Poll: What is the artistic status of fanfiction?

[Chefodeath]

To what extent do you think it is possible for fanbased derivative works to hold artistic merit? Many would argue that fanfiction is a literary scourge, producing a mass sludge of pale knock offs to the original. Whenever something original does happen to crawl out of fanfiction, it is usually such an abominitable insult to the original work that the only proper course of action is to find the author and cut out their tongue and gouge out their eyes. I.E. "My Immortal" and "Cupcakes"

On the other hand however, and I know I'm making an English major cry when I say this, a strong case can be made that Shakespeare himself wrote a breed of fanfiction. Just off the top of my head, I know Romeo & Juliet and Hamlet both were derived from other sources. Shakespeare isn't alone either. Wagner borrowed heavily from German folklore when writing his legendary operas, Dante was blatently copying from Catholic mythology, Joyce's "Ulysses" was modelled after the classic Oddysey for which its named. All of these authors were influenced by past works. The point of contention of course is whether what they were doing was really fanfiction.

So what do you think? Can fanfiction be art?

 

[x-machina]

Nope it's plagarism.

I've never understood fan-fiction. Certainly a game/movie/book can inspire you to tell your own tale. But, why in god's name would you steal their characters/setting? It's not really art because they have not created anything.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Nope it's plagarism.

I've never understood fan-fiction. Certainly a game/movie/book can inspire you to tell your own tale. But, why in god's name would you steal their characters/setting? It's not really art because they have not created anything.

The point appears to be seeing characters or a fictitious world you have some attachment to (from the beginning, something I do not comprehend) in settings the author has not allowed themselves. The most common of these by far are characters that otherwise don't give a shit about each other interacting.

But this stuff is serious to some people. Life-changingly, mood-alteringly, world-shapingly serious.

No, I don't get it either. But the indulgence appears to be the point.

 

[Queen Michael]

Nope it's plagarism.

I've never understood fan-fiction. Certainly a game/movie/book can inspire you to tell your own tale. But, why in god's name would you steal their characters/setting? It's not really art because they have not created anything.

I gotta ask: Do you think so about Shakespeare too? I'm not trying to be clever, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

 

[lordmardok]

That's really kind of a broad sweeping statement, there are good stories and bad stories just like in any type of literature. Just as there are terrible books and terrible movies.

 

[theheroofaction]

Dante was blatantly copying from Catholic mythology.

Actually, if you look, you'll find that catholic mythology copies more from dante than the other way around.
Anyway, back on topic.

Fanfiction as it is defined today tends to be kinda shitty, especially that of the "self-insertion" variety, and double-especially for slash fiction.

Still though, many good works have been made that can technically fit under that label.
technically is the word of choice here

 

[Chefodeath]

Nope it's plagarism.

I've never understood fan-fiction. Certainly a game/movie/book can inspire you to tell your own tale. But, why in god's name would you steal their characters/setting? It's not really art because they have not created anything.

The point appears to be seeing characters or a fictitious world you have some attachment to (from the beginning, something I do not comprehend) in settings the author has not allowed themselves. The most common of these by far are characters that otherwise don't give a shit about each other interacting.

But this stuff is serious to some people. Life-changingly, mood-alteringly, world-shapingly serious.

No, I don't get it either. But the indulgence appears to be the point.

I have never encountered a non-cybernetic human unable to form some kind of attachment to fictional entities. Having affections for such things, be it a childs attachment to his Teddy Bear or an adult's fondness for a favorite literary character is part of what makes us human. A big part. Therefore logic dictates I should assume you are a T-800 sent back from the future to kill John Connor.

 

[x-machina]

Nope it's plagarism.

I've never understood fan-fiction. Certainly a game/movie/book can inspire you to tell your own tale. But, why in god's name would you steal their characters/setting? It's not really art because they have not created anything.

I gotta ask: Do you think so about Shakespeare too? I'm not trying to be clever, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

I am not nearly educated enough to touch that. I honestly have no idea what work he adapted into his own and to what degree. Did he literally steal characters?

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Well, technically this image from a Halo comic is fanfiction:

Spoiler

Doesn't mean it isn't amazing.
The full comic is called a Fistful of Arrows if you want to look it up.

anything can be called art... I could take a dump on a canvas and it could be called art... what is or isn't art is very subjective...

100% correct. Everything is art, but what makes good art is another thing entirely.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

Just because a setting and characters are lifted doesn't mean you can't write a great piece of fiction. It's arguably just as difficult to do as creating the setting itself, because in order for it to be any good (in my opinion) you have to stay true to the essence of the series, while at the same time exerting enough influence over it for it to be yours. Sure, I haven't seen many examples of this, but when it boils down to it great writing is great writing, regardless of setting.

 

[Darh Abdomino]

Sturgeon's Law. From there, the rest of it varies from meh, to really freaking good. Though no matter the tone, all fanfiction is covered under parody law, so take from that what you will.

 

[ZippyPizzahead]

All possible types of fanfiction:
a) A group of people are playing (insert game here), when all of a sudden they are sucked in to the world they're playing and must fight for the survival of both!
b) Character X is emo.
c) Character X has gay love for Character Y.
d) Character X is the long forgotted relative of some godlike figure that has absolutely no place in canon subject.

Granted, there are actually a few well written, original stories, but they are few and far between.

 

[Queen Michael]

Nope it's plagarism.

I've never understood fan-fiction. Certainly a game/movie/book can inspire you to tell your own tale. But, why in god's name would you steal their characters/setting? It's not really art because they have not created anything.

I gotta ask: Do you think so about Shakespeare too? I'm not trying to be clever, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

I am not nearly educated enough to touch that. I honestly have no idea what work he adapted into his own and to what degree. Did he literally steal characters?

Yup. He wrote remakes of other works. Romeo and Juliet weren't his invention, and not King Lear either. And those are just two examples. He was like Peter Jackson with King Kong. Well, except for the weird ice-skating part.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Nope it's plagarism.

I've never understood fan-fiction. Certainly a game/movie/book can inspire you to tell your own tale. But, why in god's name would you steal their characters/setting? It's not really art because they have not created anything.

The point appears to be seeing characters or a fictitious world you have some attachment to (from the beginning, something I do not comprehend) in settings the author has not allowed themselves. The most common of these by far are characters that otherwise don't give a shit about each other interacting.

But this stuff is serious to some people. Life-changingly, mood-alteringly, world-shapingly serious.

No, I don't get it either. But the indulgence appears to be the point.

I have never encountered a non-cybernetic human unable to form some kind of attachment to fictional entities. Having affections for such things, be it a childs attachment to his Teddy Bear or an adult's fondness for a favorite literary character is part of what makes us human. A big part. Therefore logic dictates I should assume you are a T-800 sent back from the future to kill John Connor.

A teddy bear is a physically existing thing that one can interact with, if in a limited manner. A fictitious character exists only in its own context, and I believe this has something to do with why I have no attachment to them; I see it as meaningless. It's proven to be a further lesson in empathy, because someone quite dear to me occasionally gains extreme attachment to fictitious characters.

...I'm personally hoping they will grow out of it. But until then (assuming then ever comes), I have to try to reign in my judgmental nature.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

If it moves me emotionally, I consider it art. Then again that's my personal view of art, unhampered by any art degrees. As an added bonus it means I can call out bits of trash that some people call "art" for the pile of steaming refuse that it is.

 

[CleverCover]

It's art.

Anything can be art, it just depends on how good you personally think it is.

If it makes me cry, want to hug someone, take a step back and think, it's art.