| |
|
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
I notice you've used fanficking to describe the process of re-editing. I think that's a rather broad use, to be honest. In what way is that fanfic rather than just fic?
In the sense that the redraft was, experientially, very much the same process as fanficking. You - no, I'll say 'I' cos it might of course just be me. I find particularly complex nodes of sense and meaning in a text, and from those come to an understanding of what the text is doing, follow them through, and end up with a new text (though one that is contiguous with the old text/first draft, following the same edges and knots of meaning and affect, although perhaps ending up a completely different shape). Fanfic example: wondering why Servalan seems so upset in a particular scene in one episode, connecting it up with what's been happening to her and with several of the long-running themes that come to prominence in the scene in question, ending up with a narrative. Redraft example: noticing photographic imagery at key points in the narrative which were often places I was having problems, thinking that through, connecting it up with the themes of the story, and writing a new narrative for around half the first draft (plus reorganizing imagery, dialogue, etc.)
Yes, it is a broad use, but that's because (a) I would rather have everything I write (realfic, cultural theory, and fanfic) seen as genres of 'fanfic' than as anything else, since I think fanfic is a better model of writing than any other I've come across, and (b) I don't think there's a definable line between fanfic and realfic. Though obviously I'll exploit the legal definition of the difference if it'll make me any money off realfic/theory.
Re: bodily transgression: I take your point (I was arguing with Tom's phrasing there more than anything).
quote:All of which makes a strong case for your needing to so this, but has no bearing on whether that need is a legitimate one. The same logic of need can be applied to shooting Tony Blair in the foot with a nailgun or peeing on the a football match from a helicopter. Your desire/need to do a thing does not automatically legitimise it.
Well, no: your desire/need to publish and be read and interpreted, ie have readers' desires invested in your writing - but not allow those readings, interpretations and desires to take a written, narrative and/or semi-public form - doesn't legitimise itself either. Again, responding in terms of need was mostly in response to Tom's formulation of the problem in terms of the source writer's rights & feelings & of violation. Agreed that this isn't the most helpful way of theorizing it, and I was partly trying to demonstrate that in my last post. (I just can't see any way of theorizing writing which allows realfic and disallows fanfic.)
I will just quote [YNH] here though, in dialogue with your shooting-Tony-Blair analogy:
quote:What I meant was, "the fanfictor may or may not know s/he is playing with the private parts of the (to use Nick's term) original fictor." In other words, to articulate the necessary other side of Nick's position, a fanfictor may act without knowingly intending to defile the body fictive.
Which is an important difference, I think. Not a determining one, since I probably wouldn't stop writing B7 fanfic if Chris Boucher told me that it was defiling his fictive body (nor have I stopped enjoying & soliciting Avon/Blake slash fan art even though I know neither of the actors is particularly happy about it), but still an important one. |
|
|
on't we all steal ideas and make them our own?Yes. quote:Isn't all original work just clevely disguised fanfics?No. 
I just can't see any way of theorizing writing which allows realfic and disallows fanfic.)Not if you are happy with the notion that your identity should be made at the expense of someone else's.