In a comment to my post "What Stupid About It, someone asked what the difference is between someone who writes tie-ins and someone who writes fanfic... beyond the fact that tie-ins are written with the consent of the author/right's holder.
There's a big difference.
I was hired to write DIAGNOSIS MURDER and MONK novels. It's something I am being paid to do. It's not like I woke up one morning with a burning desire to write DIAGNOSIS MURDER novels, wrote one up, and sent it off to a publisher (or, as a fanficcer would do, posted it on the web). The publisher came to me and asked me to write them.
I would never write a book using someone else's characters unless I was hired to do so. It would never even occur to me because the characters aren't mine.
Given a choice, I would only write novels and TV shows of my own creation. But I have to make a living and I take the work that comes my way...and that includes writing-for-hire, whether it's on someone else's TV show or original tie-in novels based on characters I didn't create. Ultimately, however, what motivates me as a writer is to express myself...not the work of someone else.
That's the big difference between me and a fanficcer.
Given a choice, fanficcers "write" fanfic.
Reposted as requested...
Given a choice, I would only write novels and TV shows of my own creation. But I have to make a living and I take the work that comes my way...and that includes writing-for-hire, whether it's on someone else's TV shows or original tie-in novels based on characters I didn't create.
Fair enough.
But seriously: have you never watched some show or movie and had an idea pop into your head that you think would be good for that show/movie? Didn't you enjoy working with the DIAGNOSIS MURDER or MONK material at all, even though it wasn't originally your creation?
Posted by: Jocelyn | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 09:20 AM
(moved from old thread to new thread)
"Given a choice, fanficcers "write" fanfic. "
Except, of course, for the writers named earlier in this thread, who write both.
"I would never write a book using someone else's characters unless I was hired to do so."
A perfectly reasonable stance; however, there are other accepted writers (Laurie R. King for one) who choose to write books based on someone else's characters. There's also Jean Rhys's "Wide Sargasso Sea", which must by law be invoked in all such discussions.
The universals in this discussion are giving me hives. No real writer would write fanfic. No fanfic writer also writes real fiction. No real writer has ever learned how to write from fanfiction.
Apparently counterexamples are not sufficient to refute these universal statements.
Posted by: Jonquil | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 09:29 AM
So, you're a "real" writer because you wrote something for money about which you would have no interest otherwise. But a person who writes something simply for the joy of it and because they want to is not a real writer. Hmmmmm. That's an interesting argument.
Posted by: Elaine | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 10:09 AM
<<>>
Actually, yes. Look at it this way: Your Aunt Sadie may make the best fried chicken in the world. All of her friends ask her to make it for their picnics. Aunt Sadie loves making fried chicken and pumpkin pie and home-fries. Aunt Sadie is an excellent cook. She may, arguably, be the best cook in the world. But until someone pays Aunt Sadie to cook, she is not a professional chef. A guy who works in a restaurant and is paid to cook what the customers order, even if he personally loathes fried chicken, IS a professional chef.
Swich nouns and apply.
Posted by: Alina Adams | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 10:49 AM
"Professional writer" is not quite the same thing as "real writer".
Emily Dickinson was real but not professional. [insert your favorite bestseller here] is professional but not real.
Posted by: jonquil | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 10:53 AM
"Professional writer" is not quite the same thing as "real writer".
Emily Dickinson was real but not professional. [insert your favorite bestseller here] is professional but not real.
Posted by: jonquil | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 10:53 AM
So a person who rides a board over waves isn't a "surfer" unless they get paid?
I think the "Aunt Sadie" analogy is flawed: Aunt Sadie may not be a "chef" or "professional chef," but she IS a cook. A person who cooks is a cook, for the duration of the time they spend cooking.
A person who writes is a writer for the duration of the time they spend writing.
IE: when I read a document at work written by one of my fellow attorneys or a judge or whatnot, I say, "so-and-so is a good/bad/interesting/scary writer." The person may not be a professional writer, but rather a person writing about their profession, but they possess a skill at writing.
I write. I write fanfiction. I write original fiction. I write papers for school on all manner of topics with all manner of research. When I do those things, I am exercising my skill as a writer.
(Maybe I'm not a GOOD writer--that's a debate for another day--but I am a writer.)
