Is FanFiction Any Less Legitimate Than The Source Material.

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Well in one sense yes because it isn't canon. But is it inherently inferior than other kinds of fiction? No. There's lots of great fan made things out there, fan-fiction, mods, fan-films, fan-art, etc. Is there bad fan-fiction? Yeah, but there's bad fiction in original settings too so that shouldn't really be a mark against fan-fiction as a whole.

 

[Entitled]

Comparing the creation of mythologies or folk tales, which happened through culture-wide retellings and reworkings based off traditional stories passed down through time, to taking the characters and world of one specific person to remake as a continuation of that work is completely different.

Of course it is different, but what made the situations different? Why is it that for so long, organically developing stories were the centerpiece of culture, and used even by the greatest professionals of the time like Shakespeare, while nowadays anything similar can only be found in stuff like creepypasta and fanfiction?

It all comes down to legality, and the clean, artificial line that separates a publishable "new IP" from the "taking of a pre-existing IP", which will end up rewarding those who make up new character names, and punish those who don't, rather than the true contents of creativity and innovation.

50 Shades of Grey is the source material of a "New IP", and an "universe", because E. L. James crapped out the name "Christian Grey", and search-and-replaced every instance of "Edward Cullen" with it.

Big publishers are doing the same, even if we won't catch them uploading early, clearly-fanfiction draft versions: Once a decade, they put together a glorious "new universe" wih clearly derivative "inspirations", just to have something new to exploit for another decade.

When you are hailing the New IP makers as worthy of special defense, and the "fanfiction writers" as derivative (no matter how many creative changes they made compared to their source), just because you can catch old character and location names in the latter, you are overrating the shallowest element of creativity, and perpetuating the presence of overglorified "original authors".

Are you telling me you really don't see the difference between one author doing her own interpretation of a traditional narrative, and one author just lifting the characters, setting, and style of another wholesale for the purpose of continuing that narrative?

Of course I see the difference. The latter is more of "continuation fic", while the former is maybe a "fix fic", or an "AU fic".

Your idea of "fanfiction's purpose", is quite narrow. Continuations are surely a thing, but so are retellings of a pre-existing story, maybe with an extra character or a "what if" premise, Crossovers that use two universes to form a third one, Elsewhere fics that take the universe but add entirely new locations, characers, and plots, etc.

As I'm writing this, I have three other tabs open. One is Stolen Ice, a Frozen fanfic where Anna is a master thief and Elsa is a hacker, and they grew up not knowing each other then fell in love. Another is Harry Potter and the Natural 20, that's protagonist is an original character D&D munchkin, who upsets the plot from the beginning of Philosopher's stone, meta-humor ensues. The third is Marissa and the Wizards, about a homeless brazilian girl being enrolled in a Brazilian wizarding school (in the Harry Potter universe).

I don't want to criminalize fanfiction, but I do want to encourage a community that values the creation of new worlds and new characters as well as one that respects the author's ownership of a product.

I'm cool with that, as long as by ownership you mean the selling rights of the actual text that they wrote, rather than the censorship right over which of their own texts other writers are allowed to publish.

The latter I find an extremely disgusting practice of our system, and not just because I believe that it doesn't work, and it stiffles true, old-fashioned, organic creativity in favor of franchise-exploitation.

Even if it would work, that would be an extremely weak excuse for franchise rights. To protect authors and the public from the dangers of freely publishing whatever works they want, and call it other writers' "ownership", is the most blatant cultural censorship that somehow passed in the free world.

Even if I'm wrong about franchise rights fostering unoriginal sequels, and without them, even more Spiderman sequels should be made than now, that should be up to the publishers' and the audiences freedom of expression, not something that governments should regulate away.

Again, probably the worst thing about us is that, as a community, we don't seem to care about the "formalities of proper literature". Are you really telling me that the writing you see in most sci-fi and fantasy novels is bogged down by being too good?

"Properness" is not goodness, it's regulation, and creative concessions, and stuffed shirt commercialized public appropriateness.

Where everything must fit into a genre, and an universe carefully curated "canon", and a corporate owned "franchise", for maximum merchandizeability.

No room for any wildness, freedom, or self-expression.

