Fanfic and flying under the radar

[msagara]

stakebait wrote
Been 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.

Comments

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Depends on the original. And on the fanfic too, I suppose.

What makes fanfic easier for me than original fic is my entitlement issues: I don't feel half so egotistical in writing fanfic to the demands of a pre-existing audience. Writing original work implies that I think someone should care about my own POV, which the backbrain translates as selfishness and cuts the words off dead. But that's a separate neurosis and shall be told another time, in my own journal.

Apart from that, it's like free verse versus structured verse -- some people find one easier, some the other.

The thing is, it's easier to get away with fanfic that's not done as well and still find that pre-existing audience. There are juried sites and edited zines, but people will read you without them. Whereas original fiction pretty well has to get past a gatekeeper to get anyone's attention.

[msagara.livejournal.com]

What makes fanfic easier for me than original fic is my entitlement issues: I don't feel half so egotistical in writing fanfic to the demands of a pre-existing audience. Writing original work implies that I think someone should care about my own POV, which the backbrain translates as selfishness and cuts the words off dead. But that's a separate neurosis and shall be told another time, in my own journal.

I somehow missed this. I love LJ. I love the email notifications. Really. Especially when I actually get them.

I hope you do address this at another time in your LJ. Because, of course, it's a process question, and I find process fascinating.

I find writing to an existing audience vastly more constraining and more stressful. It can be argued that there's an existing audience for my original fiction -- but it's not an audience that I can easily quantify. The audience that exists for, say, Buffy or Valdemar, has expectations of a work -- and with some reason -- that places the onus on me, as the writer, to get it right. To get the tone right for the audience, as opposed to for the story; I don't have the latitude to shift tone hugely, to change the way characters talk or think, to let them grow organically. Communication being what it is, there's no guarantee of success; I can't objectively look at anything I write and say "this works for this audience". Any certainty I have, I gain after the fact, when, in fact, nothing can be revised or changed <wry g>.

I have no idea who my audience is when I write my West novels. I truly don't. I know who some of them are very well -- jediboadicea and illarphaniel being two -- because they get out of the text what I think I put into it (and this is a blessing in ways too numerous to count). But people also read these books who don't; they get other things that I'm less aware of, or they're interested in elements of the worldbuilding that would not natively interest me as a reader, but have to exist in a full realized fashion for me as a writer.

This ignorance on my part gives me the freedom to be true only to the story itself. The world can twist and events can change and characters can die as the story demands -- and there is no part of me that stops to think "this will offend the audience" or "this is so out of character". I can fret about it after the fact (and do, being a writer and all). I have a freedom in that that probably is egotistical; it's me I have to satisfy first. I can be certain of structure, for instance, and of tone, but they exist almost independent of the readers because the readers who've written to me over the years read my work for vastly different reasons; I don't have a clear consensus that emerges. If I did, I might feel more bound by it.

Whereas original fiction pretty well has to get past a gatekeeper to get anyone's attention.

And even that's no guarantee.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I hope you do address this at another time in your LJ. Because, of course, it's a process question, and I find process fascinating.

I will -- I'm thinking of little else these days. It's just such a new revelation for me that I don't really know how to address it. Though having a specific person sincerely request that I finish a specific original piece because they want to read it seems to work as a temporary kludge, at least for short stuff.

I find writing to an existing audience vastly more constraining and more stressful.

Wow, we couldn't be more different, could we? That's another thing that makes sense now that you say it but I wouldn't have thought of on my own. I'm learning a lot from this conversation.

but it's not an audience that I can easily quantify.

*nods* I'm still at the stage where I can name a fair fraction of my readers. I don't necessarily know what they want, or predict what they would like, but I do know who they are. Although really I just need one. Everyone else is gravy.

The audience that exists for, say, Buffy or Valdemar, has expectations of a work -- and with some reason -- that places the onus on me, as the writer, to get it right. To get the tone right for the audience, as opposed to for the story; I don't have the latitude to shift tone hugely, to change the way characters talk or think, to let them grow organically.

