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

[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.