riddle me this

[kaigou]

Define fanfiction.

note: that's fanfiction, so it's okay if you can't think of the ninety-nine other categories of fan____.

Comments

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

On a bit more sleep, it strikes me that I was probably being incomprehensible, and I can't blame you at all for retreating into cat-kicking. Perhaps it would be more helpful if I were to back up and explain why it is that I'm resisting your formulation at all.

Here's the thing, or one of them: A good part of what I really love about the pieces of fanfic that I do love seems to be unrelated to what the vast majority of fandom is looking for and loves. (The vast majority, but not everyone, and naturally the people I spend the most time discussing this stuff with are the ones who aren't entirely aligned with that vast majority.) There is a fanfic majority aesthetic, one most of us know when we see. And there's certainly fanfic that's best identified by its clear positioning within a community's practice (discourse, whatever).

But there's also fanfic that doesn't fit easily within the majority aesthetic, and/or that doesn't strike me as being readily and intrinsically identifiable as the product of one aesthetic subculture and its practices. ("Readily identifiable," that is, in the sense that it would be obvious to a scholar from a future culture that this particular story belonged to the same aesthetic tradition as the one that gives rise to the Id Vortex concept.) Since I tend to prefer this not-really-conforming work, I have an obvious investment in not seeing it excluded from whatever definition we adopt -- and more of an investment in not having it treated as a kind of marginal afterthought.

Only that's the thing that leads to my issue, because once I start insisting that this other work that doesn't really fit within the dominant community aesthetic is just as much fanfic as the work that does, I have no basis on which to exclude a good deal of work that you're arguing for excluding -- at least, I have no basis if I want a definition that is purely text-based. And I do want that kind of definition, because it seems to me that once we start classifying things based on the circumstances of their creation, we're no longer evaluating them as individual works, but rather as expressions within a limited and walled-off tradition.

Which isn't to say I don't see value in the second kind of understanding and examination of any kind of work. I do: that kind of approach is both interesting for its own sake and important in understanding one set of meanings that a given set of works has. But the value of any given work is not solely its value within its originating subculture, and its only legitimate meaning isn't the meaning that subculture would generally ascribe to it. And that's particularly true in a world where none of us is a member of only one subculture, or practicing anything without being influenced by any number of other traditions and aesthetics.

Thus my conclusion that it makes more sense, and is more broadly useful, to try for a text-based rather than a community-based definition.

-- Mind you, I don't intend in saying any of this to try to make fan fiction seem more "legitimate" or respectable by trying to go out and claim mainstream works. (But then, I always flinch when I see people trying to justify it as practice for writing commercially publishable fiction, too.) I don't think fan fiction requires an apology or a special justification. Indeed, if I'd seen people bringing up mainstream fiction as apologetic, and fully registered it as such, I'd be snarling and kicking things too.

[kaigou]

A good part of what I really love about the pieces of fanfic that I do love seems to be unrelated to what the vast majority of fandom is looking for and loves.

In going on almost ten years now, I have yet to meet a single fanfiction reader (online or in person) who defines what they like as "related to the majority of what fandom likes". In fact, I'd have to say that of the multitudes I've talked to, the ones who've said "what I like is the same as what most of my fandom likes" can be counted on one hand. They're that exceptional -- or perhaps it's that we all have different perceptions of "what fandom likes" -- not to mention how the hell we define "fandom" itself, to even define what fandom (any fandom) likes. I mean, when I say: "I like what my fandom generally likes", do I mean my fandom overall (Japanese anime/manga) or do I mean my corner of that fandom (Japanese anime/manga focused on mecha) or a subset of that corner (Japanese anime/manga focused on mecha with major homoerotic subtext)? If it's kept undefined just how someone is defining "fandom", then it renders the rest of the statement -- comparison between my-likes and everyone-likes -- almost useless. Doubly so in light of our tendency to say "my fandom" and mean not the overall fandom-around-canon but our own privately defined part of it, ie, "the fandom is Harry Potter but my fandom is the Harry/Dumbledore set".

So, all that said, I guess the question is: outside of setting a value judgment on whether you like/dislike in comparison with some internal or subset of a generalized fandom, does the existence of 'fandom' (as a generalized community of differing aesthetics that nonetheless is focused on and/or centered on some kind of shared/pre-existing narrative) have any influence at all in the creation of fanfiction? And if so, does the existence of (and interaction with) any fandom (in part or whole) thereby have importance in measuring something as fanfiction?

That is, if we say that 'derivative' means: a work based on a pre-existing work by another author/creator (independent of copyright/permission issues) -- then all adaptations, retellings, and fanfiction are derivative to some degree or another. This seems to be pretty much agreed-upon, that derivative includes fanfiction, and that the primary facet of 'derivative' is that there has to be something under it, a source, that existed prior -- whether this is a text, a presentation, a person's life, an animal, a still image/painting, etc -- and that this 'source' contained, or is related to, a narrative of some sort.

