Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

When Titans Clash

4 views
Skip to first unread message

James Nicoll

unread,
May 21, 2007, 2:01:23 PM5/21/07
to

Charlton Wilbur

unread,
May 21, 2007, 3:12:13 PM5/21/07
to
>>>>> "JN" == James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> writes:

JN> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
JN> http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-fanfic.html

JN> Praises fanfic.

JN> http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html

JN> Does not.

What I think Yngve misses is that when someone writes a fanfic about
something that's been long in the public domain, we don't call it fanfic.

For example:

_A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and _The Tempest_, by Neal Gaiman
_Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_, by Tom Stoppard
_Falstaff_ by Giuseppe Verdi
_West Side Story_ by Leonard Bernstein
_Grendel_ by John Gardner
_Elektra_ by Richard Strauss

I could go on, but I won't.

Charlton

--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net

Aaron Denney

unread,
May 21, 2007, 4:08:16 PM5/21/07
to
On 2007-05-21, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!

Titans? I can maybe see that being applied to Doctorow, but who the
hell is Yngve? (Besides a louse.)

--
Aaron Denney
-><-

Remus Shepherd

unread,
May 21, 2007, 4:17:22 PM5/21/07
to
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-fanfic.html
> Praises fanfic.

From Mr. Doctorow's article:

"Writers sometimes speak of their characters running away from them,
taking on a life of their own. They say that these characters -- drawn
from real people in our lives and mixed up with our own imagination --
are autonomous pieces of themselves. It's a short leap from there to
mystical nonsense about protecting our notional, fictional children
from grubby fans who'd set them to screwing each other or bowing and
scraping before some thinly veiled version of the fanfic writer
herself.

There's something to the idea of the autonomous character. Big chunks
of our wetware are devoted to simulating other people, trying to
figure out if we are likely to fight or fondle them. It's unsurprising
that when you ask your brain to model some other person, it rises to
the task. But that's exactly what happens to a reader when you hand
your book over to him: he simulates your characters in his head,
trying to interpret that character's actions through his own lens."

The obvious solution, then, is to make characters who are aware of this
and can take care of themselves.

I *love* it when I'm two years ahead of the rest of the world. ;)

... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Indefensible Positions -- a story of superheroic philosophy.
http://indepos.comicgenesis.com/

Joe Bednorz

unread,
May 21, 2007, 4:58:22 PM5/21/07
to
On 21 May 2007 15:12:13 -0400, Charlton Wilbur wrote in
<87iramk...@mithril.chromatico.net>:

>>>>>> "JN" == James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> writes:
>
> JN> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
> JN> http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-fanfic.html
>
> JN> Praises fanfic.
>
> JN> http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> JN> Does not.
>
>What I think Yngve misses is that when someone writes a fanfic about
>something that's been long in the public domain, we don't call it fanfic.
>
>For example:
>

> _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and _The Tempest_, by Neal[sic] Gaiman

Also "Snow, Glass, Apples" by Neil [Note Spelling] Gaiman
<http://www.holycow.com/dreaming/stories/snow.html>

and

"I, Cthulhu or What’s A Tentacle-Faced Thing Like Me Doing In A Sunken
City Like This (Latitude 47 ° 9’ S, Longitude 126 ° 43’ W)?" by Neil
Gaiman

<http://www.neilgaiman.com/exclusive/shortstories/chulthhustory>


>
>I could go on, but I won't.
>

That's okay. I did.

--
Links to Gigabytes of free books on line, emphasis on SF:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the Best,
Joe Bednorz

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
May 21, 2007, 5:23:12 PM5/21/07
to
On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:23 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
>
> http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-fanfic.html
>
> Praises fanfic.
>
> http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> Does not.

Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.

Charlton Wilbur

unread,
May 21, 2007, 6:15:26 PM5/21/07
to
>>>>> "JB" == Joe Bednorz <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:

JB> On 21 May 2007 15:12:13 -0400, Charlton Wilbur wrote in
JB> <87iramk...@mithril.chromatico.net>:

>> Neal[sic] Gaiman

JB> Neil [Note Spelling] Gaiman

Yes, I know this, too. I've just been emailing back and forth
recently (for different reasons) with two people who spell it Neal...

Sea Wasp

unread,
May 21, 2007, 7:53:24 PM5/21/07
to

Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
"get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
really quite heartwarming.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Keith Morrison

unread,
May 21, 2007, 12:42:45 AM5/21/07
to
Yeah verily, on Mon, 21 May 2007 19:53:24 -0400, Sea Wasp did exercise
fingers and typed:

>> Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
>> from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
>> that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.
>
> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
>"get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
>really quite heartwarming.

