Fanfiction is not thoughtcrime.
Jun. 26th, 2005 08:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amanuensis1Robin Hobb begins her rant against fanfiction by stating, "I am not rational on the topic of fan fiction." And that was what immediately defused my anger, when I actually bothered to go look at the rant, rather than just noting the quoted bits to be found about my friendslist. She admits it: when she sees other people tinkering about with her babies, she goes bonkers. That's okay. That's her right.
But then she tries to rationalize anyway. So, I have to answer.
She says this: When I write, I want to tell my story directly to you. I want you to read it exactly as I wrote it... To me, it is the fan fiction writer saying, “Look, the original author really screwed up the story, so I’m going to fix it. Here is how it should have gone.”... At the less extreme end, the fan writer simply changes something in the writer’s world. The tragic ending is re-written, or a dead character is brought back to life, for example. The intent of the author is ignored.
Hobb is starting from a flawed premise. NO author has the power to make a reader interpret the story as the author would have them interpret it. You put your words down on paper, you put your words out there--and you have instantly lost control of them.
Ask people what the Harry Potter books are about, and you'll get a lot of people saying, "It's about this orphan boy who's being educated to be a wizard, and he's got an enemy after him." But you'll also get those whose first response is, "It's about a damaged yet powerful man who wanted to preserve the pureblooded line of wizards, but he went tragically, homicidally wrong." And also, "It's about this guy who's defeated one evil wizard and now his fate is tied up in defeating another, and he's grooming this kid to do the work." And I absolutely know you'll hear, "It's about this tragic hero who followed the wrong side in the first wave of a war, and now, to earn his redemption, he's a spy for the good guys."
When I read The Lord of the Rings, I found myself skipping, actually skipping in Books 3 & 5 in order to read ahead and find out what was happening with Frodo and Sam. I've had discussions with people who did exactly the opposite--zipped through books 4 & 6 to get to the "good" stuff with Aragorn and Pippin. Did the author have control over us? If Tolkien had said, "No, no, you can't DO that!" we'd have replied, "That's your problem, not mine--your book made these characters the most interesting to me."
The author cannot control the reader's interpretations even of her own original work. To take this to the next step, it's even more ludicrous to think that the author can control the reader's imagination.
Why does a writer conceive a story? Because she looks at the world around her and decides what kind of tale she'd like to tell, based on her literary talents and preferences and what she knows of the world--of science and of history and of its stories and of human nature. She uses her imagination based on the world she knows.
Once a writer has put her story out there, that story is part of the world. It too is a basis for inspiration and the imagination of others. Hobb says, A writer puts a great deal of thought into what goes into the story and what doesn’t. If a particular scene doesn’t happen ‘on stage’ before the reader’s eyes, there is probably a reason for it. If something is left nebulous, it is because the author intends for it to be nebulous. But the very act of leaving it nebulous is invitation to the reader's imagination. It's a contradiction to say, "Don't try to think about what it means"--what the nebulous bits mean is, every reader can, should interpret for herself what this means. That is the point of the nebulous bits.
Fanfiction is this: it is extending one's imagination about an existing story into a text medium.
You cannot prevent imagination writing itself in the reader's head. And you cannot prevent some people--those who have the storyteller's disease--from writing down the resulting stories in their heads; for those with storyteller's disease, it's like telling them not to sneeze. (No, better--for those who believe the resulting story is a good thing, think of it as telling a laboring woman not to push. For those who hate the stories that result, imagine it's like telling a person not to vomit.) Those who think of writing only as work may not understand this--those who have felt what I call "the frenzy" know exactly what I mean.
So Robin Hobb, like many authors, does not like to see people messing with her babies. That's fine. No one has to be rational about that or be asked to justify it. And the medium of the internet as a distributor for fanfiction has added a whole new level of complication to the issue--but I'll save that for another time.
But a case against fanfiction can't be argued by saying, "Think only what I want you to think about my stories."
But then she tries to rationalize anyway. So, I have to answer.
She says this: When I write, I want to tell my story directly to you. I want you to read it exactly as I wrote it... To me, it is the fan fiction writer saying, “Look, the original author really screwed up the story, so I’m going to fix it. Here is how it should have gone.”... At the less extreme end, the fan writer simply changes something in the writer’s world. The tragic ending is re-written, or a dead character is brought back to life, for example. The intent of the author is ignored.