Posted by: Jocelyn | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:03 AM
In response to Alina:
Switch the nouns, and the difference is still simply who gets paid and who doesn't. Both are still real writers (or chefs).
I've read published authors who write atrociously. I've read unpublished authors (some of them fic writers) whose writing is lovely. Someone who writes is a writer. Someone who gets paid to do it is a professional writer. Doesn't make him or her more real - or more talented, for that matter.
I don't write, so I'm not a writer. Pretty simple.
(I do make kick-ass fried chicken, though.)
Posted by: balere | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:14 AM
Hey, Madonna got paid for writing her children's books but that didn't make her a "real writer." It made her a marketable commodity. Money doesn't make things "real" -- though it sure makes things easier.
Yes, writing for a check is definitely different from writing from pure enjoyment. I've written for a check for many years. I've also written for pure enjoyment (some of which later produced a check, but not all). One was not more "real" than the other. In fact, PERSONALLY, I considered the second -- writing for pure enjoyment -- more "real." Now, none of what I wrote was fanfiction (I ain't that big of a fan of anyone but me) but I started getting paid for my writing a long long long long time before I felt like I became a "real writer."
The problem with symantic games is that no one is going to agree is on who ought to be making the rules.
Posted by: Elaine | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:18 AM
Hey, Madonna got paid for writing her children's books but that didn't make her a "real writer." It made her a marketable commodity. Money doesn't make things "real" -- though it sure makes things easier.
Well, no, I'd say she's a real writer.
The question merely becomes whether or not she's a good writer. ;-)
Posted by: Jocelyn | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:23 AM
Off to the dictionary:
pro·fes·sion·al
adj.
1) Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
2) Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
3) Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
4) Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.
****
There are a lot of writers out there, Ms. Adams, who haven't yet managed the check but who are professional in that they conform to the standards of the profession. They write, rewrite, query, submit, learn, hone, do it again. They set deadlines for themselves and work at it every spare minute and probably during minutes they can't spare. In other word, they go after it like they already receive the check.
Those are the unpublished writers who have the best chance of becoming published writers and moving to number three and four on the list.
******
To the others: As to what Mr. Goldberg writes, I'm still stymied that is flung out there as any kind of comparison to fanfiction. He's a professional who gets paid for what he does at the request of the creators of the work. But, he already said that. He's said that a number of times. Over and over. In English. Grammatically correct English.
Posted by: claire | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:28 AM
To the others: As to what Mr. Goldberg writes, I'm still stymied that is flung out there as any kind of comparison to fanfiction. He's a professional who gets paid for what he does at the request of the creators of the work.
I think that particular issue centers around not the "job description," so to speak, but the thought processes that go into producing Lee's product.
Media fiction/tie-in novels/etc: You take the base story/characters/world created by somebody else, and you add segments or sequels to the stories that already exists. Fans/readers/watchers of the original story are drawn to yours because of their appreciation for the original. You may or may not do it at the initial request of the original creator, but you get paid.
Fanfiction: You take the base story/characters/world created by somebody else, and you add segments or sequels to the stories that already exists. Fans/readers/watchers of the original story are drawn to yours because of their appreciation for the original. You may or may not have specific/blanket permission from the original creator, you don't get paid, and your story may or may not be godawful.
The similarities don't lie in the profession so much as the process of creating the written product.
Posted by: Jocelyn | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:40 AM
Yes, Lee was very clear about the difference between writing derivative works for a publisher and writing derivative works for entertainment.
Now, as a result, I *MIGHT* buy the idea that fanfiction represents an unhealthy interest in a chosen work (which is one of the sneers against it) because you could be using your writing talent to produce something sale-able.
But, I would NOT buy the idea that creating a derivative work is somehow more "writerly" if you got paid and wouldn't have written it if you didn't get paid. Writing for pay is certainly a more efficient use of your time and talents (especially in our money driven world) but it is more "writerly?"
Are we only real writers if we work for pay -- thus making Madonna more of a writer's writer than Emily Dickenson (for example)?
One person on another post argued that real writers ONLY work on their own projects -- well, except when paid. Sorry, that "Well, except when paid" doesn't buy it as an artistic distinction. If "real writers" only work on their own creations, then ghost books and paid/authorized works AREN'T real writing. You can't tack on some "unless money is involved" and expect it to fly.