Well, perhaps a compromise can be made: people will stop reading Yngve,
that way he doesn't have to worry about them appropriating his characters.

I'll give him some credit though: before I heard about his rather silly
rant, I'd never heard of him. Now I do. Not that I'll read any of his
stuff.


Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 22, 2007, 10:20:38 AM5/22/07
to
In article <87iramk...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
cwi...@chromatico.net says...

You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern works
either. They are literary or artistic works that create something new
inspired by another work.

Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
creates a new universe apart from the original.

- Gerry Quinn

James Nicoll

unread,
May 22, 2007, 10:45:24 AM5/22/07
to
In article <MPG.20bd0c921...@news1.eircom.net>,


It can't be science fiction -- it's good.

Charlton Wilbur

unread,
May 22, 2007, 12:11:52 PM5/22/07
to
>>>>> "G" == Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> writes:

G> You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
G> works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
G> something new inspired by another work.

G> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
G> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.

Aha. So fanfic you like is literature. Gotcha.

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
May 22, 2007, 1:22:58 PM5/22/07
to
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
news:MPG.20bd0c921...@news1.eircom.net:

>...


>> What I think Yngve misses is that when someone writes a fanfic
>> about something that's been long in the public domain, we don't
>> call it fanfic.

>> For example:

>> _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and _The Tempest_, by Neal
>> Gaiman _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_, by Tom
>> Stoppard _Falstaff_ by Giuseppe Verdi
>> _West Side Story_ by Leonard Bernstein
>> _Grendel_ by John Gardner
>> _Elektra_ by Richard Strauss

>> I could go on, but I won't.

> You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
> works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
> something new inspired by another work.

> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.

This seems to veer close to Amis and Conquest's

"SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
"But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."

with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what constitutes
"creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like Stoppard's, where the
Shakespearian characters do exactly the same things in exactly the
same ways as in the play, with any additional material added
interstitially? How is that the creation of a new universe in a way
that doing the same thing with Mary Sue and the crew of the
Enterprise is not? (Other than the fact Stoppard's work is probably
better: a difference of degree, rather than kind.)

I have no particular brief for fanfic, and don't read much fiction
of any sort that hasn't gone through the filtering of editors and
commercial publication. (Though I've encountered some good fanfic,
recommended by readers I trust, just as I've found some good
unpublished fiction much the same way.) Sturgeon's Law certainly
applies to fanfic-- possibly more intensively, given the fact that
there's some economic incentive for those who can write publishable
fiction to spend their time on material that is legally publishable.
But that doesn't in itself make a work derivative of Star Trek
qualitatively different from one derivative of Thomas Kyd's
reworking of Saxo Grammaticus.

Mike

--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu

Gary Thompson

unread,
May 22, 2007, 2:00:40 PM5/22/07
to
On May 21, 6:53 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:23 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
> > <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
>
> >>http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-f...

>
> >> Praises fanfic.
>
> >>http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> >> Does not.
>
> > Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
> > from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
> > that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.
>
> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
> "get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
> really quite heartwarming.
>

Battlestar Galactica is having a fanfilm *contest*, for God's sake--
complete with stock footage you are allowed to incorporate into your
work.

Gary Thompson

unread,
May 22, 2007, 2:06:43 PM5/22/07
to
On May 20, 11:42 pm, Keith Morrison

<kei...@idontwantnosteenkingspam.qiniq.com> wrote:
>
> Well, perhaps a compromise can be made: people will stop reading Yngve,
> that way he doesn't have to worry about them appropriating his characters.
>
> I'll give him some credit though: before I heard about his rather silly
> rant, I'd never heard of him. Now I do. Not that I'll read any of his
> stuff.

Never heard of him either. Looks like he posted here a couple times,
but didn't stick around long enough to learn not to top post.

khog...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 22, 2007, 4:28:54 PM5/22/07
to
On May 21, 6:53 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:23 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
> > <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
>
> >>http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-f...