Hobb is starting from a flawed premise. NO author has the power to make a reader interpret the story as the author would have them interpret it. You put your words down on paper, you put your words out there--and you have instantly lost control of them.
Ask people what the Harry Potter books are about, and you'll get a lot of people saying, "It's about this orphan boy who's being educated to be a wizard, and he's got an enemy after him." But you'll also get those whose first response is, "It's about a damaged yet powerful man who wanted to preserve the pureblooded line of wizards, but he went tragically, homicidally wrong." And also, "It's about this guy who's defeated one evil wizard and now his fate is tied up in defeating another, and he's grooming this kid to do the work." And I absolutely know you'll hear, "It's about this tragic hero who followed the wrong side in the first wave of a war, and now, to earn his redemption, he's a spy for the good guys."
When I read The Lord of the Rings, I found myself skipping, actually skipping in Books 3 & 5 in order to read ahead and find out what was happening with Frodo and Sam. I've had discussions with people who did exactly the opposite--zipped through books 4 & 6 to get to the "good" stuff with Aragorn and Pippin. Did the author have control over us? If Tolkien had said, "No, no, you can't DO that!" we'd have replied, "That's your problem, not mine--your book made these characters the most interesting to me."
The author cannot control the reader's interpretations even of her own original work. To take this to the next step, it's even more ludicrous to think that the author can control the reader's imagination.
Why does a writer conceive a story? Because she looks at the world around her and decides what kind of tale she'd like to tell, based on her literary talents and preferences and what she knows of the world--of science and of history and of its stories and of human nature. She uses her imagination based on the world she knows.
Once a writer has put her story out there, that story is part of the world. It too is a basis for inspiration and the imagination of others. Hobb says, A writer puts a great deal of thought into what goes into the story and what doesn’t. If a particular scene doesn’t happen ‘on stage’ before the reader’s eyes, there is probably a reason for it. If something is left nebulous, it is because the author intends for it to be nebulous. But the very act of leaving it nebulous is invitation to the reader's imagination. It's a contradiction to say, "Don't try to think about what it means"--what the nebulous bits mean is, every reader can, should interpret for herself what this means. That is the point of the nebulous bits.
Fanfiction is this: it is extending one's imagination about an existing story into a text medium.
You cannot prevent imagination writing itself in the reader's head. And you cannot prevent some people--those who have the storyteller's disease--from writing down the resulting stories in their heads; for those with storyteller's disease, it's like telling them not to sneeze. (No, better--for those who believe the resulting story is a good thing, think of it as telling a laboring woman not to push. For those who hate the stories that result, imagine it's like telling a person not to vomit.) Those who think of writing only as work may not understand this--those who have felt what I call "the frenzy" know exactly what I mean.
So Robin Hobb, like many authors, does not like to see people messing with her babies. That's fine. No one has to be rational about that or be asked to justify it. And the medium of the internet as a distributor for fanfiction has added a whole new level of complication to the issue--but I'll save that for another time.
But a case against fanfiction can't be argued by saying, "Think only what I want you to think about my stories."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 01:04 pm (UTC)Very well said! I may be only a humble fanfic-writer, but I really don't care how or what people want to do with my writing, so long as they enjoy themselves. Obviously, I'd prefer them not to use it to start baby-eating cults or something - though I'd be secretly impressed if I did inspire someone to that extent. *g*
But, what I suppose I mean is, I don't care if they want to read one of my fics as Sirius as being the bad guy and poor old Remus suffering so, or Remus actually being in love with Moody and Sirius just being a substitute or whatever. So long as they don't start telling me that that's what I consciously intended when I wrote it, they can feel free to interpret it in the way that brings them most joy.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 01:07 pm (UTC)I can understand a writer's emotional response to others' interpretations of her text; what I can't understand is her attempt to rationalize such a gut response. Of course others will read a narrative in myriad ways. It's the nature of the beast... and it's a compliment.
