Fanon, by definition

[amanuensis1]

Ever write a fic, and have others look at it, and discover that the fic they're reading is not the fic you thought you wrote? Yeah, I hate that. But that's what betas are for, and revisions, and at last my hd_worldcup fic is off to the mods, yaye.

I'm on Team Fanon in the Harry/Draco Worldcup tournament, and we had a discussion regarding what Fanon is--thought I'd share.

I think the beauty of "fanon" is how broad an interpretation it can be. For me, fanon can be considered anything that didn't happen and isn't likely to happen. And now that canon is closed, how wide a range that is.

Your fanwork:

-is an AU and/or departs from canon at some point (e.g., EWE)? Fanon.

-is an AR (alternate reality)? Fanon.

-is a "behind the scene" from canon, but who can say if it really happened like that? Fanon.

-contrasts something we're meant to assume about the essential nature of the characters (e.g., their sexuality)? Fanon.

-takes something canonical and weaves an explanation that debunks the plain-and-simple explanation for it (e.g., affection, death, etc.)? Fanon.

-narrates canonical events from another point of view, delving into the brain of a character whose motivations we can't truly be said to know? Fanon.

-speculates on the canon's future in a way that the original author probably did not plan for the future to go? Fanon.


Fanon is...what a fan creates.

Comments

[dawn_felagund]

Hello, here from metafandom! :)

This is interesting because the definition of fanon in my fandom (Tolkien, specifically Silmarillion) is completely different. Fanon isn't so much a fan creation as it is a fan creation that has come, in the minds of some/most fans, to have the same weight as the original when creating fanworks. Fanon is often confused with canon, in fact, with people quoting "facts" that never appeared in any of the books but were invented by a fanfic author and were picked up by others until the sheer prevalence of this single, non-canonical idea was assumed to be canon by those who didn't know any better.

I also find that fanons (by this definition) enjoy a time of popularity and adoration and then, being revealed as fanons, slowly become almost reviled by fan writers and artists. For example, when I joined this fandom three years ago, I remember a favorite character of mine being almost universally written as evil and abusive, despite little evidence to suggest this in the books. Now, that idea is despised by a good proportion of Silm authors. It's like people realized that idea wasn't Tolkien's, wasn't theirs (i.e., original), and was more like a fannish lemming run and revolted. Personally, I'm glad for that. ;)

Interesting, though, the difference between definitions here, as I'd always thought our fandoms fairly similar with a lot of overlap! :)

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

So far I'm seeing several different definitions: what I've put forth, what you've put forth, and the idea of "fandom cliches" which are recognized as cliche and overwritten. It looks like there might be some overlap between that last one and your definition of fanon, as you say that the fanon conventions you describe become reviled!