Is Fanfiction really that bad?

[Happy Ent]

If the author is dead... fine and well. If the author isn't... why pretend they are?

Because modern literary theory is divorced from the scientific method. Like most postmodern schools, it requires absence of verifiable truth. Since living authors challenge this requirement (you can just ask what he or she meant), it makes sense to dogmatically declare that they are dead. Otherwise too much truth would leak into the intellectual framework.

Depending on your priors, you can view this as intellectually dishonest, or as a foundation for interesting discourse.

The only problem I have with this perspective is if it is elevated to universal truth, to an axiom to which all discussion of literature needs to bow. Then, what started as a (valid) intellectual exercise with a small but nonvanishing potential of insight becomes an instrument of control rather than enlightenment.

[The Marquis de Leech]

But if Terry Goodkind makes his utterly daft comments about human themes, what is the real source of interpretation - the author's view (which has no apparent basis in the text) or the text itself? You have to divorce authorial intent from the actual work, for the same reason that contractual interpretation is based on the objective meaning of the contract, not on the subjective intentions of the parties.

[Mark Lawrence]

Because if we go by authorial intent, a novel (which is a machine for generating interpretations) is a terrible way to do it. Better to just have a series of interviews, rather than an actual story.

If the purpose of the novel were to get across the author's intent then this would be a valid point.

However the primary purpose of the novel is generally to entertain (intellectually, viscerally, whatever). If, despite this self-evident truth a critic seeks to look past this and conjecture about the author's intent then it seems silly to pretend that whatever the author has to say about their intent is irrelevant.

It's a strawman to bring up one example (it's always the same one) and say that just because many people find it hard to reconcile what that author says about their intent with what they wrote we should ignore what all authors say. I don't think anyone is claiming the author's opinion on their own intent is infallible - but I find it hard to believe that anyone truly thinks that it is not, in general, the best and most accurate opinion.

[Mark Lawrence]

Because modern literary theory is divorced from the scientific method. Like most postmodern schools, it requires absence of verifiable truth. Since living authors challenge this requirement (you can just ask what he or she meant), it makes sense to dogmatically declare that they are dead. Otherwise too much truth would leak into the intellectual framework.

Depending on your priors, you can view this as intellectually dishonest, or as a foundation for interesting discourse.

The only problem I have with this perspective is if it is elevated to universal truth, to an axiom to which all discussion of literature needs to bow. Then, what started as a (valid) intellectual exercise with a small but nonvanishing potential of insight becomes an instrument of control rather than enlightenment.

Well said. I view it as both intellectually dishonest and as a foundation for interesting discourse.

[The Marquis de Leech]

However the primary purpose of the novel is generally to entertain (intellectually, viscerally, whatever). If, despite this self-evident truth a critic seeks to look past this and conjecture about the author's intent then it seems silly to pretend that whatever the author has to say about their intent is irrelevant.

Insofar as authorial intent conflicts with the text, it is irrelevant (or more accurately, must play second fiddle to what is actually there on the page). GRRM can't come out and say that Gregor Clegane is a lovely chap (well, he can, but no-one would take him seriously because it doesn't fit the text).

It's a strawman to bring up one example (it's always the same one) and say that just because many people find it hard to reconcile what that author says about their intent with what they wrote we should ignore what all authors say. I don't think anyone is claiming the author's opinion on their own intent is infallible - but I find it hard to believe that anyone truly thinks that it is not, in general, the best and most accurate opinion.

I think you're straw manning a bit here. It's not a case of completely discarding the author's views, but rather that texts are inherently full of ambiguities, and the author's view of meaning is just one of many possibilities (it's then the reader's role to find their own interpretation without being told they're wrong by a non-textual source). To take a non-Goodkind example, there's J.K. Rowling and her assertion that Dumbledore is homosexual. This is problematic, because Dumbledore in the first six books is completely non-sexual, and in the seventh, his relationship with Grindelwald can be read in purely platonic terms - a reader who interprets the text in this way shouldn't feel they don't understand what they're reading just because they didn't follow an authorial interview. Dumbledore might be homosexual, but once the book is in the hands of the reader, it is for the reader, not the author, to make that decision.