I think poor Hobb needs a little therapy to figure out why she's so invested in the sanctity of canon. Anne Rice is, too, but we already know she's crazy.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 01:29 pm (UTC)*laughs* The way you put this, it doesn't matter if I saw what you're referring to or not; I get it immediately!
Poor Anne Rice. I'll always put it that way--poor Anne Rice. You can't hold her responsible, she's so irrational.
w0rd!
Date: 2005-06-26 01:28 pm (UTC)I mean, I think by her definition, Tom Stoppard would be considered a writer of Shakespeare fanfic with "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead".
*shurgs*
I guess the only other thing that bugs me in her rant is her statements that people who write fanfic are riding the coat tales of the original author. On purpose. To the detriment of the original authors that is. I mean, people who lean to particular types of writers will read more and more of their work, I believe, to learn how to write like those writers, at least that's what I remember every English teacher telling me I should do to become a good writer. To write like those writers and 'play' in those 'verses (yeah, a total play on words;) is just an extension to that. Training wheels if you will.
Then again, others write for purely therapeutic reasons and yet others write to push themselves to a place to see how far their limits of what they can do with wordsmithing gets them.
Ok, this reply is long enough already. Thanks for posting this essay and link d00d.
Re: w0rd!
Date: 2005-06-26 01:35 pm (UTC)Yes. I wonder if she would backpedal if confronted with that example. Or so many others. She can't say, "Well, that's public domain," as an excuse, based on her arguments.
And whether you see it as "training wheels" or an end in itself, you do gain the writing experience, when it's all done.
Re: w0rd!
From:Re: w0rd!
From:Re: w0rd!
From:Re: w0rd!
From:Re: w0rd!
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 01:28 pm (UTC)Being a Lit major, I have had quite a bit of exposure to the turf battle between Author and Reader, and to that I say, "why can't we all just get along?" I believe that a text doesn't exist divorced from its author. Think of 'Dorian Grey' without Oscar Wilde, or 'DaVinci Code' without Dan Brown. The author's name functions as a tool of classification and enrichment for a text, and taking away the Author's power of determination over hir text is to kill the Author. On the other hand, a text is meaningless if nobody reads it, so to deny the Reader is to murder the text.
I don't think the Author ever loses control of the words s/he puts on the page. What I do think is that the Author has a lot less control over the possible meanings s/he creates with the words than s/he thinks s/he does. The author creates (probably mostly unconsciously) a range of meanings and strands in a text, which the reader picks up and chooses between, based on their values. I mean, although there is a vast range of interpretations of the Potter books, nobody is going to argue sincerely that they're about a moose who likes fruit salad (or, more realistically, the struggles of a middle-class family living in suburban London), because that is beyond the scope of meanings delineated by the Author (although whether this is actually the realm of the Author or of the text itself is a whole other bowl of gazpacho).
Fanfiction troubles me because I think it's tipping the creative power away from the Author, where it has traditionally resided, and to the Reader, who has in the past merely received and sorted the creative power of the writer. The risk is that if this slide towards Reader-power continues, the Author really will die, which would be a tremendous shame. If I were an author, it wouldn't be people thinking differently about my works that would worry me, it would be people exercising their power of creation over my characters and plotlines. Interpretation is the realm of the Reader, and expecting readers not to exercise their power of interpretation would be sheer stupidity. Once readers started writing fanfiction, however, they'd be on m Authorial turf, and I totally wouldn't be cool with that.
I mean, really, what is copyright except a legal codification of the creative realm of the Author?
And yes, I am a fanficcer myself, so this poses somewhat of an existential dilemma for me. All of this rambling is my own thoughts, btw, and as far as I know has absolutely no credible theorists backing it up. Lol. Sorry also for the drive-by lit theory rant, but Author-Reader power stuff is my pet area. I have opinions!
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 01:45 pm (UTC)Yes, whether that's a positive effect or a negative one. My impression of Oscar Wilde is positive, for his wit and talent and his surviving terrible oppression over his lifestyle. But at the time I'm sure many impressions were "oh, that pervert."
Fanfiction troubles me because I think it's tipping the creative power away from the Author, where it has traditionally resided, and to the Reader, who has in the past merely received and sorted the creative power of the writer. The risk is that if this slide towards Reader-power continues, the Author really will die, which would be a tremendous shame.