The first and last wouldn't be true for fanfic, BTW -- tone changes are part of what people look for in fanfic because they aren't getting them from canon, and letting them grow organically is the whole point. But I understand that it's not possible in the official stuff. The "can't change the way characters talk or think" is still the same, at least in theory.

Communication being what it is, there's no guarantee of success; I can't objectively look at anything I write and say "this works for this audience". Any certainty I have, I gain after the fact, when, in fact, nothing can be revised or changed .

*nodsnodsnods* I get that.

I have no idea who my audience is when I write my West novels. I truly don't.

And you find that freeing, yes? I would like to get to that place. Right now I find it paralysing -- like being slapped in the face with my own presumption. This is also where writing process crosses over into therapy process, to my frustration and embarassment.

This ignorance on my part gives me the freedom to be true only to the story itself. The world can twist and events can change and characters can die as the story demands -- and there is no part of me that stops to think "this will offend the audience"

That's funny -- I never think that, even when I'm writing Spike and Buffy in the library with the candlestick to Jane Doe's specifications. They set the parameters, and I just go from there.

I do worry about out of character because I didn't invent these characters and I do need to color in the lines. But I don't really worry about other people's opinions of it, just mine.

I have a freedom in that that probably is egotistical; it's me I have to satisfy first.

I don't think it's egotistical, I think it's healthy. Unfortunately I'm unhealthy enough that when it comes to me it feels egotistical. *wry grin* I still have to satisfy myself first as to whether it's good enough, but in order to write it at all I need to know that someone else wants to read it.

[msagara.livejournal.com]

I hope you do address this at another time in your LJ. Because, of course, it's a process question, and I find process fascinating.

I will -- I'm thinking of little else these days. It's just such a new revelation for me that I don't really know how to address it. Though having a specific person sincerely request that I finish a specific original piece because they want to read it seems to work as a temporary kludge, at least for short stuff.

Pretend I'm a fan who is asking you to write a piece about your thoughts on the writing process in general, then <g>. You will have at least an audience of one, and I'd be happy to read it. Would, in fact, look forward to it.

I find writing to an existing audience vastly more constraining and more stressful.

Wow, we couldn't be more different, could we? That's another thing that makes sense now that you say it but I wouldn't have thought of on my own. I'm learning a lot from this conversation.

It's the other side of the coin. I think a lot of readers approach an original work without specific expectations, so if I write the story well, there's less of a chance that I fail to address a specific need.

The audience that exists for, say, Buffy or Valdemar, has expectations of a work -- and with some reason -- that places the onus on me, as the writer, to get it right. To get the tone right for the audience, as opposed to for the story; I don't have the latitude to shift tone hugely, to change the way characters talk or think, to let them grow organically.

The first and last wouldn't be true for fanfic, BTW -- tone changes are part of what people look for in fanfic because they aren't getting them from canon, and letting them grow organically is the whole point. But I understand that it's not possible in the official stuff. The "can't change the way characters talk or think" is still the same, at least in theory.

Good to know, and more to think about vis a vis what drives people to write fanfic.

I have no idea who my audience is when I write my West novels. I truly don't.

And you find that freeing, yes? I would like to get to that place. Right now I find it paralysing -- like being slapped in the face with my own presumption. This is also where writing process crosses over into therapy process, to my frustration and embarassment.

I find it freeing, yes. Because I can assume that those who like the books will like my particular take on a number of things; I'm not disappointing a preset set of expectations. And it's mine, and can be changed at will -- as I said, I set the canon, and then do my best to make it believable and consistent, which is sort of a pain <wry g>.

I have a freedom in that that probably is egotistical; it's me I have to satisfy first.

I don't think it's egotistical, I think it's healthy. Unfortunately I'm unhealthy enough that when it comes to me it feels egotistical. *wry grin* I still have to satisfy myself first as to whether it's good enough, but in order to write it at all I need to know that someone else wants to read it.
Ah. That makes more sense. I wrote the first books with no certain sense that anyone would want to read them -- but as I was trying to write something I thought I would want to read, I assumed that people out there who were like me existed, and that kept me going. More people watch Buffy, though <wry g>.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Pretend I'm a fan who is asking you to write a piece about your thoughts on the writing process in general, then . You will have at least an audience of one, and I'd be happy to read it. Would, in fact, look forward to it.