From that, then, the question is really: where do we draw the line between 'fanfiction' and other types of derivative works? And what I'm saying is that I think the line is most easily drawn along the general borders of 'inclusion in, relation to, and/or influence from, a larger fandom community', wherein 'fandom' is at its loosest definition of 'others whose work and/or interest also focuses on, or relates to, the same general source/base as one's own interest/work'.

Thus, getting back to the concrete example of bookshop's list, the titles there are 'adaptations' and 'retellings', and, like fanfiction, are 'derivative' -- but that fanfiction is the oddball for having a creative process that is influenced by and interacts with others with a similar interest in the source material.

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

Sorry. I believe you -- and yet, I didn't start out wanting to make the claim that my taste appears not to be the majority taste.

I come to the statement the hard way, through years of being told I'd love things that made me flinch when I actually got there, and more years of reading about celebrations of aesthetic norms I kind of hate.

Id-vortex fic tends to make me squirm with embarrassment and bail early. I don't like genre romance, and don't read it. I hate hurt/comfort. Redemption-through-healing-true-love gives me the creeps. In my fandom of origin, I dislike many of the most highly-recommended and best-loved works, and the ones I dislike are those that most conform to what I've come to think of as the fanfic majority aesthetic. And, you know, blah blah blah: I could go on, and probably even bring in independent corroborating testimony, but you get the general idea.

I promise, it's not that I'm seduced by the perceived need to present myself as different from the other children. I'm sick to death of it, to tell you the unvarnished truth. I'd love to find my reading tastes situated squarely in the middle, here or anywhere. I can't prove that to you, of course; all I can do is to say that from my own subjective point of view, from over here where I have trouble finding fiction I want to read, let alone media products I can sit through, it sure feels as if it's true.

[kaigou]

Id-vortex fic tends to make me squirm with embarrassment and bail early.

It takes a very good writer -- or a writer whose id-vortex happens to map very very closely to my own -- to make me not react the same way!

I didn't mean to imply that anyone necessarily wants to perceive themselves as different, only that fandom is so varied even in the best of times that there really isn't ever (IME/IMO) a true 'center' of 'this is what the majority of us like'. You really only find that if you narrow down to a subset of a fandom and call that 'your' fandom. In other words: it's true to say that for most fans, they're probably not in alignment with 'the majority' since there's not really a true 'majority' to align with, but at the same time it's also probably true to say that when fans find fans of like minds, then they are in alignment with that area of the fandom that they consider 'theirs'. And that's the beauty of the internet (and better search/tag functions in archives): that we can find a sub-set of a general fandom where we are in alignment, for the most part. ...even when the predominant external impression of a fandom differs from our sub-set's intentions/likes.

Which is why I'm not trying to define 'fandom' -- because if defining fanfiction is hard, defining 'fandom' is damn well impossible.

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

Okay, I can go with that. (I still have troubles with majority and alignment, but that's just me, and a frolic 'n' detour.)

But if we agree that there really isn't a Fandom Majority, but rather a collection of loosely-aligned mini-communities (at least in an aesthetic and creative sense), doesn't that cut against the argument that we can best describe or identify fan fiction as the product of a fan community? Or to be more specific, let me try to address the two points you raised above:

[D]oes the existence of 'fandom' (as a generalized community of differing aesthetics that nonetheless is focused on and/or centered on some kind of shared/pre-existing narrative) have any influence at all in the creation of fanfiction?

First, of course it does, for the vast majority of what both of us would call fanfiction. Most of it is written by self-identified members of that community and for an audience consisting of that community, and the community's interests, enthusiasms, and standards will generally have some influence on what's produced.

But second, we have something of a chicken-and-egg problem here, because I'd argue that it's entirely possible for a writer to produce fanfiction without any contact at all with the community, and in the extreme case without a relevant community even existing. The only difference would be that in the last case, the writer would also be the only audience for the resulting work (or at least, the only audience able to read it with full understanding of what it's supposed to do). In these cases I'd say that the community has had no influence at all on the creation of the finished work. But if fanfiction is by definition the product of a community, there's not going to be any produced without some community influence, even if it's only a tangential and distant kind of influence.

And with that, on to part two:

And if so, does the existence of (and interaction with) any fandom (in part or whole) thereby have importance in measuring something as fanfiction?

This is where I'm going with a big Yes and no, with a side of, It depends on what one means by 'fandom'.

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.

Thus my continuing example of the American Idol story I had a friend rec in wildly enthusiastic terms: a perfectly readable story by a very good writer, but one that was nevertheless essentially incomprehensible to me, the outside reader. That is, I knew I was reading a story about how these two people formed a romantic and sexual relationship, and the words all flowed nicely enough that it wasn't painful to read; but I had no idea at all of why I was supposed to find any of it engaging, let along rave-worthy. It was working, that is, on a completely different level for those who actually knew and understood the source material, and depended on its readers having that knowledge. Most of what was going on in the story was invisible to me, but it would be wrong to say it wasn't there.