My reaction to the first sentence in that quote is so positive--Yay for the reader!--that my reaction to your second sentence above is "But how can that be? The Author can't die--s/he's immortalized in the work s/he's produced." It boils down more simply for me. Perhaps because I've had less exposure to literary criticism than you have.
I have a huge impulse to make an icon featuring, "Harry Potter--a moose who likes fruit salad" but I will try to resist. ^_^
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 01:39 pm (UTC)I don't have the time to discuss her rant fully right now (though I'll briefly take the time to applaud your post, especially the bit about nebulous parts of books being designed to make us wonder, to create spin-offs and AUs in our heads) but really, I do want to make the point that not all of us who write fanfiction want to write original stories. Sorry, Robin.
I am, from time to time, a fanfiction writer, and I think I'm pretty decent at it. I don't have original stories floating around in my mind that I'm putting off writing down because it's 'too hard' - I don't have original stories floating around in my head at all. I'm a fanfiction writer, and that's a very different thing. I'm happy that way.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 01:40 pm (UTC)1. Insecurity. Her career was dead in the water after Wizard of the Pigeons didn't sell. She had to reinvent herself and go to a much more conventional pseudo-medieval fantasy universe to sell books. She may find the idea of people playing in her world terrifying because she's blown one career and doesn't want a second taken from her.
2. Possessiveness. "They're MY characters, and you have no right to play with them!" While I understand this to a certain extent, for pity's sake, if she doesn't like the idea of fanfiction based on her works, *she doesn't have to read it*. All that would be required would be a statement on her web site asking that she not be sent copies of fanfiction, links to archives, and so on. What she doesn't know won't hurt her, and she should keep in mind that *she* is the one who publishes the books, earns the advances, and deposits the royalty checks. If anything, a fan following might well increase her sales, and wouldn't that be nice?
3. The idea that fanfiction shows a lack of imagination is ridiculous. I've already come up with a plot in a fan story that I may well reuse in an urban fantasy, and I know for a fact that
And fan fiction has been around for centuries. The whole idea of authorial ownership is modern - Shakespeare based Hamlet on another, lost play on the same subject. The Aeneid is a Roman rip-off of the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Faery Queen is an English reworking of Orlando Furioso. Amadis de Gaula had at least six sequels by different authors.
And in more modern times, we have plenty of good fiction that's a reworking/reimaginging of someone else's story. Should Wicked be banned because it's an alternative reading of L. Frank Baum? Should Laurie King be horsewhipped because her Mary Russell mysteries are based on Sherlock Holmes (and the first one is *clearly* a fan novel, even down to a Mary Sue-ish heroine)?
3. Any author who thinks s/he can control how a reader responds to a story is delusional. We write the text and present it to the public. The *reader* decides whether it's worth a look, and what and whether to like it at all.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 03:47 pm (UTC)Do people actually send their fanfic and links, etc. to the writers of the original work? I know that some 'fans' have for example printed out photomanips and sent/showed to actors... What on earth are these people thinking?! Why do they need the validation from these people? "Look what I did with you/your work, aren't you impressed?" Is that it? Erm... not good. They should go find validation and praise elsewhere. Because it does no one any good to shove fanfic and fanart under the copyright-holder's nose. Fanworks aren't mainstream like that, and I prefer it that way. I actually find it more fun if we do skulk around in the shadows, but maybe that's just me. I don't feel the need to be patted on the back by Teh Author.
The idea that fanfiction shows a lack of imagination is ridiculous.
*nodnods* Like
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 12:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:24 pm (UTC)I don't like what Robin Hobb wrote, and actually I had never heard of her as a writer in the first place, so I apologize for my ignorance O.O, but I really didn't like the way she wrote that rant. It reminded me of censure and the feeling that comes out of it is not desire of protection of art nor care for young writers, it's just JEALOUSY and possession. Why is she so worried about fans imagining different storylines or different endings for her stories?
I don't think she hates fanfictions, she hates fanfics about her own works, and this is kinda eghoistic.
There can't be a single interpretation of a story, and if a reader sees things in another way, the author cant't prevent him from going on and writing a story about that. Yes, maybe she could be right when she writes "list characters you like, list plot devices you like and write your own story", but I guess that it would be difficult to arrive to a good fanfiction in this way...I'm not sure I'm writing it in the right way @_@ sorry!
