xiphias | Robin Hobb hates fanfiction. But doesn't make a very good argument about why.

First of all, lovely 0-word counter-argument to that point.

One other point struck me as particularly broken:

“Fan fiction is a good way for people to learn to be writers.” No. It isn't.
If this is true, then karaoke is the path to become a singer, coloring books produce great artists, and all great chefs have a shelf of cake mixes.

Karaoke, like coloring books and cake mixes, is a partial act. You don't need to practice with the band for karaoke; you don't need to lay down the linework for a coloring book; you don't need to mix the flour and the baking soda for a cake mix. This isn't fanfiction; this is Mad Libs; working a few pieces in a premade skeletal structure. If you want a fair set of metaphors, then choose comparable acts - a bar band performing top-40 songs; an aspiring cartoonist copying the poses of the professionals; a recipe book in your kitchen. None of these are considered great. All of them are derivative. All of them put a huge chunk of the creative work on the shoulders of someone else, and leave the practitioner doing little more than a technical exercise - and every single one is a common and accepted way to learn in its field.

When you can work with someone else's ideas, you're learning how to work in the space. You don't need to have every single piece of the skill together at once; you can put together your wordcraft without needing to figure out how to author a sympathetic hero. Hobb can say what she will about authorial control, copyright, the morality and legality of fanfiction - but it's disingenuous to say that it's not good practice.

Not only that, karaoke, coloring books, and cake mixes are all ALSO good ways to learn. Coloring books are a vitally important part of a child's development of hand-eye coordination and color use in learning art. Cake mixes are a wonderful way to start cooking. And many top-notch singers I know enjoy karaoke.

Oh, you have to go make the hard part of the argument. =)

This sentiment is one I've seen before, though. In general, I'm really suspicious of any argument that says "don't do this thing that I don't like, for your own sake!"

Oh for fuck's sake. Copyright is very much about money. She says it's not about money and then goes on to quote examples that are all about money. If commercial use isn't an issue, no one is going to take going after fanfic in a legal arena seriously.

And if she wants to insist that writing while using someone else's characters and world isn't real writing, I think Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman and Grant Morrison among others might want to have a few words with her.

And ... and ... oh for fuck's sake. Shut up woman.

A J Hall -- a fanfic author and British lawyer -- makes a wonderful distinction: she talks about the difference between copyright and droit de auteur.

"Copyright" is economic. "Droit de auteur" is emotional.

What most anti-fan-ficcers are really upset about, mostly, is droit de auteur.

And I can understand that. Like I said, I've read and enjoyed Robin Hobb's books -- and it's damn clear that she, personally, loves her fictional character of the Fool, and doesn't want to see him, or her, messed up, except in the ways which are REAL to her, which are the ways that happen as she writes them in her books.

I understand that and I respect that.

My point isn't that she doesn't have good arguments -- my point is that she isn't MAKING good arguments. But if you read what she's saying, and you read for EMOTIONAL content instead of FACTUAL content, I think you can figure out what her argument actually is.

If I were to argue her point for her, this is what I would say:

"I am an author. And I am a specific kind of author, the kind to whom my characters are real. I have a serious emotional connection to my characters, and I feel protective of them. When I am writing my characters, in a very real sense, I am simply reporting what is happening to them.

"I don't want to make this argument publically, maybe not even to myself. Because it makes me sound crazy. But it's not crazy, and a good number of authors -- and roleplayers -- feel similarly. Our stories aren't just stories -- there is a power to them, and a tangibility, and a reality.

"When you come and write a story using my characters, something happens -- something real. Either the character you are writing IS my character -- and, as my character is real in some important sense, that's not an impossible notion -- or it's something else. If the character IS my character, then that feels tanamount to kidnapping, or worse.

"If what you're writing ISN'T my character, that is perhaps somewhat better, but still not good. Your echo of my character is a sort of ghoulish, zombilike shade of mine, and it feels very, very creepy to have such creatures wandering around the landscape."

In other words, I think she has a good argument. But I don't think she knows how to make it.

Now, that makes sense, and that I can understand, even if I disagree with her personal opinion. Out of respect, when authors get like this, I won't write fanfic in their world. Had she made her argument with that? I would respect her. As it stands, I think she doesn't understand the basis for fanfic, and is bias about it by her own prejudice. And not understanding fanfic is not understanding a part of writing. Because, technically, every time writes their version of the King Arthur story, they're writing fanfic. XD I think Ms. Hobb has a very skewed perception, and such attachment to your writing also indicates your not going anywhere, because on the one story I was so attached to like that? Didn't work out for me so well, and gave me a lot of personal stress.