No room for "All right, this time the french philosopher Voltaire is travelling to the magical land of Equestria to analyze political systems, and fight with a mule-goddess." No room for "All right, this time Elsa and Anna are lesbian modern criminals". No room for "What if the Harry Potter universe has been interacted by with a character running on D&D logic?".

No room for giving the chance that either of these can be good, as long as they are shoved to the corner of the Internet where legally unpublishable works go, and even the informal audience insists that they are "inherently" less original than the "New IP" dreck of publisher-owned AAA/blockbuster culture.

 

[peruvianskys]

Of course it is different, but what made the situations different? Why is it that for so long, organically developing stories were the centerpiece of culture, and used even by the greatest professionals of the time like Shakespeare, while nowadays anything similar can only be found in stuff like creepypasta and fanfiction?

It all comes down to legality, and the clean, artificial line that separates a publishable "new IP" from the "taking of a pre-existing IP", which will end up rewarding those who make up new character names, and punish those who don't, rather than the true contents of creativity and innovation.

Except things like pastiche, homage, reinvention, etc. exist quite a bit in literature today without resorting to straight-up world piracy. Read some Pynchon.

Anyway, I agree with you that the current franchise system is fucked up and bizarre. But honestly the motivations that perpetuate that system are very similar, if not identical to, the motivations that drive people to make fanfiction, that is, a preference for comfortable, familiar characters over the creation of new narratives. I'll say it before and I'll say it again: The sci-fi/fantasy community's problem is largely that we don't demand enough innovation and enough originality, and I hardly see how encouraging fanfiction is going to do anything to fix that. You keep talking about "true, old-fashioned, organic creativity" but I think you and I have massively different definitions of what that is if you think it includes just directly lifting characters and settings from the creative work of another person.

You bring up these examples that I guess are supposed to impress me or demonstrate some sort of depth, but I guess I'll just ask: Instead of a Frozen fanfic where Anna is a master thief and Elsa is a hacker, why not a new novel with new characters, one of whom is a master thief or a hacker? Instead of a Brazilian woman entering a wizarding school in the Harry Potter universe, why not create a new universe where that happens? Is there any answer other than comfort or ease? Should writing be easy? Should writing be something we see as primarily an entertainment method and not a meaningful act of creation that rests on the value of the created thing? I'm not trying to be some snob here, just trying to counteract some of the strains of thinking that I see as destructive to the quality of all literature but especially sci-fi and fantasy, where we're kinda known for our stagnation and fear of the unknown.

 

[rorychief]

snip.

I still don't quite agree, Entitled. But you have given me a lot to think on. I come from a circle of writers who deride fanfic writers as being Shia Laboeuf types who champion misinterpreting the death of the author as a means to justify plagiarism. You sound like someone who has encountered a lot of frustration from having your work lumped in with the idea of these types and I do admit to having let my distaste for them colour my approach to all fanfiction. I will definitely broaden the umbrella of what I consider fanfiction to include things like Walking dead etc. But I still see a distinction between something sharing its zombie apocalypse setting while building its own narrative and drama, and something that is reliant on familiarity with the source to understand and enjoy. I don't quite understand the internet metaphor, its insultingly simplistic and doesn't reflect my argument at all but that's probably my fault for not being more clear. I'll try using GOT since GRRM is somewhat notorious for his stance on people elaborating on his work.

A fanfiction piece featuring Jon Snow saving Westeros from the white walkers and being made lord of winterfell, Daenerys Targaryen reclaiming her throne and restoring her families legacy, and Tyrion Lannister warging into a dragon or something and torching cersei.

Now, the fanfiction might be thrilling and engaging and brilliantly written, but the reason we care that any of this is happening is because we care about the original authors characters and where they end up. The fanfic writer hasn't done the hard part, the making us care, they are talking that accomplishment and building from it in a way that is totally reliant on having read the original, or foundation. Enjoyment of lord of the rings is not reliant on being familiar with European mythology in this same way, it works without it.

This is the form of fanfiction I have contempt for. The part that picks up after the hard work has been done and then claims equal footing with the original. I suppose not all fanfiction must do this. But this is what I meant by reliant.

