Hot Button Topics with Mystery Writers

In my chats with mystery writers this weekend at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, a few "hot button" topics came up...mainly because I was tackling them on my blog and they wanted to thank me for bringing them into the open. I asked them why, if they share my views, they don't say so publicly. The answer across the board was the same: fear. They're afraid of getting lots of angry emails, losing sales, and awkward encounters with fans at signings and conventions.

Anyway, here are some of the hot-button topics that emerged in our conversations:

1) Self-Published Authors: There seems to be a strong consensus among published mystery writers that the MWA has gone astray and that  serious efforts should be made to restrict membership to published authors only. "We're Turning into the 'Mystery People of America,'" lamented one novelist. Another said "Being a member of the MWA used to mean something...now it doesn't." Still another feared the MWA was becoming a clone of Sisters in Crime, which she said "should be called 'PublishAmerica in Crime.'" Many of the authors were hesitant about publicly expressing their view that MWA should become a strictly professional organization because , as one said, "I don't want to deal with all of the controversy it's going to create. I don't want people hating me." But that same person would gladly, and quickly, vote yes for such reforms.

I agree with the view that the MWA should restrict its membership to published authors and produced screenwriters only. That said, I think the view of Sisters in Crime that one author expressed is unfair and way, way too harsh. I think SiC is a fine organization that does a great job, offering tremendous support to aspiring writers and hosting interesting seminars and conferences (as well as producing  an informative newsletter that, in many ways, is better than the MWA's). The success of SiC, in my mind, is evidence that there's really no need for  no need for MWA to expand to include self-published and aspiring authors among their ranks.

2) The LA Times Book Review: Most agreed it's a snooze that doesn't do a very good job covering crime fiction in a city that's so associated culturally with the genre in both literature and film.  When I brought up Eugen Weber, the most frequent response was "who is that?" Which tells you all you need to know about how relevant his views are in the field.

3)  Fanfiction:   It creeps out most of the authors I spoke to (a few, it should be noted, have no problem with it and knew of several novelists who got their start writing fanfiction). They're all struck by the double standard -- it's okay for fanfic writers to steal your work, but if they see something similar to one of their stories in your book they'll threaten to sue (or write very nasty letters). They said if the fans truly respected the author and his work, they should ask for permission before disseminating fanfiction (it's not the writing that bothered them, it was the "publishing" of it on the Internet). The authors I spoke to said they don't complain about fanfic or publicly forbid it because they are terrified of the blacklash, of getting deluged with hate mail. Instead, they close their eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.

4) The Increasing Influence of Blogs:  The authors I spoke to believe that attention from the crime-fiction-oriented blogs has become a more significant factor in sales and buzz than mainstream reviews. They say that publications like Mystery Scene, Publishers Weekly and Ellery Queen, or a review from Marilyn Stasio, don't seem to carry the same impact as the heat and attention a half-dozen popular blogs can generate (almost all the authors I talked to read Sarah Weinman's blog on a daily basis). They also say that the bloggers tend to be "more well read, and more hip, than some of the entrenched critics whose attitudes about the genre seemed fixed in 1972 and can't embrace the evolution of the form." The authors I spoke to shared the opinion that bloggers are steeped in the genre, read more small-press and paperback originals than the mainstream critics,  review books within days of their release, and are faster to spot and new trends. 

5) Related to #4, the Cultification of Authors:  Call this the flipside of crime fiction blogging. Many of the folks I talked to told me they were stunned by the negative backlash when I mentioned that, as much as I like and admire Ken Bruen, I wasn't as wowed by THE GUARDS as some folks were.  So many authors I spoke to said the downside of crime fiction blogging, and the growing influence of those bloggers, is that once they discover an author, they deify him or her. Loyalty to the author and his work becomes a litmus test of crime fiction hipness among the bloggers and their readers. And because most of the bloggers are fans, hanging out with the chosen authors at conventions and signings  is also a status-thing.  Authors and fans are afraid to even lightly criticize a novel by a writer who has been "discovered" or championed by the bloggers  for fear of being ostracized from the in-group. What stunned me was that these views  about the downside of blogging were expressed by several authors who are on among the current darlings of the blogging community. The fact that these authors are so well-aware (and self-aware) of the downside surprised me. I figured they'd be so absorbed in all the adulation they wouldn't see any pitfalls.

Comments

[Michael Bracken]

I've been an active member of MWA since 1983. I'm also an active member of HWA, PWA, and SFWA. All of these organizations are dealing with the impact that new technology has on publishing and are trying to define what it means to be published.

I actively voiced my disagreement with the last bylaw amendment to change MWA membership requirements, not because I disagreed with a need for change but because of how the proposal was written. Other members opposed it for a variety of other reasons, and we were obviously outnumbered by members who favored the proposal.

On the other hand, some of the suggestions I made when I voiced my disagreement with the bylaw amendment were later incorporated into the new membership requirements, which demonstrates the organization's willingness to listen to dissenting opinions.

(Still, I find it ironic that an organization whose motto is "crime doesn't pay...enough" now requires a minimum level of income from mystery writing to qualify for active membership.)

What concerns me most about attempts to change membership requirements in any professional writing organization is that the discussions often devolve into "us" vs. "them." "Us" are usually writers who have met with a fair bit of success and have high name recognition. "Them" are usually beginning writers or amateurs who don't yet--and may never--understand publishing.

