4.10.03
Defending the Dodgy
Diana Gabaldon, author of the Outlander series, recently wrote the following with regards to an email asking if she minded the phenomenon known as 'fan fiction':
"Well...um...yes. Actually I do mind, and I really, really appreciate your asking first. {smile} I'm aware that many people think fan-fiction is somehow a compliment to the original author -- or is at least innocuous. In fact, from a legal point of view, it's copyright infringement (and no, it does not matter whether the infringer is making money from their stories or not, it's still illegal). And from a personal point of view...well, I'm afraid the notion of having someone write stories using my characters makes me rather ill."
Fan fiction is a slang term for stories written using characters and settings that are stolen from books, from television series, from computer games, from films, from anywhere. The author of the fan fiction piece creates new stories using these characters and settings, putting them into new situations, sometimes introducing original characters or new places. They range from short skits, to meaty epics, to character studies. Many are written terribly. Some are written well. Some are distasteful. Some are clever. All of them are illegal.
There is no wriggle-room. As Ms. Gabaldon said, it is copyright infringement. To publish it is theft.
Having said this, many people are tolerant of such use of their creations. So long as the fan fiction writers post disclaimers announcing that this is a fan-inspired piece of writing, and that they are neither the original authors nor are they making money from it, the amount of bad feelings and loss of goodwill is usually not worth the hassle involved in prosecuting these people.
But some authors do have zero tolerance positions. Many of them because of bad experiences where some weirdo fanboy has accused the author of ripping off his fan fiction story and is threatening to sue. Sometimes, as in the case of JK Rowling, because the distasteful nature of some fan fiction is threatening to the integrity of the franchise. Sometimes, because they find it personally distasteful.
So, here I am. I don't much like most fan fiction stories I've come across, and at this point in my life, I feel no need to write it. Still, here I am, trying to defend it, even though I know it's dodgy.
To begin at the absolute beginning, let's paraphrase a quote from Ursula K. LeGuin:
"There have been great civilizations who did not invent the wheel, but there have been no civilizations without stories."
Stories are in our blood. We need them. They are more ancient than history, and indeed our most ancient history is preserved in them.
But we do not merely need to hear stories told to us. We want to feel connected to the characters, and we want to be involved. Historically, characters belonged to no one. The concept of authoring something was very different. If a Bard 1 heard a story from Bard 2, he would feel free to change it, and to improve it. He might create sequels, or prequels, or sing it. Everything, once spoken, was in the public domain.
I am not fighting for a return to that situation. I like hearing stories in the style of a particular author. I like knowing 'officially' what happens next. Since I would like to write myself one day, I approve of the idea of an author being paid for their work. Society has changed.
But the desire to feel a connection and to participate in the lives and tales of the characters we are presented with and come to love - that has not changed with society. And now all our great myths and stories are corporate property, or personal property. They are owned and labelled and we are not allowed to touch.
So is this what fan fiction is? The reclamation of mythology?
Possibly.
Brilliant. Marvelous. Wonderful. We've worked it out. Fan fiction writers are just acting on their basic impulses and fulfilling ancient desires to participate in the story; to make their mark. It must all be all right!
Well, no, actually. It gets more complicated again.
Because now the authors depend upon money from their work for their livelihoods. It is not fair to threaten that. And when the new book comes out an some fan writer declares that it has stolen ideas from their story and they want to sue... Well, that's threatening. It can harm the writer's income, reputation, and credibility. Some of the content in some of the genres can be dangerous to the author's more vulnerable readers (example: NC-17 rated Harry Potter fiction being read by children).
These are good reasons to put a wet blanket on the fiction-fire. Until the law protects the rights of both the original authors and the fan writers, the only way an author can protect him or herself from unjust lawsuits where yahoo fan writers claim they've been ripped off is to declare that they do not in any way condone fan fiction, whether or not they aggressively seek to exterminate it.
The author has an absolute right to be acknowledged as the sole original creator of the settings, characters and stories. The author has an absolute right to any money made from those creations. The author has an absolute right to protect vulnerable fans, and to express when, where and why they feel certain topics are inappropriate in certain areas.
What I do not think the author has a right to do is to hide behind the letter of the law simply because it makes them uncomfortable.
Diana Gabaldon disapproves of fan fiction seemingly because the law declares it illegal, and it makes her feel ill.
Then again, over time, the law has declared many things illegal that should not have been (homosexuality for one), and many things legal that should not have been (can anyone say 'slavery'?) The law changes with the times, as it should. I'm sorry she feels ill, but, well, read on for my views on that.
As another example, here is an exert of Orson Scott Card's side of the fan fiction debate:
"It does not help them as writers; it can easily harm me; and those who care about my stories and characters know that what I write is "real" and has authority, and what fans write is not and does not. So it's all pointless."
Both of these authors (and any others who feel the same way) have the absolute right to ban all kinds of fan fiction. The law supports them. If pushed to the limits, even I would have to recognise it as their right. It is unavoidable.
But I think that to exercise that right is very wrong.
As a writer, as a reader and as a human being, I feel that it is a perversion of the spirit of storytelling.