Good point that you made there.

She's got three trillogies in that world, and I've read and really enjoyed all nine books. So that's not keeping her back, anyway. I mean, I thought they were good and well done.

I have not personally read her books, but I don't think I'd be able to enjoy them now. Anti-fanfic people and I don't get on too well. ;D She may be an excellent author, but her views on writing are just... funny to me. But then, it's all opinion, so naturally...

IIRC, isn't this pretty close to Jo Walton's point of view? From what I can tell from what she's posted in LJ discussions on the topic, she's not against fanfic in general, but she can't work when she knows somebody's messing with her worlds and characters. That seems a lot more honest to me than coming up with unconvincing arguments about why Fanfic Is Rotten To The Core.

That's more or less where I encountered the idea. And Jo's work has that same feeling of "reality" that Robin Hobb's does, which is why I suspected that the same might apply.

I can, to an extent, understand and respect this too. However, what I don't understand is this: if the trouble is her connection to her characters, then why not do what Mercedes Lackey did? From what I understand, ML said that she doesn't mind people setting stories in her universe so long as they don't muck about with her characters. That's far more sane than going around screaming, "FANFIC IS THA DEBBIL!!!11!"

I also take exception to her comments about fanfic not being good practice. I'd written almost nothing BUT fanfic since I was about 15 until a little while before I met Griff and my progress is immense. I'll laugh in the face of anyone who says fanfic doesn't help writers improve their skills. There's a LOT more to storycraft than making original characters (as if there actually are such things :P).

For the record, this is pretty much how I feel about it in general, when the world/characters in question are the creation of a particular individual.

For cases where the world/characters are the product of a large number of contributors, as in the case of, say, most serialised television stuff, I feel that "So-and-so's take on the character" is something for which there is more space.

I think, now that I chew on it, that I'm a lot more comfortable with fanfic written with, say, the Star Trek characters than I am with it with the Babylon 5 characters. I think there's an interesting fuzzy line in there that I'm not sure how to tease out. Might be worth chewing on later.

I can definitely see where you're coming from there, actually. You're not intruding on some individual person's vision when it was the product of a committee.

But my thing is this: What isn't the product of a large number of contributors? I mean, I personally find the word "derivative" being applied to fiction as some kind of vile epithet laughable. With the sheer amount of stuff that has been published it is patently impossible to write anything that doesn't draw on someone else's work in some way. I can't for the life of me remember the title or author, but I'm reminded of a short story I read in Analog a while back. It was about what would happen if copyrights never expired. The point of the story was that true originality isn't possible because we're always affected by things we've read and seen; we always build on that which came before. Only nothing can come from nothing. Expecting something to come from nowhere is unrealistic at best.

That said, however, the one place where I think a non-arbitrary line can be drawn is plagiarism. Claiming a character or universe as one's own when it's obviously nothing more than a blatant copy of someone else's is criminal. Plain and simple. But outside of plagiarism, there's a HUGE gray area.

I don't think it's productive or smart to alienate a group of one's fans and potential fans that way when they're not really taking anything away from you. In fact, they're basically giving you free publicity. Why do you think George Lucas encourages fan-works of his stuff so long as no money is made from them? I think George has already adequately proven he doesn't do anything out of the goodness of his cold, black heart. ;)

If it were me, and my characters and I didn't like the fact that fanfiction was being made from my world and/or characters I would heed that immortal mantra of fanfiction: If you don't want to read anything like it, DON'T READ IT. If it really freaked me and my characters out, then I would do my best to ignore its existence, like I have already done with the vast majority of fanfiction.

Basically, I don't see what Ms. Hobbs is getting out of this whole public rant except maybe the (in this case) self-righteous victim's thrill of saying, "YOU ALL ARE BAD PEOPLE FOR DOING THIS HORRIBLE AWFUL THING TO ME!!" Great way to win friends and influence people, yes it is...

Ok. That had damn near nothing to do with your actual response. You just got me thinking, you bad meanie person... ;)

But my thing is this: What isn't the product of a large number of contributors? I mean, I personally find the word "derivative" being applied to fiction as some kind of vile epithet laughable. With the sheer amount of stuff that has been published it is patently impossible to write anything that doesn't draw on someone else's work in some way.

I think your rant seriously overspeaks here.

"Contributor" means "did work to produce this specific thing", not "produced some other thing that influenced this" or "treated the same subject once" or even "did the work to create the basis upon which this is done".