Unfortunately, what happens is that a great many writers stuck between "us" and "them" get overlooked in the discussions. The discussions frequently center on either a) novels and novelists or b) money.

Any discussion about membership requirements for MWA must include a sincere and realisitic examination of short fiction publishing, otherwise a name change to Mystery Novelists of America (MNA) might be in order. (I made active membership in HWA, MWA, PWA, and SFWA based on short story sales and continue to earn more from short fiction than from novels, so I have an obvious bias toward short fiction.)

There must also be an effort to make clear distinctions between legitimate small presses and self-publishing operations. Unfortunately, this is difficult to do. For quite some time--and still in the minds of some--any book printed using print-on-demand technology was automatically presumed to be less than legitimate. The growing number of legitimate publishers using PoD technology is changing that perception.

A similar situation applies to on-line and electronic publishers. The low cost of becoming an electronic publisher means every Joe, Frank, and Reynolds can be a publisher without any knowledge of publishing. The few legitimate and legitimately "professional" electronic markets are difficult to separate from the non-professional.

Although MWA has thankfully not dealt with the rate-of-pay issue in the same way that HWA and SFWA have, an author who receives a miniscule advance is no less professional than the author whose advances typically match the GNP of Guam. And the short story writer who receives 3-cents/word is no less professional than the writer who receives 5-cents/word or 50-cents/word.

You note that "there's really no need for MWA to expand to include self-published and aspiring authors among their ranks." MWA already has--and has had for some time now--affiliate memberships specifically for aspiring authors. From the MWA web site: "Affiliate members are writers of crime/mystery/suspense fiction who are not yet professionally published, and others with an interest in the genre, including unpaid reviewers." (Affiliates don't have voting privileges, so they can't control the direction of the organization. )

MWA currently has the highest annual dues of the four professional writing organizations to which I belong, without offering significantly more for the money. Perhaps if we had a few more affiliates carry some of the organization's financial weight, we might be able to lower dues or increase member benefits.

And if we treat aspiring mystery writers as professionals-in-training, teaching them the things they need to know to become successfully published, perhaps they will become the future lifeblood of the MWA. If we turn our backs on them, how long will it be before the MWA is nothing but geriatric used-to-bes paying outrageous dues?

Thanks for pressing one of my hot buttons, Lee.

[Jocelyn]

I rather agree with Mr. Bracken on the evolution of membership requirements into an "us vs. them" issue. While I can (fanfiction writer and advocate that I am) understand the reasons why Mystery Writers of America would want to keep membership to published/produced writers only, there is another side to it:

For one thing, WHO is MWA there for? Do they "serve" (a loose term, but I couldn't think of a better one) published/produced writers only, or all mystery writers, including those not yet published? (For the sake of argument, I'll leave fanwriters out of it.)

If MWA would like to be a resource/organization that involves writers of both published/produced works but also works-in-progress, perhaps they could create a "Junior Membership" of sorts for the latter group? This could serve as a very valuable thing for aspiring mystery writers and those in the process of writing/trying to publish/switching genres. Who knows...the already-published crowd might learn a few things from the newbies and the experiences they bring with their "first-time" forays into the publishing world. It changes every day, after all.

Just a thought.

(And just because I can't keep my mouth shut, I might venture to suggest that those published authors who are "creeped out" by fanfiction either don't know what it really is and haven't looked, or have only seen the "freaky fringe". And furthermore, I would venture to remind both them and the esteemed Mr. Goldberg that about half a percent of the millions of fanwriters in the world have EVER attempted/threatened to sue an original author over alleged "theft of the fanwriter's idea." There are crazies/creeps in every crowd--don't lump the majority with them.)

[Mark A. York]

Fanfiction won't get you in the club.

"The growing number of legitimate publishers using PoD technology is changing that perception."

Who are these? Those that base their operations around POD exclusively are vanity presses. By definition of the legitimate use of the technology it means no book placement in physical stores, thus low to no sales.

[Michael Bracken]

Mark, I could do a Google search and come up with a list of legitimate publishers using PoD technology to print books--I've done it before and the list included quite a few university presses and some small mystery presses--but that wouldn't address your comments directly.

You postulate that "[t]hose [publishers who] base their operations around PoD exclusively are vanity presses." A publisher need not use PoD to be a vanity press, and a publisher need not be a vanity press to use PoD technology. What determines whether a press is a vanity press or not is the business model the press uses, not the technology they use to print books, and it all boils down to the answer to a single question: do they charge writers?

"By definition of the legitimate use of the technology it means no book placement in physical stores, thus low to no sales." Clearly PoD is cost-prohibitive for the production of any kind of mass-market book. However PoD seems to be ideal for books which have a small target audience or books which have a small, but on-going demand. (University presses, like Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press, are using PoD to keep low-volume backlist titles available.)

[Mark]

I was talking to an author whose first two books are officially out of print. He asked for the rights back from his publisher, but they immediately made print on demand editions of them so they could claim they were still in print and refuse to give them back. And this is a Dell, a major publisher you'll find in every bookstore.

[Jocelyn]

//"Fanfiction won't get you in the club."//

I never said it would, nor would I try to get into any regular publishing group with it. I was merely pointing out some misconceptions that the Published community has about fanfiction. My point in that post was agreement with Michael that MWA can preserve its purpose as an organization for Mystery *WRITERS* and still have certain affiliate/lesser memberships for as-yet-unpublished mystery writers.