I didn't and have never meant fiction needs to be comepletely unrelated to anything that has come prior, because only randomly mashing a keyboard could do that. I don't hold that the internet needs to strive to be unlike a telephone or a carrier pigeon or smoke signals to convey information originally, whatever that means, nor do I sneer at books that steal the paper bound format from their predecessors. I'm not willfully misreading your posts in an attempt to cultivate indignant rage at my own idea of how stupid I would like you to be and your inclusion of the confused and confusing insult only distracted from the good points, which like i said, were interesting and illuminating.

 

[Entitled]

Except things like pastiche, homage, reinvention, etc. exist quite a bit in literature today without resorting to straight-up world piracy. Read some Pynchon.

Because when IP holders start arguing that the property ownership over their creative work hould apply to it's every element, homages and genre imitations are vague enough that they can't walk up to the bench and say "See, Mr. Judge, that's the part that they stole from me" as they did with character names." So that gets identified as piracy whether transformative or lazy, while "inspiration" gets defended whether transformative or lazy.

That doesn't mean that creatively speaking, names are a more significant part of the work's originality than trope style usage.

But honestly the motivations that perpetuate that system are very similar, if not identical to, the motivations that drive people to make fanfiction, that is, a preference for comfortable, familiar characters over the creation of new narratives.

Yes, audiences are constantly swinging between the demand for being surprised, amused, entertained by something new, and the expectation of this happining in a form that they are comfortable with, just as writers are constantly struggling to find the sweet spot that is neither too tiresomely clichéd, nor outlandishly weird and hard to relate to.

But the motivations for the franchise system, are economical ones, not creative or personal ones. There were no artists who were particularly eager to make The Amazing Spider-Man. There were no audiences that wanted to see it. (yes, it sold decently, but so would have any other IP with that much marketing). But there was a high price tag on being the one studio that keeps owning the license, so Sony commissioned the movie, just so that price tag stays attached to them rather than going back to Disney.

It's literally a system that rewards derivativeness beyond the public's innate demand for the familiar.

Innovation is something that should be praised when obviously present (although care a bit more about GOOD works being praised, than specifically original ones), but trying to categorically stiffle types of art that are declared unoriginal by their nature, will just lead to twisted results.

You keep talking about "true, old-fashioned, organic creativity" but I think you and I have massively different definitions of what that is if you think it includes just directly lifting characters and settings from the creative work of another person.

If it was good enough for Virgil in his Iliad spinoff, it's good enough for me.

You bring up these examples that I guess are supposed to impress me or demonstrate some sort of depth...

For the record, I haven't even read some of these, they might in fact suck, they were a reply specifically to your statement that fanfics are continuations of someone else's canon.

Instead of a Frozen fanfic where Anna is a master thief and Elsa is a hacker, why not a new novel with new characters, one of whom is a master thief or a hacker?

Why would they? If the situation and presumably the characterization is that much different from Frozen anyways, then would it be all that superior, if the girls were called Adriana and Bella instead, and one of them would have black hair just to be sure?

If the story is good and creative, then keeping the names won't turn it into a lazy stealing. And if it is bad, then changing the names won't really turn the author into a honorable "person who single-handedly created the world and characters"?

This is not a matter of easiness, if anything, it would be quite easy to take the 50 Shades route, and "go professional" with just a tiny change. It's a matter of artistic freedom. I would much rather let writers honestly write about whatever they want, and admit what idea inspired them, than dancing around trademarks and copyrights or risk getting banned from the market for writing the bad way.

 

[peruvianskys]

If it was good enough for Virgil in his Iliad spinoff, it's good enough for me.

If you honestly think that the Aenid was "fanfiction" of the Iliad, then I think our understanding of literature and history is so different that a meaningful conversation is probably impossible.

If the story is good and creative, then keeping the names won't turn it into a lazy stealing. And if it is bad, then changing the names won't really turn the author into a honorable "person who single-handedly created the world and characters"?

If the story is good and creative, it won't take characters and setting from another author's work.

This is not a matter of easiness, if anything, it would be quite easy to take the 50 Shades route, and "go professional" with just a tiny change. It's a matter of artistic freedom. I would much rather let writers honestly write about whatever they want, and admit what idea inspired them, than dancing around trademarks and copyrights or risk getting banned from the market for writing the bad way.

Yes, it would be probably be easier to write terrible fanfiction and change the names than it would be to just write passable fanfiction. I guess my standards are high enough that neither appeals to me. I think you're suffering quite heavily under the tyranny of low expectations.

