Fan Fiction: Against

[rolanni]

Robin Hobb has posted a cogent rant here. Link from pegkerr

I know that some folks on my friends list write fan fic, and may thus not agree with Robin's points. If you feel compelled to disagree with them here, please be polite and rational. Posts deemed impolite, irrational, or both, by Eagles Over the Kennebec Management will be deleted.

In the service of Full Disclosure and Fair Warning, I do agree with Robin's points. Scott Lynch (link also from pegkerr) does not.

Comments

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's like daubing some paint on a *copy* of a Renoir; the original remains untouched. It's quite common for visual artists nowadays to build new art on image(s) copied from older art.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Strictly personal opinion, but I'd like to see creative energy going into . . . creating . . . rather than adding to a world full of copycats.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

It's a hobby, no more or less explicable than any other hobby. Some people spend years transferring the Mona Lisa to needlepoint; some collect every sports bobblehead; some write fanfiction.

[djonn]

Strictly personal opinion, but I'd like to see creative energy going into . . . creating . . . rather than adding to a world full of copycats.

Well, yes -- except that not all fanfic is inherently replicative. (See my long post below regarding individual vs. collective creation.) And on the flip side, at least a percentage of officially licensed tie-in fiction is replicative, sometimes deliberately so.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

It's quite common for visual artists nowadays to build new art on image(s) copied from older art.

Isn't there a well-established tradition in painting, that one learns first to paint like the master? I'm remembering Don Maitz telling us of a visit to Donato's studio where he also saw the work of several of Donato's students, one of whom had just completed a painting which was, according to Don, indistinguishable from a Donato.

This feels like a different situation to me: Obviously one's apprenticed students have one's permission -- even insistence -- to copy their technique and, sometimes, their work.

[od-mind.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's like daubing some paint on a *copy* of a Renoir; the original remains untouched.

I don't agree. The original is not untouched in the case of fanfic, in my opinion.

The difference is in ubiquity. If I paint a moustache on my personal copy of the Mona Lisa, there's no harm done. If I flood the web with moustached Monas, and enough people see mine, I have corrupted the collective image of the painting. The more successful I am in getting people to look at what I've done, the more harm I've done.

As an analogy, I think of something I discovered as an amateur classical musician working with professionals. One of the things that drove some of them crazy was the tendency for people to write lyrics to classical tunes -- whether it be "in earnest" ("I'm Always Chasing Rainbows", "Whiter Shade of Pale", various hymns, songs from Kismet, etc.) or fun (Flanders and Swann's version of the Mozart 2nd horn concerto, or the little ditty to the tune of Schubert's Unfinished). The problem is, once you've heard the song enough, you can't ever go back. Your ear is compromised; you can't hear just the original music anymore. It will always be tainted by the association.

Similarly, fanfic steals mindshare. You can't go back, and view the original as if you'd never been exposed to the derivative. Sometimes, the effect is so small as to be unnoticeable -- but not always, and not for everyone. To me, that's vandalism, pure and simple, just like painting moustaches on other people's copies of famous portraits.

[ailsaek.livejournal.com]

Quite. I watched a couple of episodes of original Trek recently, and realized that I liked James T. Kirk, and the Kirk I disliked so much was from from fanfic, not the shows.