[Keith]

I agree with the writers mentioned, who mind not the writing, but the distribution of fanfic.

"misconceptions that the Published community has about fanfiction"

One of the drawbacks of the Internet is that no matter how screwed up your worldview, you can find six dozen other wack jobs to reassure you, on a regular basis, that you're all the innocent victims of an unjustified witch hunt.

I suspect I speak for more than a few of us who actually do the work to create our own characters and situations, at a level of quality sufficient to be published legitimately, when I say Get your own fucking stories, you self-entitled creeps.

As for fearing backlash from these thieves, integrity's always got a price. If it didn't, more people would practice it.

[Mark A. York]

What Keith said on the last issue. As for Mr. Bracken, I've heard that line before and it stretches the use of the word "uses." I said "as the basis of their operation." The latter examples clearly don't use it in this capacity. Business model indeed. PA doesn't charge their authors literally. They use the same line as you just did.

[Mark A. York]

Same with Mark's addition. Two copies from Dell do not make Dell a POD-based publisher.

[Mark A. York]

I don't qaulify for membership, but if I did I wouldn't want a caste system for it. It sounds to me like the real mystery writers know exactly what fanfiction is, and I agree with it. There are no misconceptions on their part as far as I can tell.

[Jocelyn]

(Sigh) Alas, we were having such a good-natured, level-headed discussion, Keith.

And all I can say in reply is that the NICE thing about the Internet is that when six dozen individuals are insisting that you are a whackjob, you can find six MILLION (or more) like-minded individuals who help reassure you that you are in fact a large portion of the population who simply holds a different viewpoint. (Don't believe me? Check out fanfiction.net, fictionalley.org, or any of the other major fanfiction archives on the Internet and see how many fanwriters there are.)

Boys, boys, let's leave the profanity out of it, shall we?

And yes, what Lee refers to about fanwriters suing original authors is a misconception---those lawsuits/threats of lawsuits are very few and far between, and the vast majority of fanwriters despise those who attempt them as a disgrace to the fan community. (And no, it's no disgrace to be a member of a fan community.)

If it is not theft to review a book, discuss a book, criticize it, or parody it on the Internet (and it's not), then as a matter of policy, it should not be considered theft to fanwrite. I've made the argument time and time again--the original author LOSES nothing in any of those cases. How can it be theft if nothing is taken? Hell, a well-worded bit of media criticism will do an author's profits more harm than fanfic!

And one more thing, Keith: yes, I do write original fiction. And if I'm so fortunate as to be popular enough once they're published to inspire fanfic, I look forward to many hours of amusement reading the good stuff and mocking the bad. I think of it as "not taking oneself too seriously." I may own the profits from my books, but not the ideas themselves. Nor am I so arrogant as to try to.

[David J. Montgomery]

Not all POD publishers are vanity presses, although many of them are. Point Blank Press is one very notable exception to that.

http://www.pointblankpress.com

[Keith]

Okay, here's one without profanity.

I've made the argument time and time again--the original author LOSES nothing in any of those cases. How can it be theft if nothing is taken?

What's lost is the ability of the owner of intellectual property to decide how it's used. Without that ability, intellectual property is without value; it ceases to be property.

That was a clear answer. Something is lost, and I just told you what it is in unambiguous, concrete terms. Are you going to stop making this ridiculous claim that nothing is lost?

I suspected not.

If something is not yours, and you do not have permission to use it, don't use it.

Is there something complicated about that?

Now, as for your wish to see fanfic derived from your own original work, it's your right to decide to allow this exploitation. I have no problem with it. More power to you. That's called granting permission.

It's also my right to deny permission. I have this legal right. The characters are mine; I created them, and I own them. You may not create anything that includes them and distribute it. I do not grant permission.

If you do it anyway at that point, you're a copyright violater and twelve kinds of creep.

I may own the profits from my books, but not the ideas themselves.

This is a meaningless sentence. Sounds nice, lets you feel smart, means abso-flippin'-nothing.

Characters are not "ideas." Situations are not "ideas." Plots are not "ideas." When you appropriate any of these things, you are not taking "ideas." You are using copyrighted material without licensing it. You are confused; and--how unusual for humans--confused in a way that happens to benefit you.

Check out fanfiction.net, fictionalley.org, or any of the other major fanfiction archives on the Internet and see how many fanwriters there are.

Check out any of a thousand adult chat rooms and see how many pedophiles and adulterers there are.

I guess if enough people do it, it's ethical.

[Jocelyn]

What's lost is the ability of the owner of intellectual property to decide how it's used. Without that ability, intellectual property is without value; it ceases to be property.

Actually, I'm afraid the courts have held different. The owner of intellectual property has the right to control the COMMERCIAL uses of their work--to an extent. Copyright ownership is not absolute. Otherwise, you could theoretically prevent book reviewers from criticising your work.

Copyright ownership doesn't allow you to prevent fans from discussing your material, book reviewers from critiquing it, and it's VERY up in the air of whether it would prevent fanwriters from borrowing and playing with it for fun (and noncommercially, of course.)

EXAMPLE: a very commonly-cited Copyright case is Baker v. Seldon, which held that owning copyright in a book about a style accounting does not extend to owning copyright in all OTHER books that USE that style of accounting. Even if your IDEA was that process, you can't prevent others from using it.

