Life, After All

Everything Old is new again

2006-08-13T12:54:00.001-05:00

It was almost a year ago that I made my last post, and at the time I was tracking conversation between pro writers and fan writers and the clashes and points of agreement that rise and fall between them.

surprise: the topic has come up again, this time in response to a rather well documented bit of fannish plagiarism and thus a lively discussion of the implications of that and the standards to which (some) fan writers at least attempt to hold themselves.

The conversation is worth reading (the comments especailly) as people weigh in on the validity of fan fic as a modern form of storytelling, how it clashes with US copyright law (and when it does.)

this time it's John Scalzi genially holding the debate with his first post "Crimes of Fanfici and then following up a day or so later with Follow-up on Crimes of Fanfic.

Completely irrelevant to that discussion, I found myself once more getting irritated (As I have on Lee Goldberg's blog) with the term "fanficcer". It kind of has the cutsey slap in the face quality of calling a grown woman, "little girl", and I won't even speak to the possibly underscoring individual reasons why people use it. Like any other online terminology, I'm reasonably certain it's an organic growth, coming out of the inherent laziness that prohibits the use of "fan fic writer". although I'd be willing to take specualtion as to whether it's actual laziness as opposed to a kind of childish refusal to call those who write fan fic, "writers" sinc ethat seems to be a bone of contention in perpetuity.

Of course, I'm equally annoyed by the use of the term "ficcies" which I'm pretty sure sprang out of the collective Hello-Kitty id of the post-asdolescent budding writers on Fanfiction.net, although I doubt seriously whether they consider it derogatory at all. It's merely linuistic, jingoistic shortcutting.

Oh, and look! Lee Goldberg has indeed chimed in, since fan fic is something near and dear to his heart (or at least a thorn in his paw). Although, categorizing the participating fan writers as irked at Mr. Scalzi's assertion that fan fic is illegal seems to be taking a bit of creative dramatic license with what was actually being said. I'd categorize the discussion as being a rather reasonable disagreement with Mr. Scalzi's position as opposed to being irritated.

I tend to side with Mr. Scalzi in this regard, that it is most definitely copyright infringement, but mostly harmless, although it would be an interesting mock-court hearing to apply the same level of infringement to media properties (outside of trademark) as to literary one. I do think Fan fic mostly closely provides competition with literary properaties than film or television, the mediums being similar, but since Mr. Goldberg writes tie-in novels in addition to his original works, I could see where he might disagree.

Vehemently.

Update: and the legality debate rages on...I'm thinking about making popcorn.

Paul William Tenny from bitch-what.blogspot.com weighs in here and here

Mirror, Mirror

2005-08-24T07:56:00.000-05:00

I've been watching with some interest the parallel universe of pro writers and their discussion boards and amateur writers and their discussion boards.

They are amazingly alike. Granted, pro-writers rant and warn against POD and Vanity presses and amateur writers have no real comparison unless it's an archive or LJ comm that people are warned to stay away from (Fanfiction.net springs to mind), but in terms of writing discussions...it extends to the comms themselves and not just individual writers.

Really, very little difference even to the levels of disparagement one group holds against the other. (Well, not exactly true since pro-writers seem to, at least on the boards I'm reading, hate amateur writers, particularly fan writers, with a level of linguistic verisimilitude and blood pressure raising hyperbole that I haven't seen outside of a floor debate in the House of Representatives.) But then, I, being the masochist and curiosity-killed-the-cat personality that I am, actively seek out the best vitriol.

But over all, they all worry about the same things: they worry about getting through their particular rough patch, they worry about audience reception, they are inordinately proud when people they admire (or even people they don't) say nice things about their work. They get their feelings hurt over bad reviews (no matter how philosophically they try to present themselves.) They have comparative reactions/weakness regarding genre competition and envy of people who are more popular/prolific than themselves.

I probably need to add more pro-writer comms to my listing so I can actively track this stuff.

Seriously, train wrecks! Now, with popcorn!

A Plague of Angels

2005-08-17T06:27:00.000-05:00

~~A Plague of Angels: Speak No Evil is out this month in the ezine Jack.~~

I'm very, very happy with the cover art. I also highly recommend Masks by Parhelion. It's a lovely twist on the superhero model. Very cool. I'm stil reading through the rest.

Updated 8/2006 the webzine is offline. The new home for A Plague of Angels is here.

Resurrection of the Dead Horse and My Little Pony

2005-08-15T18:08:00.000-05:00

Maybe that should be "Return of the Dead Horse" or "Revenge of the Dead Horse", because yes, through a series of not-at-all-connected posts by Mr. Goldberg, the minions of -- well, I'm not entirely sure who the minions belong to -- but the minions are at it again.

