And Here's One More Thing:

[handful_ofdust]

Though I agree with every Remix/Gift Culture example on this list (http://bookshop.dreamwidth.org/999259.html), what I continue to dislike is the very clear implication that not only A) as a published author, I must think I'm morally "better" than fanfic authors, but also B) because they don't receive da filthy lucre for making/distributing their fiction, they must all be somehow morally "better" than me. Either/or, once again!

The idea that I work for Big Evil Corp is very, very funny, in context; not to crap on CZP in any way, shape or form, but we're just a small bunch of people, many with day-jobs, working out of our homes. We are literally doing what we do for the love of it--classic amateurs. The money we ask for in return goes almost completely back into product and shipping. This may change in the future, but right now? We're pretty much basically making "fanworks" ourselves. It's just that the ones we make are palpable, the fandom in question is Dark Literature, and each author holds clear copyright over their creation.

Today, I was actually able to pay a bill with money I made while generating original content for (Tiny, Not-So-) Evil Corp. And yes, that made me feel like a genuine professional, because, uh...getting paid for my work is the primary thing which makes me a professional, in the strictest sense of the word. Which, in turn, means something to me. Now, all you who proudly live by the Remix/Gift Culture recycling and barter system standard may feel free to think that's ridiculous--but from my POV, now the bill is paid. And I'm fairly frickin' happy with that exchange, thank you, in my own pathetic little wage-slave way.

Comments

[moon-custafer.livejournal.com]

I realize the statement that's been bothering me is the one you quoted earlier:
The book doesn't exist in isolation; - that's true, but to some extent backwards - nothing exists in isolation, but the original work, IMHO, is more capable of standing alone than the fics based upon it - if only because the stuff it references is usually part of the body of general culture (for its time and place). In fact I've come to define fic by the fact that it's hard to follow without knowing the original work(s), rather than by whether it was professionally published (there are some novels out there which are to all intents and purposes fanfics of mythology and stuff in the public domain.) Does that make sense? It's 7:55 am, so it might not.

[handful-ofdust.livejournal.com]

No, I have to say that makes a lot of sense, to me. I know I've had people say (of my own fic): "I'd read it, but I don't know the source-material." Since your love OF the source-material is what usually prompts fic in the first place, fic can be said to be dependent on the source-material for context, while the source-material absolutely does not need fanfic to make it "work".

(Some might argue that deficiencies in the source-material prompt fixits which then make the source-material palatable again/help the narrative continue, so authors should thank the stars for fanfic writers willing to plug their various fail-holes; my answer to that would be: "Gee, how nice of you--but maybe, if you have problems with my narrative, then that's really more YOUR problem than mine.")

[moon-custafer.livejournal.com]

But since the author can't read the fics, because of the potential danger of future plagiarism accusations, s/he can't learn anything or take any cues from the plugging of said fail-holes.

[handful-ofdust.livejournal.com]

Ah, well, this is another specious part of the argument: I don't think they ever intend the author to read them, anyhow. It's not done in the spirit of "here, Steven Moffatt [or whoever], look how easy it is! Try better!" It's like: Okay, I've "fixed" it to my own satisfaction, so now I can re-encounter the flawed original source-material without wanting to ralph. I've made it palatable for myself. Again, thanks ever so!

[baggyeyes]

I guess Historical Meta-fiction doesn't roll of the tongue the way RPF does.

So what about the re-imagining of other artists' work? Whether it is re-imagining Shakespear's Othello, or these Zombie books popping up with Jane Austen's name on them? I've been rather curious about this side of the arts for a while now. In an art class where they discussed one photographer taking a photo of another artists' work and inserting it into her own installation, it was referred to as 'appropriation', and the legality of which was never determined.

I'm curious about this aspect in the literary world. So far I've seen authors who no longer can object to how their works are (mis)used. My glance at the list of published works on that link was quick, so I may have missed something I haven't thought of.

All in all, though, if I read DG, (I don't), and I had this burning itch to write something, found out that she (like Anne Rice) does not allow fanfiction...I'd just say, 'oh well', and continue reading, but writing my own stuff. No biggie. I don't understand the fuss. Unless her statement about it being illegal and immoral to write fanfic set people's hats on wrong.

[handful-ofdust.livejournal.com]

That's basically it--she used words that hurt people's feelings, so they're hitting back at her by...mainly using words also calculated to hurt people's feelings. Plus, as I'm about to explain to a chick on verdictlesslife's blog, it's not so much that she called fanficcers rapists explicitly as it is that everybody seems to be translating "stalker" or "creepy person sending sexy stories to my daughter" as (potential?) "rapist" in their heads. And then getting their knickers in a knot because Gabaldon's work contains, yes, quite the surfeit of rape itself, and could be triggery to people who read it (if they weren't already warned about it, I guess, by every fanficcer in existence. Which they now will be, until the next person spouts a piece of dumbness in blogville, and Gabaldon is regulated once more to the: "Famous, huh? So how come I've never heard of her?" pile).