Comment On Fan Fiction Article

[lazypadawan]

Time magazine, which believe it or not still exists, published a piece on fan fiction in the wake of the final Harry Potter film's release.

Just for once, I'd like to see these kinds of articles on fan fiction do the following differently:

1. Not everybody who writes fan fiction is out to seize control of the culture from greedy copyright-holding gatekeepers, despite what Henry Jenkins thinks.

2. Not everybody who writes fan fiction has a political/social agenda behind what they do. While there are people like that--they're mentioned in "Enterprising Women," which examined fan fic culture in the 1980s--I definitely don't see it in SW fan fiction or most other genres for that matter.

3. Acknowledge the most obvious explanation for why people write fan fic...they love the stories and characters.

4. Don't say something like, "fan fiction writers aren't what you think" or "they're just like you and me" and then introduce to us as a typical fan fic writer a lesbian activist cat-owning blogger who lives in NYC.

The guy is very favorable to the concept and did his research. Media fan fiction started with "The Man From U.N.C.L.E" in the '60s (literary fan fic goes back further) and took off like a jackrabbit with "Star Trek" a year or two later. He correctly cited the first known Trek fanzine, "Spockanalia." He knows all about fan fiction's ugly little dark corners but like most of his media kind, won't make any sort of judgments about that sort of thing, even stories with "underage" action.

It is interesting to note that media-savvy and super wealthy authors like J.K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer don't mind fan fiction while most of the people who object, except for the Game of Thrones guy, hit the big time decades ago. Is it a generational divide? I think so. Rowling's first bestseller was in 1997; Meyer's first Twilight book dropped in 2005. They get the internet. They get media synergy. They get fan fiction helps a fan culture develop, which helps keep the whole party going for as long as possible. Older authors probably want more control over what happens to their stories and characters, even among fans.

Here's the article if you haven't seen it yet:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2081784-1,00.html

Comments

[emavalexis.livejournal.com]

I agree tremendously with all of your points, and particularly found myself nodding in agreement to your assessment of 'newer' authors like Rowling and Meyer and how they clearly see the value in fanfiction. Honestly, I know for a fact that I never would've become so interested in something as silly (okay... stupid, lol) as Twilight, of all things, were it not for its insanely active fanfic community.

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

Sigh.

In some ways, I like that there's another article in a mainstream magazine, but in others... yes, I sigh.

I don't have a political point. I'm not trying to undermine anyone's copyright or assert some kind of anarchic rule. In fact, when I do write something to disagree with the author--as I explicitly am in the Teddy Lupin stories--it's more important to me than in other stories to make sure I'm addressing the story as it exists, to have that argument in the context of the world it's in. I certainly don't dispute Jo's ownership, and if she took it into her head to use something I wrote, I'd just be happy. I wouldn't feel like she'd broken the rules somehow.

As to March... dude, it's FANFIC. I'm sorry, but there is only one requirement for fanfic: it's based in someone else's created universe. Is it? Then guess what? Fanfic. It doesn't matter if it's for profit, or if it has prestige. In fact, by suggesting that prestige negates the possibility of something being fanfic, you're inherently denigrating fanfic by suggesting it can't possibly be worthy of serious literary attention. Wide Sargasso Sea and R&G are also fanfic.

So's Midrash, a whole Jewish genre of Biblefic that goes back thousands of years. Abraham smashing the idols in his father's idol shop is a prime example of the genre, imho, as are all the little side stories about how this or that person grew up, and what they were like in other situations... we're certainly not talking about anything new under the sun here!

I'm not sure why they always feel the need to talk to people who feel that it's about "transgressing boundaries" rather than about "having fun." He seems to have an idea that it's about, basically, dialoguing with the culture, so why limit it to a single kind of dialogue?

ETA: As to the old vs. new, that could be relevant. And I'm not sure it's always about the market, though they certainly realize the viral value of it. But when it comes to people like Ann Rice, it's obviously an emotional reaction, and I suspect even the ones who allow it have a similar emotional sense--they're just a little more philosophical about it. I also think that the older generation may have gotten screwed over more by things like movie contracts and other derivative rights issues, and so hold on like crazy.

[darth-pipes.livejournal.com]

I remember Vader's Mask being in the SW Insider. Good times.

Alan Moore is another one who refuses to give his blessings to any of his comics that Hollywood adapts. In fairness, the first couple of ones have been disasters like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (this film pretty much sent Sean Connery into retirement) although V for Vendetta and Watchmen were pretty good.