I just wanted to say that if it had not been for my love for HP universe I never would have known Amanuensis's works (of art!) or other works that are now so important to me!!
I can't see anything bad where there is spontaneity, creativity and imagination. And if some fanfics are of low quality, it's not a problem of "fanfiction genre"!
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 12:54 pm (UTC)Yes, didn't it just rub that way? I feel bad for authors who have unhappy gut reactions to fanfiction, I do, and who are saying, "But this is MINE, why do I have to even say that? What about this are people not getting?" Which is ever so true. But equally true are the responses of, "Yes, that is yours--but what it has sparked in the heads of others is something above and beyond what started as yours. Others have no right to make an instant of profit off it, and you may protest its distribution or the possibility it may be confused with your own works--but you can't censor the basic concept of imagination."
*noogies you affectionately for the lovely compliments*
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:31 pm (UTC)It's clear, though, that Hobb is right: she's not rational about fanfiction. If she were rational, she'd carry her own analogy to its next logical step and see that fanfic is natural.
To use an analogy, we look at the Mona Lisa and wonder. Each of us draws his own conclusions about her elusive smile. We don’t draw eyebrows on her to make her look surprised, or put a balloon caption over her head.
... but then we get together at a workshop on Art and we talk about how we interpret her smile, and maybe we use visual aids like balloon captions... Oh, look -- Fanfic! ;-)
Really, fanfic is just meta masquerading as fiction. It's a discussion of the fic author's interpretation of the source material. Are we going to say literary criticism is wrong too?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:33 pm (UTC)Too true... It's ridiculous. How would a writer make us think what they want? It's not possible. *shakes head*
Fan fiction is like any other form of identity theft.
Actually, no, it's not. Seeing as FF writers don't claim to own the characters.
Her rant is stupid and unfounded.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 01:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:43 pm (UTC)Though there was one thing she wrote that I could really agree with, which was her thought that you can't become a writer just by writing fanfiction. I agree with that, and that by the same token, one cannot become a proper artist simply by drawing the characters of other people. You might have the skill and ideas, but unless one can come up with their own characters and story, I will not consider them as having truly got there - only that they are skilled.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:44 pm (UTC)Robin Hobb's assertion that characterization and world-building are also not exercised made me shake my head. It's true that we extrapolate on an existing world and pre-generated characters, but we also create OC's and many stories add layers to create a deeper, more intricate world. And what about those authors who create AU's? They've made new worlds.
Eh, in any case, fan fic writers can only improve their skills simply BECAUSE they are writing, no matter the medium.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:51 pm (UTC)the Fiery Pits of Hellfanfiction.net (http://www.fanfiction.net)? In my experience, not exactly the easiest place to find quality fanfiction.I can see how fanfiction could bother authors, but it doesn't change the way I see the books (as Hobb seems to suggest). I realise it's for fun, and hey, it's fun to read situations that would never happen in canon (let's be honest, Rowling is probably not going to have Harry and *insert male character here* shagging in any of the books). But, I can see how "Harry's turned goth and was re-sorted into Slytherin and hooked up with Mary Sue (or Gary Stu), and allied himself with Voldemort", may irk Rowling.
Um. Right. Anyway, basically, my view towards fanfiction is that it's just for fun, and that there isn't any malicious intent to defame the author. I like to read fanfiction because it explores areas I can't see in canon, and again, I think it's done for fun, but I can see how it could upset authors.
As an aside, I friended you. I hope you don't mind.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 01:27 pm (UTC)Hey, it irks ME.
The authors I respect mightily are those who say, "Have fun, but please don't ask me to read it." They're giving approval to the concept of fanfiction even if they don't want to see their babies tinkered with, which is big of them. (I know some authors may say this if they fear the legal ramifications--i.e., if they never read fanfiction they never have to deal with a "Hey, you stole the idea for your latest story from my fanfic of your stuff!" accusation.)
*welcomes you* *smooches*
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 01:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 02:58 pm (UTC)This made me nod and keep nodding. (I may have a stitch in my neck at this point. ;)) Thanks again, so much, for sharing your thoughts.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 01:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 03:25 pm (UTC)Re: Who is she?