Section 202 of the Copyright Act holds that "ideas, plans, methods" are not subject to copyright. My Copyright professor and I had more than one conversation about how fanfiction figures into all this, and she said (and many of the source materials from the class support her) that it's a murky legal issue at best.

(I'd go into Trademark law as well, but I haven't taken that course yet.)

So there you go: my basis for the claim that you (the original author) lose nothing is that in no way does fanfiction affect your control over your own work. You can write sequels, sell the movie rights, collaborate, sell derivative work rights, the whole shebang, whether fanfiction exists or not. Fanfiction is a HOBBY, shared by many people, like playing fantasy football or collecting memorabilia on this or that celebrity. If anything, it is free advertising for the original author just like any other "word of mouth" fan discussion of their work.

Your intellectual property rights don't extend to letting fans set up message boards to discuss the latest episode of your TV show or the latest book you've released (so long as they're not doing it for a profit). It doesn't extend to letting them speculate on the all-important "what comes next."

THAT is the claim I'm making--perhaps the courts will one day find against it, but I don't think it's ridiculous.

And, Keith, if there were as many pedophiles out there as there are fanwriters, we'd be in serious trouble. If you're accusing ME of making ridiculous claims, kindly don't exaggerate your own beyond all possible sense. At worst, fanfiction is an irritation/affront/outrage to your authorly sensitivities. There are far worse things going on out there on the Internet, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't group us among them. I wasn't objecting to the profanity itself as much as your apparent inability to have a civil intellectual discussion.

[Guyot]

//I may own the profits from my books, but not the ideas themselves. Nor am I so arrogant as to try to.//

I'm confused here. Are you saying that a writer does/should not own the ideas from/of their books?

Surely, I'm missing something here. Because it sounds like you're talking about intellectual property which most definitely is owned. And it sounds like you're saying an idea or cast of characters from a book or series of books should be considered property of the writer.

But I'm sure you're not saying this. I'm just an idiot. Can you clear this up for me? Thank you.

[Keith]

ideas, plans, methods" are not subject to copyright.

A character is not an idea, a plan, or a method, so the case law you cited is not relevant.

There are far worse things going on out there on the Internet, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't group us among them.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really matter to me with whom you prefer not to be grouped. She who lives by the ethics-by-way-of-numbers claim dies by the pedophile parallel.

I wasn't objecting to the profanity itself as much as your apparent inability to have a civil intellectual discussion.

I'm happy to, provided there's an intellectual discussion. This isn't one.

[Guyot]

Oh. I just read your latest post to Keith, and I guess that is what you're saying.

My bad.

Here's a simple observation: it sounds like your argument *for* fanfic is all based on the fact that the law hasn't quite figured out what to do with it, and since they haven't then it's all good.

And you say you're a writer of original work, too, but I find that odd when you speak so strongly about what published writers should and shouldn't feel re: their own work. But then again you keep citing the courts as opposed to what a person feels if something that is theirs - a result of their sweat and their effort - is taken by someone else.

But what if they decide to pass laws favoring Keith's pov? Would you then say fanfic is bad? Or would say that the courts are wrong?

[Mark A. York]

An affected law student. That's what I suspected. Well I'm a law student too it seems, and publication on the internet is publication insofar as say, an original novel published that way is published. Not to mention thrown away economically speaking. No money involved there either. So, Ms. Law stident when you do that with borrowed copyright protected characters, that's infringement bait even if the caselaw hasn't caught up yet. It will. And should.

[Guyot]

MARK:

Don't you remember being that age - when you were soaking up all this new information and it made you feel so much like a grown up, and you couldn't wait to sound like a grown up, so you threw out all your new info every chance you got? And the more you spewed the more you felt like you really did know everything there was to know about how the world works...

God, do I wish I still felt that way.

:)

[Mark A. York]

Yeah, but I just graduated from college at 51 so it's fresh in my mind. So in essence I have the best of both worlds: the information and the wisdom from age to interpret it correctly. Still, it doesn't always work out though.

[Andi]

Given that fan fiction has existed for, ok I don't know, but I have know OF its existence for 40 years. I don't get why it's become a critical issue. Has it? Is there a lot of it in mystery? I've never seen it. Ever, and gee, I thought I got around.

I have never heard any author complain that this stuff is stealing food from his table, or is not respecting intellectual property. And as someone who a) lives with an artist and b) used to work for an IP lawyer, I respect the creative process. Maybe it's that when I learned of fanfic, it was Trek stuff and I have never EVER heard that Roddenberry or anyone connected with him minded it. I don't recall anyone making money from it either. Probably it was accepted because it was respectful, showed a love of the show/genre and I never heard of anyone saying "I'd rather read fanfic than a book by someone connected with the show, or an "authorized" book. And I've been in sf fandom for close to 30 years. It's meant as homage and it's enthusiastic; asking permission? That I know of, no one ever has approached Gene R or his heirs or Joe Stracynski with Babylon 5 and "asked" permission to write fanfic. I also know fans who came out of fanfic to become serious, legit writers. Whhooo, boy. if someone is going to take a fanfic writer to court because she wrote a Buffy story? I'd be appalled, and stunned that it's come to this. Do people really think it hurts them? Takes money away? Doesn't show respect?
I'm just as put off by people who take over series "with permission" from the heirs - seems creepy to me to read a book written as if....