 

[IndieGinge]

I'd say that fanfiction is obviously not as legitimate as the source material. And I'm going to have to agree with GRRM on subject as well. Perhaps I'm coloring fanfic with my own bad experiences, but even most "good" fanfic I've run afoul of weren't too great. Which is something I blame on what seems to be a culture among fanfic writers to stick to their own personal, communal tropes and stylistic choices that pervade the genre that is Fanfic.

Some people accuse fanfic writers of wanting to write, but to have training wheels kept on, and while it would be presumptuous to speak for all fic writers, I'm sure it's true for a few. Hell, one of the more famous good fics, "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" is a great example of this, it's good elements existed in the way the story deconstructed some of the assumptions of Harry Potter's universe, but the story itself was completely bogged down by the shadow of the actual series. "HPMR" is not a story about Harry Potter, but a story about someone taking the scientific approach to studying magic. Which is an awesome idea, but one that was harmed by the baggage of JK Rowling's universe. Instead of creating original characters and having them exist to explore and pick apart their world, the guy who writes this ripped open the main cast of Harry Potter and stuck the characters he wanted to exist inside. Harry was turned into a moronically heroic, genius, mad scientist, chessmaster as a bastard amalgamation of Tyrion Lannister, Albert Einstein, and Ichigo from Bleach. From what I remember Hermione was essentially turned into a less sociopathic version Ender from "Ender's Game", and Draco Malfoy replaced Ron Weasley in the trio. And all of this winds up being even dumber than it sounds when seen in relation to the original series, and I can't help but wonder why on earth the writer wouldn't just create his own story if he's only going to be faithful to the bare minimum elements of the Harry Potter universe. I think part of the answer is that he doesn't want to have to work to build up a world, or do much to establish characters, because without without the legitimacy provided by the label of Harry Potter, his writing would be treated like the hyper convoluted trash with a few shining moments of quality that it actually is.

Which is the advantage of fanfic. You've got less work to do, as everyone reading your work is already invested in the characters you're putting to page, or they already respect the world you're writing about, as a fic writer you can skip those parts of story telling. That is the biggest reason why GRRM is right in claiming that fanfiction is bad for developing writers, in that it seems to teach bad habits. I can't say I'm very well read when it comes to fics, but I have noticed some trends, and it seems like very few of these stories have life of their own. They by and large seem to exist as a vehicle for the situations the author or readers WANT to see in relation to the original story, but are almost never things that would stand on their own. Which is fine, not everyone needs to be working to greatness or whatever, but I'm tired of seeing defenders of fanfic act like fanfic is "just as hard" as creating a story from scratch. It's truly not.

And I don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone, sorry if what I said comes off as harsh.

EDIT: And it looks like rorychief sniped me. And was much more eloquent. Oh well.

 

[Entitled]

You sound like someone who has encountered a lot of frustration from having your work lumped in with the idea of these types

I'm not a fanfic writer. I don't even follow the community too closely as a fan, although a few of my favorite novels ARE fanfictions. I just get really defensive about people making sweeping statements.

A fanfiction piece featuring Jon Snow saving Westeros from the white walkers and being made lord of winterfell, Daenerys Targaryen reclaiming her throne and restoring her families legacy, and Tyrion Lannister warging into a dragon or something and torching cersei.

I don't really see how such a plot could be brilliantly written, if even it's premise sounds like painful wish-fulfillment.

Which is kind of a problem with the whole idea. Brilliant writing, and ambitious premises, tend to go hand in hand. The straightforward fan-sequel style that is most common in the most blatant sex fics, while the kind of fics that are worth wasting my breath on defending, almost always have something going for them even by the premise:

Elsewhere stories that are filled with original plot and characters, crossovers that turn two universes into a third one, (Fallout: Equestia being the most famous example), Alternate Universes that use characters in an essentially entirely rewritten situation, etc.

If a writer really is good, they don't really need defense of how they justify using other's characters and plot, because they are writing their own characters and plot (even if it's a followup to someone else's.)

Not many people would think of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, as "someone lifting Hamlet's characters for a non-canon addition to the story", because it is good enough to be considered a separate classic work in it's own right. (whatever it is standing on).

It's the same deal with something like Methods of Rationality, only without the "classic" part. Yes, it's well-written, which is exactly what makes it's treatment of it's characters and settings shine brightly enough to be considered "it's characters and settings" rather than some random person's take on Rowling's.