[mormont]

Sure. But while borrowing is a necessary inclusion in any definition of fanfic,

Then why did you previously state that Gaiman's One Life is fanfic?

Er... because it borrows from Moorcock? I'm puzzled by the objection. The story features, albeit at second hand, Moorcock characters.

In any case, single examples might be debatable and to be fair, One Life probably is arguable one way or the other. It doesn't really matter. My point was that borrowing is necessary but not sufficient. Your argument is that it is sufficient, except when it's not (the issue of permission).

it's not sufficient to produce a workable definition: and I think most people would agree with me on that. There are forms of borrowing that are not fanfic. Heck, you agree with me on that.

My agreement with you is based on whether it is authorised or unauthorised borrowing.

Yeah, and as I've pointed out, that's a really poor argument, inconsistent with the rest of your position.

I can't help it if you keep making assumptions about my position.

Well, you did strongly assert that Dante could not possibly be fanfic, since his borrowing of theological and mythological figures was serious literature, not motivated by fun engagement with characters-as-characters.

No, I didn't. I asserted strongly that it was not fanfic because it wasn't fannish writing, because it was thematically distinct and did not share many features of fanfic. The words 'serious literature' did not feature.

You seem set on the idea that I'm motivated by a desire to somehow protect the reputation of 'great literature'. I'm not. I'm suggesting that fanfic is, at root, a fannish activity. That's not a controversial position, I would think. In fact it seems to me to be nothing more than a statement of fact.

So if I write a story using Stephanie Meyer's characters and setting, is it fanfic if I'm not actually a fan of Twilight but am just writing the story as a dare or an experiment?

If you consciously set out to write a fanfic, then you probably do wind up writing one, yes. This sort of scenario would fit my definition of a fannish activity. Others may differ. It's not the sort of point that fundamentally challenges the argument that fanfic is a fannish activity: I've yet to see one point that does, despite pages and pages of argumentation.

Nope. Something is funny if the reader finds it funny: but a book that is unintentionally funny is not a comedy.

If the reader decides that the comedy is unintentional, I'd agree. If the reader finds the book funny because they consider the humour deliberate, it's a comedy.

No. If the reader thinks the book is a comedy because he/she has misunderstood the humour as deliberate, the reader is simply wrong. LOTR is not a comedy, even if a reader is convinced that it is.

[Mark Lawrence]

However the primary purpose of the novel is generally to entertain (intellectually, viscerally, whatever). If, despite this self-evident truth a critic seeks to look past this and conjecture about the author's intent then it seems silly to pretend that whatever the author has to say about their intent is irrelevant.

Insofar as authorial intent conflicts with the text, it is irrelevant (or more accurately, must play second fiddle to what is actually there on the page). GRRM can't come out and say that Gregor Clegane is a lovely chap (well, he can, but no-one would take him seriously because it doesn't fit the text).

It's a strawman to bring up one example (it's always the same one) and say that just because many people find it hard to reconcile what that author says about their intent with what they wrote we should ignore what all authors say. I don't think anyone is claiming the author's opinion on their own intent is infallible - but I find it hard to believe that anyone truly thinks that it is not, in general, the best and most accurate opinion.

I think you're straw manning a bit here. It's not a case of completely discarding the author's views, but rather that texts are inherently full of ambiguities, and the author's view of meaning is just one of many possibilities (it's then the reader's role to find their own interpretation without being told they're wrong by a non-textual source). To take a non-Goodkind example, there's J.K. Rowling and her assertion that Dumbledore is homosexual. This is problematic, because Dumbledore in the first six books is completely non-sexual, and in the seventh, his relationship with Grindelwald can be read in purely platonic terms - a reader who interprets the text in this way shouldn't feel they don't understand what they're reading just because they didn't follow an authorial interview. Dumbledore might be homosexual, but once the book is in the hands of the reader, it is for the reader, not the author, to make that decision.

What other interpretation is there from 'the author is dead' than 'we are completely discarding their views'. If it were just applied to dead authors then yes, that would not be the correct interpretation - but it's not used in the sense 'the author is dead so we can only use historical records of what they had to say about their book' it's used in the sense 'you the author are dead to me - I have no interest in hearing your views, the text is all I have'.