As for POD - well, most self-pubbed books i've read suck rocks. Some don't however. Overall, there's a lot of "legit" books out there that I consider dreck as well but there is a higher content of it with self-pubbed stuff. So Far. (says the woman who is about to BUY an iUniverse book because she thought it wonderful and thinks it should have been done by a "real" publisher.)
As for MWA, I once was an associate member, or whatever it was called. And I'm not a mystery writer, and I wasn't a con-runner. I was a friend of writers and a fan and a reader and I went to meetings hwere we had FUN and heard interesting speakers. I don't belong now, haven't for decades because it's too pricy and I don't fit criteria. It's not useful for me as a non-writer, alhtough I am a reviewer, publicist, conrunner, blogger and knowledgable fan, there seems to place for the likes of me in the world of "professional associations". true too of SinC; I no longer see a place for me as a non-writer and non-would-be/wannabe/pre-published (and i hate that particular neologism) writer.

[Anonymous]

Wow. I'm impressed by the fanfiction side of the argument here. Strong reasoning for junior high students - that's when people outgrow fan fiction, right?

Now, I will confess to writing some Nancy Drew mysteries as a kid, and a Starsky and Hutch story or two (no slash!), but the only people who read them were my group of close girlfriends.

But... one does grow up and write one's own stories. Or, if playing in someone else's world, must repurpose it enough that it becomes a social commentary (and protected satire). WIDE SARGASSO SEA would be an example.

The real question is, if you want to write, why not push yourself? Why not stand out on your own and say this is how I see the world? It's kind of like the difference between collage art and scrapbooking.

[Keith]

In the case of Star Trek and Buffy, permission may not have been asked for--but I think it's been effectively granted. It seems to me the people behind those shows know it's part of the fan culture, and those fans are their income base. Discouraging it would alienate the consumer.

One of the sites mentioned above includes 104 Stephanie Plum stories (badly written, if the few I skimmed are typical). For all I know, maybe Janet Evanovich loves bad stories about her creations and has blessed the website--but if she didn't, and she doesn't share the Buffy executive producers' view of this stuff, where's the gray area?

The fundamental question is who gets to make the decision, not what the decision is. Intellectual property consists entire of the ability to deny usage.

Do people really think it hurts them? Takes money away? Doesn't show respect?

Maybe. Doubt it. Sometimes.

I don't want my characters appearing in fanfic. Even if someone thinks I'm wrongheaded for that, it's my wrongheaded decision to make. Not theirs.

That's all for me tonight. I haven't made my word count yet.

[Rachel Heslin]

Y'know, for me, the issue of fanfic isn't a legal or financial one, nor even one of "ownership." It's an issue of personal violation.

When I write, I live my characters. I know them. They are part of me. They have to be, in order for them to be believable and/or for a reader to care what happens to them.

If someone else came along and took some of my characters and started changing who they were or what they did -- and even if the fanster were talented enough to capture something close to the actual flavor of the character -- it would feel as though something very precious and personal had been taken from me and tainted.

Not everyone writes or feels this way.
I do, and I would therefore like to have the right to protect myself and my created worlds from appearing in fanfic.

[kete]

Dear Keith, FIRST you have to be so popular as to have a fan community that feels inspired to write fanfic for your work. But, no one seems to know you! So, I guess, your stand against fanfic is totally irrelevant and on the same level as unpublished writers announcing their agreement with fanfiction of their work should they ever publish something.

kete

[kete]

Dear members of MWA, the major percentage of you HAS no fandoms. What you have is enough buyers to ensure your next book gets published. Many of your books are just commodities casually purchased at the supermarket between milk and eggs and thrown away after reading. Having enough buyers to get published and actually having a living breathing internet fandom are two totally separate things. I hate to disappoint you, but you really, really have to be popular enough first to have fans group together on the net and form actual fandoms, with archives, mailing-lists, chat rooms and, yes, writers. So, for 95% of you feeling creeped out by fanfiction it will never be a problem you have to consider. Why worry about it, my dears?

kete

[Jocelyn]

Wow, I went to bed just as this was really getting interesting!

Guyot: But then again you keep citing the courts as opposed to what a person feels if something that is theirs - a result of their sweat and their effort - is taken by someone else.

But what if they decide to pass laws favoring Keith's pov? Would you then say fanfic is bad? Or would say that the courts are wrong?

1) My argument is that fanfiction is not a "taking" because the original author neither loses profits nor control over their material. I consider fanfiction to be a natural part of the regular discussion (or "buzz", if you will) that fans engage in over a popular story/show/whatnot. An original author's intellectual property rights don't extend to preventing fans from talking about their work online, or critiquing it, or even speculating/wishing/imagining about "what comes next." I don't think it's that much of a stretch to argue that they also don't prevent fans from putting those speculations/imaginations into stories and sharing/discussing them online either.

2) I'm not saying that just because the courts haven't been clear on where non-profit fanfiction falls in the intellectual property spectrum makes it okay. Just that some aspects of copyright law lean more closely in my favor than in Keith's--therefore there is plenty of argument to be made on both sides of this issue and I wanted the belittling to stop.

3) If they did pass laws, I still would not believe fanfiction is wrong (see # 1) but I would obey the law--while making every effort to lobby for its being overturned.

Mark: Lots of time spent on the Internet is thrown away economically speaking. I'm not arguing that posting something on the Internet isn't publishing: merely that releasing a piece not for commercial reasons like fanfiction renders it in a different category for copyright purposes.

