Fanfic and flying under the radar
Oct. 20th, 2004 03:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagara![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
stakebait wroteBeen thinking more about this. What makes it [fanfic] not public is the attempt to fly under the radar of the Powers That Be, right? Or at least not actively draw their attention? Though how much that's done varies quite a bit from creator to creator. I know of at least one mailing list, read and posted to by the author, where fanfic is simply labeled "fanfic" so she can avoid reading it, but there's no attempt to pretend that it doesn't exist.
I've been thinking more about it as well. This is less an answer to your question than it started out being, but it is a more methodical examination of my own reaction.
What makes it less public is twofold, for me. Radar is part of it, but not by any means the whole. Let me try to express it. Let me take a whole new post to do it, because I've outrun my word limit. Again.
PART ONE
Fanfic is not a critique, nor is it a review of what exists; fanfic writers are certainly capable of doing book critiques/reviews or movie/tv critiques/reviews, but no one calls those fanfic. Both critique and review consider the text at hand (or the show at hand), assessing what's there, and giving their (hopefully but not always) informed opinion on it. There is a dialogue of sorts between some of these reviewers and the creative person(s) at the other end; there is a dialogue of sorts between some of these reviewers and the fans of the work in question. But if the review has some heat or love at its heart, it's still about the work as a whole. I don't consider this a dialogue in the standard sense; I'm now using dialogue in the sense that you used it originally, so if I stumble in that, bear with me.
In some instances, I think there are parodies or even satires -- but I don't consider those to be fanfic, and this could be because my definition is way the heck too narrow, i.e. I'm ignorant. Parody usually reflects the original work as a whole, and some understanding of the original is necessary in order for the parody to work at all; I consider parody a broad commentary, because that's the point of parody. Well, and also to make fun of the audience reaction. Digression.
Fanfic, rather than being a (theoretically) objective form of that dialogue or response, is much more of an emotional dialogue; it exists first between the reader and what they draw out of the primary work, and second, in the text they create. It explores other possibilities and permutations (if I understand what you've said correctly) that the original work did not -- or hasn't yet. Or never will.
But much of fanfic is essentially fiction, with serial numbers, and its aim is the aim, in many ways, of the original work, because if it didn't have some of that same feel or tone it wouldn't be fanfic. Because of the serial numbers, there is a need to fly under the radar. I would argue that it's that need that allows fanfic to thrive, although it does keep it out of the public eye to a greater or lesser extent. If you don't know anything about it, it's invisible; once you do, it's everywhere. Okay, I really have to stop with the digressions.
Having said that, let's go back to the need to fly under the radar. This is partly necessitated by legal convention, and as the copyright holder, I cannot outright decry it, for a variety of reasons, one being, I have some attachment to my copyright.
What happens under the radar is of less concern to me than what happens above the radar. There are things I would not want my characters to say or do. Obviously, when I'm writing, I have say in this (although, creative process being what it is, not 100% <wry g>). If someone is writing fanfic based on my characters or in my universe, what they want the characters to do is part of their emotional response. And -- beneath the radar -- this is a valid exploration; it's a little like daydreaming in public, which, in many ways, is where the heart of many stories start. The work comes after.
But if you remove the protective layer, which we'll call the radar level, I would feel a lot more ambivalent, because there are ways in which I would not want my characters to be represented to my readers, many of whom still don't own computers (I know, I always find this a bit shocking; it's stranger, to me, than not owning a telephone or a television but I digress, as always). In the public sense -- in the way my vision is present as my vision to the universe, or the small slice that reads my books <wry g>, and speaking with no delusions of grandeur (although I can't speak for other types of delusions), I can clearly state that I want my vision of my creation to be the canonical vision. I realize that's a lot of genetive use there.
Let me sum it up in a less unwieldy fashion: I do not want other writers defining canon in a universe I create.
PART TWO
But part of the difference in my reaction, part of the sense of "public" or "legitimate" stems, in part, from the medium through which the original property is first presented. Joss Whedon approves of fanfic, but he's doing Television, and I bet he'd be a lot less happy if fanfic writers were to get together and produce and air their own version of Buffy. A lot, as in lawsuits and really ugly things, and I don't think he'd be hands-off at that point.
Many of the people who watch the show will never read the licensed spinoffs, and they'll also never read the fanfic. Both the spinoffs and the fanfic fill a smaller role than the original broadcast did. It's accepted that what happens in the textual presentations or the comic books or the fanfic, etc, licensed or not., are not canonical; they can be ignored or changed or overturned at the whim of the licensor. In a sense, the spirit of generosity that allows the fanfic to exist can only be generous, in my view, because of that -- the other works are not canonical. They don't change anything. They don't touch or mark or move the original, and they don't open or close the avenues the original series can move in. The creator feels free to ignore them entirely.
When you're dealing with fanfic based on written work, you're suddenly dealing with the exact same medium, which is why I think more tension exists.
I don't know any writers who hate filksongs inspired by their works. I don't know any writers who hate art inspired by their work. Or costumes. Many would be perfectly happy to have RPGs or Television shows based on their works (if they were paid <g>).
But none of these media are the primary medium for the creator -- the text, in the case of books, is.
Knowing that canon is decided by me (and knowing that some people won't always be happy with the decisions I make) gives me the same comfort zone that someone producing television shows would have. Reviews, critiques-- these don't really change the way people view the original. Are they public? Yes. But in some sense they relate to the canonical work.
They make no attempt to change the work; they can savage it, they can praise it, they can dissect it for meaning -- but they're not there to rework to it; at most, they can shift the way we view what's already there. In this sense, the work is the point of the discourse. And as all writers know, once something is published, it's public, and people can say whatever the want about it. We're prepared for that. That's the sense of "public" I assume when I see the word.
In the case of fanfic, the work is the stepping stone, the foundation, the thing people stand on while they branch out; the anchor to which they tie their own skills, developing their own voices and abilities. At this point in time, one can sort of assume that readers and writers of fanfic have read or watched the originals, so there's a certainty of informed creation, even if the creation is not canon.
But were the fanfic based on novels to be published as novels in their own right -- without any vetting or interference from the original author -- there's no guarantee that new readers would be so informed, and the canonical understanding of a creation that originated elsewhere -- like, say, me -- could shift radically. A book, after all, is a book, and it sits on the shelf, like other books.
And I'm sorry if it makes me sound hideously selfish -- and I'm aware that it probably does -- but the right to set canon is incredibly important to me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 01:15 pm (UTC)I'm fine with that -- but I'm not -- for the reasons stated in the post above -- fine with publication of the fanfic in the same medium as the original text. I'm not fine with people turning the work in to a commercial venture that I don't have say in, because almost by definition in this society, it's the commercial venture that defines the canon.
And I can certainly see that it's an issue that people feel strongly about. Where the medium differs, I do think it's less of an issue.
Stories are so much a part of the world and our culture that I don't think they can be owned, not really, and the attempt to control them, or more properly, what people do with them, is a futile exercise that will only raise blood pressure.
Sort of. The Buffy franchise doesn't control fanfic, and it never will. But it does control anything you have to pay money for, and it always will (if it knows about infractions). It's something you accept if you want to write in their universe and get paid.
If you were to publish a Buffy book of fanfic, the appropriate lawyers would eat you alive. So in this case, they're don't care what stories you tell yourself, they only care about the money that those stories don't make <wry g>. The same can be said about Star Wars fanfic, etc.
In either case, they're not trying to control what stories are told, just what venues they're told in.
I'm embarrassed to say that I don't actually know what the copyright extension act by Disney is; I remember Cory Doctorow talking about it, but I don't actually remember the content, only the hyperactive intensity <wry g>.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 01:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 02:23 pm (UTC)However, Mickey is a trademarked character and will never enter the public domain, only works created with him will. So someday Steamboat Willie and Fantasia will be public domain, but you will never be able to write and publish new original fiction featuring Mickey Mouse.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 02:29 pm (UTC)My understanding of copyright and trademark and the differences therein is woeful. I would have thought they'd be safe because trademark is theirs. I guess this would be wrong, on my part.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 06:21 pm (UTC)Copyright is the right to copy your work, either verbatim or as a changed but recognizable work. For example, someone cannot copy the opening chapter of your book and include it in a book of "Great Fantasy Opening Chapters" without your permission (which would usually require payment from the person who wants to copy your work).
Copyright, in the medium of writing, is protecting how you have put these words together and expressed your opinions, but it does not protect the invidual names you chose. If someone likes the names of one of your characters or places and wants to use that name, I do not believe you would be protected by copyright.
Trademark is used to protect terms (names for products, companies, etc) for use within a specific domain. For example, Tylenol is a trademark of The Tylenol Coroporation (yes, this is a real example, and I know that it's a circular definition). It is probably limited to medication (meaning I could not manufacture some pill and call it Tylenol Happy Pill), but it's also possible that there is broader protection (which would determine whether I can see a Tylenol sofa or name a character in my book Tylenol).
Trademark and copyright have different rules as to how you establish copyright/trademark, and how long it applies.
Keeping things in the same medium
Date: 2004-10-20 01:43 pm (UTC)Except for some rather naive people who come out with 'oh you're loads better than X...they should publish you instead', most of us have absolutely no illusions about taking our much beloved and tortured book to Joss Whedon and saying we want to make a tv show out of it.
By and large most fanfic writers can't be arsed to do much more than post it to a list or to the Pit of Voles (tm) (Fanfiction.net) and wait for the feedback to roll in. I don't think the problem of someone writing a story based on a story and selling it is all that common.