JK's thoughts on Dumbledore's sexuality are indeed somewhat irrelevant to authorial intent _unless_ it were her intent to portray his sexuality in the books. If 'Dumbledore is gay' is just some private thought she had, no hint of which she intended to escape into the text, then yes, it's as irrelevant as whether she had decided Snape was really a Martian or Helga Hufflepuff was abused as a child. However - if some critic asserts that JK intended that Dumbledore be portrayed as straight, homosexual, or a large baboon... and JK comes along and says 'no, I tried to portray him as an asexual human' then that is very important information about the author's intent. We might then argue that she'd done a piss poor job of it as on page 10 he's described as swinging from the trees on long arms, but even so, the fact JK had told us what impression/message she intended to give is important.

I'm not an expert on the Harry Potter books but I would be surprised if JK had ever said she intended that the reader should think Dumbledore gay. I do feel though that what she intended to portray is important and that to ignore it and make claims about what she intended is not sensible. If she actually has said she intended the 'gay' message to come through the text then I as a reader (not a critic) would read the text with an interested eye to see where those hints might lie - I've read the first 5 books to my daughter and didn't notice any such indications.

[Lyanna Stark]

Sexist is a judgment as subjective as 'good' or 'fast paced' and gainsaying those particular opinions would be futile and is not what's being discussed. If on the other hand a critic were to say 'Bakker wrote this book to spread a sexist message / combat feminism / etc' i.e. they made claims about his intent, then he would be the authority on that and his opinion on the matter, whilst not gospel (he could lie), would certainly be (as you say) interesting and to meet it with hostility and outrage at the mere act of voicing it (divorced from the content) seems to me ... odd.

Does that mean racism and homophobia are also as subjective as "good" or "fast paced"? In that case, it would be absolutely valid to label sexism, racism and homophobia as completely subjective experiences and something that is inherently placed in the lap of the person experiencing it. Which also conveniently shifts responsibility to the person "feeling offended", as it were.

It also seems to me that nowadays very few authors (I hope/think?) set out to write a sexist book, but that we still end up with a lot of books which contain various types of sexism, hence why that type of criticism shows up time and again.

I tend to agree with Werthead and DatePalm here in that I see authors as unreliable in telling me what their novels really are about (example Goodkind is a brilliant one made by Wert) and I'd rather make up my own mind, even if the author has mentioned it being about ZZZZ. I may agree that it is indeed dealing with ZZZZ but as with Goodkind it may end up being something totally different, or as I think is often the case, it ends up indeed being about ZZZZ, but also about VVVV, ZZZZ and YYYY.

As an example, I don't think Robert Jordan set out to make Wheel of Time sexist, especially since he wrote about a society where women hold a lot of power (in fact, since this was a conscious decision, it seems to me he set out to do something along the lines of "the opposite"), yet it still managed to contain a host of sexist tropes, which end up affecting the experience of reading the series. It's very likely an unintended consequence, but it is very much still there, regardless of authorial intent.

I'm not sure GRRM would have predicted half of the discussions that have appeared in the book sections of this forum, for instance, or some of the more brilliant topics (like DatePalm's dialectic approach to the Shae/Tyrion relationship).

To me, once a piece of art, music, literature, etc. is out of your hands, then it's the consumer (I feel dirty and capitalist just writing that :P ) who gets to decide whether it is ZZZZ, YYYY or something completely different.

And after that, you get fanfiction!! ;)

I'd consider A Christmas Carol fantasy. Whether writing one fantasy story makes you a fantasy writer is another issue altogether.

I wonder if that stigma of being labelled a fantasy author is gone, or very much still present? Wasn't it Margaret Atwood who refused to be labelled a fantasy writer? I seem to recall Rowling having similar aversions to that label, at least initially.

Because if we go by authorial intent, a novel (which is a machine for generating interpretations) is a terrible way to do it. Better to just have a series of interviews, rather than an actual story.