Keith:

1) I am hardly "she who lives by the ethics of the numbers." I was responding to your original post in which you referred to "six dozen whackjobs" by pointing out that the fanfiction community is extremely large and diverse, and there's no need to be patronizing. I don't think we're right because we're large, I think there is plenty of law/policy to back up our position.

2) Just because you don't like an opposing argument doesn't make a discussion non-intellectual. I've been respectful of your point of view even though I strongly disagree with it--for someone who claims to have so much moral high ground here, you certainly are neglecting common courtesy.

Anonymous: (Headshake) Try exercising your own advice about "growing up" and learn that you can't win an argument by insulting/patronising/belittling the other side.

Plenty of hobbies out there are considered "wastes of time" in the most practical sense of the word. Plenty cross age groups and generations.

Many, even most fanwriters do write original material, like myself. But we keep going with the fanfic because we enjoy it, because we get inspiration from the story we're fans of as well as inspiration for our own original material, and see no good reason to give up a harmless hobby that we enjoy.

Rachel Heslin: If someone else came along and took some of my characters and started changing who they were or what they did -- and even if the fanster were talented enough to capture something close to the actual flavor of the character -- it would feel as though something very precious and personal had been taken from me and tainted.

I'll be the first to admit that this, to me as a fanwriter, is the hardest objection of all to face.

What I'd say in argument is that fanwriters aren't actually "changing" who your characters are or what they do. YOU and only you, as the original author, have the power to do that. Fanfiction is not the real thing; it's speculation, wishful thinking, or silly flights of fancy about "what if." YOU have lost no power to determine your characters' destiny, and your readers will never stop looking to YOU above any other for those stories. Therefore if stories by anyone other than yourself really bother you, my recommendation would be, just ignore it. If you don't choose to acknowledge them or read them, they can't taint your enjoyment of your own work.

BUT...if you have real strong feelings about the use of your stories/characters, I realize that's not much of a consolation. However, the law and rights (at least here in the US) operate to give as much freedom as possible to individuals so long as those freedoms don't interfere with the rights/freedoms of others. That's the crux of my argument for the legality of fanfiction: there is no legally recognizable harm to the original author.

I acknowledge (even if I don't really understand) your distress at seeing other people write about your characters. But fanfiction doesn't prevent you in any way from continuing to write your work, publish it, and exercise your rights as the owner to make a profit off it, and only those rights (at least from my point-of-view) are the ones that can be LEGALLY protected.

kete: What I've been saying to the others about keeping this a civilized, adult discussion holds true for our side as well. Let's keep a civil tongue in our heads (and on our keyboards) shall we?

[PK the Bookeemonster]

This has generated quite a bit of discussion. I wanted to touch briefly on Lee's original post about the impact of bloggers and the deification of authors. Lee, what you wrote is very true. Blogging is having a huge impact in the business world as well as world of books - I'm about to finish an MBA with an emphasis in e-business a part of which studies the emerging power of blogs. I enjoy making the rounds of the bloggers I follow and keeping in touch with topics that I care about that I don't normally get to do in the "real world." Sarah's blog is useful to me in her collection of mystery world news that if I took the time I could do myself but I don't. My husband isn't a reader and doesn't "get" my love of books so having a medium that allows me to interact with others who share my interests is fantastic. But if blogs went away, I would continue to enjoy books without the "insider knowledge." And that is a part of it, the insiders versus the outsiders, and as you stated, there is another dark side to blogging which is the power the more popular ones have similar to the cliques in high school all over again: if you're not in, you're out. Ken Bruen is an excellent example. I've tried his books and they don't click with me; that's just me and my taste but they're equally valid as those who do like his stuff. There is a strong undercurrent in the mystery world promoting the "coolness" of noir, dark novels which is great but it shouldn't come at the expense of any other subgenre. The phenomenon of blogging is bringing mystery lovers together but also separating us into niches of us and them.

[Graham]

So, Jocelyn, by your logic, if you came by my house at night and drove off in my car, but made sure that it was back by morning (and topped off the gas, oil, etc.) I would have no reason to complain, because I haven't "lost" anything. My car or my story - it's my property, and I should decide how it's used.

From your earlier posts, I can see that you're not really misunderstanding the issue - you just believe that fanficcers have the right to write original stories using other author's characters. I am not a lawyer, but I would say you're wrong.

As for reviews, criticism, parodies, etc., these all fall under "fair use", and come with some limitations.

Fanfic in general seems to spring from the writer's strong identification with a fictional world, and a desire to insert himself into it - either explicitly, as a character, or as the author/god, making the characters do as he wants (in some varieties, like slash and hurt/comfort, the writer's personal needs are pretty much clear to everyone). In other words, the fanfic impulse comes from the same place as my childhood daydreams of saving the universe with Luke and Han.

That may be a little unkind, but I think it's true.

[David J. Montgomery]

The essential point to understand about fanficcers is that they believe they should/do have the right to write fanfic, regardless of what the creators and rights holders think.

They don't care about the possible legality or illegality of it, they don't believe there are any ethical questions involved, they don't care if the writers who actually did the heavy lifting of thinking up the characters and worlds in the first place object.

This shows a profound lack of respect for writers and their creations...but they don’t care about that either.

I’m sure Lee didn’t intend to have this topic hijacked with yet another discussion of fanfic, though, so perhaps we could return to the original subject.