For the record, the only booklit fanfic I did was for Lynn Flewlling's stuff and went to a few people before she came out against fanfic. Once her opinion was formed (strongly against) I withdrew the piece and it hasn't been anywhere but my harddrive since. I don't get stories from other people's books. I get stories from my head, and from my life and my world.
And it isn't consistently that it's a media thing either, to go on a tangent. I adore Babylon 5 but don't write fanfic for it for two reasons. One - I don't really see any 'holes' except outside the arcs that were aired. Two - I don't think I could do it justice so I'm not even going to try.
Shutting up now.
Re: Keeping things in the same medium
Date: 2004-10-20 02:37 pm (UTC)I would guess it wasn't (common), but I don't know enough about the community. I do know that it's a fairly tightly knit community (or I infer it at this point <g>), and there's probably a multitude of different opinions within fandom at large.
For the record, the only booklit fanfic I did was for Lynn Flewlling's stuff and went to a few people before she came out against fanfic. Once her opinion was formed (strongly against) I withdrew the piece and it hasn't been anywhere but my harddrive since. I don't get stories from other people's books. I get stories from my head, and from my life and my world.
This makes sense; it's, after all, where mine come from. Let me be clear: I wanted to write a Buffy novel. I started watching television when I was pregnant with my first child; I was so damn sick all the time I couldn't even read (I couldn't focus on the page; it made me throw up). So I lay on the couch for hours at a time, and watched TV. I saw the last 20 minutes of "Angel"; I saw the whole of "When She Was Bad", and I was hooked. I watch almost no television. This was unusual for me.
I understand the very real desire to write about other people's creations. Given how little I knew about fanfic, my first thought was to phone my agent and tell him I wanted to write a Buffy novel <wry g>. But the stories I wanted to tell were the darker ones, and that bent is distinctly mine.
And it isn't consistently that it's a media thing either, to go on a tangent. I adore Babylon 5 but don't write fanfic for it for two reasons. One - I don't really see any 'holes' except outside the arcs that were aired. Two - I don't think I could do it justice so I'm not even going to try.
Buffy was the only thing that had that effect on me, and I'm not sure why. I love Firefly, but I've had no like compulsion. I think it's because part of the Buffy arc is firmly entrenched in a more mythic coming-of-age; the Firefly stuff isn't. And there wasn't enough of it aired for me to have any certain sense of how the characters would settle out.
Shutting up now.
You don't have to, unless you find this tiresome -- I don't know a lot about fanfic, although that's changing my the minute in the last couple of days -- so I'm not taking offense. I may be causing offense, because I'm unfortunately good at that if I'm writing off the top of my head -- but I'm mostly trying to figure out what my views are, and to articulate them; it's a proceses that isn't finished yet.
Re: Keeping things in the same medium
Date: 2004-10-20 03:19 pm (UTC)I would guess it wasn't (common), but I don't know enough about the community. I do know that it's a fairly tightly knit community (or I infer it at this point ), and there's probably a multitude of different opinions within fandom at large.
In the same way that sci-fi fans are a 'tightly knit community'. And I do mean that literally. From the ones that go to cons that you see over and over, to the ones that seem to pop up sooner or later in the different online communities to the ones you come across in 'the rest of the world'. There are all the cliques (with the positive and negative connotations) that there are elsewhere in fandom. It does have a rather select set of vocabulary (pairings acronyms, slash, gen, chan, OTP, h/c, smarm, 'shipper) that can be confusing to the 'outsider' and gives the illusion of community.
I haven't found it any more or any less tightly knit than any other group of people bound by a common interest, like say the SCA.
But the stories I wanted to tell were the darker ones, and that bent is distinctly mine.
And that is what you see happen over and over again in fan derived fiction. They are taking the canon material and putting their own 'bent' on it. But you made that point already. :) When I write fan-fiction it tends to be along the lines of 'something I want to see in the canon material that I know I never will'. It's wish-fulfillment. When I write my original stuff it's because I can't get it out of my head. YMMV of course.
I haven't taken any offense but I do know that I have a tendency to talk and answer every comment until, in retrospect, I wish I had shut up. ;-)
Re: Keeping things in the same medium
Date: 2004-10-20 03:37 pm (UTC)When I write fan-fiction it tends to be along the lines of 'something I want to see in the canon material that I know I never will'. It's wish-fulfillment. When I write my original stuff it's because I can't get it out of my head. YMMV of course.
Does vary, in this case <g>. I wanted to write a Buffy novel so that I could stop thinking about Buffy. It was driving me nuts. Not that that's a great distance, mind -- but it was eating my imagination time. I like to blame it on being pregnant. But I also like to be honest <g>.
I haven't taken any offense but I do know that I have a tendency to talk and answer every comment until, in retrospect, I wish I had shut up. ;-)
Me too! And you also work in a speciality SF store -- a woman entirely after my own heart <g>.
Disney / Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act ...
Date: 2004-10-20 01:49 pm (UTC)(got most of this from here (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html))