>
> >> Praises fanfic.
>
> >>http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> >> Does not.
>
> > Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
> > from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
> > that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.
>
> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
> "get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
> really quite heartwarming.
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Live Journal:http://seawasp.livejournal.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sea Wasp,
I knew I would find you somewhere! Here you are! Do you remember
our arguments about the 10,000 modern humans appearing in North Africa
and moving out and covering the planet? I believe you hit me pretty
hard on that statement. I said I had done the research, and you of
course speared me. (The stitches are out now by the way.) FINALLY,
Cambridge University released their findings. (They knew what the
findings were years ago, but it does present problems as I said it
would and will.) Go to:
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/ Go to news archive on the left
hand side, hit it and then hit May 2007. Scroll down to DNA links
Aborigines to African Walkabout. This is the answer I was telling you
about, and why it was in the book as it was (Fictional reason of
course, but still partly true.) They had known it for a while but
waited until the Australian and New Guinea studies came back in. They
said to be sure, I think they didn't want the issues it brings up,
brought up. But someone was going to tell, so they released their
findings first. Doesn't mean my fiction is true, but it was a proper
vehicle to set up the story. We are all one species, there are no
"races", only the evolution by climate and survival changes make us
different as I said. Regards, K.W.

Sea Wasp

unread,
May 22, 2007, 7:53:35 PM5/22/07
to

No, and a quick google shows no such exchange with me. Perhaps you
are confusing me with someone else.

I know that humanity went through a choke point (as proven by
mitochondrial studies) and that humanity originated in Africa, so I
doubt I would have gotten into an argument on that point.

khog...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 22, 2007, 9:23:54 PM5/22/07
to
On May 22, 6:53 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:

> khogan...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On May 21, 6:53 pm, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvi...@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
> >>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:01:23 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
> >>><jdnic...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Doctorow vs Yngve! Who! Will! Win!
>
> >>>>http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/05/cory-doctorow-in-praise-of-f...
>
> >>>> Praises fanfic.
>
> >>>>http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2007/05/riddle-me-this.html
>
> >>>> Does not.
>
> >>>Mr Doctorow builds up a coherent argument showing how his views come
> >>>from facts and historical precendent. Mr Yngve gives one throw away line
> >>>that totally misses the point. This round goes to Doctorow.
>
> >> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
> >>"get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
> >>really quite heartwarming.
>
> >>--
> >> Sea Wasp
> >> /^\
> >> ;;;
> >> Live Journal:http://seawasp.livejournal.com-Hide quoted text -

>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Sea Wasp,
> > I knew I would find you somewhere! Here you are! Do you remember
> > our arguments about the 10,000 modern humans appearing in North Africa
> > and moving out and covering the planet?
>
> No, and a quick google shows no such exchange with me. Perhaps you
> are confusing me with someone else.
>
> I know that humanity went through a choke point (as proven by
> mitochondrial studies) and that humanity originated in Africa, so I
> doubt I would have gotten into an argument on that point.
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
> Live Journal:http://seawasp.livejournal.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I must go back and see, I thought the stinger was still in me! HA!
Glad to see you alive and well! Regards, K.W.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 22, 2007, 9:43:57 PM5/22/07
to
In article <87lkfgk...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
cwi...@chromatico.net says...

> >>>>> "G" == Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> writes:
>
> G> You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
> G> works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
> G> something new inspired by another work.
>
> G> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
> G> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> Aha. So fanfic you like is literature. Gotcha.

No, I make a distinction. Try reading the posts you respond to.

- Gerry Quinn

Aaron Denney

unread,
May 22, 2007, 9:58:42 PM5/22/07
to

The distinction you make is not actually the distinction you apply,
nor is there a good definition for parasitises in this context.

Does "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" create a new universe?

--
Aaron Denney
-><-

Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 22, 2007, 10:14:47 PM5/22/07
to
In article <Xns99387DF746BB...@130.133.1.4>,
msch...@condor.depaul.edu says...

> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> news:MPG.20bd0c921...@news1.eircom.net:
>
> > In article <87iramk...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> > cwi...@chromatico.net says...
> >...
> >> What I think Yngve misses is that when someone writes a fanfic
> >> about something that's been long in the public domain, we don't
> >> call it fanfic.
>
> >> For example:
>
> >> _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ and _The Tempest_, by Neal
> >> Gaiman _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_, by Tom
> >> Stoppard _Falstaff_ by Giuseppe Verdi
> >> _West Side Story_ by Leonard Bernstein
> >> _Grendel_ by John Gardner
> >> _Elektra_ by Richard Strauss
>
> >> I could go on, but I won't.
>
> > You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
> > works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
> > something new inspired by another work.
>
> > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
> > literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> This seems to veer close to Amis and Conquest's
>
> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."

Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said with
somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at all.

> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what constitutes
> "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like Stoppard's, where the
> Shakespearian characters do exactly the same things in exactly the
> same ways as in the play, with any additional material added
> interstitially? How is that the creation of a new universe in a way
> that doing the same thing with Mary Sue and the crew of the
> Enterprise is not? (Other than the fact Stoppard's work is probably
> better: a difference of degree, rather than kind.)

Candidly, I haven't read or seen 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are
Dead'. But I have read and seen 'Hamlet', and Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern have only bit parts, almost if not entirely offstage. So
your argument is nonsense, unless tertiary sources entirely
misrepresent Stoppard's play.

To some extent I will concede that 'better' comes into it, a bit. But
that's because 'better' tends to coincide with 'creation of a new
universe'. If you can't use the original in a worthwhile fashion,
don't contaminate it with sleazy 'stalking'.

John Updike's excellent _Gertrude and Claudius_ is another example of a
work based on 'Hamlet' that is not fanfic. Again, it goes beyond the
events of the play and builds a new world based on its iconic
structures, using the original characters only as reference points.

> I have no particular brief for fanfic, and don't read much fiction
> of any sort that hasn't gone through the filtering of editors and
> commercial publication. (Though I've encountered some good fanfic,
> recommended by readers I trust, just as I've found some good
> unpublished fiction much the same way.) Sturgeon's Law certainly
> applies to fanfic-- possibly more intensively, given the fact that
> there's some economic incentive for those who can write publishable
> fiction to spend their time on material that is legally publishable.
> But that doesn't in itself make a work derivative of Star Trek
> qualitatively different from one derivative of Thomas Kyd's
> reworking of Saxo Grammaticus.

This is good, not imbecile or sick
Maybe it's time I stopped writing fanfic.

- Gerry Quinn

David Johnston

unread,
May 22, 2007, 10:33:55 PM5/22/07
to
On Wed, 23 May 2007 02:43:57 +0100, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
wrote:

I don't understand the distinction. I've read plenty of fanfic that
created a new universe. Sometimes a radically different new universe.

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
May 22, 2007, 10:54:42 PM5/22/07
to
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:

>...


>> > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
>> > literature creates a new universe apart from the original.

>> This seems to veer close to Amis and Conquest's

>> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
>> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."

> Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> all.

>> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
>> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
>> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
>> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
>> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
>> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
>> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
>> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
>> of degree, rather than kind.)

> Candidly, I haven't read or seen 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
> are Dead'. But I have read and seen 'Hamlet', and Rosencrantz
> and Guildenstern have only bit parts, almost if not entirely
> offstage.

Stoppard fills in what happens when they're offstage. But when
they interact with the main characters, they say Shakespeare's
lines, and Hamlet, Gertrude, et al. say Shakespeare's lines right
back at them. The play takes place in the same universe as
Shakespeare's-- it expands the stage, to give us the philosophical
perspective of bit characters (not just Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern, but also the Players, particularly the Player King).
Just as a Star Trek fanfic might propose to say what was happening
on the lower decks while Kirk and Spock were dealing with the alien
of the week, or show what Kirk and Spock were up to between
adventures.

Some of those speculations strike me as a little unlikely for the
characters in question. But then, it seems likewise unlikely that
Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had long existential
discussions about coin-flipping, or competed to see who could
answer a question with a question the longest. Stoppard's play is
more ambitious and certainly more literary than any amateur work
I've read, but like other fanfic it depends on being able to play
with Shakespeare's toys. It doesn't stand alone. (He might have
chosen to write a standalone play exploring the same themes, but it
would be a different play.)

> So your argument is nonsense, unless tertiary sources
> entirely misrepresent Stoppard's play.

The play is readily available in print, and on DVD as a film
adaptation directed by Stoppard himself. There's no need to take
my word for it.

> To some extent I will concede that 'better' comes into it, a
> bit. But that's because 'better' tends to coincide with
> 'creation of a new universe'. If you can't use the original in
> a worthwhile fashion, don't contaminate it with sleazy
> 'stalking'.

"Worthwhile" strikes me as pretty much the same thing as "good" in
the verse. Sure, it's better to do something good (or worthwhile)
than something bad (or worthless). But that just gets back to
Sturgeon's Law. Some people will be better at derivative works
than others.