To whit...Bloggers are assholes. Thoughts?

[Keith]

Wow, I love it when all I have to do is go to sleep, and the other side shoots themselves.

Saves money on ammo.

[Jocelyn]

Graham: Read previous comments; I wouldn't call anything you've said unkind. :-)

But no, to borrow a vehicle without permission isn't the same thing as fanfic. For one thing, even one use of a vehicle takes away mileage, etc. That's the difference between intellectual property and real property: while I am using your car, you CANNOT use it.

But while I were using your story, characters, setting, etc for my own imaginings, you can still do the exact same thing.

None of your RIGHTS and ABILITIES to create/profit from/expand on your intellectual property are lost by another person's idle daydreams.

Actually, your assessment of "where fanfic comes from" (indulging one's impulse to save the world with Luke and Han) is quite correct in many cases: for me, that's how it started when I was a kid. As I grew up, it evolved quite a bit, but "strong identification" with a fictional world is where it still comes from. That fictional world inspires (for me, at least) speculation, wishful thinking, which evolve in my mind into a story. For me, at least (as I've told others, the fanfic community is enormous, so I can't speak for all of them) the darn thing won't get out of my head until I write it down.

I was fanwriting long before I discovered the Internet, but only when I got the chance to share my silly flights of fancy did I start to REALLY grow as a writer. I went from "saving the world along with Luke and Han" to writing stories about "how Luke and Han saved the world AFTER Return of the Jedi" or "etc (this is just an example, of course, I'm aware of the novels, but that is a very similar thought process.)

I'm still a little rough on that part of Copyright Law (shameful, I know, given my interest in it) but I would try to make a claim for the legality of fanfiction as fair use.

[Jocelyn]

David J. Montgomery: Bloggers are assholes. Thoughts?

(Chuckle) I think many of my fellow thespians were saying that when I decided to blog the entire Mikado Show Week and ran around writing down everything they said. But they sure did love it when it was done!

Although you're right about this topic being hijacked--sorry 'bout that! If Lee asks us to kill the thread, I shall abide (although I do think we're finally starting to have a fairly intelligent conversation on the subject, now that the name-calling and patronizing and profanity seems to have stopped.)

They don't care about the possible legality or illegality of it, they don't believe there are any ethical questions involved, they don't care if the writers who actually did the heavy lifting of thinking up the characters and worlds in the first place object.

Actually yes, most fanwriters (again, can't generalize a community this large--some of them, I freely admit, are nuts, as in all fan communities) DO recognize there are ethical questions involved. If JK Rowling developed a serious moral objection to fanfic itself...I'd have some serious thinking to do. Fortunately, all fandoms I write in have express permission from the owners (Tolkien, Rowling, Marvel Comics) or at worst, ignore us (Disney).

This shows a profound lack of respect for writers and their creations...but they don’t care about that either.

Again, BIG generalization. We (most of us, the normal ones) DO care and respect both the writers and their creations. As we would if writing a term paper about it or anything else, we cite the authors' ownership (I've seen cases of bona fide plagiarism of a published author in fanfiction where credit wasn't given, and that fanwriter was flamed right off the web. Good riddance too), and we do what we do because (see my response to Graham) we LOVE what the orignal author created, to the point where we identify with it enough to write a story or two of our own.

Keith: We did? I must have missed it. (Goes back and re-reads comments.)

[James C. Hess]

Bloggers are assholes.

Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence.

[Graham]

What I was really getting at was that the "fiction" portion of fanfiction is overwhelmed by the "fan" portion. People who write fanfic are motivated less by a desire to create than by a desire to be a part of whatever fictional world they're into.

Essentially I see it as a form of wish-fulfillment, the same desire to belong that leads people to go out in public dressed as Klingons (You Might Be A Geek If: You've ever been admitted free to a sci-fi convention based on how you're dressed).

If I'm right (always a big 'if'), then there's not any way to keep fanficcers from doing what they do. It means too much to them.

[Mark A. York]

"My argument is that fanfiction is not a "taking" because the original author neither loses profits nor control over their material."

And everyone else here is say that's BS. Get a life. You justify this obcession with other peoples' property by lumping it in with even commentary about the taken material. It isn't anything of the sort.

[David J. Montgomery]

Jocelyn writes:

"We (most of us, the normal ones) DO care and respect both the writers and their creations."

If that's the case, then why don't fanfic writers get permission before they do it? (Yes, I'm excepting your "fandoms" as you say you have permission.)

Are you trying to argue that "most" fanfic writers have permission? If not, then they don't respect the authors and their creations.

[Jocelyn]

Graham: (Giggle) Well, I admit to wearing silly T-shirts to conventions, but I've NEVER worn any plastic appendages, I swear!

But seriously, you are somewhat right. For many fanwriters, it is a desire to be a part of a world they identify with. For others, they are just natural storytellers who live to spin yarns, whether it's original fiction or fanfic or both, and when they're inspired for something original or by something in another story, they can't breathe until they share it.

I think for most of us, it's a combination of the two. And you're right: it does mean that much to us. I won't stop my novels OR my fanstories. Both are too much a part of me to leave undone.

Mark: How is it that I'm definitely in the minority here and yet managing to be calm, rational, and civil, whereas you are in the majority and can't manage to respond without being rude?

No, everyone here does not agree it's BS. Two or three disagree with my point, and if you have anything civil/sane to say about it, I'll gladly listen.