Yes, true, and how boring that would be! On the other hand, we'd have no Draco in leather pants, which would be a great relief! :lol:

[Galactus]

Because modern literary theory is divorced from the scientific method.

While it is divorced from the scientific method, it's not neccessarily in the way you seem to imply. It's focused on the text because the text is accessible. (while the author is not, even in cases where the author isn't literally dead there are issues with it)

What other interpretation is there from 'the author is dead' than 'we are completely discarding their views'. If it were just applied to dead authors then yes, that would not be the correct interpretation - but it's not used in the sense 'the author is dead so we can only use historical records of what they had to say about their book' it's used in the sense 'you the author are dead to me - I have no interest in hearing your views, the text is all I have'.

No, it is used in the sense of "the author's statements (because we can never know the author's intentions, we can only extract from what the author says, which may or may not be lies, fabrications, misrememberings, etc. etc.) are one possible lens of interpretation of the text." They do not inherently hold any kind of privileged position with regards to interpreting the text.

Now, the author's statements are indeed useful in deciphering the author's intentions. But the author's intentions are generally pointless anyway. (what matters is the text that is produced)

[mormont]

Does that mean racism and homophobia are also as subjective as "good" or "fast paced"?

I'd say not, but then they're also not as objective as 'is this book a comedy?' In other words, it's possible to find a book racist even if the author doesn't find it so. For that matter, it's possible to find a book funny without the author intending it to be, or find it not funny when he/she did intend it to be.

This goes to the issue, not of author intentions, but of success in those intentions. If an author sets out to write a book that he/she considers to be egalitarian, but fails, then that book is not egalitarian. But at the same time, that doesn't mean that the author's intention was to write something sexist or racist or homophobic. These two things are not incompatible. There can be elements of the text that are, objectively, sexist while the text can still, at the same time, contain elements that reflect the author's intention to achieve the complete opposite. Texts are not monolithic. And the author's intention is certainly relevant to any discussion of the text, even if he/she did not pull it off.

Indeed, the most interesting and revealing thing about (say) Bakker's books, or Goodkind's, is that they clearly reflect the authors' rather... idiosyncratic view of their intentions. Without understanding how they perceive what they have written, our understanding of the text is, surely, incomplete. Goodkind's books, for one, would be pretty unremarkable without the information that he considers them to be explorations of profound philosophical truths, rather than somewhat plodding fantasy standards.

So yeah, authors are sometimes unreliable in telling us what their intentions were - but that information is still very much relevant to a proper understanding of the text. Its very unreliability makes the case for authorial intention being important.

[Mark Lawrence]

Does that mean racism and homophobia are also as subjective as "good" or "fast paced"? In that case, it would be absolutely valid to label sexism, racism and homophobia as completely subjective experiences and something that is inherently placed in the lap of the person experiencing it. Which also conveniently shifts responsibility to the person "feeling offended", as it were.

It also seems to me that nowadays very few authors (I hope/think?) set out to write a sexist book, but that we still end up with a lot of books which contain various types of sexism, hence why that type of criticism shows up time and again.

I tend to agree with Werthead and DatePalm here in that I see authors as unreliable in telling me what their novels really are about (example Goodkind is a brilliant one made by Wert) and I'd rather make up my own mind, even if the author has mentioned it being about ZZZZ. I may agree that it is indeed dealing with ZZZZ but as with Goodkind it may end up being something totally different, or as I think is often the case, it ends up indeed being about ZZZZ, but also about VVVV, ZZZZ and YYYY.

As an example, I don't think Robert Jordan set out to make Wheel of Time sexist, especially since he wrote about a society where women hold a lot of power (in fact, since this was a conscious decision, it seems to me he set out to do something along the lines of "the opposite"), yet it still managed to contain a host of sexist tropes, which end up affecting the experience of reading the series. It's very likely an unintended consequence, but it is very much still there, regardless of authorial intent.

I'm not sure GRRM would have predicted half of the discussions that have appeared in the book sections of this forum, for instance, or some of the more brilliant topics (like DatePalm's dialectic approach to the Shae/Tyrion relationship).