It's like watching a train wreck. No, actually, it's kind of like waiting for a train wreck. Statistically, you know it will happen -- that there isn't going to be any post that involves fan fiction that isn't going to devolve fairly rapidly from discussion to detente, from mildly interesting to a meta discussion brick wall.

But oh, the tidbits found along the way and this one just made my jaw drop and then I started laughing.

you have to read the whole thing though but in short, in a "discussion" about characterization and the mechanics or writing on Aug. 13th, one regular poster stated:

"How To Write Good" books are held in low esteem--to the point of outright ridicule--by many excellent, published, well-read writers. It may benefit the aspiring writer to consider, every once in a while, how much money is being made off her aspiration, and not her writing."

Which you know, is a comment worthy of investing at least some attention to, except that well, today, Mr. Goldberg announces the release of WGA's "Writing for Episodic TV -- From Freelancer to Showrunner" in PDF form and puts in a plug for his own 2003 release of "Successful Television Writing"

I'm sorry. I just think that's funny.

And I admit it, This time I succumbed to commenting, which was probably a mistake, although Mr. Wheeler was far more gracious than some of the other posters. Maybe he picked up some of that rough charm from all those westerns he writes.

Despite a few female posters who could count as regulars (who, you know, aren't setting themselves up to be derided and belittled) it's very much a good old boy's club. And here I always thought such progressive places as California (L.A.) and New York (N.Y.C.) had substantially fewer rednecks, frat boys, and provincial chauvinists than the deep south. Apparently not. I'll take the home grown ones though if I have to suffer them. At least they're more likely to win a bar fight and still be able to go to work the next morning. Just as long as I keep the beer cold.

Although, granted, the vocabulary is more varied on this particular board.

In the my Little Pony division, though, the Smart Bitches continue to delight and entertain me. A review of the Scott & Scott book "Hot Sauce" was up today, rating a B+, and it was fun to watch Sarah discover the fun and sexiness that is homoerotic romance. I've read "Spare Parts" by the same authors and while I found it t o be a little on the shallow side, it still was a quick, fun read, with some mildly provocative guy on guy action. Not quite the fully realized characters that Mel Keegan offers, with the extra complex plots, but fun nonetheless and the line is supposed to be within the "Romance" umbrella. Mel could certainly use their editor though. I adore Keegan's books, but really and truly, she/he needs an editor. They aren't horrific, but another set of eyes would benefit the overall continuity in most cases.

A roaming I will go.

2005-08-05T18:35:00.000-05:00

I should drop Lee Goldberg a thank you note; not so much for the conversations that kept me so entertained and opinionated last week but because I've tripped over some truly, delightful people via his blog. I'm not sure they'd find me as delightful but I'm having a grand time.

It started with a few posts about the RWA (Romance Writers of America) who apparently have had a few kerfluffles lately. One over trying to define what "Romance" means in terms of the publishing/writing industry (and who should be allowed to play and by what rules) and then, over the past weekend, there was yet another gaff -- this time involving their annual Convention/Awards ceremony which apparently took a hard-right turn.

While both of those are interesting in and of their own right, mostly what I've discovered is an intricate network of writers, mostly women, blogging and opinionating and kvetching and playing together in a way that's oddly familiar...

Eh hem.

I have found some gems of commentators though. Up front and center is Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Novels. The site commentators and their fans and colleagues are funny, brazen, alternately girly and hard hitting as only women who understand the rules of the publishing industry can be. They offer reviews, comments, gossip, contests and just general chit chat about a genre they love and what it is.

Then there's Paperback Reader, another review site which has a little controversy of it's own going, but the reviews are fun and well written.

I haven't been a hard-core romance consumer in years. My mother was very much a fan of the Harlequin, and Harlequin special lines books for years along with a few other well known writers in the field. (I can honestly say, I'm probably one of the few women in the U.S.A. of my age who has never read Nora Roberts.) I was always a bigger fan of historical romances and later, a fan of the spicier ones that I think often made my mother uncomfortable. (But she read them anyway and skipped the spicy parts.)

I'm still not a huge fan of the core of the romance industry, be it the modern woman romances or the cliched bodice rippers I so enjoyed in my twenties. I was always one who read across a lot of genre fiction: westerns, romance, sci-fi, fantasy. (I was never much of a mystery fan.) But I still go back and reread Georgette Heyer on occasion or will pick up something light to read while in an airport. Something I don't' mind leaving on the seat of shuttle or bus when I'm done.

At any rate, it's been fun to revisit that old favorite genre and I may delve back in. Although as one of the side lines of the RWA kerfluffle, I tripped over a new line of Gay Romances.

I've read an excerpt. Ordered one to test it out. They are written by men, under Romentics imprint, and are more romance, perfect partner, soulmate than hard core. They focus on relationships.

Uh huh. You read me right. Homoerotic Relationship Fic.