[Keith]

Violating the rights and wishes of people who do what you can't isn't rude... but profanity is?

That's an example of what I mean by "shooting yourself." Your arguments aren't really the "sane debate" you wish they were. They're more like an addict's rationalization--lots of little logical tricks, moored to nothing.

At least be honest. You know it's wrong, but you don't care.

And Kete:

I know Jocelyn told you to pipe down, but please. Do keep talking.

[Jocelyn]

Very well, Keith, if you want me to respond in kind by patronising you, I'll be happy to do so!

Are you completely oblivious to common sense? No, my arguments are not "logical tricks." Logic, my lad, is not a trick. And my arguments are moored to plenty of law, not to mention common sense, and individual rights.

I grant, your position is also moored to other aspects of law and individual rights. But instead of emphasizing THOSE things, you choose to be rude, which suggests that you don't even know what YOU are talking about, much less what I am talking about.

[Guyot]

Where is Rodney King when we need him?

[Jocelyn]

Guyot said: Where is Rodney King when we need him?

Call me dense, but HUH?! I'm well-aware of who Rodney King is and how the case went, but...huh?

Still, I think you just broke the tension. ;-)

[Keith]

Logic is, indeed, a trick, in the hands of anyone who uses it as a drunk uses a lamppost.

P=>Q; Q=R; therefore R=>S is nothing but a trick unless P and Q are defined rigorously and the implications are supported by principles with reflections in reality. Even then, there's still truth to deal with--a logical proof can be entirely valid and its conclusion entirely untrue, because logic is merely a process. But yours don't even achieve validity, because you don't know how to be rigorous; you keep swerving off into appeals to emotion and attempts at flattering self-portraiture.

Logic's just a way of manipulating data. Your data's no good, and you're not even rigorous with the manipulation. So not only do your ethics suck, but your logic's faulty and self-serving.

I wonder what vocation you could find where that doesn't matter.

[David J. Montgomery]

"Can't we all just get along?" --Rodney King

[Jocelyn]

Well, Keith, considering I don't know how a drunk uses a lamppost, I'm sorry to say you've lost me there. I still fail to understand where exactly you have found FAULT in my logic.

Okay, let me try the equation trick. Hadn't thought of that.

A and B are people. X=real property (car, house, whatever). IP=a piece of intellectual property (book, screenplay, whatever).

B cannot use X while A is using X. (And vice versa.)
If A owns X, and B uses X without permission, that is stealing, because B has deprived A of the use of X (even for a short length of time.) B can talk about X, B can look at X, but if B uses X while it belongs to A, B is stealing X.

With me so far?

But B can use IP while A owns it. Copyright law says that B cannot use IP to make money if A owns IP. Because the right to make money off IP belongs to A alone. B can talk about IP, B can look/read/watch IP, AND I submit that B can use IP so long as B doesn't make any money off it.

A is never DEPRIVED of IP when B uses it. When A owns IP, A can do whatever A wants with IP even when B is playing around with it...but only A has the right to make money off it.

I'm not trying to trick you, Keith. For me it makes sense. If you can show me where it doesn't make sense, rather than just flinging insults around, I'll be happy to pay attention.

[Jocelyn]

LOL! Thanks, David!

And if anyone is interested, I invite you over to my blog where I've posted some information about fanfiction and a fanwriters' view of the world, if you will, where you are welcome to continue debating.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/jocelyncs/61269.html

I haven't touched the moral issue or gone into real detail on the law, but if anyone wants to, I'm always up for a good discussion.

[Mark A. York]

"AND I submit that B can use IP so long as B doesn't make any money off it."

This strikes me as an add on only one among has heard of, or used.

"For me it makes sense."

Well there. That settles it.

[Jocelyn]

This strikes me as an add on only one among has heard of, or used.

How so? My contention is that "fair use" doctrine permits intellectual property to be used for nonprofit purposes BECAUSE it deprives the owner of that intellectual property of nothing.

If you read this a different way, feel free to explain.

[Keith]

A drunk uses a lamppost more for support than enlightenment.

A is never DEPRIVED of IP when B uses it.

Again, you're ignoring any voice but your own.

A is DEPRIVED of the ability to decide how A's property is used when B uses it without permission.

Your sleight-of-hand about money is not relevant. The issue is, in its entirety, the question of who gets to control the property. The issue is not:

• Who makes money off it
  
• Whether B is depriving A of the ability to make money
  
• Whether it's "good for the writer"
  
• Whether it should be included in "fair use"
  
• How much you love fanfic
  
• The snootiness of the published cabal
  
• That it's really an 'homage," and the violated should feel grateful
  

It is the ability of the creator or owner to decide how her property is used that you steal. That is the theft. That is the problem. You have yet to respond coherently to that very clear, concrete statement. Instead, you blather about nobody getting hurt.

That may be true. But when J decides that A isn't being hurt, and uses A's property without permission, J has stolen A's chance to decide whether anybody's being hurt. And since it's J's property, it should be J's decision.

I don't think you're trying to trick me, Jocelyn. I think you're trying to trick yourself. The more you can bolster the apparently logical side of things, the less you have to face your lack of ethics.

The Internet allows readers and music lovers to do on a grand scale what only publishers and record labels were once capable of:

Screw the artist.

[Keith]

Too bad these things aren't editable:

Since it's A's property, it should be A's decision.