I once wrote an article once that needed line drawings to illustrate the piece. I did the drawings. They paid me $200 a piece for the drawings. That did not make me a "real artist" -- nor even a "real illustrator." It meant the publisher figured my drawings were good enough to work for the reader so they paid.
Now, if Lee's arguement is that BOTH his derivative works and fanfiction are real writing and congruent -- but his reflects economic reality (namely, he will write whatever he must to keep food on the table, whether his passion is involved or not) and fanfiction reflects an unfortunate preoccupation with the work of other creators -- THEN, I'll accept his explanation as being valid. Otherwise if fanfiction isn't real because it's based on someone else's work, then PAID derivative works aren't real either. Thus, Lee would be an author of real writing...and the fake derivative stuff that he got paid for.
Posted by: Elaine | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:49 AM
There are a couple other differences between what you do in your tie-in novels and fan fiction:
1. After you write your tie in novel, you typically don't then rush out to stand in line in front of a theatre NOT playing Star Wars.
2. While I happen to know you look fancy in one, you never actually wear a cape anymore.
3. While your books aren't always considered the greatest works of fiction in history, they at least don't have a lot of adverbs in them, he ejaculated furtively.
4. When you write hurt/comfort scenes between Barry Van Dyke and Dick Van Dyke, they typically don't end with Barry's dick in Dick's ass. Typically.
5. When you finish your novel, you don't then have to explain to mom and dad why you failed biology.
6. If someone disagrees with the tone and content of your novel and talks about it on a blog or a radio show, you usually don't then go back to a community of 17 year olds and have them write a bunch of comments so circular in their arguements that one can only imagine they've not yet learned the concept of sophisms.
7. You're never asked to defend your novels in public square.
8. When you write man-on-man action or girl-on-girl, it's fucking hot.
9. If given the chance to have the entire cast of Babylon 5 have a bukkake party on you, you'd probably decline the opportunity.
10. Now stay with me here: Who really gives a fuck? Really? Who gives a fuck?
Posted by: Tod Goldberg | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:57 AM
Tomorrow's headline: TOD GOLDBERG OPENS CAN, WHUPS ASS.
It seems to me that the arguments of the pro-fanficcers boil down to "we like doing it and don't see anything wrong with it."
The same is true of anal sex, but people normally don't do that in the town square.
Posted by: Graham | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 12:09 PM
1. After you write your tie in novel, you typically don't then rush out to stand in line in front of a theatre NOT playing Star Wars.
If fanwriters "typically" rushed out to stand in line in front of the wrong theater, that line would've been a HELL of a lot longer, Tod.
The fanwriter contingent and the costume-wearing contingent of any show/book/movie aren't necessarily one and the same.
2. While I happen to know you look fancy in one, you never actually wear a cape anymore.
See the second part of my response to 1.
3. While your books aren't always considered the greatest works of fiction in history, they at least don't have a lot of adverbs in them, he ejaculated furtively.
The porn-writing contingent and the fanwriting contingent of any show aren't one and the same either. Although I shall concede that the godawful writers tend to outnumber the good ones in any fanwriting area.
4. When you write hurt/comfort scenes between Barry Van Dyke and Dick Van Dyke, they typically don't end with Barry's dick in Dick's ass. Typically.
See above mention of the pornwriting contingent versus fanwriting contingent. All pornfic writers are fanfic writers but not all fanfic writers are pornfic writers. All bugs are insects but not all insects are bugs. Didn't they teach you that in grade school?
5. When you finish your novel, you don't then have to explain to mom and dad why you failed biology.
Are you telling me you never skimped on another obligation because you were wrapped up in your novel? That's as much a danger with original fiction as it is in fanfiction.
6. If someone disagrees with the tone and content of your novel and talks about it on a blog or a radio show, you usually don't then go back to a community of 17 year olds and have them write a bunch of comments so circular in their arguements that one can only imagine they've not yet learned the concept of sophisms.
No, but you apparently go back to your blog and whine to all your buddies about the fact that the radio talk show host didn't talk to you enough and diss everyone who disagreed with you!
7. You're never asked to defend your novels in public square.
Uh, fanwriters aren't asked to do that either, Tod.
8. When you write man-on-man action or girl-on-girl, it's fucking hot.
That's not a difference. It's not hot in fanfiction OR original fiction!