> John Updike's excellent _Gertrude and Claudius_ is another
> example of a work based on 'Hamlet' that is not fanfic. Again,
> it goes beyond the events of the play and builds a new world
> based on its iconic structures, using the original characters
> only as reference points.

>...

What I've seen of fanfic can go pretty far in altering characters
and events in the service of whatever themes or ideas the author is
interested in exploring, or using an established setting as general
background for a story.

In any case, given the vast amounts of amateur fanfic generated,
I'd be surprised if there's any particular approach that hasn't
been tried at some point or another. As well as Stoppard or
Updike? Probably not. But I don't actually know-- and unless
you've done a lot more reading of fanfic than you'd likely care to
do, neither do you.

Mike

Peter Trei

unread,
May 22, 2007, 11:37:37 PM5/22/07
to
khog...@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]

>
> I must go back and see, I thought the stinger was still in me! HA!
> Glad to see you alive and well! Regards, K.W.

KW: Just so you're aware, you posted this message around 15 times in
a row. Don't take it personally; this is a common error for people
starting out on Google groups. Each time you hit 'send', it gets
posted, but you don't get the feedback right away.

Thanks for getting off of your old website interface; this is much
better.

Peter Trei

Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:59:49 AM5/23/07
to
In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B...@130.133.1.4>,
msch...@condor.depaul.edu says...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:

> >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > all.
>
> >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> >> of degree, rather than kind.)

The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
who gets executed.


> Some of those speculations strike me as a little unlikely for the
> characters in question. But then, it seems likewise unlikely that
> Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had long existential
> discussions about coin-flipping, or competed to see who could
> answer a question with a question the longest. Stoppard's play is
> more ambitious and certainly more literary than any amateur work
> I've read, but like other fanfic it depends on being able to play
> with Shakespeare's toys. It doesn't stand alone. (He might have
> chosen to write a standalone play exploring the same themes, but it
> would be a different play.)

Calling Stoppard's play fanfic doesn't make it so.

> > To some extent I will concede that 'better' comes into it, a
> > bit. But that's because 'better' tends to coincide with
> > 'creation of a new universe'. If you can't use the original in
> > a worthwhile fashion, don't contaminate it with sleazy
> > 'stalking'.
>
> "Worthwhile" strikes me as pretty much the same thing as "good" in
> the verse. Sure, it's better to do something good (or worthwhile)
> than something bad (or worthless). But that just gets back to
> Sturgeon's Law. Some people will be better at derivative works
> than others.

Just because there's no bright line between fanfic and literature that
uses other works as a jumping off point doesn't demonstrate that there
is no distinction.

- Gerry Quinn

Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:05:20 AM5/23/07
to
In article <87lkfgh...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
cwi...@chromatico.net says...
> >>>>> "G" == Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> writes:
>
> G> In article <87lkfgk...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> G> cwi...@chromatico.net says...

>
> >> >>>>> "G" == Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> writes:
>
> G> You wouldn't call these fanfic if they were inspired by modern
> G> works either. They are literary or artistic works that create
> G> something new inspired by another work.
>
> G> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;
> G> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> >> Aha. So fanfic you like is literature. Gotcha.
>
> G> No, I make a distinction. Try reading the posts you respond
> G> to.
>
> And the distinction you make is so vague and subjective as to be
> meaningless; merely couching your prejudices in quasi-critical
> language does not make them objective.
>
> If you don't like a work, you can make the case that it parasitizes
> the original, and is thus fanfic; if you do like it, or you think it
> has literary merit, you can make the case that it creates a new

> universe apart from the original.
>
> Try thinking critically about what you actually say before blathering.

It is you who seems to be asserting that there is no such thing as
critical thinking and that all assessments of quality are subjective
and therefore meaningless.

Or do you have a means of objectively assessing literary merit (one
that will presumably surprise most critics by giving a high score to
fanfic)?

- Gerry Quinn

Gary Thompson

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:54:17 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 9:59 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
> mschi...@condor.depaul.edu says...

>
>
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> >news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
> > >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> > >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > > all.
>
> > >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> > >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> > >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> > >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> > >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> > >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> > >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> > >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> > >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
> The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> who gets executed.

I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not
fanfic (I certainly hope this thread doesn't sour you on it, either.
Judging by a quick persual of your stated tastes, I think you'd quite
like it). But I think it does beg the question: if I were to write a
masterful, existential piece involving, say, catastrophe theory and
the mind, but were to set it as a dialogue between two ensigns on the
Enterprise during _The Trouble with Tribbles_, and posted it in
fanfiction.net...would it be fanfic?


