handful_ofdust | Transformation

Over on his LJ, Jim C. Hines wonders if bookshop's post linking in all Pulitzer Award-nominated fiction even tangentially derived from other sources and defining them as "transformative" isn't stretching the definition of fanfiction a bit far. michaeldthomas comments:

I think the commercial and copyright aspects muddy the waters. Like you, I believe that all fanfiction incorporates another author’s characters and/or world. When we get into the areas of tie-in products or successful commercial products based on out-of-copyright works (Wicked, JJA's recent Sherlock Holmes anthology, Datlow's recent Lovecraft anthology, or Pride and Prejudice with Zombies), I worry that the distinction we're making is based on the quality of the work rather than if it's derived from a previous work or not.

To which I reply (reposting it here, because I'm getting no responses there ;)):

I've written fanfiction, and I was also one of the writers who contributed to Lovecraft Unbound. Even just going strictly by my own contribution, I would distinguish the two forms of writing very stringently from each other, specifically because there was nothing in my story ("Marya Nox") which directly references or elaborates upon a story Lovecraft wrote, characters he created or the mythos usually associated with his works. The impression I got from Ellen Datlow was that she wanted us to riff off of the "feeling" Lovecraft produces, and all of us did that in very, very different ways.

My belief is that you could read my story never having heard of Lovecraft, and hopefully still get something out of it; remove fanfiction entirely from its source-material, and no matter the quality of the work involved, it can't help but suffer. Much as I enjoyed writing it, all my fanfiction is dependent on some sort of knowledge of the original, mainly because I never took the necessary time to move it further away and change it enough so that it could stand on its own.

Now: Is it necessary to take those final steps? Depends on what you want. If what you want is to be part of a fanfiction community, I would say no--that in fact, the further you get from your original source-material, the harder it becomes for fans of that material to engage with. I'm not saying it can't work, because I've read some incredible AUs so stretched from their original template that they'd work even if you'd never encountered the original at all. But even, say, a Regency version of J2 RPS still relies on its readers at least knowing what Regency fiction "sounds" like. Essentially, you've merged two fandoms, and switched one template for another.

Anybody want to add anything? Bueller?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What you say seems right to me. Having an anthology based on the mood and imagery of Lovecraftian ideas isn't the same as fanfic using his characters, situations, plot points, etc.

Now if you write a story with Mr. Cthulhu stomping around and causing trouble, then, yeah, that's fan fiction like you said. Because for that story to work you (and the reader) must have some knowledge of the source material you are riffing on. It makes sense to me. Dunno why other people can't see it.

Anyway, that's how I view it. I may be wrong.

Funnily enough, there was another Lovecraft-themed anthology which came out the same year whose cover was an actual image of Cthulhu doing just that. But would I even call the stories in that fanfiction, just because they adhere more directly to the Lovecraftian template? Certainly closer to explicit fanfiction, on the sliding scale...

I have nothing super deep to add. Just that whenever people say the difference between "true" transformative works and fanfiction as "quality" and then list "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" I want to punch them in the face.

That book was about as awful as "Scarlett". That quality argument doesn't really hold up there.

Erg. (I know, I am the only one who didn't like P&Pw/Z).

See? I told you. Nothing deep. :)

I didn't like it, either. You're not alone. :)

Well, this is the thing: P&P&Z seems more like a find-and-replace money-grab than a true "transformative" work, especially since it doesn't transform the original so much as deform it--inserting racist and misogynist jokes, lots of sexual innuendo, etc. All the stuff you never particularly wanted to see in Jane Austen, in the first place.

....

... I ... whut.

Sorry, but adding misogyny to Jane Austen is about as tasteless in my mind as playing one of Eazy-E's filthier songs over Martin Luther King footage.

I don't buy the idea that officially sanctioned anthologies are fanfiction, at least not as many fanfic writers themselves want the term to be accepted.

It gets fuzzier when there is no authority to grant sanction -- e.g., works out of copyright, as described here.

Acceptance does seem to be the main thing, here--that, and the impulse to say: "See? You're no different than us! Worse, really, 'cause you want filthy lucre for your scribblings!"

I used to write fanfic, but only for a couple fandoms I was way too emotionally invested in, and only when I felt hurt by something the author did to their characters. I wrote it to make myself feel better, never showed it to anyone (I'm making myself sound pretty pathetic, I realize). And to be frank, I was always most comfortable writing fanfic when the source material wasn't very good to start with. I mean, I'm a huge X-Files fan, but never considered writing X-Files fanfic because I felt satisfied with what Chris Carter made. Now I know that's not why everyone writes fanfic. But it does mean I'm coming at it from a way different perspective than a lot of people in the debate (which is why I stayed out of it, although I've agreed with what you've said in general).

I'd really be hard-pressed to call Lovecraft Unbound fanfic, regardless. Mythos stuff is pretty much at the level of "shared world" at this point, and wasn't Lovecraft ok with that? Anyway, "Marya Nox" is not anywhere near PP&Z. I think there's a line between "fanfic" and "homage/derivative" - because I wouldn't call King's "Jerusalem's Lot" fanfiction of "Rats In The Walls" either. Maybe that's for the reason you mentioned - I actually read Jerusalem before I read Rats, and although King is obviously picking up the ancestral-home/rats-in-the-walls thing, the rest of the story is very different and stands totally on its own. I was actually surprised by Rats because I expected it to be more like Jerusalem.

I think I'm just going round in circles now.

Now you have me longing to know what your fandoms were! "Not very good" and full of character betrayal, eh? Hmmm...;)

Mythos stuff is pretty much at the level of "shared world" at this point, and wasn't Lovecraft ok with that?

Fine with his friends doing it, definitely--Clar Kash Ton and Wild Bob Howard, etc. But then again, I don't think he was ever as possessive of his own work as some people are today; it was a way to make money out of the slightly embarrassing extrusions of his own subconscious, and while he seemed pretty grateful for it, I don't think he ever ran it like a business, per se.

I mean..."Red Goat, Black Goat" does seem Lovecraftian to me, and not just because of where I read it: Forgotten gods, devouring intelligences, transformations and curses. The goat references might have a soupcon de "Dunwich Horror" about them, like you might be able to squint and see "The Terror at Red Hook" in "Marya Nox"...or not. I'm fine with that, either way.

Oh, and I read "Jerusalem's Lot" before "Rats in the Walls" too! There's a lot I love about "Rats", though the racism kind of slapped me across the face so hard I was left dazed for half my first encounter with it. Then I realized it was far more xenophobia crossed with misanthropy, and settled in to enjoy myself.;))

Ha! Well, one was Criminal Intent (even though I do think old CI was very good, and its director just no longer knows where to go), and the other was, er, an ill-regarded anime with the initials DBZ, if you must know.

Yeah, goats felt like a Lovecraftian kind of animal, although the whole thing is actually based on a ghost story I heard as a kid that really scared/stayed with me. A lot of cultures/religions have goat issues, I guess.

I like both stories, but I like Rats more (I didn't see the whole human-cattle thing coming). Xenophobia + misanthropy is a good way to describe it, I think. Lucky for the rest of us that his psychological/social issues manifested in interesting/nightmarish/flexible ways!

There was a comment over on

jimhines's post about ability to read the work freestanding being the key, and I started to write a reply to that and found myself going in circles.

One thing that was going through my head was something someone (... Baudrillard?? Some French name like that) said about familiarity with work that you can have without reading it. So for instance, there could be kids who grow up nowadays who've never read Harry Potter, but I bet they know enough about it to read lots of the fanfic and "get" it. Or take me: I've never read any Lovecraft (heinous confession), but after four years on LJ, I have some ideas.

Basically, I think really good writing can put you into a story even when you don't know all the background. It might not be as rich an experience for you as it would be for someone who knows the background, but it still can be completely satisfying--knowing the background is just an added bonus (though in some cases it can be a detracting factor, too).

I remember back when I was writing OZ fanfic (the HBO show, not the movie), I had one fan who told me she'd loved my stuff up until she actually watched some of the show. I think J.K. Simmons sort of disappointed her; he wasn't quite as queasily sexy as the Vern SChillinger I'd carved out in my head, I guess. Ah, well.;)

Transformation

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

long comment became long, sorry

Re: long comment became long, sorry

Re: long comment became long, sorry

no subject

no subject