 

[RealRT]

Yes, yes it is. It can be a work in its own right, if it's written well, which fanfics usually aren't, but it's by its very nature is derivative. If you are so good - why do you have to use other people's characters? I can accept Captain Ersatzes (look it up on TV Tropes if you have no clue what that means), because they at least require you to come up with a name, but using other people's character is a line.

 

[Worgen]

Certainly there are people who agree with this view. But there is a market for this kind of writing

There's a "market" for it? As in people pay money for fan fiction? That surprises me.

I guess I see it like this: Real writers, as in writers who care about making the best possible writing they can don't write fan fiction. Fake writers, as in writers who want people to notice their writing abilities but don't want to put in the effort to do their best, write fan fiction.

Now, I'm not denigrating fan-fiction writers with this distinction. They're not bad people, they're just not devoting themselves to writing quality. Which... really is fine. The world is full of failed writers, people who think they're incredibly clever and have something to say to the world but can't find an angle to get the world to pay attention or can't put together something of enough quality to stand out. That's fine. I'm a failed writer. I have coworkers who are failed writers. I'm also a failed painter, a failed graphic artist, and a failed musician. We all have a creative impulse to one degree or another, but most of us do not have the time, dedication, or financial support to really dedicate ourselves to perfecting a craft. We don't need to be stifled just because we can't work professionally. Writing in the confines of another person's world gives us structure and direction enough to scratch the writing itch such as it bothers us. There's no shame in that. I never did fan-fiction myself, but I used to do a lot of genre fiction, stories set in MMORPG worlds posted on forums back when MMORPGs didn't have enough game to them to have stories of their own.

But we've got to acknowledge that putting words on a page is not enough to make you a writer, and fan-fiction is inherently inferior to independent writing. I do actually know two successful writers. Neither of them wasted much time writing fan-fiction. As for my own forays into genre-fiction, the big problem with what I did was that I never received meaningful criticism. Other people on the website either ignored it, or lauded me with vague claims ("You're great!") that never give insight into what I need to do better. Good artists of any stripe need to be self-critical, and I don't think fan-fiction encourages this. It's too much about building self-esteem and not enough about teaching the writer to make something they're proud of.

And in case people think I'm being too hard on fan-fiction, keep in mind that I'd still rate a lot of fan-fiction and genre fiction over the professionally-written non-fiction that I routinely see published on the Internet. Taking the time to learn a fictional world so intimately that you can imitate it's author takes way more work than ranting about personal opinions without support or insight, spamming Top-10 lists, writing "news" reports that are just re-statements of someone else's news reports, or any of the other lazy practices that dominate our world of hungry-for-daily-content websites.

A lot of fanfiction is crap, but a lot of everything is crap. But, there are some fanfictions out there that are amazingly good, that beat out most published work easily, in fact, some fanfiction writers get published.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-of-Cliffside-ebook/dp/B009PNTLLW/

This book was written by a fantastic fan fiction writer.

 

[Rariow]

To put it in video game terms, I see fanfiction in kind of the same light as a mod or a romhack. Sure, you've done your thing, and you've been creative, but I'm still hard-pressed to see it as your work. You're using the building blocks set up by another person to make something. Let's take the example of one of the most thriving fanfiction communities, that of Harry Potter. Say you read a piece of fanfiction centering on Harry's third year at Hogwarts, where the writer explores Harry feelings of gratitude towards the older Weasleys for treating him so well and being worried about him. This could be an extremely effective piece of writing, and kudos for that, but so much of the work has been done for you at this point that I'd feel hard pressed to be too impressed with it. Sure, Harry's feelings towards Mr and Mrs Weasley aren't explored too much in the books, but there's been a plethora of character backstory, setting details, and relationships set up that are vital to getting this to work.

When you're writing something long, say, a novel, the difficulty is in setting up all these things whilst keeping the plot moving forward and keeping the reader interested. You've also got to worry about how these things will affect future events, and set up callbacks and calls forward to keep everything relevant. If you're writing something short, like a short story, you've got to worry about picking and choosing what parts are relevant to the particular story you want to choose, and make sure you get maximum bang per word so you have time to actually get these tidbits to form a story.