Yup. Sounds a little like slash fic. Mainstream. No matter who their target audience was menat to be, I'd lay money on who it will be.

I am laughing so hard I can't see straight. (No pun intended.)

More on Free Books

2005-08-02T13:06:00.000-05:00

Charlie Stross (who will be at Worldcon for any one going) piped up a few days ago about the publishing industries tentative foray into providing copies of entire novels for free -- midlist usually, but he's got some good information here:

Q: Do you think it hurts the Biggest-name authors more than it hurts midlist writers?

A: I don't think it hurts at all.

Here in the non-internet world, we have a technical term for people who, without the permission of the authors, take copies of their books and give them away for free to lots of readers: we call them "librarians". Complaining about readers "hurting sales" by reading free ebook copies "instead of" buying the paper edition is a bit like complaining that library withdrawals hurt sales. It assumes a false either/or dichotomy. In the first instance, some library users are too poor to buy the book in the first place -- hence, they are not a lost sale: they were never a potential sale in the first place. Secondly, many library users go on to buy copies of books they first read via the library. The library is a great browsing opportunity, and only drives sales in the long term.

I think that sector of the publishing industry that angsts loudly about "ebook pirates" is missing the point by the mile -- the readers are not your enemy, and once you start viewing your ebook rights as a marketing opportunity to boost your paper sales, rather than as an unfeasible and unusable profit centre, things fall into place and the pain is replaced by gain.

Edit Note: Emphasis mine

Copyright, Copyfight, copy this...

2005-08-01T19:49:00.000-05:00

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

(via Making Light and PNH's sidelights)

There's a lot of intra linking in the article itself but the core of it espouses a view I believe; that the underlying principles of copyright and intellectual property are to foster creative thinking, creative expression and innovation, not restrain it.

This articles touches on some of the more egregious IP restrictions; such as making poorer countries (and people) have to pay outrageous sums for innovation in medicines and technology. It's like the genetically superior seed strains that corporate farm supplies are trying to get patented and trademarked so that farmers have to buy new seed every year rather than being able to reseed from their own crops.

It's one of the reasons the Electronic Frontier Foundation was created: (from their "about page)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was created to defend our rights to think, speak, and share our ideas, thoughts, and needs using new technologies, such as the Internet and the World Wide Web. EFF is the first to identify threats to our basic rights online and to advocate on behalf of free expression in the digital age.

I still think it comes back to the pervasive attitude of scarcity; that there aren't enough resources or ideas or opportunities for everyone so the urge to hoard them -- even when doing so isn't in your own best interest in the long term -- is rampant. But that only explains individual behaviors. For the corporate behavior, it's all about greed and it's a rare company that can show me they're doing it primarily to increase the profits of their shareholders as individuals.

I'm rapidly becoming a fan of the CreativeCommons school of reserving some but not all rights to work, which has a wide array of mix and match rights that can be assigned: say Attribution and non-commercial: So you could allow someone to write or produce derivative works off your own as long as they a) credit you and b) don't try to profit from the work.

Just imagine what could be accomplished if a little more common sense was introduced into the mix.

A PSA for Blog Depression.

2005-07-30T08:47:00.000-05:00

Favorite: "It need not ruin lives or waste perfectly good URL's".

Now that's funny.

Riding My Dead Horse into the Sunset

2005-07-30T06:50:00.000-05:00

On this issue, anyway. I've only contributed to the discussion on Lee Goldberg's blog one time, with one comment, tossed some links to one of the participants who seemed genuinely curious about why women write slash, but otherwise, pretty much all I've done is increase Lee Goldberg's page views.

Wow. I spent a lot of words yesterday trying to articulate some pretty basic disagreements.

I think it's immoral to invoke a need/desire/curiosity that can't be fulfilled and then to institute restraints on individuals who seek other ways to satisfy that desire.

That's almost too meta for me.

On the other hand, I was reminded last night of another fact: Life is short. Whether you believe in the after life or not, you have only finite time to accomplish whatever it is that you want to accomplish. Most writers I know, amateur and professional, will never have enough time in their lives to say everything they want to say. Write everything they want to write.

At the end of my life, and given my situation and medical history, the end of my life is probably closer, at this point, than further away, I'm sure I'll have a lot to answer for. Somehow in the grand scheme of the universe, I don't think the fact that I spent dome degree of time playing with someone else's characters is actually going to be a sticking point.

But just in case anyone's worried, if you are a novelist and still publishing and you don't want me writing stories in your universe, no worries. And for most of the writers haunting Goldberg's blog, it's really never been an issue at all.

As for why this has fascinated me so, the connection was a little unclear at first. I'm not sure I'd meet the Goldberg Criteria of what makes a Real Writer on all counts but a large part of my day job is writing. I write scripts, I develop personas for voice talents to use in recording, all in the service of automated voice systems. I suppose I'm more copy writer than writer, but the work is not entirely non-creative. I am, in a very real sense, a writer for hire.