When you ban something not because it is threatening, not because you tried and failed to make it work, but because you want to retain absolute ownership over your creations, and to make everyone else stay away and back off, there's something very wrong.
It should be about sharing.
When I write things, it is my goal and my desire to create a character or a situation that will stick with people. To strive to create a character people will connect with and empathise with and then demand that they stay away because it's mine, mine, mine, is selfish.
You write things and you send them out into the world. You have to learn to let go. Not everyone will imagine every character as you did. Not everyone will take away the same message.
You need to respect your audience, as creators themselves (as they create the characters and conjure up the images and take away meanings you never knew you hid in there), and as intelligent people. Card's assertion that fan fiction is 'pointless' shows no respect. It does not respect their intelligence, their ability to tell the difference between the 'real' stories and the 'fan' stories, and it does not respect their impulse to share and imagine regardless of the 'authority' behind them.
If I have control over the original characters, if I have the right to take them on the journeys I know will be official, I do not think I would feel the need to obsessively catalogue and control all the acknowledged fakes, and all the shadow permutations.
Then again, I do not believe that fan fiction is perverse. I do not think that there is anything unusual about the impulse to join in and to have a say in something you are so invested in.
Maybe that is where I differ. Maybe that is why I am more willing to let go.
I just have to wonder, where do you draw the line?
If I read a book, and I love it, and I want to think about what happens next, I don't think anyone would say that was unethical. After all, isn't that the mark of a good book? If I told my friend my ideas and chatted with him about the different things we might see happening, is that unethical? Or again, just the mark of a good book? What if I write it down longhand and give it to him to read? What if I email it to him? What if I post it on an internet forum?
Where do you draw the line? It becomes awfully murky. And to me, if you follow it far enough back, you are denying your readers the right to connect with the characters.
"Look," the author says. "But don't dare imagine after looking."
I will sacrifice my right to fan fiction on the grounds that it is actively endangering an author's livelihood, or reputation.
I will sacrifice that right if it is endangering the well-being of other fans.
But I will not sacrifice it to the alter of an author's hubris and ego.
Storytelling is not a platform on which to parade your talent and demand everyone else watch. It is supposed to be a two-way street. You tell stories to people and you pray that they're inspired.
How does crushing a method of fun and creativity help inspiration? Since when was that a part of storytelling?
It comes down to this:
Stories are alive. They were never meant to be museum pieces.
Anne Rice said:
"I do not allow fan fiction.
The characters are copyrighted. It upsets me terribly to even think about fan fiction with my characters. I advise my readers to write your own original stories with your own characters.
It is absolutely essential that you respect my wishes."
I find this strange to say, but I disagree.
Diana Gabaldon, author of the Outlander series, recently wrote the following with regards to an email asking if she minded the phenomenon known as 'fan fiction':
"Well...um...yes. Actually I do mind, and I really, really appreciate your asking first. {smile} I'm aware that many people think fan-fiction is somehow a compliment to the original author -- or is at least innocuous. In fact, from a legal point of view, it's copyright infringement (and no, it does not matter whether the infringer is making money from their stories or not, it's still illegal). And from a personal point of view...well, I'm afraid the notion of having someone write stories using my characters makes me rather ill."
Fan fiction is a slang term for stories written using characters and settings that are stolen from books, from television series, from computer games, from films, from anywhere. The author of the fan fiction piece creates new stories using these characters and settings, putting them into new situations, sometimes introducing original characters or new places. They range from short skits, to meaty epics, to character studies. Many are written terribly. Some are written well. Some are distasteful. Some are clever. All of them are illegal.
There is no wriggle-room. As Ms. Gabaldon said, it is copyright infringement. To publish it is theft.
Having said this, many people are tolerant of such use of their creations. So long as the fan fiction writers post disclaimers announcing that this is a fan-inspired piece of writing, and that they are neither the original authors nor are they making money from it, the amount of bad feelings and loss of goodwill is usually not worth the hassle involved in prosecuting these people.
But some authors do have zero tolerance positions. Many of them because of bad experiences where some weirdo fanboy has accused the author of ripping off his fan fiction story and is threatening to sue. Sometimes, as in the case of JK Rowling, because the distasteful nature of some fan fiction is threatening to the integrity of the franchise. Sometimes, because they find it personally distasteful.
So, here I am. I don't much like most fan fiction stories I've come across, and at this point in my life, I feel no need to write it. Still, here I am, trying to defend it, even though I know it's dodgy.
To begin at the absolute beginning, let's paraphrase a quote from Ursula K. LeGuin:
"There have been great civilizations who did not invent the wheel, but there have been no civilizations without stories."
Stories are in our blood. We need them. They are more ancient than history, and indeed our most ancient history is preserved in them.
But we do not merely need to hear stories told to us. We want to feel connected to the characters, and we want to be involved. Historically, characters belonged to no one. The concept of authoring something was very different. If a Bard 1 heard a story from Bard 2, he would feel free to change it, and to improve it. He might create sequels, or prequels, or sing it. Everything, once spoken, was in the public domain.
I am not fighting for a return to that situation. I like hearing stories in the style of a particular author. I like knowing 'officially' what happens next. Since I would like to write myself one day, I approve of the idea of an author being paid for their work. Society has changed.
But the desire to feel a connection and to participate in the lives and tales of the characters we are presented with and come to love - that has not changed with society. And now all our great myths and stories are corporate property, or personal property. They are owned and labelled and we are not allowed to touch.
So is this what fan fiction is? The reclamation of mythology?
Possibly.
Brilliant. Marvelous. Wonderful. We've worked it out. Fan fiction writers are just acting on their basic impulses and fulfilling ancient desires to participate in the story; to make their mark. It must all be all right!
Well, no, actually. It gets more complicated again.
Because now the authors depend upon money from their work for their livelihoods. It is not fair to threaten that. And when the new book comes out an some fan writer declares that it has stolen ideas from their story and they want to sue... Well, that's threatening. It can harm the writer's income, reputation, and credibility. Some of the content in some of the genres can be dangerous to the author's more vulnerable readers (example: NC-17 rated Harry Potter fiction being read by children).
These are good reasons to put a wet blanket on the fiction-fire. Until the law protects the rights of both the original authors and the fan writers, the only way an author can protect him or herself from unjust lawsuits where yahoo fan writers claim they've been ripped off is to declare that they do not in any way condone fan fiction, whether or not they aggressively seek to exterminate it.
The author has an absolute right to be acknowledged as the sole original creator of the settings, characters and stories. The author has an absolute right to any money made from those creations. The author has an absolute right to protect vulnerable fans, and to express when, where and why they feel certain topics are inappropriate in certain areas.
What I do not think the author has a right to do is to hide behind the letter of the law simply because it makes them uncomfortable.
Diana Gabaldon disapproves of fan fiction seemingly because the law declares it illegal, and it makes her feel ill.
Then again, over time, the law has declared many things illegal that should not have been (homosexuality for one), and many things legal that should not have been (can anyone say 'slavery'?) The law changes with the times, as it should. I'm sorry she feels ill, but, well, read on for my views on that.
As another example, here is an exert of Orson Scott Card's side of the fan fiction debate:
"It does not help them as writers; it can easily harm me; and those who care about my stories and characters know that what I write is "real" and has authority, and what fans write is not and does not. So it's all pointless."
Both of these authors (and any others who feel the same way) have the absolute right to ban all kinds of fan fiction. The law supports them. If pushed to the limits, even I would have to recognise it as their right. It is unavoidable.
But I think that to exercise that right is very wrong.
As a writer, as a reader and as a human being, I feel that it is a perversion of the spirit of storytelling.
When you ban something not because it is threatening, not because you tried and failed to make it work, but because you want to retain absolute ownership over your creations, and to make everyone else stay away and back off, there's something very wrong.
It should be about sharing.
When I write things, it is my goal and my desire to create a character or a situation that will stick with people. To strive to create a character people will connect with and empathise with and then demand that they stay away because it's mine, mine, mine, is selfish.
You write things and you send them out into the world. You have to learn to let go. Not everyone will imagine every character as you did. Not everyone will take away the same message.
You need to respect your audience, as creators themselves (as they create the characters and conjure up the images and take away meanings you never knew you hid in there), and as intelligent people. Card's assertion that fan fiction is 'pointless' shows no respect. It does not respect their intelligence, their ability to tell the difference between the 'real' stories and the 'fan' stories, and it does not respect their impulse to share and imagine regardless of the 'authority' behind them.
If I have control over the original characters, if I have the right to take them on the journeys I know will be official, I do not think I would feel the need to obsessively catalogue and control all the acknowledged fakes, and all the shadow permutations.
Then again, I do not believe that fan fiction is perverse. I do not think that there is anything unusual about the impulse to join in and to have a say in something you are so invested in.
Maybe that is where I differ. Maybe that is why I am more willing to let go.
I just have to wonder, where do you draw the line?
If I read a book, and I love it, and I want to think about what happens next, I don't think anyone would say that was unethical. After all, isn't that the mark of a good book? If I told my friend my ideas and chatted with him about the different things we might see happening, is that unethical? Or again, just the mark of a good book? What if I write it down longhand and give it to him to read? What if I email it to him? What if I post it on an internet forum?
Where do you draw the line? It becomes awfully murky. And to me, if you follow it far enough back, you are denying your readers the right to connect with the characters.
"Look," the author says. "But don't dare imagine after looking."
I will sacrifice my right to fan fiction on the grounds that it is actively endangering an author's livelihood, or reputation.
I will sacrifice that right if it is endangering the well-being of other fans.
But I will not sacrifice it to the alter of an author's hubris and ego.
Storytelling is not a platform on which to parade your talent and demand everyone else watch. It is supposed to be a two-way street. You tell stories to people and you pray that they're inspired.
How does crushing a method of fun and creativity help inspiration? Since when was that a part of storytelling?
It comes down to this:
Stories are alive. They were never meant to be museum pieces.
Anne Rice said:
"I do not allow fan fiction.
The characters are copyrighted. It upsets me terribly to even think about fan fiction with my characters. I advise my readers to write your own original stories with your own characters.
It is absolutely essential that you respect my wishes."
I find this strange to say, but I disagree.