With fanfiction, you don't have any of this stuff. The hard part of the writing process is removed, and you're left with just the easy bit, getting the people to do the things. You can get the people to do the things as well as you want, but you're still bypassing the stuff that makes original work actually impressive to me. The reasons why Harry would feel a way about the Weasleys treating him well are already laid out for you.


Don't get me wrong, fanfiction isn't something I condemn. It's a great way to get your feet wet if you're interested in writing, allowing you to play around with the "fun" part of the writing process before you actually have to do the work. There's fanfiction that I actually really like. I chose the example I did above for a reason, the Harry Potter community is home to some really great pieces of fanfiction that allows me to revisit this world I really like without reading the books for the millionth time. But at the same time the fact that it's great is not nearly as impressive to me as how good the books are, and I feel even a mediocre original work is more legitimate than a really phenomenal fanfiction.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Can I just say how nice it is to have a good conversation about this stuff without the thread devolving into angry ranting back and forth?

I totally don't respect your opinion and you're a massive poopyhead! So there!

All jokes aside, I agree. The term "OTP" gets a little too much good press, for instance. Hit Tumblr and you'll find SuperWhoLockers that are so adamant about fusing their fandoms of choice together that they reject anything and everything canonical in nature. I'm sorry, but your so-called One True Pairing that makes you feel all fuzzy inside is as likely to happen as I am of being struck by lightning while receiving the Nobel Prize from Elvis Presley's zombified hands.

There's "modding" an established setting, and then there's butchering it to make it say and do things it wouldn't realistically serve as a proper environment for. SuperWhoLockers who do what they do out of sheer entertainment aren't dangerous or even particularly offensive, but the main danger of anything fanfiction-esque in nature is of growing so invested in what you do that you become willing to crush the established canon to suit your views.

Take, for instance, Harry and Hermione not ending up together. The fans complained, even J.K. Rowling herself admitted that Potter and Granger were terrific couple material - but the damage had been done. I'm not sure anyone would have appreciated an author requesting a re-edition of a published work just to fix that one tiny diegetic detail. I've read some pretty strange things from people online, including comments from people who were so crushed that specific pairing didn't turn out as expected that they rejected Deathly Hallows outright.

That's just... a tiny bit excessive.

 

[Angelblaze]

Well, again this depends on your definition of legitimate.

I, as a fanfiction writer that wants to write their own original content, can tell you: it depends on the source + the attitude of the readers.

For characters like Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, Peter Pan, etc, there is no real 'source' just different, varying interpretations.

For characters like the Team Fortress 2 main cast, there is a source of 'design' and even in-game character personality but the adventures, romances and plots can often be switched out with different characters/names and designs and you'd have a totally different story since TF2 (for me at least) isn't too big on the interconnected relationships of the characters with the exceptions of the 'official' shorts and small quips of in-game dialog.

For characters like Happy Potter and Iron Man, you've reached a different level. The characters there have their own story, personality and (fleshed-out) relationships. So you've reached a place where there's already an established 'canon' if you would, limiting what would be 'In character' for said characters.

I'd write more on the subject but, as a writer, I'm tired of having this argument and there's been too much drama as of late regarding multiple subject matter that I'm involved in.

 

[Vault101]

Yes that's certainly true. I write for myself although if I ever wanted to actually publish anything? God that would be a nightmare. I'm not any kind of consistent in how I crank things out so if it was a series I'd need to be close to final proofs for maybe three books in advanced and going without an editor even in this age would be unthinkable to me. Thoughts like that make me want say I'll outline everything and have someone unearth all the stuff long after I've died. Haha.

I mean if you can self publish to make some quick cash from erotica or crank out what ever "flavor of the month" is big right now then more power to you

but for me the very idea of going for trends rather than my "special snowflake" specialness (heh) is...unthinkable...and ultimatly why would I bother in the first place? I've seen time and time again writers say "write what you want becuase no one can predict where the market goes" which I think suits me just fine

I'm also pretty "eh" about self publishing...I'm not sure I'd want to go there if I ever finish a novel (I'm nowhere near that point) and I think it does present the "slushpile" problem which is why I avoid it as a reader

[quote/]And I suppose I don't want to discourage you from writing something if you've got a feel for it. Hell I don't know, you could be the next Frank Herbert, there's no way for me to know. I guess that only stemmed from my own frustration as a fantasy reader, trying to find something good when there's just so much physical and digital content to go through. And even websites like GoodReads don't even seem to be all that helpful. It doesn't tell you for example, what demographic is rating it in what way. So you'll get things like glowing reviews for something that really should only be read when you're in your teens. [/quote]
or something that shouldn't be read at all (tigers curse) the thing about goodreads is people will go for what they like and overate it....I still use it as a useful guide, but take it with a grain of salt

speaking of fantasy theres one floating around now called "Queen of the tearling" which is aparently good

 

[diligentscribbler]

No.

Fan fiction no matter how innocuous or heartfelt comes from the place "I can do this better than the author", that puts me off no matter how it's spun it.

This actually has already occurred in comic books.

No, just no.You mean Dc/Marvel, Comics and Dc/marvel are not one and the same and you'd do well to observe that.

 

[rorychief]

EDIT: And it looks like rorychief sniped me.

Is sniping someone lingo for a sneaky thing? Or is it when you quote someone and replace the quote with /snip/ ? so you've snipped/sniped them. I don't know what I did or if I'm a dick for it or not.

 

[rorychief]

1."our notion of genius, a romantic isolated figure, is outdated. An updated notion of genius would have to center around one?s mastery of information and its dissemination."
2."art is not about itself, but the attention we bring to it."
3."We are products of editing. Not Authorship"
4."Language and ideas flow freely between people Despite the law."
5."It's not plagiarism in the digital age, it's repurposing."
6."Copyright law has to give up on its obsession with "the copy""
7."(The law) should instead regulate uses, like public distributions of copyrighted work that connect directly to the economic incentive copyright law was intended to foster."
8."Nothing is original, Creativity is just connecting things"

?Shia Laboeuf's views on authorship (specifically that its oppressive to him creatively) during a 2014 interview and in the midst of his baffling meta phase where he was living by his everything belongs to everyone convictions by speaking almost exclusively in unaccredited quotations.

Thought it was quite funny if not terribly strictly relevant, This fool's 'fanfic' was atypical in that it was a case of a powerful and very visible personality trying to turn a profit by plagiarizing the work of a relatively obscure and less successful artist. The power/visibility dynamic between most fanfic writers and the authors they take from usually can't be as abusive as this because most have little to no power to make the original artist suffer.


(Original quotes belong to 1. Kenneth Goldsmith, 2. Marcel Duchamp, 3.George Ward, 4. Gregory Betts, 5.Kenneth Goldsmith again, 6.Lawrence Lessig, 7. Lawrence Lessig again, 8. Steve Jobs. Himself a famed paragon for acknowledging others work as their own)

 

[FolloweroftheApoetic]

No.

Fan fiction no matter how innocuous or heartfelt comes from the place "I can do this better than the author", that puts me off no matter how it's spun it.

This actually has already occurred in comic books.

No, just no.You mean Dc/Marvel, Comics and Dc/marvel are not one and the same and you'd do well to observe that.

I think it happened in mythologies too. Bunch of different people adding too the same stories and similar stories as the years press on and the old authors die and the story still continues to morph and change and then Disney bought the rights to Greek mythology and George Lucas wrote the bible.... wait I'm off topic.

 

[Gatx]

There's two different trains of thought here with the term "legitimate," and I think well all know that, no, fan-fiction is not "legitimate" in the legal sense, but not one does it to turn a profit anyway (with the exception of Japan at least) but as far as literary legitimacy goes, it's completely subjective. People would argue that the source material doesn't have literary merit and we all know that to completely deny any kind of genre fiction any merit just because of it's status as genre fiction is foolish, so I think the same is true for fan fiction.

If we turn away from the idea of fans writing weird stories with self-insert characters, or writing about pairings and what not, and go to the elemental definition of fan fiction as fiction made by fans about established characters/set in an established universe, then you have plenty of examples of good fan fiction. Do you think that some of the writers and artists who work at DC and Marvel weren't fans of those characters when they were aspiring kids? The original creators of Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Speed Racer, etc. weren't the ones behind the creative reigns of the most modern iterations of those franchises.

Look at Neil Gaiman's short story A Study in Emerald, which is a Sherlock Holmes/Lovecraft crossover story written by neither Doyle nor Lovecraft, and say that that's not a darn good story.