9. If given the chance to have the entire cast of Babylon 5 have a bukkake party on you, you'd probably decline the opportunity.
When I figure out what a bukkake party is, I'll come up with a crushing reply!
10. Now stay with me here: Who really gives a fuck? Really? Who gives a fuck?
You do, apparently, having taken the time to stroll over to your bro's blog and give such a well-articulated listing of your ill-considered thoughts on the subject!
Posted by: Jocelyn | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 12:20 PM
Well, you can be an authorized but godawful writer, or you can be an unauthorized but brilliant writer. I leave it to you to guess in what category you fall in my opinion, Lee.
Other combinations are equally possible of course. Authorized and brilliant would be the ideal - unfortunately it's rather seldom. Unauthorized and godawful rather is the norm, but so is authorized and godawful. Just because someone paid you to do it and it gets actually pressed between book covers doesn't make your work good or even worthwhile reading.
Of course it makes it worthwhile writing for you, as you get paid - which seems to be the only thing you care about.
kete
Posted by: kete | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 12:49 PM
Who really gives a fuck? Really? Who gives a fuck?
Well, your brother does. He goes on a rip once a month ranting about all the folks writing questionable quality fiction when he would prefer they were off playing violent video games or some other wholesome sport.
Apparently Claire does. She seems to think fanfic is like Mar-i-ju-wanna...you start up puffing a bit and writing innocent stories about Dr. Sloan meeting some nice middle-aged Angela Lansbury type and the next thing you know you're stark crazy, locked in the bathroom, penning cramped prose about Dr. Sloan and that young fella on the show.
Apparently a great many other folks do -- otherwise evertime Lee goes on a rip, a single fanfic proponent would show up, castigate him a bit, and everyone would roll their eyes without bothering to post and the topic would be closed until Lee's next rip.
It's nice to know you're jumping it to join "those who give a fuck" -- it was lonely til you showed up and we always enjoy seeing you give a fuck. I wish I had a camera.
-- Oh, by the way, you should ask Ann Crispen how many times those who write series tie-in books must wearily and with great annoyance defend their novels in public. You might learn something new.
Posted by: Elaine | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 01:04 PM
The problem with making the argument that anyone who scrawls words on a page is a writer is that it diminishes the spirit of what writing really is. Is the guy who scratches a filthy limerick on the wall above the urinal a writer? What about the proverbial monkey that types Hamlet? How about Jack Torrance in The Shining, endlessly typing “All work and no play…”
Is it merely the physical act of typing words on a computer screen that makes one a writer? Or is there something more to it?
Surely there exists some standard of what makes one a writer and what doesn't. The problem, of course, is that if you asked any 10 different people you'd get 10 different answers. So basically we're reduced to paraphrasing Justice Stewart.
To my mind, though, one of the things that makes one a writer is the spark of creativity that takes shape in the form of original words on a page. If you're merely copying or parroting someone else's words, ideas, characters, etc., you're not bringing a unique, artistic vision to the page. Therefore such “writing” falls short of the standard.
Posted by: David Montgomery | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 01:05 PM
So it is by Lee's original works that he earns the title "writer" and his tie-in stuff is just how he earns money. And, if it has any effect at all, the tie-in stuff lessens his status as "writer"?
Posted by: Elaine | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 01:12 PM
The problem with making the argument that anyone who scrawls words on a page is a writer is that it diminishes the spirit of what writing really is.
I do beg your pardon, David, allow me to amend my statement:
A person who puts IDEAS into words on paper is a writer. (Ie a person who researches and writes biographies/nonfiction, media tie-ins, original fiction, treatises on law/economics, you get the idea.)
Posted by: Jocelyn | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 01:14 PM
What if they're someone else's ideas?
Posted by: David Montgomery | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 01:16 PM
What if they're someone else's ideas?
"True wit is nature to advantage dressed,/What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed." -- Alexander Pope.
Posted by: Jonquil | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 01:24 PM
What if they're someone else's ideas?
So long as enough of the writer's OWN ideas are put into the final product (ie interpretation, elaboration, transformation, etc) to create something new, a derivative or research-based work is still a writing.
If I were to take "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" and copy it word-for-word, that would not be writing, I agree: it would be copying.