Date: 2005-06-26 03:51 pm (UTC)She wrote three trilogies based on the same characters. They're fantasy books, I guess. My Dad bought them on sale, as he can't enter a book store, and not leave with something (I shouldn't talk though, I'm much the same way). Anyway, the Farseer Trilogy and the Tawny Man Trilogy deal with a lot with Fitz, a Prince's bastard, and his role as the 'catalyst' to his prophet. I'm not sure about the Liveship Trilogy, since I've never read it, but it sounds like it deals with the 'enemy' for lack of a better term at the moment, and how they view their quest. At least that's what I assume. They're a fairly easy and enjoyable read. The ending of the series (at the end of the Tawny Man Trilogy) is a little abrupt, and has never sat well with me.
Re: Who is she?
From:Re: Who is she?
From:Re: Who is she?
From:Re: Who is she?
From:Re: Who is she?
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 03:27 pm (UTC)All this seems to be coming to a head right now. There was this program (http://www.radioopensource.org/2005/06/10/fan-fiction/) on OpenSource Radio last week, where a couple of my favorite fanfic writers defend the process. And the July issue of WIRED is titled, "REMIX NOW! The Rise of Cut & Paste Culture", and has a pretty good article on fanfic titled, "Spock Battles the Sith".
So -- the argument is out there. If it hasn't gone to court yet, it's sure on its way...
My hope is that the continuum will save us -- no one will begrudge a 12-year old girl from writing a story about when Harry kissed Draco. Many would definitely begrudge *cough* some stories that *cough* take that a bit further. If they want to try to start drawing lines, I think that's a good step, because I was always good at coloring within the lines, even when I had to redraw some of them...
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 01:42 pm (UTC)There are esoteric logics in our favor. Storytelling tradition, the unlikelihood that others would confuse fanfiction with the original, etc. Unfortunately I think most legal minds aren't going to be looking at the esoteric, but the cold hard "Do you own these characters? Then stop it NOW."
I've been told that disclaimers ("used without permission" etc.) and passwords and the like really do work in your favor--anything to demonstrate that you are not trying to confuse the public into thinking this is authorized material.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 03:29 pm (UTC)Thank you!
These days I'm beginning to think that writers and authorities and whatever are intent on controlling the imagination and thoughts and sexdrive of every citizen on this planet. Luckily, it hasn't spread here... yet.
So, thank you. I feel better and more hopeful after reading your post. :-)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 01:50 pm (UTC)Fanfiction isn't against the law if it's in your head. And not if you write it down and show it to no one. It's when the distribution gets in there that we got trouble. ^_^
So there needs to be a way to demonstrate that we are using the internet to share among a small group of unconfused people. That the internet has made it easier to communicate within that group, but has not compromised the original text/medium/whatever in a way that threatens the original. Can we do that? I don't know, but I'm sure going to keep thinking.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 03:35 pm (UTC)The author cannot control the reader's interpretations even of her own original work. To take this to the next step, it's even more ludicrous to think that the author can control the reader's imagination.
It was JK Rowling specific, and dealt with the Weasley family specifically but with authorial intent versus what the reader interprets in general.
I fully agree with your paragraph (above). We bring out own experiences into what we read, which is why we interpret things differently. Robin Hobbs sounds like a control freak and card-carrying member of the Thought Police. I don't know her at all, but her wish to control what the reader gets out of her story is either the control-freak issue, or else poorly worded. In that case, she isn't trying to tell her readers what to think, but it proves that she can't get her point across to the point where her writing will always be interpreted the same way by everyone.
To me, the statement I want you to read it exactly as I wrote it... can mean either thing. So she's already failed in me reading it exactly as she wrote that one statement. That does not encourage me to read her actual stories.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 01:53 pm (UTC)Oh, there you go. How many of us thing that Fred and George are loveable pranksters, and that Percy is a traitor--and how many that F&G are the cruelest bullies in the books and that Percy is the most decent of the lot, poor misguided boy? Authorial intent, meet my hollow laugh.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 02:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 04:31 pm (UTC)One of the advantages that I have always seen to fanfiction for the fanfiction writer is that you can hone your skills without having to come up with the whole universe from scratch. Therefore it is priceless for someone who, like me, is exploring their potention to write in a particular genre. The characters are set, the rules of the world are more or less understood, and so you can jump right in and begin to develop yourself immediately, with a pre-existing audience for feedback and support. You can read what others have written, for good or ill, and learn from it.