*grin* Okay. In fact, it's already up -- the most recent entry in my journal. It's just thoughts about this part of the writing process, though, because my thoughts on process in general are long and disjointed and I have no confidence in them.

At this stage I am eagerly gobbling up the thoughts on process of people whose processes have, you know, worked.

It's the other side of the coin. I think a lot of readers approach an original work without specific expectations, so if I write the story well, there's less of a chance that I fail to address a specific need.

*nodsnods* That makes sense, intellectually at least.

I find it freeing, yes. Because I can assume that those who like the books will like my particular take on a number of things; I'm not disappointing a preset set of expectations.

*more nodding* I'll be getting a headache at this rate. *grin*

Ah. That makes more sense. I wrote the first books with no certain sense that anyone would want to read them -- but as I was trying to write something I thought I would want to read, I assumed that people out there who were like me existed, and that kept me going.

Huh. Interesting. I don't know what part of that logic chain I'm failing -- while I don't always write want I want to read, I would in fact want to read the current project. Maybe there are people like me part?

More people watch Buffy, though .

Hey, if your books were free and beamed into their living rooms, more people would read them too. Never underestimate the power of laziness.

[celledhor.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that there is a certain amount of freedom that comes from working wihtin your own world. You have total control, within reason, of what the rules are and where/how the characters grow.
*Minor Digression* It's a pet peeve of mine when an author sets the rules and then breaks them for whatever reason. The laws that govern the world/abilities/magic should be immutable. We can't randomly decide that for the next five minutes gravity doesn't exist because it is inconvenient (extreme example but you get the idea) * End Digression*

Your audience still has expectations for your work but you may not be aware of them because your world view and personality determined in part how & what you write. The expectations are generally based on any pre-existing work or events within the confines of the story. As a result, you (the author) get to stay within your own POV and still meet expectations. When writing for someone else's world the writer should attempt to write from a set of assumptions or perspective different from their own. This strikes me as being vastly more difficult.

Granted I have read very, very little fanfic and have never had any desire to do so but most authors I like write about an idea or underlying concept about society or humanity while fanfic seems to focus on the characters they (the writers) adore. For example: C.S. Friedman has the concept of faith versus religion underlying most of her work, Tad Williams deals with someone's desire to escape the tedium of their life only to find that what they thought was grand just has a different set of problems. You (Michelle) tend to write about the pain that is inherent in life but that pain cannot be allowed to control what one does.

In a similar vein, most authors' self created world is a reflection of themselves to a certian extent. The characters are amplifications of certain parts of their personality (I know, it sounds like schizophrenia). When a fanfic writer writes in someone else's world, they are lacking that rather essential tool for making everything mesh and flow.

I'll shut up now. This has gone far longer than I intended.

[msagara.livejournal.com]

*Minor Digression* It's a pet peeve of mine when an author sets the rules and then breaks them for whatever reason. The laws that govern the world/abilities/magic should be immutable. We can't randomly decide that for the next five minutes gravity doesn't exist because it is inconvenient (extreme example but you get the idea) * End Digression*

Mine too. I think, though, there are often layers to a world; the things that are in the "now" of the universe, and seem immutable, and the things that are in the history of said universe, when things were very different.

Your audience still has expectations for your work but you may not be aware of them because your world view and personality determined in part how & what you write

I think that each person probably has expectations of the work, but are waiting to see what actually happens as things unfold, so in that sense, I don't feel any great pressure to change things, to alter the course of future history. I always think everything is obvious because -- as you say -- my writing is grounded in me.

The one complaints I get from people who have stopped reading are: 1. Nothing happens or 2. Too many @#$@%$! characters.

Unfortunately, the email I get from people who love them are 2. all the characters feel real and 3. don't make the books shorter 'cause you'll just cut all the character stuff.