But during the two years of waiting for Harry Potter 6 to come out, if I pick up events in the series where Potter 5 left off and add my ideas, a few new characters, lots of new adventures, speculation, and a healthy dose of wishful thinking and "what if", that's writing.
I shall concede that it is not AS original or creative as an entirely original work, but that doesn't mean it's not writing.
It's just derivative.
Posted by: Jocelyn | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 01:27 PM
I notice that whenever I see a post from Lee about fan fiction, he gets about 200 comments and 100 of them are from Jocelyn.
Memo to Jocelyn: Lee and his brother do not like fan fiction, they don't like what it's about, and your coming onto this board and drowning him in commentary is not going to change that. You're not going to change their minds. I wonder why you keep trying, why you can't just agree to disagree and let it go.
Posted by: Gomez | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 01:29 PM
Memo to Jocelyn: Lee and his brother do not like fan fiction, they don't like what it's about, and your coming onto this board and drowning him in commentary is not going to change that. You're not going to change their minds. I wonder why you keep trying, why you can't just agree to disagree and let it go.
Memo to Gomez: I enjoy debating complicated things with smart people who disagree with me. I do not "drown" anyone with commentary--for every post of mine, there are responses or arguments by the anti-fanfic crowd that I can usually think of a counter for. I wonder why you and others keep trying to persuade me not to participate in a discussion about an issue that matters to me?
Posted by: Jocelyn | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 01:34 PM
Maybe they just hope you'll... I don't know... go out on a date or something instead. You do seem a little obsessed with the subject, and I don't say that to be mean or anything. Gomez is right, though, you do flood the blog with comments anytime it comes up.
Posted by: David Montgomery | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 03:39 PM
I think the issue is that he blogs on his opinion about fanfic, then here you come saying, "NO NO NO YOU'RE WRONG!" Rinse, repeat. At some point, even the most zealous supporter would say, "You know, he's just not gonna see it my way. Time to move on."
I can see both sides of the equation: fanfic writers do it because they enjoy it, Lee thinks it's a waste of a writer's time.
The issue that leads to entries like Lee's is with such writers trying to commercially sell their work, which by law is illegal because the characters, franchise and works upon which they are based is the legal and intellectual property of someone else. If fanfic writers simply did it for enjoyment, there would be no need for a raging discussion. But the problem is that many feel they can someday sell such work for profit.
Try and convince someone that it should be perfectly legal for someone else to use their characters and franchise for profit without paying the original holder, and trust me, you're not gonna change their mind. Try to see the other point of view.
Posted by: Gomez | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 03:51 PM
Maybe they just hope you'll... I don't know... go out on a date or something instead. You do seem a little obsessed with the subject, and I don't say that to be mean or anything. Gomez is right, though, you do flood the blog with comments anytime it comes up.
In all fairness, I admit I've been posting heavily this time around, but in my defense, the posts of the past couple of days got my back up.
As far as obsessed...well, I told you once I was a "die-hard" fanwriter, and I wasn't joking. I love it as a pasttime, and I also love the complicated legalities of it--I'm a geek. So sue me. And when a good debate gets going on it, I like to participate.
Face it; post on a controversial subject and you're going to get remarks from people who disagree with you.
As for a date...hey, there's only so many hours in a day, between writing, school, and lawyer-training. I'd like more dates as much as the next gal, but you can't have everything! ;-)
Posted by: Jocelyn | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 04:04 PM
If fanfic writers simply did it for enjoyment, there would be no need for a raging discussion.
I haven't heard Lee complaining about fanfic writers profiting. I have heard him, and his friends, assert that they wear capes, are incapable of writing publishable works, and aren't real writers.
Perhaps I've been reading the wrong blog entries?
Posted by: Jonquil | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 04:05 PM
Ah, Gomez, now there is something I can totally agree with. There is no moral basis for arguing that fanfiction writers should get money or be able to sell the fanfiction they write as long as there is someone (or a company of someones) to whom the original idea belongs. In fact, to be even distantly acceptable -- fanfiction must be a no money experience because any money made should be handed over to the originator of the premise. The fanfiction writer wasn't ASKED to add to the story and therefore has no room to expect money for it. If they want money, they need to write and sell original fiction in the genre until they become impressive enough to have some possible chance of getting a gig writing series tie-ins.