Maybe there's a market for a collection of "Personas I have loved."

However, as interesting as it can be, as much of a niche as it fills in a variety of industries, and as well-paid as I am for it, it still doesn't scratch the itch than non-fiction writing does. It's what I do for a living and have done for the past decade or more. And sometimes it sucks, but it's steady paycheck, and I like my company, my coworkers...but it may explain why, when Goldberg and his ilk express disbelief at why anyone would not want to strive toward being a Real Published Writer, I have to look at them and say,"because it's not for everyone," and the fact that they don't get that just reminds me that in many cases, the more you move toward celebrity, in however small a circle, the further you move away from the reality that most people in the world face. I mean the novels that Pro Writers produce are very much what the rest of us use to escape from the rest of our lives of work and family and responsibility. Books, movies, television -- it's all leisure, entertainment. They are, in a very real sense , the drug of choice for most people.

I'm utterly thrilled that Mr. Goldberg and his writing buddies are making a living doing what they love. I really am. That I benefit from their love of telling a good story is also cool. Published authors have my admiration and thanks for what they contribute to society and to my own personal enjoyment...

That I write original fiction seems to be beside the point. According to them I should write that and only that. And then I should try and get it published, assuming I'm any good at it. And then I should write more, and get that published, and then I should...

I seem to be missing the point. I have a drive to write in a variety of genres including fan fiction. I write short stories, I write erotic horror, I write high fantasy, urban fantasy, I write non-fiction...I write action/adventure...

I do not have the same drive to be published. To have my stories read, yes, but I don't need an agent and a contract with a publishing house to do that. Some day I might, likely in addition to whatever job I'm doing.

In the meantime, I'm going to do what makes me happy, in what few years I have left.

In six months or a year of ten or twenty, this little difference of opinion won't be anymore than a cultural artifact.

Actually, I think Anne McCaffrey wrote a short story about that.

Dead Horses Make Great Burgers

2005-07-29T15:09:00.000-05:00

Still fascinated -- overly so. Although I do think I now know why. More on that later. Maybe.

There's seems to be several different conversations going on under the entire fan writer versus Real Writer conflict

One conversation is about what actually makes a writer, a writer. (see previous post).

Another conversation is about whether or not original writers (in this case the Real Novelist) have absolute creative and economic control over their work. Actually, wait; that's two conversations that are related.

Do authors (Real Writers, Novelists) have absolute economic control over their work?

In truth, I think it would be a very small and fringe group that would say no. Barring and/or including (depending on how you look at it) those writers who assign certain rights to their works for other media forms (say, films or television) who then, often (see Ursula K. Le Guin's comments on the Sci Fi Channel adaptation of her books) lose a degree of control, I'd still say yes. Economic control, the ability to profit from their work, is not something I disagree with. I'm also supportive of a legal smackdown to anyone who tries to deprive them of that profit (although I do not think copyright should be extended indefinitely.) And depriving them of profit includes harmful competition. Possibly difficult to prove but I include it in the mix even though I think it could be argued that this is far more a problem for Novelists and publishers than for other media distributors.

Do authors (Real Writers, Novelists) have absolute creative control over their work?

To the extent that those works are produced and published, are available to the creator for sequels or corollaries or codas or franchising, and making money off them, yes. In that their work is inviolate and unavailable for other people to produce derivative or emulating works at no profit, then no. I don't think so. I know writers who wish it were so, who are absolutely adamant that no one has the right or should have even the opportunity to meddle in their work, outside of the actual published work itself and under contract restriction I don't agree with that position.

It's not that I don't understand the concept of ownership, or that I'm underestimating the level of emotional connection most writers feel for their characters and universe, I do. I very much do. But if the point is to develop those characters, design those universes, and then share them on a commercial basis, there is only so much non-commercial control you can reasonably expect to maintain. It isn't even really an issue of fan writers alone -- since there's not a published writer alive, I wouldn't think, that hasn't felt the sting of either a reviewer who missed the point or dissed the style. Or a colleague who inadvertently let them know what they really thought of the last effort. Or a Jane-Doe-book-buying, coffee-shop-haunting, consumer who hasn't either said something about the work or interpreted or rewritten on the fly the ending to something while waiting to pick up their latte.

The distinction then, is one of dissemination and awareness. Fan fiction is not a new phenomenon; not the writing of it and not the dissemination of it. Granted, prior to the internet, the method of dissemination was a good deal slower and clunkier (and some older fans would argue the quality was far superior to what you find now). It was done by mail, by hand, through conventions both fannish and media driven. Sold under the tables in dealer's room and out of hotel rooms in the case of slash and other "adult" oriented works, and on the table in dealer's rooms for a good many other types of fan produced stories and artworks more suitable for general audiences -- and it's still distributed that way. (One could possibly make a case against for the above mentioned economic reasons, although again you either have to show direct competition or deprivation of income.)