To me, once a piece of art, music, literature, etc. is out of your hands, then it's the consumer (I feel dirty and capitalist just writing that :P ) who gets to decide whether it is ZZZZ, YYYY or something completely different.

And after that, you get fanfiction!! ;)

I wonder if that stigma of being labelled a fantasy author is gone, or very much still present? Wasn't it Margaret Atwood who refused to be labelled a fantasy writer? I seem to recall Rowling having similar aversions to that label, at least initially.

Yes, true, and how boring that would be! On the other hand, we'd have no Draco in leather pants, which would be a great relief! :lol:

You're drawing no distinction between whether the author intended to write a book with XXXX and whether the book contains XXXX. I took pains to draw that distinction and point out why the author was an important source in the former inquiry. I also pointed out that just because you can point to one exception doesn't mean that's the basis for a whole attitude. Some people survive being shot through the head - I don't use them as poster-boys for the 'shooting yourself in the head is non-fatal' movement.

[Mark Lawrence]

While it is divorced from the scientific method, it's not neccessarily in the way you seem to imply. It's focused on the text because the text is accessible. (while the author is not, even in cases where the author isn't literally dead there are issues with it)

No, it is used in the sense of "the author's statements (because we can never know the author's intentions, we can only extract from what the author says, which may or may not be lies, fabrications, misrememberings, etc. etc.) are one possible lens of interpretation of the text." They do not inherently hold any kind of privileged position with regards to interpreting the text.

Now, the author's statements are indeed useful in deciphering the author's intentions. But the author's intentions are generally pointless anyway. (what matters is the text that is produced)

I would disagree with this. I would say that just because authors can lie & misremember doesn't mean we should assume they usually do - and if they usually don't, then given that they are the author of the text I would say their opinion on their own intent _is_ in a privileged position with regard to interpreting the text. They are, in a much better position to know their own intent than any reader is. They may of course (through poor writing, cultural difference etc) fail to get that intent across to any given reader, the text may contain something different from that intended... but they are best placed to know their intent.

[Galactus]

I would disagree with this. I would say that just because authors can lie & misremember doesn't mean we should assume they usually do - and if they usually don't, then given that they are the author of the text I would say their opinion on their own intent _is_ in a privileged position with regard to interpreting the text.

Okay, let me put it like this: The author's intentions are *separate* from the text. If we want to interrogate the author's intentions then yes, his or her statements is one source of that. (note: As any historian knows, finding out someone's intentions is incredibly tricky)

However, in most cases, intentions don't really matter when interrogating the text. The text stands on it's own. It doesen't matter if you intended to got go to China if what you did was discover America.

[Datepalm]

Okay, let me put it like this: The author's intentions are *separate* from the text. If we want to interrogate the author's intentions then yes, his or her statements is one source of that. (note: As any historian knows, finding out someone's intentions is incredibly tricky)

However, in most cases, intentions don't really matter when interrogating the text. The text stands on it's own. It doesen't matter if you intended to got go to China if what you did was discover America.

Yeah, I think the point is less how "correct" the author is to the text, as how interesting they are to the reader. The text is the text, it is what it is. When I say "author is dead," I mean it more in the sense that I have no interest in persuing, tracking, interrogating, double guessing or rewriting whatever is between the two covers of a given book outside of those covers. A works particular flaws, in a way - the things the author didn't mean to put in, the things the author put in without noticing, the things that bounce off a particular subset of readers in a way the author didn't mean them to, whatever...they're all in there, whether the author likes it or not, and I will address them and take them as autochthonic, full citizens of the text when I read it, talk about it, analyze it and argue about it on the internet. If I hear that the author would, in fact, like me to read the book a different way than I have read it - well, that's cool, but it's entirely incapable of actually changing the reading.

Take the Rainbow Guard in ASOIAF - GRRM apparently swears up and down that he's never heard of the Rainbow Flag as a gay icon. We can - and have - argue long into the night that it's impossible for anyone alive to have missed that connotation, that even if he didn't know it he must have been unconsciously aware of it, etc, etc. We can't ever know for sure anyway, so it's kind of pointless. What isn't pointless though, is the fact that for a lot of readers, that's a hint in the text about Renly. We can't ignore it, so there's no point in trying, and if that means that the author needs to be ignored, in places,to have an interesting conversation about the book, well, that's that.

[Lyanna Stark]

You're drawing no distinction between whether the author intended to write a book with XXXX and whether the book contains XXXX. I took pains to draw that distinction and point out why the author was an important source in the former inquiry. I also pointed out that just because you can point to one exception doesn't mean that's the basis for a whole attitude. Some people survive being shot through the head - I don't use them as poster-boys for the 'shooting yourself in the head is non-fatal' movement.

The author's views are one source, true, but in the end, as Galactus and DatePalm has explained better, the text stands on its own, regardless. Even if the author took pains to not include ZZZZ the text may still include ZZZZ. This is not in itself a problem [for the reader], of course.

It becomes a bit of a strange situation if, as happened with a certain author whose name starts with B, the author comes in and tells people that they are reading it wrong and he really meant something else. How do I "unsee" or "unread" what I read, or "correct" myself while reading?

What interests me is the text itself and what I feel/think about it, not what the author tells me to feel/think.

Okay, let me put it like this: The author's intentions are *separate* from the text. If we want to interrogate the author's intentions then yes, his or her statements is one source of that. (note: As any historian knows, finding out someone's intentions is incredibly tricky)

However, in most cases, intentions don't really matter when interrogating the text. The text stands on it's own. It doesen't matter if you intended to got go to China if what you did was discover America.

:agree:

The Rainbow Guard is another great example. I was really surprised when I learnt it was not intentional.

Regarding intent or lack thereof, in the end what is in the text is still there, whether or not it was unconsciously done or with intent. I can certainly see why this would be something a bit worrisome to a writer since unintentionally added stuff could be misconstrued quite easily into a blame game of "writer X is a racist/sexist/homophobe/hates kittens & babies" but I guess that is a risk that comes with the job?

[slim da reaper]

Yeah, I think the point is less how "correct" the author is to the text, as how interesting they are to the reader. The text is the text, it is what it is. When I say "author is dead," I mean it more in the sense that I have no interest in persuing, tracking, interrogating, double guessing or rewriting whatever is between the two covers of a given book outside of those covers.

The text is always interpreted, cold hard facts can become horrible barriers to other truth. 'The author is dead' is that the 'I' is not a permanent thing, thus the author is not a permanent presence within their work, the Cartesian self is intensely problematic, as all of our identities shift within time and circumstances. The universe isn't a collection of facts to be found out, what we have is interpretation, doesn't mean every interpretation is equal what it means is like you say how interesting it is to the 'reader'. Even science has no privileged position, it can be used as the last bastion of the Cartesian.

[Rorshach]

This thread has derailed somewhat from its fanfic-start, and - interestingly - I see at least onemod actively derailing.

Is intent important here, or are we to judge the action as experienced? :P

On the derailed subject, I see people actively talking past each other. No-one (of the responses I've read) tries to say that authorital intent is the ultimate judge when interpreting a book or a text, only that if you're making assumptions about said intent, the author is indeed the primary source and thus should be heeded (in the Goodkind example that means, as Mormont pointed out, that you should take his intentions at face value and then see whether he actually achieves that. Which is what I see if I peek into the Abyss (know as Goodkind Roman Numeral threads)).

However, authours are not privileged when the discussion turns to how their intentions come across or how they are read.

[Galactus]

It's more problematic, because authors can change their minds. (while OSC was probably always a rather loathsome critter I'm fairly sure he's "reinterpreted" a lot of his work over the years, for instance) what an author says about his or her intentions ex-post facto (especially if subjected to criticism) isn't neccessarily an accurate reflection of what they intended pre-critique. (We tend to make our history fit our current circumstances)

[Ran]

The fact that author's intentions may be problematic to ascertain isn't really a reason to rule out examining and discussing an author's intentions, and referencing their own statements to this effect. If you have reason to believe an author is confabulating, then that's worth discussing, rather than just a reason to tell it all to go hang.

[Jerol]

Just to stir the waters, what if an author changes his intentions, ala Ray Bradbury and his post 9/11 views on Fahrenheit 451?