I ask mostly because I think many people see a very clear delineation between writing different takes of famous novels of the past versus fanfiction.
I think people see a clear delineation because of the venue. Those books that are takes on past famous novels are, well, books. They've been published as books, and no one has been sued. Which wouldn't happen if, say, someone wanted to publish an TV-related fanfic, or Harry Potter related fanfic in a traditional channel -- not without a bunch of permissions that would make a lot of lawyers richer <wry g>.
I'm not saying that this is entirely reasonable; rather, I'm offering an explanation for why it's viewed differently. It does become a dialogue of sorts with the past because both things are in the same form.
I'm not sure how to answer the question -- and no, to me it doesn't sound mercenary. Laurie King's take on Holmes wouldn't exist without the prior work, for instance.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-19 10:17 pm (UTC)I think people see a clear delineation because of the venue. Those books that are takes on past famous novels are, well, books. They've been published as books, and no one has been sued. Which wouldn't happen if, say, someone wanted to publish an TV-related fanfic, or Harry Potter related fanfic in a traditional channel -- not without a bunch of permissions that would make a lot of lawyers richer <wry g>.
I'm not saying that this is entirely reasonable; rather, I'm offering an explanation for why it's viewed differently. It does become a dialogue of sorts with the past because both things are in the same form.
I'm not sure how to answer the question -- and no, to me it doesn't sound mercenary. Laurie King's take on Holmes wouldn't exist without the prior work, for instance.