Gary Thompson

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:55:39 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 9:59 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
> mschi...@condor.depaul.edu says...

>
>
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> >news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
> > >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> > >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > > all.
>
> > >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> > >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> > >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> > >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> > >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> > >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> > >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> > >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> > >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
> The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> who gets executed.

I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not

Gary Thompson

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:56:08 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 9:59 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
> mschi...@condor.depaul.edu says...

>
>
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> >news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
> > >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> > >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > > all.
>
> > >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> > >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> > >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> > >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> > >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> > >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> > >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> > >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> > >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
> The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> who gets executed.

I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not

Gary Thompson

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:56:53 AM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 9:59 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
> mschi...@condor.depaul.edu says...

>
>
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
> >news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
> > >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
> > >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>
> > > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
> > > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
> > > all.
>
> > >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
> > >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> > >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> > >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> > >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> > >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> > >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> > >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> > >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
> The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> who gets executed.

I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not

David Johnston

unread,
May 23, 2007, 1:09:22 PM5/23/07
to
On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:05:20 +0100, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
wrote:

>In article <87lkfgh...@mithril.chromatico.net>,

That hardly matters when you are claiming that quality is NOT your
dividing line between fanfic and literature.

David Johnston

unread,
May 23, 2007, 1:13:52 PM5/23/07
to
On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:59:49 +0100, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
wrote:

>In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B...@130.133.1.4>,

>msch...@condor.depaul.edu says...
>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in
>> news:MPG.20bdb3ed9...@news1.eircom.net:
>
>> >> "SF's no good," they bellow till we're deaf.
>> >> "But this looks good." - "Well then, it's not SF."
>>
>> > Not at all. Like Charlton Wilbur, you equate what I have said
>> > with somrthing being 'good', when I said nothing like that at
>> > all.
>>
>> >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what
>> >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
>> >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
>> >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
>> >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
>> >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
>> >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
>> >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
>> >> of degree, rather than kind.)
>
>The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
>Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
>Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
>'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
>who gets executed.

He didn't say it was a Mary Sue. He asked how it was the creation of
a new universe in a way that Mary Sue's insertion onto the Enterprise
was not.

>
>> Some of those speculations strike me as a little unlikely for the
>> characters in question. But then, it seems likewise unlikely that
>> Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had long existential
>> discussions about coin-flipping, or competed to see who could
>> answer a question with a question the longest. Stoppard's play is
>> more ambitious and certainly more literary than any amateur work
>> I've read, but like other fanfic it depends on being able to play
>> with Shakespeare's toys. It doesn't stand alone. (He might have
>> chosen to write a standalone play exploring the same themes, but it
>> would be a different play.)
>
>Calling Stoppard's play fanfic doesn't make it so.

However it being an unauthorised derivative work DOES make it
fanfic...in every way except one. He got paid for it.


>> "Worthwhile" strikes me as pretty much the same thing as "good" in
>> the verse. Sure, it's better to do something good (or worthwhile)
>> than something bad (or worthless). But that just gets back to
>> Sturgeon's Law. Some people will be better at derivative works
>> than others.
>
>Just because there's no bright line between fanfic and literature that
>uses other works as a jumping off point doesn't demonstrate that there
>is no distinction.

There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".

Gary Thompson

unread,
May 23, 2007, 1:23:16 PM5/23/07
to
> fanfiction.net...would it be fanfic?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Stupid google groups. Sorry about the multi-posting..

Jaimie Vandenbergh

unread,
May 23, 2007, 1:29:44 PM5/23/07
to
On 23 May 2007 10:23:16 -0700, Gary Thompson <quu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stupid google groups. Sorry about the multi-posting..

And worse, GG appears to have stopped using References headers, which
completely breaks threading.

Do yourself (and the rest of us) a favour and get a real NNTP server.
News.individual.net is a good one.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
I like my coffee how I like my women...
but I can't get coffee that's independent, intelligent and has a
career of its own. - Eric Jarvis, urs

William December Starr

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:09:46 PM5/23/07
to
In article <MPG.20bdacb8e...@news1.eircom.net>,
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> said:

> cwi...@chromatico.net (Charlton Wilbur) says...


>> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> writes:
>>
>>> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original;

>>> literature creates a new universe apart from the original.
>>
>> Aha. So fanfic you like is literature. Gotcha.
>
> No, I make a distinction. Try reading the posts you respond to.