My mother did not write my books, even though she supplied my genes and my upbringing. She did not sit down and create the characters, do the worldbuilding, or any of those things. The people I know who have bits of personality or influence in such things also did not write them; they were influences. The authors I admire . . . did not write my books. I did.

I might call some of my first readers or writing group to be contributors, as they put in work to read and review it so that I could make the books better. They worked on this specific thing, not something that might be construed by someone to be related. Thus, they contributed, in a minor role, to something that I did the overwhelming majority of the work on -- and it was part of my work to figure out what parts of their comments to incorporate and how, as well.

Without putting in that level of direct input, one is not a "contributor". An influence, an inspiration, a "based on the work of", but contributing means doing the work.

Basically, I don't see what Ms. Hobbs is getting out of this whole public rant except maybe the (in this case) self-righteous victim's thrill of saying, "YOU ALL ARE BAD PEOPLE FOR DOING THIS HORRIBLE AWFUL THING TO ME!!" Great way to win friends and influence people, yes it is...

What are most rants for? Mind, I haven't read this one, but I'm betting "blowing off steam" and "expressing a point of view" are high on the list.

"Just don't read it" sounds to me like "If you don't like the sound of your children being tortured, just use ear-plugs".

Just don't write things where you don't have permission, if you have any respect for living authors. If you don't want to go to the trouble of making up your own thing or filing off the serial numbers there are plenty of people who have given permission, and plenty of dead authors.

I can't for the life of me remember the title or author, but I'm reminded of a short story I read in Analog a while back. It was about what would happen if copyrights never expired. The point of the story was that true originality isn't possible because we're always affected by things we've read and seen; we always build on that which came before.

I believe that was by Spider Robinson. It was collected in one of his more recent short-story collections, but I can't remember which. It was sort of a tribute to RAH.

Not just characters. World too.

But that's wonderfully well put. Can I quote that next time I need to? Because this is an area where I become very rapidly inarticulate.

I hate getting involved in discussions of this, because just thinking about it makes me stop being able to write until I've put it out of my mind again.

Please do. I was partially thinking of how I imagine you feel about these things.

I think that's very apt... and puts her much closer to fanfic authors than she would like.

I agree with a number of her points, but find almost all of her actual arguments unfounded. Specifically, I agree with the implication that making a derivative work is less desireable than creating an original work, but find no convincing reason in her rant why people shouldn't do whatever they like, as long as they don't pass their work off as hers.

AFAIK, the main, often unstated, reason to write fanfic rather than original fiction is because of a love for and fascination with a given setting and characters. The desire to extend their existence, to create more their reality, and to have it unfold in the way that the fanfic author finds, not merely pleasing, but fundamentally right for the character is directly analogous to her desire to not have her image of her characters and settings affected by others. The difference is that while fanfic authors frequently ignore works that take the characters someplace they find to be wrong, she seems incapable of drawing that distinction.

So, to a large degree, she's upset that her characters are as real to her fans as they are to her.

So, to a large degree, she's upset that her characters are as real to her fans as they are to her.

Not exactly, I think. I think it's closer that she feels that, in writing fanfic, they'd be usurping a relationship to the characters that is rightfully hers.

::grins::

Late as usual, but I have to weigh in here.

My characters are real to me. To the extent that I have been known to have conversations with them. (Stop looking at me like that).

I think I've come up with just about every pairing possible, and most of them make me giggle, if not the characters. (FPC and LF is just plain bizarre). I've probably done some writing on most of the major what ifs.

I don't mind the idea of fanfic--the challenge would be restraining the characters from critiquing it. Some of them can be quite harsh.

I find it particularly ironic to see FANTASY authors railing against fanfic, given the huge amount of celtic, and other myth driven crap there is out ther in the pro world.

Of course, that's not fanfic.

Addressing points since I am a drabbler in the Potterverse.

Anyone who read fan fiction about Harry Potter, for instance, would have an entirely different idea of what those stories are about than if he had simply read J.K. Rowling’s books. In this way, the reader’s impression of the writer’s work and creativity is changed.

Having been mod of a couple of Harry Potter communities that accept fan fiction, I can say that without a doubt, that intelligent, mature readers and writers don't let fan fiction get in the way of the original vision. A good fan fiction writer knows what the basics of his subject is, and from there is where the directions sprout towards creativity. I've seen some really horrible, horrible pieces of Harry/Draco crap out there. And on the other hand, I've seen some really beautifully written Tom Riddle pieces. I myself tend to write horrendously satiric or twisted parodies, or delve into the unsaid forbidden; but none of it has ever tainted my vision of what J.K. Rowling is writing to us.