I've seen that a lot lately, in discussion between Pro writers on fan fiction; "It's okay, if they write it, and share it with friends, but they shouldn't publish it on the internet." Which is a pretty slippery slope…since now we're back to the idea that some writers don't mind if it's written, they just don't want people to share it, or not in mass quantities. So, they've acknowledged that people will do it, that they have no way to stop individuals from writing their tales and may even understand the urge. The Pro writers are, not without some cause, anxious over possible legal entanglements over fan produced works -- but the actual number of incidences where Fan writers and Pro Writers actually clash are pretty small given the sheer number of fans involved in such endeavors.

And it's not like pro writers don't understand the urge to occasionally open their universes to other writers: most popular sci fi/fantasy authors have at least one volume, if not more, of short works written by other authors, friends or colleagues whose work they respect. Perhaps it's more mercenary than that, but I can entirely understand why Mercedes Lackey would want to write with Anne McCaffrey or in her universes -- the same is true of people who want to write in Lackey's universes. So the urge to write in other people's sandboxes isn't confined to fans alone.

Most fan work is unauthorized -- no argument. But when fans put on their stories "no copyright infringement intended," I believe the vast majority of them believe that. They are not trying to compete with the original author for economic shares, and are more likely (as has been pointed out frequently) contributing to that same author's returns and hype in what is likely greater volume and frequency than fans (or readers, since being a reader alone does not necessarily a fan make) who are not involved in such endeavors.

This all sounds like I'm saying that since Pro authors are unlikely to be able to completely stop fans from writing derivative works and sharing them, that's the reason they should stop trying. But that's not what I'm saying: that is however, a position that most writers do understand -- in that undermining their own economic benefit by alienating a portion of their fan base is probably not a good idea.

What I am saying is that absolute control over one's publicly disseminated textual work is a myth and it's wrong from a creative position if not a moral one to try.

Creatively wrong because the very act of sharing text changes it. Not in substance but in form. Messages the author meant to get across might be lost, characters meant to be the point and focus might be ignored by readers in favor of less prominent but more interesting sidekicks and I'm not even talking about fan writers. Fans are perfectly capable of dissecting and reassembling and entire body of work without ever writing an additional fictional word. They do it in discussion forums, they do it academic debates, they do it constantly, be it the latest hot book or the hottest new movie (go spend ten minutes on Television Without Pity or Rotten Tomatoes and see what I mean.) There is not a damn thing an author can do about that, any more than they can stop a reviewer from giving them a lukewarm reception.

Morally* I think it's wrong because in our very media and advertisement driven society (at least in the US) there is something fundamentally wrong, I think, with the way media conglomerates and advertising agencies continually assault the public in ways to make them desire products and services, including entertainment services. They've opened the door by whipping the public into a frenzy of desire for more and yet more, without actually having the means by which to satisfy that desire, except by the use of trickery. Authors do the same thing, when they are good, (not the trickery, the whipping into a frenzy) when they create such an incredible mix of characters and situations and environments that readers are drawn to, invested in, and hungry for more. A single author cannot satisfy that hunger, and yet they evoked it and their publishing companies and the advertising agencies keep it growing until the last dime and squeal has been squeezed from the consumer. Rowling has certainly gotten a look at that in a major way: with great hype comes greater demands.
The demand for more spreads among fans, and even more hype is created. Take a look at how many DVD versions of any given film are released, and how many consumers will buy more than one if not all. People who faithfully bought the "Deluxe" editions of the three segments of LotR, are waiting for the super deluxe boxed set with coffee maker that will give them all three films, plus goodies…and they'll buy it. Even if they already own all three movies. The Highlander franchise has been more or less successfully recombining sets and version of the movies and TV series for years in the hopes of selling more. And the fans, while they may grumble, will continue to pay for what they want (I'm not holding them completely blameless in the scope of the problem.)

I've stated before, I don't write lit-fic. Most of my interest, thus far has been television and film -- and most of the shows I prefer to explore are long dead and off the air. Many of them are not in DVD release. There is no consumer product to satisfy that interest, but I dutifully write distributors and studios asking them to please, please release this TV show or that TV show, where can I find this movie -- is there going to be another movie with those actors that I like so much.

A single fan has very little influence. A hundred fans have no more. A thousand might get a little attention, and get enough fans together to pitch in for a full page advertisement in Variety and a few eyebrows might get lifted.

There's far more nuances to this than I've covered, more metaphors that would be accurate but would no doubt further enrage the pro authors and studio execs who stand so firmly against fan created work.

