Re: Fan fiction in general was: MOVED from MAIN - "sequels" to the classics

[sistermagpie]

Carol:
> What I would *not* do is to stifle discussion or interpretation of 
my
> characters in any way. But literary criticism and fanfic are 
opposite
> reactions to a literary work. One analyzes and interprets what the
> author has written, the other strives to expand or recreate the 
work.

Magpie:
I don't think they're opposites. Fanfic can and often does encompass 
analysis. One can put forth how s/he thinks something works etc. 
through a story rather than meta. Or they can challenge something 
about the story they don't like. It's not all analyzing exactly what 
happens, but it's often a response to what's being said.

Carol:
> And while it must be flattering for a writer to discover that 
readers
> care enough to fantasize and write about her characters, posting
> fanfic on the Internet (as opposed to writing a handwritten fanfic
> that no one but a few close friends will ever see) does strike me 
as a
> form of intellectual theft akin to plagiarism. It's a form of
> publication even though the fanfic writer isn't being paid.

Magpie:
I think that's what's confusing about the Internet, because it's kind 
of like publishing, but it's also a social situation. On-line fandom 
is kind of like sitting in a virtual basement, imo. Fanfic is shared 
amongst fans just the way it used to be distributed amongst friends 
or through 'zines. 

But whatever it is, it's not plagiarism, because I think that's very 
specific. Plagiarism requires you to use a certain amount of actual 
text--and there also has to be an intention to deceive. Fanfic 
doesn't attempt to deceive anyone. On the contrary, the whole point 
is that you know the source material--and it starts with warnings and 
disclaimers which not legally saying anything pretty much say that 
the characters and world belong to the original creator. 

Carol:
> I think I would be most opposed to the fanficing (sp?) of my 
> characters if I were planning to write a sequel or prequel or series
> using the same characters as in a previous novel. That a fan can sue
> the author who provided the basis and inspiration for her fanfic is
> just preposterous. IMO, of course.

Magpie:
That's interesting--why if you were writing a sequel or prequel? Oh, 
I see--because of the Lackey thing. But that was a very specific 
situation that was a little weird iirc. As a fan you can sue the 
creator of any series if you have an actual case for something. 
(Think of that person who sued JKR claiming that she'd stolen her 
book that was written pre-HP--she wasn't a fanfic writer but still 
tried to sue for a similar reason.)

What authors don't do is *read* fanfic. If an author read a fanfic 
and actually took the story, they'd have lifted an idea and made 
money off it just as anybody else would. 

On the other side, some fanfic writers wound up being published--
their fics, I mean. I think Star Trek people went legit that way, for 
instance.

rol:
> 
> Carol, wondering whether the copyright laws of the U.S. and various
> other countries are being rewritten even as we type to incorporate
> Internet fanfiction

Magpie:
Mostly there's a lot of arguing over "fair use" that I've seen, with 
both sides thinking they're obviously right and hitting each other 
with dozens of metaphors about using somebody's characters, none of 
which really work.:-) 

In some countries copyright laws are already very different--at a 
panel I went to on this somebody said that where they were from there 
was a best-seller LOTR fanfic that was actually published because 
they don't have the same copyright laws. (The whole concept's 
probably relatively recent in the world.)

-m