fans who write fanfic or carry on the story were only considered misbehaving in the modern era of Authorial Individuality and copyright
absolutely. we're in a period of massive regulation, and even fair use has -- for all practical purposes -- dwindled down to almost nil. So, yeah, in respect of right-now, any violation of copyright, however benign, is definitely misbehaving. Which is rather funny, as you point out, given that it's not like fans have really changed their behavior at all. It's just the law has changed... so even the term 'misbehaving' is really a euphemism for 'criminal behavior'.
I particularly love what you say about the author's interp, given to us through the mass media and the celebrity culture of television and even newspapers, can take over the author's own work! Or be considered a complete amalgam to it.
I live with a philosophy major (and asian studies grad student, now) and we have an ongoing thing about author intentionality. I'm very much against it, because I don't like how excessive author interpretation can intrude to the point that one is no longer really reading the text, that is, reading 'out' of the text, but instead is seeing the text through the author's eyes -- reading 'into' the text, and looking specifically for those things the author intended. And when you throw in heavyweights like the internet and television and especially Oprah (at least in the US, but I'm sure she has counterparts in every country), suddenly "what the author says" becomes this hugely important dealio, influencing people to no end. The more author-to-fan interaction (or at least author-to-audience-representatives interaction) there is, the more likelihood someone will use that opportunity to ask the very-human question, "what exactly did you MEAN right there?" and the author's reply is taken as "how we should read the text."
My issue with that is that if the author SUCKS, then it doesn't matter that Author X was insistent he was writing the great american novel, his interpretation isn't worth jack because he failed to get his meaning into the text -- or his meaning got subverted in the meantime. One example: Joss Whedon intended (and repeated this to the fans many, many times) to show a healthy and positive lesbian relationship... which he then ended by killing off one of the pair and having the surviving half go bonkers. Oh, it's the classic Dead Lesbian and Crazed Lesbian trope! What he intended, he's made clear, but what's in the text is indisputable -- but, like Rowling's post-book announcement about Dumbledore being gay, the author's intent can sometimes overshadow the bare facts of what's right there (or not right there at all) on the blooming page.
A'course, this is also why I love fandom: because fandom is so used to a multiplicity of interpretations that the author isn't necessarily automatically privileged. Sometimes the author is acknowledged, at least, and then promptly shouted down by fans who've honed their skills slicing through much harder obstacles, and to whom the author's interpretations are nothing more than the delusional ramblings of a fandom noob.
Heh.
Not to say I don't love authors, I do. I just think sometimes they're almost as crazy as fen, in their own way.
no subject
Date: 12 Jun 2010 06:20 pm (UTC)absolutely. we're in a period of massive regulation, and even fair use has -- for all practical purposes -- dwindled down to almost nil. So, yeah, in respect of right-now, any violation of copyright, however benign, is definitely misbehaving. Which is rather funny, as you point out, given that it's not like fans have really changed their behavior at all. It's just the law has changed... so even the term 'misbehaving' is really a euphemism for 'criminal behavior'.
I particularly love what you say about the author's interp, given to us through the mass media and the celebrity culture of television and even newspapers, can take over the author's own work! Or be considered a complete amalgam to it.
I live with a philosophy major (and asian studies grad student, now) and we have an ongoing thing about author intentionality. I'm very much against it, because I don't like how excessive author interpretation can intrude to the point that one is no longer really reading the text, that is, reading 'out' of the text, but instead is seeing the text through the author's eyes -- reading 'into' the text, and looking specifically for those things the author intended. And when you throw in heavyweights like the internet and television and especially Oprah (at least in the US, but I'm sure she has counterparts in every country), suddenly "what the author says" becomes this hugely important dealio, influencing people to no end. The more author-to-fan interaction (or at least author-to-audience-representatives interaction) there is, the more likelihood someone will use that opportunity to ask the very-human question, "what exactly did you MEAN right there?" and the author's reply is taken as "how we should read the text."
My issue with that is that if the author SUCKS, then it doesn't matter that Author X was insistent he was writing the great american novel, his interpretation isn't worth jack because he failed to get his meaning into the text -- or his meaning got subverted in the meantime. One example: Joss Whedon intended (and repeated this to the fans many, many times) to show a healthy and positive lesbian relationship... which he then ended by killing off one of the pair and having the surviving half go bonkers. Oh, it's the classic Dead Lesbian and Crazed Lesbian trope! What he intended, he's made clear, but what's in the text is indisputable -- but, like Rowling's post-book announcement about Dumbledore being gay, the author's intent can sometimes overshadow the bare facts of what's right there (or not right there at all) on the blooming page.
A'course, this is also why I love fandom: because fandom is so used to a multiplicity of interpretations that the author isn't necessarily automatically privileged. Sometimes the author is acknowledged, at least, and then promptly shouted down by fans who've honed their skills slicing through much harder obstacles, and to whom the author's interpretations are nothing more than the delusional ramblings of a fandom noob.
Heh.
Not to say I don't love authors, I do. I just think sometimes they're almost as crazy as fen, in their own way.