So... I tend to listen to the inner muse. And at this point, cutting out almost all the viewpoints and focusing on just one would Tick Me Off, so I imagine it wouldn't really amuse anyone else whose read this far either.

[celledhor.livejournal.com]

I think, though, there are often layers to a world; the things that are in the "now" of the universe, and seem immutable, and the things that are in the history of said universe, when things were very different.

That, I don't have problem with. It comes more along the lines of 1)Mages have limits and can severly hurt themselves by trying to go too far. 2) Main character with no training can do things that no one has done in umpteen thousand years and never suffers repercussions for pushing themselves too far. (No I'm not thinking of Robert Jordan, why do you ask?)
3)A character dies. Quick, I need a way to alter time so that I can bring them back. (Again with Jordan)
As an aside, Evayne does not fall in to category three, in my opinion, since she follows her own timeline. That's an interweave with its own rules.

The one complaints I get from people who have stopped reading are: 1. Nothing happens or 2. Too many @#$@%$! characters.

You have never had "nothing happen". To compare to Jordan (yet again), he has 1000 pages at a time where nothing is resolved and you get maybe 150 pages per group of people. Comparison: you had more happen in Sea of Sorrows with Valedan than Jordan did in Crown of Swords & Path of Daggers combined. (all characters/story arcs included) 300 pages versus 2000. Gee, who should have more happen plot wise?

So... I tend to listen to the inner muse

Is there any other way to do it? The reason I don't write much is I never like what I have done. It seems so fake. (Ask Zhaneel69 how nice I am with editing. I'm worse on myself.) When I read, I see what is happening like a play or movie. I just can't write fast enough to keep up and I lose five ideas for where it was going for every one that I manage to get out. Not very comforting, especially when I go back and think, "That wasn't what was in my head!" GRRR. That, and to me, everything that comes out feels like it is borrowing from the authors I really like (Tolkein, Friedman, Williams, West) which just leaves me feeling like a hack. Of course all the essays I wrote in school felt absurdly obvious too and one professor told me I didn't look at the world like anyone else so, what do I know about my own perspective? I'm kind of locked into it. Of course it looks obvious, I know the process that creates what is there. Oh well.

[msagara.livejournal.com]

So... I tend to listen to the inner muse

Is there any other way to do it? The reason I don't write much is I never like what I have done. It seems so fake. (Ask Zhaneel69 how nice I am with editing. I'm worse on myself.) When I read, I see what is happening like a play or movie. I just can't write fast enough to keep up and I lose five ideas for where it was going for every one that I manage to get out.

When I'm at the end of a novel/series of novels (because SUN SWORD was really the end of a very long novel), I have to type at my 80 wpm speed to keep up with everything; it's why I don't write longhand. It's too slow if I hit my stride. So I have a great deal of sympathy for your frustrations.

Not very comforting, especially when I go back and think, "That wasn't what was in my head!" GRRR. That, and to me, everything that comes out feels like it is borrowing from the authors I really like (Tolkein, Friedman, Williams, West) which just leaves me feeling like a hack.

I feel that I borrow from other traditions in a very emotional sense; the things that moved me in other works are things that are imprinted on my writer psyche, and I expect some of my work reflects that, and possibly echoes the emotionality (I know that's not a real word) of all of the authors who inspired me before.

Of course all the essays I wrote in school felt absurdly obvious too and one professor told me I didn't look at the world like anyone else so, what do I know about my own perspective? I'm kind of locked into it. Of course it looks obvious, I know the process that creates what is there. Oh well.

I always feel that I'm absurdly obvious and overstate things -- it's a huge fear of mine. But I've been told that I worry enough that I go in the other direction, and understate too much.

I think, if you write with a certain passion and a certain emotional clarity, obvious ceases to be an issue -- because what's obvious to you (or me) won't be obvious to other people; they're approaching the story from the beginning, and they're not you, they're not in your head -- they don't know where you're going, or sometimes why.

At least that's been my experience <g>. And as for the inspirations you've listed -- wow :D. I'm in damn good company :D.