Were I a published author - and who knows? Stranger things have happened - I would be happy to have people writing in my universe. I wouldn't see it as a slight, I would see it as a compliment that my work had so inspired them, caught them up and fired their imaginations that they simply had to go out and CREATE their own views based on my work. That's breathtaking, and I don't know if that author has any kind of IDEA about how much a teacher strives to incite that very fire in people. I'd rather inspire people with my writing than bore them, that's for sure. ;D
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 06:08 pm (UTC)Me too. Goodness knows, I have about two dozen AUs spun off my own novel-in-the-closet... if I can change the story around like that, why wouldn't someone else, with a different world-view, do the same? Fanfiction strikes me as the ultimate compliment for an author -- a combination of inspiration and a craving for more.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 02:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 05:54 pm (UTC)Well done for putting it thusly.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 02:15 pm (UTC)Yes. Even if it is not taken as flattery, it is not meant as insult. Even the impulse to want to change endings, do complete rewrites--it means your universe is compelling enough to inspire that! That people are obsessing over your creation!
no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 06:39 pm (UTC)I can see both sides, but in the end I agree with you. No surprise, since I'm a fanwriter myself, but I've also had the experience of having a fan write a "sequel" to one of my works, and I was quite upset about it.
I'd deliberately written a "sad" ending to a poem -- in fact, the entire poem itself was a young man's goodbye to his faery lover, it being time for him to grow up and take on adult responsibilities -- because that was the whole point I was trying to make. That being a kid is fun and all, but that one can't stop time and can't remain a child forever. One has to move on, and there's a satisfaction in that, even if it's not the laughing, dancing, wheeee! kind of fun kids have. Well, one of my fans read it at completely face value, missing all the undertones and subtler themes, and wrote a sequel that had the young man back bouncing through the forest with his faery love once more. [headdesk] I was pretty angry, actually, since her contribution to the story pretty much negated every single thing I'd been saying with mine. But I smiled (through gritted teeth) and thanked her for the compliment of wanting to play with my characters, and even later when I met her in person I didn't chew her out or even let her know I was at all upset. Because you're right, it's not for me to try to control what people think about my fiction. [shrug] I might not like it, and I might actually feel like working her over with a tire iron, but she has as much right to be creative as I do. All I can do is write my stuff; it's up to the people who read it to decide what it means to them and how they want to enjoy it.
Angie
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 02:40 pm (UTC)And even if you were gritting your teeth while smiling, you get it. And that's awesome.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-06-26 07:38 pm (UTC)The thing is, I don't think that's what Robin Hobb meant. She says before in her rant:
Anyone who read fan fiction about Harry Potter, for instance, would have an entirely different idea of what those stories are about than if he had simply read J.K. Rowling's books. In this way, the reader's impression of the writer's work and creativity is changed.
Fan fiction closes up the space that I have engineered into the story, and the reader is told what he must think rather than being allowed to observe the characters and draw his own conclusions.
She seems to me to distinguish between "The Author" of a work of fiction, the "general readers" and "writers of fanfic", and she is afraid that the general readers will change their impressions of The Author's work because of their reading fanfiction. I get the feeling that she would be happy for readers to interpret The Author's work as they please, but not to write fanfiction with their views so as not to taint other readers perception of her work.
In the end, she is giving you fanfic writers a lot of credit; she is afraid of you taking her place! Looks like insecurity to me. I can't imagine Rowling worrying like that. She is also insulting her readers' intelligence, IMO.
On another topic, I wonder what you think about this other quote from her rant??
At the extreme low end of the spectrum, fan fiction becomes personal masturbation fantasy in which the fan reader is interacting with the writer's character.
moiragrey, an offended reader at the extreme low end of the spectrum who has decided never ever to read any work of Robin Hobb
no subject
Date: 2005-06-27 01:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: