.com/story.php?no=6218 )
but I'll have to try it some time. Thanks for the
insight.
-Andy-
Jane Davitt
>
>
> Hmmm... my fics don't generate a huge amount of feedback in the first
> place. My 17 stories on "Twisting the Hellmouth" (all 120K words of
> them) have gotten 94 'reviews' and 28K hits in the last year. There
> are single fics there that have gotten 5-10 times as much attention.
> So I don't have a whole lot of audience to lose anyway...
>
Gosh. :;mildly envies your audience/feedback:; Seems like a lot to me!
Jane
--
jil...@hotmail.com
*smile* That's true, you didn't write MY name in the question up
there. I only answered it and what I think. So, one of the
differences is that a fanfic writer can get away with writing what they
want, as long as no one pays for it.
-Andy-
with:
> -Andy- wrote:
[blah, blah, blah, some numbers, blah...]
> Gosh. :;mildly envies your audience/feedback:; Seems
> like a lot to me!
It really isn't. Not for that many stories posted to
TtH. With exception of 1 story I'm lucky if 5 people
leave me feedback for a fic. And half of those are the
same people (My "regular readers" - worth their weight
in gold... but some of them read my stories on my Blog
and leave me feedback elsewhere so they don't count in
the above).
I do have a fairly good idea why I don't get a lot of
feedback at TtH (or for my few stories on ff.net). But
that's a story for another day... suffice it to say...
I write fics exploring facets of BtVS (in crossovers or
not) that I'm interested in. Not necessarily the ones
that are the most popular.
BTR1701
<gre...@manx.net> wrote:
The best example of successful prose set in the Buffy universe using
wholly original characters is the "Tales of the Slayer" series. I
believe they are up to about Book 5 now. Those are some great stories
and none of them use any of the established characters from the TV show.
Lawrence Payne
Technically, I'm breaking my own rule here. I got myself bogged down in a
side discussion that was only partially related to the topic at hand. In
doing so I managed to deviate so far off the main topic that my main point
got lost in the fog. So I'll do this one last post on this side topic to
try and answer your questions, and then that's it. And this time I mean it
(he says to himself more than to anyone else).
This whole side topic has really been about the core meaning of the word
fanfiction. Again I point of that there is no difference or distinction in
the act of creative writing, just a difference in the terms. I will add
that the difference was created by our modern times, and the *new* nature of
public domain law.
When we argue OOC, what are we arguing? What are we really saying? I
contend that we are saying/arguing that the character/s the creator of story
made within his/her story that he/she called by the same name/s of known
character/s, do not match up with those existing character/s (i.e. the ones
on the show). We make that determination based on what we see on the show
(i.e. on characters that previously exist). Writing-wise, because they
already exist we should try to keep them within the confines of their
original personality/s. That is the second, and only, layer of the ff
writer vs. author onion.
Ex 1. Someone writes a story with Buffy Summers as the lead character.
Within the story, Buffy swears every other word (shades of Susie on Curb
Your Enthusiasm). The Buffy I know and love never swore. Barring the FCC
Limitations argument that is still not how Joss envisioned her to be.
Ex 2. Someone else writes a fic. In this one Buffy walks into a bank with
an AK47, kills everyone in the place, rips the safe door off the wall, and
robs the place. This fic is OOC on main levels instead of just one.
We craft our story stories based on how the original creator envisioned
them. If they don't talk or behave within the story the way they
talked/behaved on the show, we complaint about it. That complaint is based
on our previous knowledge of the character. That's the core difference of
the two terms. Is it a thin layer? Extremely thin. So thin that the two
words only exist because of modern law and as a foundation for character
voice discussions.
Is money and modern law a factor in all of this? Yes. Disney, and others
can and will file suit against anyone who uses their intellectual property
in a public domain without thier consent. Whether that is fair or not is a
different discussion. But realistically, if Joss or the corporate entity of
Mutant Enemy ever filed suit against a fanfic writer, another Napster-level
controversy would no doubt take place. That one would probably end in a
similar stalemate.
So creatively speaking they are exactly the same. Both require creativity,
skill, and passion. But with fanfiction, a character voice discussion is
possible, because the characters we write about are already established.
I hope that clears thing up some.
Speaker-to-Customers
> Speaker-to-Customers <gre...@manx.net> enlightened us
> on 08
> Feb 2005 with:
>
>
> [examples snipped]
>
>>
>>OC or two in a very significant role in her stories
>>and it doesn't seem to put anyone off at all.
>
>
> Fandom? URL?
Fandom BtVS - I regard that as the default on this newsgroup.
URL http://www.freewebs.com/enigmaticblue/
>
>>Caro's OCs Mike and Harry in her "Seven Years in the
>>Desert" series have a large and enthusiastic fanbase
>>of their own.
Fandom BtVS also; url http://www.missivesfromthehellmouth.com/index.html
although a lot of the stories in that series have only so far appeared
on her LiveJournal and not on the website.
---
Speaker-to-Customers
http://www.speaker-to-customers.me.uk/
BTR1701
<payne_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ex 1. Someone writes a story with Buffy Summers as the lead character.
> Within the story, Buffy swears every other word (shades of Susie on Curb
> Your Enthusiasm). The Buffy I know and love never swore. Barring the
> FCC Limitations argument that is still not how Joss envisioned her to be.
>
> Ex 2. Someone else writes a fic. In this one Buffy walks into a bank
> with an AK47, kills everyone in the place, rips the safe door off the wall,
> and robs the place. This fic is OOC on main levels instead of just one.
>
> We craft our story stories based on how the original creator envisioned
> them. If they don't talk or behave within the story the way they
> talked/behaved on the show, we complaint about it.
But every writer faces the constraints of his chosen genre. This is
nothing unique to fanfiction writers.
Sure, you may have to be careful not to make Buffy swear like a sailor
but the writer of a Western has to do the same thing with his
characters. He can't have them spouting off about quantum physics or the
electromagnetic spectrum. He can't have them using laser guns.
What you're talking about boils down to this: if an author wants to tell
a good story, he/she has to make it believable.
And that's as true of a story set in (and using characters from) the
Buffy universe as it is for a wholly original story in some other
setting, whether it be horror, sci-fi, Westerns, pirates on the high
seas, whatever.
Speaker-to-Customers
>
> Ex 2. Someone else writes a fic. In this one Buffy walks into a bank with
> an AK47, kills everyone in the place, rips the safe door off the wall, and
> robs the place. This fic is OOC on main levels instead of just one.
Actually that one could be totally in character, although AU, if it
turned out that Warren had developed a more powerful version of his
cerebral dampener and Buffy was under his control.
Speaker-to-Customers
-Andy-
with:
> -Andy- wrote:
>> Speaker-to-Customers <gre...@manx.net> enlightened
>> us with:
>>
>> [examples snipped]
>>
>>>On the other hand Enigmaticblue almost always has an
>>>OC or two in a very significant role in her stories
>>>and it doesn't seem to put anyone off at all.
>>
>> Fandom? URL?
>
> Fandom BtVS - I regard that as the default on this
> newsgroup.
But not everyone necessarily does. Which is why I asked
:-). Thanks for the links.
From checking out the websites, I also see why I'd
never heard of either writer... they primarily write
Spike/Buffy fics - which I tend to avoid (since that's
not my favorite BtVS pairing)... and they don't appear
to do crossovers (my preferred BtVS fanfic genre).
-Andy-
Speaker-to-Customers
>>newsgroup.
>
>
> But not everyone necessarily does. Which is why I asked
> :-). Thanks for the links.
>
> From checking out the websites, I also see why I'd
> never heard of either writer... they primarily write
> Spike/Buffy fics - which I tend to avoid (since that's
> not my favorite BtVS pairing)... and they don't appear
> to do crossovers (my preferred BtVS fanfic genre).
If you do crossovers then no-one will notice your Original Character
anyway. Everyone will just assume (s)he is from the other fandom.
Speaker-to-Customers
-Andy-
with:
> -Andy- wrote:
>> crossovers (my preferred BtVS fanfic genre).
> If you do crossovers then no-one will notice your
> Original Character anyway. Everyone will just assume
> (s)he is from the other fandom.
I don't have anything to back up my belief but I don't
agree... unless you are talking about the "Buffy-Spike-
forever" fic kiddies over on ff.net. (They could care
less about the story in the first place as long as it
includes a Buffy/Spike pairing).
Speaker-to-Customers
> Speaker-to-Customers <gre...@manx.net> enlightened us
> with:
>
>
>>-Andy- wrote:
>
>
>>>crossovers (my preferred BtVS fanfic genre).
>
>
>>If you do crossovers then no-one will notice your
>>Original Character anyway. Everyone will just assume
>>(s)he is from the other fandom.
>
>
> I don't have anything to back up my belief but I don't
> agree... unless you are talking about the "Buffy-Spike-
> forever" fic kiddies over on ff.net. (They could care
> less about the story in the first place as long as it
> includes a Buffy/Spike pairing).
>
> -Andy-
I wasn't being entirely serious; I was exaggerating for (not terribly)
humorous effect.
I don't read crossovers unless I'm familiar with both shows involved
(unless said crossovers are written by Marcus Rowland), and I know a lot
of people who follow the same principle (sometimes without the Marcus
Rowland exception clause).
I haven't read a single thing you've written yet because you've only
crossed BtVS with shows of which I've never even heard. In fact I don't
even know if they are TV shows, books, comics, films, or heiroglyphics
discovered on ancient papyri.
You could have made them up entirely for all that I'd know to the contrary.
So you might as well make up original characters because I'd never know
the difference; even if I went against my normal custom and decided to
give your fics a chance because of your articulate posts on the newsgroup.
Speaker-to-Customers
-Andy-
with:
> -Andy- wrote:
>> Speaker-to-Customers <gre...@manx.net> enlightened
>> us with:
>>>-Andy- wrote:
>>>>crossovers (my preferred BtVS fanfic genre).
>>>If you do crossovers then no-one will notice your
>>>Original Character anyway. Everyone will just
>>>assume (s)he is from the other fandom.
>> I don't have anything to back up my belief but I
>> don't agree...
> I wasn't being entirely serious;
Good to know.
> I don't read crossovers unless I'm familiar with both
> shows involved (unless said crossovers are written by
> Marcus Rowland),
Well... there are a couple others I would throw into
the "exception pile" but I pretty much agree with
that...
> I haven't read a single thing you've written yet
> because you've only crossed BtVS with shows of which
> I've never even heard.
Really? You haven't heard of "Harry Potter",
"Highlander", or "Tomb Raider" ? :-). Those are the
fandoms I do BtVS crossovers with. It's clearly stated
in the headers to all my fics. :-).
Note: I only have one crossover fic in my collection
that is based on something not included in the above
that I've posted here in the last year or two. And
that's a series of books by Tanya Huff which I state in
that particular fic.
If you wandered over to my blog you might find some
fragments of stories for obscure fandoms... but nothing
I've posted anywhere else.
-Andy-
--
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
-- Excepting Alice
Speaker-to-Customers
>>because you've only crossed BtVS with shows of which
>>I've never even heard.
>
>
> Really? You haven't heard of "Harry Potter",
> "Highlander", or "Tomb Raider" ? :-). Those are the
> fandoms I do BtVS crossovers with. It's clearly stated
> in the headers to all my fics. :-).
>
> Note: I only have one crossover fic in my collection
> that is based on something not included in the above
> that I've posted here in the last year or two. And
> that's a series of books by Tanya Huff which I state in
> that particular fic.
>
> If you wandered over to my blog you might find some
> fragments of stories for obscure fandoms... but nothing
> I've posted anywhere else.
>
> -Andy-
Perhaps I shouldn't whip off hasty replies while in the middle of doing
something else; my cursory search found the Tanya Huff 'Keeper'
reference, and also 'Red Raider' - which I unfortunately read as being
the crossover source rather than the title! Somehow 'Red Raider' made
me think of something in the 'Power Rangers' genre.
Now that I've done a more thorough check and found your Twisting the
Hellmouth entries I realise that I have in fact read one of your stories
and liked it ('China Blonde').
Speaker-to-Customers
Eric Jablow
Does the world need yet another Harry Potter or SG-1 story
by someone who isn't an expert on either? Besides, fantasy
and science fiction stories are hard enough to keep control
over, When anything can happen in a fictional universe, it's
easy to write a senseless deus ex machina story. Putting
two strongly magical universes together leads often to
incoherent stories.
Besides, a large part of BtVS was Buffy's struggle to have some
semblance of normality, and not have her destiny define her.
this is why I've combined the Whedon-verse mostly with non-magical
universes.
Of course, I've also had Elmer Fudd trying to slay vampires,
Michigan J. Frog sing at Willow, and Ms. Frizzle provide the
gang with her school bus, so take that with a grain of salt.
--
Respectfully,
Eric Jablow
-Andy-
Eric Jablow <eja...@cox.net> wrote:
> Part of the fun for me is writing unusual crossover targets.
> Does the world need yet another Harry Potter or SG-1 story
> by someone who isn't an expert on either?
Is this a trick question? %-).
One of the worst things to see at the beginning of a fic -->
"I don't know anything about fandom X, except what I've read in fan
fiction."
(I could go on but we've been there many times before...)
> Putting two strongly magical universes together leads often to
> incoherent stories.
That's part of the challenge for me in my BtVS/HP/Highlander/etc.
crossover. Mixing different kinds of magic and not letting things get
outlandish while attempting to stick close to canon.
In my case it gets tricky and leads to much exposition and convoluted
plots. Not sure if I've completely succeeded but I'm more interested in
developing character relationships than the magic issues anyway. Others
have done it better...
> Ms. Frizzle provide the gang with her school bus
Really? Is it archived/available anywhere?
-Andy-
Speaker-to-Customers
> One of the worst things to see at the beginning of a fic -->
>
> "I don't know anything about fandom X, except what I've read in fan
> fiction."
There's an awful lot of Buffy fic (and, indeed, a lot of awful Buffy
fic) in which that statement isn't there but you can tell within a
couple of paragraphs that it should have been. Especially in
Buffy/Spike fics.
Speaker-to-Customers
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: Eric Jablow <eja...@cox.net> wrote:
:
:> Part of the fun for me is writing unusual crossover targets.
:> Does the world need yet another Harry Potter or SG-1 story
:> by someone who isn't an expert on either?
:
: Is this a trick question? %-).
:
: One of the worst things to see at the beginning of a fic -->
:
: "I don't know anything about fandom X, except what I've read in fan
: fiction."
The fun in a crossover for *me* is joining two (or more) of my favorite
families of characters to each others' families. The logistics can be
tricky in terms of the sources' fantasy rules - BUFFY and TREK was fun -
but as one gets older one becomes less concerned with rules and more with
story.
Eric Jablow
-Andy- <see2...@spamworm.yahoo.com> wrote:
> In my case it gets tricky and leads to much exposition and convoluted
> plots. Not sure if I've completely succeeded but I'm more interested in
> developing character relationships than the magic issues anyway. Others
> have done it better...
>
> > Ms. Frizzle provide the gang with her school bus
>
> Really? Is it archived/available anywhere?
>
My home site, at http://members.cox.net/ejablow/mmos/index.html.
Look for "Frazzled". It was just a silly drabble though.
--
Respectfully,
Eric Jablow
jil...@hotmail.com
BTR1701 wrote:
> The best example of successful prose set in the Buffy universe using
> wholly original characters is the "Tales of the Slayer" series. I
> believe they are up to about Book 5 now. Those are some great stories
> and none of them use any of the established characters from the TV
show.