I just re-read the post that Charlton was responding to. He's still
right.

--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>

khog...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:56:27 AM5/24/07
to
On May 22, 10:37 pm, Peter Trei <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Peter,
Good to hear from you! I KNOW! I had to go back and delete them
all as it kept showing it did not post when it did! I will know
better next time. Good to hear from you, keep going after them! K.W.

Jasper Janssen

unread,
May 24, 2007, 7:43:11 AM5/24/07
to
On Sun, 20 May 2007 22:42:45 -0600, Keith Morrison
<kei...@idontwantnosteenkingspam.qiniq.com> wrote:
>Yeah verily, on Mon, 21 May 2007 19:53:24 -0400, Sea Wasp did exercise
>fingers and typed:

>> Yep. Recent events show that at least some other organizations DO
>>"get it". Look at CBS' support of the fan community for CSI; it's
>>really quite heartwarming.
>
>Well, perhaps a compromise can be made: people will stop reading Yngve,
>that way he doesn't have to worry about them appropriating his characters.

When did they start reading him, exactly? I've never even heard of any
writer named Yngwe (Which sounds suspiciously, for that matter, like a
nordic-ised spelling of a Tolkien character and thus, all by itself, a
fanfic derivation of a work in copyright).


Jasper

Thomas Lindgren

unread,
May 24, 2007, 9:14:25 AM5/24/07
to

Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> writes:

FWIW, there are eight households just in Stockholm with a last name of
Yngve or Yngwe, and it's a perfectly ordinary, if somewhat old
fashioned, first name too.

I seem to recall seeing a book or two by A.R. Yngve (in Swedish) in
the local bookstore. Due to a perhaps unreasonable prejudice against
local produce, I haven't investigated further.

Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren "Too jaded to question stagnation"

Jacob W. Haller

unread,
May 24, 2007, 9:20:58 AM5/24/07
to
To back up a bit:

Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:

> Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
> creates a new universe apart from the original.

Are there any published works that you've read that you would consider
fanfic? (Philip Jose Farmer did a fair amount of mucking around in
other peoples' universes, but I don't know if you would consider any of
those works as qualifying as fanfic or not, for instance.)

-jwgh

--
"Only in America could something like that not happen in America."
-- Matt McIrvin, 29 November 2005

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
May 24, 2007, 10:54:00 AM5/24/07
to
Here, Jacob W. Haller <yo...@jwgh.org> wrote:
> To back up a bit:
>
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
> > creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> Are there any published works that you've read that you would consider
> fanfic? (Philip Jose Farmer did a fair amount of mucking around in
> other peoples' universes, but I don't know if you would consider any of
> those works as qualifying as fanfic or not, for instance.)

By this definition, every sequel and second-book-of-trilogy is fanfic.
Tolkien wrote somewhere between three and ten books, depending on how
you count (and that's just through the Silmarillion); he abjectly
failed to create an original universe for two to nine of them.

You can of course patch it to say "by a different author," but you
still have that contemptuous "parasitizes" in there. If your standard
of originality (and literature!) is that a work must take place in an
original universe, what allows you to exempt an author from the charge
of parasitizing his earlier work?

Oh, you also managed to include all of historical fiction. (Not that
they care what SF fans think, I'm sure.)

--Z

--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
9/11 did change everything. Since 9/12, the biggest threat to American
society has been the American president. I'd call that a change.

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
May 24, 2007, 10:57:58 AM5/24/07
to
Here, Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
> When did they start reading him, exactly? I've never even heard of any
> writer named Yngwe (Which sounds suspiciously, for that matter, like a
> nordic-ised spelling of a Tolkien character and thus, all by itself, a
> fanfic derivation of a work in copyright).

Wait, you're worried about people ripping off Nordic names *from
Tolkien*?

( http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exholpoe.html#ex3 is what I'm
alluding to, here)

Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 24, 2007, 11:43:07 AM5/24/07
to
In article <lat85397edqh2t14d...@4ax.com>,
da...@block.net says...

> On Wed, 23 May 2007 15:59:49 +0100, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> wrote:
> >In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B...@130.133.1.4>,
> >msch...@condor.depaul.edu says...