That’s not flattering. That’s insulting. Every fan fiction I’ve read to date, based on my world or any other writer’s world, had focused on changing the writer’s careful work to suit the foible of the fan writer. Romances are invented, gender identities changed, fetishes indulged and endings are altered. It’s not flattery. To me, it is the fan fiction writer saying, “Look, the original author really screwed up the story, so I’m going to fix it. Here is how it should have gone.”

...Iiiiiii really don't think that my writing a story about Harry getting it up the ass from Draco and then Draco being sprayed by horrible...feces...when Ron casts a spell on Harry out of jealousy is telling Rowling "Look, you screwed up the story, so I'ma gonna fix it--here's how it should've gone! :D". At least, that's not what *my* message was.

But you aren’t going to get anywhere clinging to the comfort of saying, “If I write a Harry Potter story, everyone will like it because they already like Harry Potter. I don’t have to describe Hogwarts because everyone saw the movie, and I don’t have to tell Harry’s back story because that’s all done for me.”

Actually, that's probably how Cassandra Claire got onto the fasttrack of HP fandom fame. She sucks as a writer (her characterizations sucks some major ass), yet everyone loves her junk (despite much of it being plagiarized). And now some poor sap of a book publisher is actually going to publish her own book with her "original" (that's yet to be seen) ideas.

All of this yabber about quality also has to do with a person's level of writing and knowledge/intelligence to begin with. Most intelligent people know the difference between good fan fic and bad fan fic.

As for legalities, I don't think there's any stopping fan created literature. Perhaps uptight writers should take a look at George Lucas--he welcomes, even encourages, fan-created movies based on Star Wars (so long as no profit is being made, he sure seems to like the idea of people having fun with his characters/ideas). Same goes for Rowling--she doesn't mind fan fiction, either (except for the dirty stuff when it's easily accessible to children).

At a far less exalted level, I'm quite certain Mona Lisa has gotten the Mad Magazing Alfred E. Neuman treatment more than once. If anything, that may be one of the most satirized images in history.

I have to admit I'm not surprised to find she's an author who takes her characters far too seriously. I don't agree that she's got good arguments against fan fiction, and that it's just that she makes those arguments poorly. She's got good reasons not to like fan fiction, but her reasons are all about her rather than about the fiction.

If it's any consolation to Miss Hobb, I've never read any of her books and therefore, will never use any of her characters in a fanfiction story.

Vienna Teng icon! *loves* I just heard that song on my way to work this morning and was struck by those exact lyrics.

Heehee, Kudos to you - way to back up an arguement without actually saying anything.

There's one big thing which Robin Hobb seems to miss here I think. And that's that once she's sent her characters out into the world, it's not the same as when they were just down on paper. I mean I could draw on Donny Osmond with this argument (yeah yeah, I know, not a brilliant example but I think it applies.) There was a point in Mr Osmonds career, or so he said on a TV show he hosted, when he grew tired of the teeage-girls-main crush and sweet little kid face te media had plastered him with. he went way out to change his image. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Well no, there's not. But he also made a big show of dissing all the songs he used to sing. Puppy Love became a popular joke for him and he quite ltierally put on the appearance of having dispised those songs and scorning those who had loved them in childhood. Until one day he was approached by a fan - one of the teenage girls who'd had his poster stuck up on her wall and all those songs in her brain since she was thirteen. She confronted him and said something along the lines of "How dare you?" - These were the songs she grew up to. The songs she loved, part of an innocent childhood she didn’t have anymore, this was the point at which Mr Osmond realised – they weren’t just his songs. They were everyone’s songs, and while he no longer liked them, he didn’t exactly have a right to scorn those who did.

That was what I thought of when I read this – Yes Robin Hobb has a legal right to her characters and plots. Yes if someone tries to claim money from HER work, they should be shown that that’s not on. But innocent kids and adults writing Fanfic because they love her characters? How is it fair to strike out against them?

They’re not JUST her characters anymore – they belong to the readers and the fans as much as they do her. We love the characters in the stories we write Fanfic for – so how dare anyone say that our sole purpose is to discredit the author? And I don’t exactly see the Harry Potter industry suffering from the over a million stories currently in its section on fanfiction.net, do you?

There. That’s my personal little rant out :)

Robin Hobb hates fanfiction. But doesn't make a very good argument about why.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject