I'd say that the existence of a 'fandom' is crucial to whether a work is fanfiction, in a way, if (and only if) you conceive of a 'fandom' as a set of potential readers whose knowledge of and involvement with the source material is comprehensive enough that the writer was able to rely on it in shaping her work, and to use that knowledge to create the effects she's after.
Wouldn't that really be arguing for the existence (and use of, and influence of) fanon, and its role in the group interpretation of the work? In other words, you can have fanfiction that exists separate from fandom (where the reliance is on, and only on, understanding of the original text) versus fanfiction that exists within fandom and in part or whole (or in really subtle ways) riffs off the one-step-removed or group-created interpretations of the text?
For the first, one need only know the primary material to get the connections. For the second, if you're missing the lingo and the assumptions that fanon has developed, then all the original source material you want might still leave you completely clueless. (Man, have I read those stories.)
Well, clueless when you're not completely outraged at what the hell someone must've been smoking in order to write that with a straight face.
But at the same time, I've read fanon-based stories that were completely comprehensible even without knowing the original canon, because the fanon was using the same tropes and metaphors and assumptions that I'd found in other canons/fanons/fandoms. Like, oh, the way we treat archetypes: you read one short, hot-tempered, genius pre-pubescent boy, you've freaking suddenly read all of them, it seems like, or at least it seems that way based on fandom (or fanon) interpretation/recreation.
ut because a mainstream canon by its nature contains texts that many members of a mainstream audience will know well, it's also possible for a writer who isn't part of any 'fandom' beyond that so many of us belong to by reason of being versed in that canon, and perhaps having a special affection for some particular works within it, to write something that does depend for its effects on its readers having the kind of knowledge of the source that we associate with a fandom.
Seems to me this is also where you get into the power of conventions, in genre: that fandom itself, just by nature of being human and social animals, cultivates conventions just as much as any genre. Part, I think, because it's a comfort-zone (we know in this genre we'll get a happy ending, and damn it, right now we want happy endings), and part because it's just easier. Here, everyone's meeting in an inn and eating stew and discussing the Big Bad taking over the land: I don't have to give you more than that; you know where we're heading with this.
then I'm back to the place where I'd say that no, the existence of a fandom and/or a work's place within it isn't a good touchstone at all, because it excludes work that I do think is fanfiction as well as being derivative fiction.
...which is why I think I'm ending up angling towards something that's above/beyond the simple "affirmational vs. transformational" definition provided elsewhere (see next post from me) and into something that encompasses that and yet also allows room for the various types. Unfortunately (and I say that because the term has become something derogatory in the past 20 years), the best term seems to be that it's all 'derivative works' -- movie adaptations, retellings, including fanfiction... and there are subsets within that of 'derivations influenced by existing interpretations (produced by academics, fans, whomever)' and 'derivations that attempt to bypass the existing assumptions and re-connect with the original text'.
no subject
Date: 5 Jun 2010 12:11 am (UTC)Wouldn't that really be arguing for the existence (and use of, and influence of) fanon, and its role in the group interpretation of the work? In other words, you can have fanfiction that exists separate from fandom (where the reliance is on, and only on, understanding of the original text) versus fanfiction that exists within fandom and in part or whole (or in really subtle ways) riffs off the one-step-removed or group-created interpretations of the text?
For the first, one need only know the primary material to get the connections. For the second, if you're missing the lingo and the assumptions that fanon has developed, then all the original source material you want might still leave you completely clueless. (Man, have I read those stories.)
Well, clueless when you're not completely outraged at what the hell someone must've been smoking in order to write that with a straight face.
But at the same time, I've read fanon-based stories that were completely comprehensible even without knowing the original canon, because the fanon was using the same tropes and metaphors and assumptions that I'd found in other canons/fanons/fandoms. Like, oh, the way we treat archetypes: you read one short, hot-tempered, genius pre-pubescent boy, you've freaking suddenly read all of them, it seems like, or at least it seems that way based on fandom (or fanon) interpretation/recreation.
ut because a mainstream canon by its nature contains texts that many members of a mainstream audience will know well, it's also possible for a writer who isn't part of any 'fandom' beyond that so many of us belong to by reason of being versed in that canon, and perhaps having a special affection for some particular works within it, to write something that does depend for its effects on its readers having the kind of knowledge of the source that we associate with a fandom.
Seems to me this is also where you get into the power of conventions, in genre: that fandom itself, just by nature of being human and social animals, cultivates conventions just as much as any genre. Part, I think, because it's a comfort-zone (we know in this genre we'll get a happy ending, and damn it, right now we want happy endings), and part because it's just easier. Here, everyone's meeting in an inn and eating stew and discussing the Big Bad taking over the land: I don't have to give you more than that; you know where we're heading with this.
then I'm back to the place where I'd say that no, the existence of a fandom and/or a work's place within it isn't a good touchstone at all, because it excludes work that I do think is fanfiction as well as being derivative fiction.
...which is why I think I'm ending up angling towards something that's above/beyond the simple "affirmational vs. transformational" definition provided elsewhere (see next post from me) and into something that encompasses that and yet also allows room for the various types. Unfortunately (and I say that because the term has become something derogatory in the past 20 years), the best term seems to be that it's all 'derivative works' -- movie adaptations, retellings, including fanfiction... and there are subsets within that of 'derivations influenced by existing interpretations (produced by academics, fans, whomever)' and 'derivations that attempt to bypass the existing assumptions and re-connect with the original text'.
*ponders*