> >> >> with "fanfic" substituted for "SF". For example, what


> >> >> constitutes "creat[ing] a new universe" in a case like
> >> >> Stoppard's, where the Shakespearian characters do exactly the
> >> >> same things in exactly the same ways as in the play, with any
> >> >> additional material added interstitially? How is that the
> >> >> creation of a new universe in a way that doing the same thing
> >> >> with Mary Sue and the crew of the Enterprise is not? (Other
> >> >> than the fact Stoppard's work is probably better: a difference
> >> >> of degree, rather than kind.)
> >
> >The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows
> >Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> >Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> >'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> >who gets executed.
>
> He didn't say it was a Mary Sue. He asked how it was the creation of
> a new universe in a way that Mary Sue's insertion onto the Enterprise
> was not.

Then what did he mean by the Mary Sue reference? And I answered it -
it is Shakespeare's Elsinore that is interstitial in Stoppard's
universe.

> >Calling Stoppard's play fanfic doesn't make it so.
>
> However it being an unauthorised derivative work DOES make it
> fanfic...in every way except one. He got paid for it.

No it doesn't. Not all unauthorised derivative works are fanfic, and
fanfic would still be fanfic if the author somehow managed to get paid.

Also, the word 'unauthorised' is misleading, since no authorisation was
required.

> >Just because there's no bright line between fanfic and literature that
> >uses other works as a jumping off point doesn't demonstrate that there
> >is no distinction.
>
> There is a bright line. It's "Did you get paid for it?".

Nonsense. No literary form is defined by whether somebody gets paid
for writing it.

- Gerry Quinn

Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 24, 2007, 11:45:17 AM5/24/07
to
In article <s7t853dgchbhc8j0c...@4ax.com>,
da...@block.net says...

> On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:05:20 +0100, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie>
> wrote:
> >In article <87lkfgh...@mithril.chromatico.net>,
> >cwi...@chromatico.net says...

> >> If you don't like a work, you can make the case that it parasitizes


> >> the original, and is thus fanfic; if you do like it, or you think it
> >> has literary merit, you can make the case that it creates a new
> >> universe apart from the original.
> >>
> >> Try thinking critically about what you actually say before blathering.
> >
> >It is you who seems to be asserting that there is no such thing as
> >critical thinking and that all assessments of quality are subjective
> >and therefore meaningless.
>
> That hardly matters when you are claiming that quality is NOT your
> dividing line between fanfic and literature.

But it matters to the claim made by the poster I was responding to.

- Gerry Quinn

Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 24, 2007, 11:49:18 AM5/24/07
to
In article <1179935657.8...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
quu...@yahoo.com says...

> On May 23, 9:59 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > In article <Xns9938DEF0BE3B1mss2mediaone...@130.133.1.4>,
> > mschi...@condor.depaul.edu says...

> > The new material is hardly "interstitial" - if the play follows


> > Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and other very minor characters, it is the
> > Shakespearean material that is interstitial. And the play is hardly a
> > 'Mary Sue', unless Stoppard fantasised about being a minor character
> > who gets executed.
>
> I'll actually agree with you that, by your definition, R&G is not
> fanfic (I certainly hope this thread doesn't sour you on it, either.
> Judging by a quick persual of your stated tastes, I think you'd quite
> like it). But I think it does beg the question: if I were to write a
> masterful, existential piece involving, say, catastrophe theory and
> the mind, but were to set it as a dialogue between two ensigns on the
> Enterprise during _The Trouble with Tribbles_, and posted it in
> fanfiction.net...would it be fanfic?

That's difficult to answer. I think it will depend on the apparent
purpose to which the Enterprise material is put.

Then again, there are hours that cannot clearly be categorised as day
or night. There are doubtless stories that cannot be categorised as
literature or fanfic. But that does not invalidate the categories.

- Gerry Quinn

Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 24, 2007, 11:52:18 AM5/24/07
to
In article <1hym1vw.1gs1teid54i1sN%yo...@jwgh.org>, yo...@jwgh.org
says...

> To back up a bit:
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
> > Fanfic is derivative work that parasitises the original; literature
> > creates a new universe apart from the original.
>
> Are there any published works that you've read that you would consider
> fanfic? (Philip Jose Farmer did a fair amount of mucking around in
> other peoples' universes, but I don't know if you would consider any of
> those works as qualifying as fanfic or not, for instance.)

I haven't read much of Farmer anyway. There are certainly works which
use others as a starting point, and I have read some of those, e.g.
Updike's _Gerturude and Claudius_, but I really wouldn't be interested
in picking up something that came across as fanfic.

- Gerry Quinn

Gerry Quinn

unread,
May 24, 2007, 11:53:49 AM5/24/07