On the extreme side, this is where I locate the pro work that I think is what we're arguing over. Some such works I'd agree with you about: if you can get every bit of what's actually there without knowing the source it's probably derivative work that is not fanfiction by my definition. (This may be where we'd find Pride and Prejudice and Zombies -- I might be wrong, but without reading it I'd still be inclined to guess that it's not a work that was intended to be dependent on audience knowledge of the original from anything but a sales perspective.) But 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.

So this gives me the place where I'd be inclined to locate something like The Once and Future King. It's derivative and it's also fanfiction. Like that American Idol story, a person can read it without pre-existing knowledge of its sources, or the resonance of the Matter of Britain in so many of our minds, and you'll still be able to follow the story. (I got to it as a child, before I knew the underlying material, and had no real problems, and I'm sure the same is true of many of us.) But like that AI story, a lot of what it's doing is invisible if you don't have that background knowledge. When I first read it I couldn't quite see what the point of most of it was; it was when I came back to it with some knowledge of the canon that I could see what White was doing. I'm sure he didn't consciously think about what he needed his audience to know, but he did assume and depend on a certain amount of that knowledge.

And that illustrates the place where I'd say that if we're willing to count the kind of knowledge White assumed in his readers as a 'fandom,' then sure, I'd accept your formulation. From my point of view it's still a roundabout way of getting at the point about text; still, I'm not sure we're not using two different approaches to describe what in the end is really the same thing. That's on the 'yes' side of my 'well, yes and no.'

But if that wouldn't count as 'fandom' for purposes of your definition, 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.


-- Damn. Maybe I should have been talking about required reading strategies rather than texts all along?

[kaigou]

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'.

*ponders*

Ah. Fixed.

[phoebe_zeitgeist]

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?

I'm not sure whether I'm following you correctly here. Let me see whether I can try to unravel this a little, and with any luck you'll at least be able to tell me whether I've completely missed your point.

If you're suggesting that we might be looking at two classes of fanfiction, one that requires only a solid working knowledge of the original source, and a second that requires a knowledge of fanon and fandom writing conventions in general, I'm not sure I'd disagree as a matter of substance. (Although I'd probably argue in that second case that one could just as well characterize the second type as being fanfiction where fandom itself was the, or one of the, primary sources, so that there was no material difference between this kind of fanfiction and the kind where all a reader needed was a working knowledge of the primary source.)

I think this fanon-influenced category may be an area where by both temperament and experience I'm ill qualified to say much of anything. Most of my direct experience has been in a tiny fandom where we just plain didn't develop much of any fanon (or at least, not much I'm aware of). With very rare exceptions, all you'd need to read anything the fandom has produced is the source material itself, and the exceptions are unusual enough that they carry author's notes saying, "I was riffing off Jane Fangirl's story XXX when I wrote this, and you need to read that to understand this, here's where to read it if you haven't." Which, I gather, is not quite the same phenomenon as what you're talking about. Especially in light of what you say here:

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.

I think it's the very conventions you're referring to that were at the heart of my earlier pathetic whimpering about being not as much like the other children as I might wish. I really, really would rather have less by assurance of where a story is going -- not that I want the structure to feel wrong and forced when I get to the end, but unless a writer has the kind of gift that makes the oldest and most conventional of forms new again, I'd much rather not be too certain. Indeed, one of the things I come to noncommercial fiction for is the way it bypasses the gatekeepers whose preference for the familiar tends to limit the directions in which commercial work can go. And if everyone's in an inn and eating stew and talking about the Big Bad, well, I hope to God someone's given me more than that. Because otherwise, as you say, we've all been to this show already; why on earth would we want to sit through it again?

All of which means simply that I haven't read very much of what I think is probably a vast body of fanfiction that does a lot of what you're talking about here: to the extent I find it I bail from it early in the work. As I think about various discussions I've had, though, I'm inclined to think you're right based on evidence as well as pure logic. I'm remembering someone -- it may have been melannen -- trying to explain the appeal of celebrity RPF to me, and finally saying something like, "I just really, really love coming-out stories, there can never be enough of them for me."

And sure enough, there's your thesis illustrated right there (again, if I'm following you), because what she was telling me was that to understand the AI story I had failed to get at all, a reader needed to know both the basic AI canon and to know the fanon conventions that form the coming-out story form (or the mainstream conventions that inform it, plus whatever fanon conventions modify it?). Without both, you're not going to be able to see what the work means for its intended audience.

But whether I've followed you correctly or not, I'm more and more inclined to think that you're absolutely right about the "affirmational vs. transformational" framework being too limited to really account for the variety of work being done both inside fandom as we know it and outside of it. And since "derivative works" is the base term we have, perhaps the best strategy is to accept it and go for reclamation? I'm suddenly struck by an annoying sense that musicians have some really excellent terminology for this that we might borrow, but there's a hole in my brain where the relevant words are supposed to be. I'll have to go check The Memory of Whiteness and see whether I can find them.