An adjunct to this would be that fanfiction writers have no basis to cry if someday the "universe" in which they write produces some paid work with any kind of similarity to the fanfiction -- or, for that matter, to cry if another fanfiction writer "borrows" their created characters and uses them for more fanfiction. They were "borrowing" from the creator without paying for the right so they have ZERO room to cry if they feel someone "borrowed" from them with paying. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Elaine | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 04:10 PM
Hee! Elaine, that actually happens in fandom. People who think their fics are just so well known and the original characters that they create are their own and get upset and accuse of plagiarism if anybody uses them. They require that permission be asked. Will go on at length about the ethics of borrowing characters without permission. One gal got upset because 'somebody' had used 'her' character's name as their handle for blog. Constantly brought up HER character as the quintessential Mary-sue that wasn't a Mary-sue. The conversations/fights that happened over just that one character and that one godawful fic put any conversation here to shame.
Another gal insisted that she had her very own 'arc' or 'universe' and became despondant if people used it, knowingly or unknowingly not understanding it was HERS, HERS, HERS. Became so vocal and upset and needed to be consoled about it so much that when she actually wrote a story using all her tired cliches people thought she was somebody else trying to plagiarize her and went after the story with knives. Then she was upset that people hadn't recognized that OF COURSE, this was HER story, HER vision, HER universe written by HER because HER style was so distinctive and special. So instead of thanking people for looking out for her, she decided it all a gigantic conspiracy to make her feel bad about her writing.
So, Elaine, apparently ficcers CAN have it both ways.
Posted by: claire | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 04:25 PM
They can certainly try to have it both ways -- but it's not a logical response.
Much as the 'fan fiction isn't real writing' isn't a logical response. Of course derivative works are still real writing. There is a lot of real writing that goes into a story whether you created the characters or not. Good heavens, Ann Crispin puts real writing into her books, Lee puts real writing into his -- you still need a considerable amount of creativity unless you're just transcribing an episode straight to the page. Just because they don't get paid doesn't make it not real. It might be BAD writing or juvenile writing or inane writing -- and it certainly may be unnecessary writing, but it's still real.
But I digress...yes, I know some fanfiction writers are totally NOT logical about the thing at all. It becomes a kind of religious experience for them. Well, that doesn't make it true of all -- nor does it make their response sensible. What that sense of "ownership" OUGHT to do is make them realize what they *may have* put the originator of the characters and setting through -- MAY HAVE -- since I know people who really think having fanfiction written of their books is cool. But I've found that rabid folks tend to have trouble seeing anything through anyone else's eyes.
I do also recognize the problem that grows out of this desire for ownership (which is a pretty writerly thing)...it means you stand a chance of getting whacko fanfic writers insisting that the new season of LOST was stolen from them...or some equally absurd notion. But that kind of craziness wasn't invented by fanfiction writers and it's not likely to end if you slit the throat of every single fanfic'er, because you'd still get folks with weird self-published crap arguing that the new breakthrough novel was a rip-off of theirs (ask JK Rowling if fanfiction caused her the most trouble or was it the MUGGLE person.)
I accept that fanfiction includes some nutjobs. So does self-publishing and POD...but it doesn't make them all crazy, or evil, or even obsessive.
Posted by: Elaine | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 04:44 PM
To lighten the mood around here, the short of the long, Lee, is you are a hired gun. Fanfictors aren't.
Which is why you get to wear the spurs and don the black, full-length trenchcoat.
Posted by: James C. Hess | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 04:45 PM
No, never.
On the other hand, if I'm watching a show because I might be up for a staff or freelance gig working on it then, yes, ideas for stories come to me. Otherwise, no.
Of course I did...and do. I couldn't write the books if I didn't love what I was doing. But keep in mind, I've worked on both shows (as an executive producer on DM and freelancer on MONK), so I already had a great deal of affection for them, and knew the characters well, before the book deals were offered to me.
I don't see the point you're trying to make with those questions, Jocelyn. If it was up to me, I wouldn't write about anybody's characters but my own...but as a professional writer, I take the jobs that are offered to me, that I think I will enjoy, and that I believe I can do well.
As much as I love DM and MONK, I would never write a piece of fiction based on them unless I was hired to do so...because that would be an utter waste of time.