Not really. Those are stories authors get paid for. They get put out
in books which some of US pay for. They are probably restricted. I
remember reading that Whedon made a rule, pre-soul Spike was not
allowed to be good in any of the Buffy-books unless it was good he was
doing for Buffy and Dawn. Thank heavens for that.
jil...@hotmail.com
Eric Jablow wrote:
> In article <see2go4me-326B1...@news.giganews.com>,
> > > Ms. Frizzle provide the gang with her school bus
> >
> > Really? Is it archived/available anywhere?
> >
>
> My home site, at http://members.cox.net/ejablow/mmos/index.html.
> Look for "Frazzled". It was just a silly drabble though.
Indignant, accusatory look. IS NOT!! I've been up and down that page!
And by the way, Elric of Melnibone!
BTR1701
"jil...@hotmail.com" <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > The best example of successful prose set in the Buffy universe using
> > wholly original characters is the "Tales of the Slayer" series. I
> > believe they are up to about Book 5 now. Those are some great stories
> > and none of them use any of the established characters from the TV
> show.
>
> Not really. Those are stories authors get paid for.
I'm not sure I see the distinction. All I said is they were great
stories that don't use the original characters from the show.
My enjoyment of a story isn't dependent on whether the author is paid to
write it or not.
If it's a good story, it's a good story, regardless.
jil...@hotmail.com
The distinction is that, much as your typical fan doesn't like to admit
it, it isn't the OC who is the problem making people not want to read
their stories. It's typically that the story is not as creative,
interesting, or decently put together as they imagine it to be. And
even we readers of fanfic.... Such as the people who will read
anything, as long as the main characters romantically involved are
named Buffy and Spike.... These people imagine that they've written
good fic just because they've done "insert name here".
Speaker-to-Customers
I've just posted two "Tales of the Slayer" style stories with entirely
original characters at the Watchers Diaries Live Journal community
http://www.livejournal.com/community/watchersdiaries/
and I'm getting a lot of positive responses. I was worried about doing
it, I thought they might just disappear unread because of the absence of
canon BuffyVerse characters, but it seems to have worked out.
OCs certainly don't seem to have been the kiss of death in this case.
Speaker-to-Customers (LJ name speakr2customrs)
Eric Jablow
<1108132289.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"jil...@hotmail.com" <jil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
OOPS! I'll have to convert that story to HTML and put it there.
It is on "Twisting the Hellmouth", and in the archives of this
group on Google.
--
Respectfully,
Eric Jablow
jil...@hotmail.com
Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
> I've just posted two "Tales of the Slayer" style stories with
entirely
> original characters at the Watchers Diaries Live Journal community
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/community/watchersdiaries/
>
> and I'm getting a lot of positive responses. I was worried about
doing
> it, I thought they might just disappear unread because of the absence
of
> canon BuffyVerse characters, but it seems to have worked out.
>
> OCs certainly don't seem to have been the kiss of death in this case.
As I said, OCs are not the actual issue. YOU can write! That is most
appreciated by any fan.
Lawrence Payne
news:Xns95F295F3C...@216.196.97.131...
> Just a random thought/query...
>
> But what about a fic where one of the main characters is
> an OC? Is anyone going to read a fic with a character
> like that?
>
> How different is my writing going to have to be to
> successfully support an OC set in the Buffyverse?
>
> Just wondering...
After all of the typing I've done on this topic I feel more than a little
weird posting this, but somewhere down the line my point got lost and I feel
the need to restate it.
IMHO, OCs are fine in fanfic. They, just like any other character, propel
the story forward. When you write them, try your best to make them real
people, not cardboard cutouts or cliques. Make a point to give them a
believable look, a realistic personality, and some history/backstory that
connects them to the fandom. Do that and I'm sure your fic will be great.
--
My personal web site is still under construction. Until then you can read my
fanfiction at http://www.fanfiction.net/u/558957/ and
http://www.tthfanfic.com/authors.php?no=2755