Unlike the RIAA mess (which I think is a matter of the Music industry cutting their own throats) fan writers are not in the business of making copies of books and distributing them for free. Fan writing is not in the vast majority of cases, plagiarism, no matter what else it might be. Downloading and sharing music is different in that the music is unaltered, digitally correct and infinitely transferable. But it's also great advertising, and seriously, if the 14-35 year old guy geeks (who are the biggest segment of the illegal music file sharing imbroglio) had gotten their collective shit together and quite being such morons, a one month boycott on the purchase of any music or DVD's from that part of the consumer segment would have done a hell of lot more good in getting the music industry to see this as more of an opportunity than a threat than the umpty-eleven lawsuits that went on about it. Do not get me started on the short-sightedness of the Music/Television/Film industry and their marketing strategies.

I started this by trying to point out the multiple conversations that are really occurring within the scope of Pro versus Fan writing and got sidetracked. I may come back to it, but at this point all I see is the continual shades of gray, and sliding scales of when reasonable expectation and unreasonable restrictions collide.

Most but not all of the ire over on Goldberg's blog is aimed at the extreme fringe of the fan community, people who, regardless if anyone among those who share Goldberg's view believe it, don't actually have a lot of support or experience a great deal of toleration from the large fan community. Not that it matters. Lee Goldberg has a big brush and he's not afraid to use it.

But fan communities are not the European union -- or maybe they are. What happens in lit fic circles among people who write in works that have not succumbed to the realm of public domain, I couldn't tell you. I don't necessarily think that the protesting Pro writers are entirely wrong in their views although I would opine that their energies are being directed into a less than productive venue. (i.e., That those authors who have publicly stated their opposition to fan fiction have a bigger dog in this fight. Although, it's a calculated risk, especially if your fan base really is on the young and easily offended side. Most of the authors who have put the kabosh on fan fic are not people I read, though my friends do. But then agian -- points at self not a writer of lit-fic.)

But I'll also point out that in this case, as in so many others, just because you may be right, doesn't make everyone who disagrees with you wrong. And that if money is the only thing fueling your opinion, it isn't an automatic guarantee of credibility.

*Lest anyone think I'm glossing over the legal issue of creative control, I'm not; but what is moral is not always equivalent to what is legal: an out of the topic box but still useful example is the current conflict over prescription birth control. I think it is morally indefensible for a licensed pharamcist to refuse to dispense birth control becasue of religious convictions. However, in more and more states, it has become legally defensible for them to act thusly. Are the religious moral and ethical concerns of the pharmacists in conflict with my religious moral and ethical concerns? You bet they are. In this case the ethical and moral considerations of one person are being given greater weight than the ethicla and moral consdierations of the people that pharmacists was trained and hired to serve. And it's all, in some areas, perfectly legal.

Dead Horses Can Make Money

2005-07-29T08:14:00.000-05:00

It really is all about the money

1.) Real Writers use only original characters and situations/universes in their fiction, except when they don't (see #3)

2.) Real Writers get paid to write.

3.) If writers use other people's characters and situations/universes in their fiction, and they get paid to do it, they get Real Writer status.

4.) Fan writers who write stories on media properties without permission are thieves, of questionable intelligence and creativity, disrespectful, obnoxious, immature, creepy, bad writers, and possibly pedophiles.

5.) Fan writers who write stories on media properties with permission are of questionable intelligence and creativity, disrespectful, obnoxious, immature, creepy, bad writers, and possibly pedophiles.

6.) People who use pseudonyms are dishonest and possibly trolls, unless they are Real Writers, in which case their justifications are acceptable.

"She knows she's using characters that aren't her own, that she's disrespecting the authors right to control their own creations, but none of that really matters... Because she's "a writer," so she had no other choice but to write the story and post it in the net. She had to do it. It was an undeniable compulsion."

Maljean's comments summarized by Lee Goldberg,

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Another Day in Fan Fic

"Given a choice, I would only write novels and TV shows of my own creation. But I have to make a living and I take the work that comes my way...and that includes writing-for-hire, whether it's on someone else's TV show or original tie-in novels based on characters I didn't create. Ultimately, however, what motivates me as a writer is to express myself...not the work of someone else."
Lee Goldberg, Thursday, June 16, 2005 The Difference Between Tie-Ins and Fan fic
(emphasis in both quotes is mine ~ aaj)

Choices, choices. Those pesky choices.

Horse Still Dead, Film at Eleven

2005-07-28T21:47:00.000-05:00

I have no idea why I find this so fascinating, but I do.

So, Mr. Goldberg has rewritten and reposted his ~~erroneous~~ previous entry, but the tune is the same, including the vitriol aimed at another author who doesn't agree with him.

Which you know, disagreeing is fine. He's entitled to disagree, and believing as strongly as he does, one could argue that it's his responsibility to disagree and continue in his attempts to dissuade people who are an affront (in his opinion) to his profession from, well, affronting him.

His primary beef, as far as I can tell, is not with fan writers who have permission to write in a given universe, even under restriction (say, Anne McCaffery or the creators of Battlestar Galactica 2003) but with those who don't -- or barring an outright statement of denial from the writer or studio, haven't been given permission. Fair enough as an ideological/ethical stance. (Not that I agree, only that the position has some ethical merit.)

But there's an interesting incongruence of attitudes here. One of Mr. Goldberg's objections is that, in the appearance of violating the creative rights (which isn't the same as copyrights, else parodies and satires would also be in violation of copyright) of authors, the fan writers show disdain and disrespect for the very source of their inspiration. And yet he seems to show nothing but disrespect for the fans themselves: the ones who may not only write fan fic, but also buy the tie in novels he himself writes, or the ancillary marketing for fannish items from mousepads to T-shirts to multiple copies of books and DVD releases. It is entirely possible, that his level of respect rises somewhat for fans who agree with him (and perhaps he has a greater degree of respect for fans who don't write fan fic, or who, if they do, keep it safely in their desk drawers). He certainly seems to display a greater portion of respect to other professional writers who agree with him.

Then again, he seems to have a fairly narrow range of opinion on what actually constitutes being a writer, in that real writers (as opposed to calling them professional writers) a) create their own original characters (Which he does for some novels, but doesn't for others, i.e. tie-ins) and b) that they get paid for their work.

All of which brings me to very few conclusions at all, save that I don't think respect means what Mr. Goldberg thinks it does. Merely agreeing with someone is not respect, nor does it work only one way.

So, I can respect his opinion, as it has merit, but I fear my respect for Mr. Goldberg is on somewhat thin ice.

Not that I think my opinion matters one whit to him, since I disagree with him.

No Such Things as Dead Horses

2005-07-28T12:18:00.000-05:00

For about a half a millisecond today, Lee Goldberg had another rant on fan fic a-brewing, connected to this article at The Watley Review.

Now The Watley Review is a parody-satire site for literary news in much the same way The Onion is for headlines. But for a second at least, Mr. Goldberg took it seriously enough to invoke Naomi Novik (a soon-to-be published writer who stands pretty much on the opposite side of the fan fic debate from Goldberg,) and "her ilk" as approving such a thing.

Of course the page is gone now and you have only my word for it (and any other random fly bys who might have spotted it) that it ever existed, since it never occurred to me to save a copy. (A contributor to Fandom Wank I'm not.)

I can only guess that someone pointed out to him that the site is satire and hence the quick retraction and truly, I'm not planning on busting his balls about it since The Watley Review article actually is an amazingly good presentation of the kind of legal problems, as well as the artistic/creative conflicts, that might exist between pro writers and fan writers that pro writers do worry about whenever there's unauthorized use of their characters and situations.

One of the things I would have pointed out to him, however, is that even were the story true, that kind of behavior, while possible, isn't anything encouraged or approved of by the vast majority of fans who write in other people's universes. The point of fan fiction for most is not to replace the legitimate publication of favorite authors's stories (or the production of additional movie franchises or TV series episodes). The whole fan fiction phenomena is one that provides several things: enhancement of the experience of fans, broadening communities that share interest in the same source, explorations into characters and situations that in truth will likely never be explored as long as the source is regarded as singularly commercial.

He and I may disagree on the legality of fan fiction (which I define as a fan authored, non-commercial work) and whether or not, by that definition, it is illegal. (Which I don't think it is, but until it's argued in court -- in the US courts anyway -- there is no precedent by which to rule that fan fiction either in general or in specific cases occupies any standing within copyright law as either in or out of the fair-use clause,) but I do not disagree that fans (or merely opportunistic hucksters) have no right whatsoever to make profit off another writer's characters and creations without an agreement with the author themselves.

And the example used by The Watley Review is a good one because in that case you have a (fictitious) fan who has written something so compelling it's being downloaded by thousands -- which puts it in direct competition commercially with the original author -- at least on the surface. That would put it outside the fair-use clause, if real economic harm could be shown. Although, take a harder look at that and think about it again.

In this hypothetical case, the fan has written something in reaction to an already published work. Now in the case of Harry Potter, the sales records for that first day release pretty much outstripped anything of recent record. HP is wildly popular, has made JKR a household name and a very wealthy woman, as well it should. So, showing true economic harm might be problematical, especially if the argument is that the fans downloading the alternate version have already obtained (purchased) the original. So, economic competition is a little iffy -- It's not as if the downloading frenzy would be offset by the same people buying another copy of the original in hopes a of a different outcome.

Now, artistically -- creative assault might be more accurate a description of what could occur, since the whole point of the hypothetical rewrite was dissatisfaction with the original. Except that it's not entirely clear that copyright actually covers that as a legal defense -- copyright is, as far as my understanding, the legal method of securing a creators economic rights to their work, and while you could most certainly engage half the planet in an ethical dispute of creative control versus creative freedom at non-profit level, I'm not sure the legal argument would be any less lively.

Regardless, The Watley Review article is fictitious; a what if, a poke at both fan writers and professionals (with a little more heavily laid on bitch slap to fan writers, IMO.) It lays out both the ethical and legal points in a way that is plausible.

Although again, the ethics of that situation run up again the ethics of another: most fans recognize and respect original creators (no matter what you think of the way they express that respect) and would be appalled and very likely unsympathetic if not condemning if Little Miss Fictitious Fan (LMFF) tried to profit from her rework. But in this case "profit" is a nebulous gauge. It may well be that such thing would deny JKR her rightful profits to her work, without actually putting a penny in LMFF's pocket. In which case you might could argue economic harm -- which is legally actionable as far as I know. And part of what makes this plausible is the sheer magnitude of the HP phenom in terms of interest.

I'm not necessarily a fan of lit-fic. I am a media fan, primarily, and the works I read (and occasionally write) draw heavily from movies and television rather than anything on the current sci fi/fantasy shelf at my local bookstore. I may read Master and Commander fan fic, but I'd never read nor was likely to read any of the novels, although in truth, now, I'm more likely to at least try a Patrick O'Brian book because of the fan fiction based on the movie. I own two copies of the movie, the soundtrack, and a coffee table book about the making of the film. However, it was not until a friend of mine actually pointed out some M&C fan fiction that I even gave the film a second thought. It wasn't something I was likely to go see on my own -- but I was intrigued: not by the advertising, not by the endless "making of" run on cable, but by a piece of fan fiction -- gen fan fiction at that.

Color me intrigued. So, in this particular case, fan fiction actually increased if not established the appeal of the work for me, prompting me to spend money I wouldn't have otherwise. I think anyone would be hard pressed to prove that in this case, any economic harm was inflicted upon either the heirs to the O'Brian Estate, or to the producers of the film.

All of this is more or less my own take on the fan fic issue which is far more nuanced and layered than its hard core opponents would like it to be. And that in all likelihood, true conflicts of interests such as presented in the article should be taken on a case by case basis.

Smart and Sexy

2005-07-27T07:49:00.000-05:00

"By it's root, pornography is simply: porne, “prostitute,” and graphein “to write.” Pornography means, by literal definition, explicit description or exhibition of sexuality in literature, art, film or other media. It means material that induces desire in it's audience, intentionally or unintentionally. Explicit merely means expressly shown or stated, not nearly implied. Intelligent means having intelligence, cleverness or cerebral activity. There is nothing, neither in the definition of pornography nor of intelligence, to even hint that one excludes the other."

From: Intelligent Pornography --Heather Corinna
Femme Erotic: Wench
http://www.femmerotic.com/

I'm keeping this quote on the sidebar, because it pretty much sums up what this blog is about.

I'm a woman. I write erotic stories. I write homoerotic stories. I'm a feminist among other things I am and do. I'm a Christian. I work for a multinational telecommunications company and have for 13 years. I own my own home. I am, aside from my mortgage, debt free. I have a college education.

None of these things say anything about who I am or what I'm about. Don't confuse the blog goals with my goals.

Copyright Cold Comfort

2005-04-15T09:28:00.000-05:00

(Edit note: moved from Common Veil )

Over on Electrolite a few weeks back, there was a lively discussion about the intended purpose of copyright laws, and how that intention is being subverted by rampant greed. From being a way to protect a creator's ability to benefit economically from their work and simultaneously encourage additional creation and innovation, copyright has become the new battleground over which corporations (not individuals) try to hoarde all the marbles.

It can’t be said often enough. Copyright isn’t a “right” in the sense of the
“rights of Man.” Copyright is a bargain. The object is to foster a society in
which innovation is encouraged and rewarded. It isn’t to create a source of
perpetual rents for an owner class.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

March 30, 2005

What I'm seeing is a precedent set by coporations to hoarde and control which is flowing over into individual creators to do the same thing, lest they or their creations get gobbled up. I think it's indicative of the sense of resource scarcity people are reacting to in the current political climate both in the US and abroad. There's not enough for everybody, so I have to get mine first.

Of course, the economic pundits keep talking about how we're in a period of unprecedent prosperity.

Uh, huh. Maybe we are, but you can't tell it by the way either people or corporations are acting.

relevant articles that prompted the debate:
Not an IPod the Washington post editorial that prompted Matthew Yglesias to wax, well, if not poetical, then at least pragmatically.