I know, I know, you don't think it's a waste...fine. Let's agree to disagree on that.
If you want to write a story about Mork from Ork showing up in Babylon 5 and having sex with the lizard head guy, as a personal exercise, or to amuse yourself, or to get yourself off, I don't have a problem with that, nor should any author, studio, etc. Have fun. It's when you publish that story, distributing it to others on the Internet, or in a fanzine, that you cross an important line.
I've said this a thousand times...but I will say it again. I understand all the creative rationalizations for writing fanfic (it teaches writing, it allows you to explore characters, etc. etc.). We can agree to disagree about that, it makes no difference to me.
What I don't understand are any of the rationalizations for "publishing" it and doing so without getting the author's permisison first. If what you're looking for is feedback on your writing, you can get plenty of that by posting original stories on the net or joining a writing group. So that argument doesn't fly.
So let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that I agree that writing fanfic is a great way to have fun and to explore, and develop, your writing skills. Now explain to me the reasons for distributing it and why fanficcers are so vehemently opposed to seeking permission from the author/right's holder first.
Posted by: Lee Goldberg | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 04:55 PM
Maybe if you'd just stop posting about fanfic, we could stop having these stupid arguments that just go around in circles. Because let's face it; the final word on fanfic isn't going to be here, and all these posts cause is senseless fighting.
Posted by: Tamer Brad | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 05:16 PM
No one is forcing you, or anyone else, to comment on what I post here.
I don't mind if there 1 comment or 1000. At a certain point, I walk away and let the backblog conversation live or die on its own.
Posted by: Lee Goldberg | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 05:22 PM
"And somebody who merely watches the show says he has a better grasp on the characters and their history than I do? That he's more emotionally involved in the series than I am?"
Yes, and it's a good thing to, because if they *weren't* that involved, your fandom would be DEAD. It takes fan involvement to keep any fandom alive, and the more dedicated they are, the longer it will be remembered. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I find the idea that you are somehow superior to fanficcers because you are paid to write for certain fandoms to be most amusing, especially when it suggests you couldn't give a crap about the characters involved, so long as you collect a check.
Lee, you are a glorified fan fiction writer. Deal with it. Why continue to dwell out the "evils" of fan fiction just so you can attempt to convince everyone that you aren't connected to this particular hobby. And it's *only* a hobby, Lee. People who are as obsessed with particular fandoms as you are suggesting are rather rare.
If you have that much of a problem with it, stick to solely original material. That way, you can collect money for your original creations and not be mocked for your ultimately hypocritical views.
Being paid to tamper with characters is probably the greater evil since not only are you apparently motivated by greed, I doubt you see the characters as anything other than something that pays the bills.
Posted by: Amused Fanficcer | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 05:23 PM
You know, Lee, there's an entire conversation going on at Blog X. All sorts of less than complimentary commentary being made regarding this blog and conversation and your ulterior motives for making your posts. I have yet to see one Anti-Ficcer (that's kinda like the Anti-Christ, except worse) running over there to tell the owner of the blog how very wrong, screwed up, etc., s/he is to feel that way and if S/HE'd just stop posting about fanfiction there wouldn't be any need for argument.
Actually, if s/he did just stop posting about fanfiction and they all did and they stopped posting fanfiction why...I'd have gotten a whole lot more work done today than I did.
Back to the slog. Real life and all that. Sorry for getting snippy anywhere.
Posted by: claire | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 05:30 PM
Maybe if you'd just stop posting about fanfic, we could stop having these stupid arguments that just go around in circles.
Personally, I think that on the whole this has been a rational and temperate discussion of a fairly (to me) important issue.
I understand both sides better.
Posted by: Dean | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 05:41 PM
Excellent explanation Lee. The meat and potatoes of the bare bones post I made.
Posted by: Mark A. York | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 05:54 PM
The mention of Laurie King's Sherlock Holmes novels makes me wonder: Lee, what do you see is the difference between King's using characters she didn't develop, versus fanficcers'?
Posted by: Diane | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 06:11 PM
Fanfiction:
A derivative creative work, inspired by an original work, that would not exist if the original work had not been created in the first place.
For example:
Rozencrantz and Guidestern are Dead.
Posted by: Writes4food | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 08:38 PM
Sorry.
Rozencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
Mea culpa
Posted by: Writes4food | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 08:41 PM
"I find the idea that you are somehow superior to fanficcers because you are paid to write for certain fandoms to be most amusing, especially when it suggests you couldn't give a crap about the characters involved, so long as you collect a check."
And that attitude right there is the problem. It's the copyright holders who have the right to decide who does what with their property. Not fandom. You may not like it, but it's their decision. They have the right, by law, to create derivative works based on their creations. Fan fiction writers, by law, do not have that same right. Being a fan of something means you like it. Being a fan does not give you any ownership whatsoever. If you feel that as a fan you have more "right" to the property than the owners themselves, I suggest you take a few steps back and re-evaluate your position.
Choosing not to write about anyone else's characters might been seen as a personal decision. But unless the copyright owner has given their express permission... it is the correct decision. Maybe its a question of manners. I just think it's incredibly rude for me to say I know better than the creator (or his/her assigned staff, etc) what should happen to their property.
Posted by: Jason | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 08:54 PM
WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author. Anyone interested in a work who does not know the owner of copyright may search the records of the Copyright Office. Or, the Office will conduct a search at a fee of $75* per hour. For further information, request Circular 22, “How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work.”
from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html
Posted by: Jason | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 08:58 PM
The mention of Laurie King's Sherlock Holmes novels makes me wonder: Lee, what do you see is the difference between King's using characters she didn't develop, versus fanficcers'?
Oops. I see this question gets asked a lot in the previous entry. I am curious though about where Holmes fiction stands -- I assume King got permission to write the stories featuring Holmes from the Doyle estate, although she wasn't hired to write one the way Caleb Carr was. (At least, I don't think she was. Guess I should find out for certain before stating that definitively.)
Posted by: Diane | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 10:12 PM
The Doyle estate no longer holds copyright to Holmes; he's fallen into the public domain. Conan Doyle died in 1930; by the life-plus-70-years rule common in Europe, the works became public domain in 2000. "The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes" is the only Sherlock Holmes book still in copyright in the U.S., because of the recent extension.
Note that a courteous author may still choose to seek the estate's permission.
Posted by: Jonquil | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 10:37 PM
Bravo, Jason. Well said. And well worth repeating.
Last month, I excerpted a brilliant post from someone else's blog about the phenomenon of "fan entitlement" that you might enjoy:
http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writers_life/2005/05/marmaduchy.html
Posted by: Lee Goldberg | Thursday, June 16, 2005 at 11:35 PM
I'll be honest with you. I hold tie-in works in rather low regard. Personally, I see very little difference in the creative processes behind them. An earlier commenter did a far better job of communicating the similarities than I could. I mean no offense by this, so please, do not take it that way. I honestly don't understand how someone can turn their creative processes on and off like a switch based on what they're paid to work on. It just seems like a forced, unnatural way of thinking to me.
The creative juices are always flowing in me. My mind is always working on a story, sometimes it's a fanfic, but most of the time, I'm dreaming up my own characters and stories. Usually, I push it aside in order to focus on whatever task I have but the stray thought still occasionally pops up.
I've never been able to get into the concept of writing for money. For me, money is simply a fringe benefit. When I write, I write for the sheer joy of it. Like you, my main motivation is to express myself. As long as I am able to do that, I am happy.
In fanfiction, I write for myself. I write what I would have liked to have seen take place or more commonly, I give myself an explanation for something the original creator did not.
However, that's not the focus of this response. Though I disagree with some of your views regarding fanfiction, I find myself agreeing with several points that you mentioned. I, too, agree fervently that a fanfic writer has no business seeking monetary compensation for a derivative work that was not commissioned by the creator. If someone doesn't want to give the creator rights to their story, they shouldn't write fanfiction. I've lost count of how many times I'd start work on a piece, get halfway through it, and decide that the idea was too good to use for a fanfic, and strip it.
As a very passionate writer, I have difficulty understanding how one can exert such control over their creative processes to the point that they only blink on when certain conditions (such as whether or not they're being paid) are met. It's just sounds so alien to me.
On a side note, I'm very grateful that this blog was pointed out to me because I'm learning more about a very different point of view here. It's interesting to see what the other side thinks and why.
Posted by: Chalaine | Friday, June 17, 2005 at 03:42 AM