Following are some questions to consider for tomorrow night's discussion. As always, feel free to comment ahead of time or post your own questions.
Historicizing fan/slash fiction. In her essay, “Fan Fiction in a Literary Context,” Sheenagh Pugh insists on seeing fan fiction as part of a long process of borrowing and recycling in the historical production of literature. We find the same approach to historicizing fan fiction in the Wikipedia article on fan fiction. To what extent is this a valid or useful way to contextualize fan fiction, and what general issues about authorship and literary production get raised in such an approach? How does the notion of authorship that emerges here tend to coincide with poststructuralist discussions of the author (or the author function) like those in Roland Barthes’ “The Death of the Author” or Michel Foucault’s “What is an Author?” Here we can also reference Jonathan Lethem’s recent essay in Harper’s Magazine, “The Ecstasy of Influence.”
Fan fiction as critical commentary. Where Pugh approaches fan fiction in terms of its relationship to general literary production, Jenkins insists that fan fiction is fundamentally a form of critical commentary, that it’s related to literary interpretation and analysis. How valid do you find this argument? How does it work as a general argument, and as a legal one (in terms of how he links it to his position on “fair use”)? His discussion of fan fiction as critical commentary also deals with the relationship between fan fiction and the marketplace. What role does this discussion play in his overall argument?
Fan fiction as “Erotic Criticism.” In the last section of his essay, Jenkins cites “erotic” fan fiction as a specific example of how fan fiction performs a critical function by “providing a critique of the constructions of gender and sexuality found in the original works.” This is largely the subject Sharon Cumberland takes up in her essay, “Private Uses of Cyberspace: Women, Desire, and Fan Culture.” How clear a picture does she give us of how fan/slash fiction operates as a space for (apparently mostly women) writers to “express desire in ways that have been socially prohibited in the past” (p. 2, top)? See the quote at the end of the first section in which she writes that her “thesis is that the paradox of public access and private/anonymous identity has made it possible for women who have access to the internet to create permissive and transgressive spaces which have been, in the past, the traditional reserve of men’s magazines and men’s clubs,” something that allows “women to appropriate power over their own imaginations and bodies.” Can all this really come from writing fantasies about the sex life of Zorro as portrayed by Antonio Banderas?
Fan fiction as social networking. Another important part of Cumberland’s essay is her focus on how the combination of anonymity and public access online constructs communities of women whose particular interests “migrate” to other forms of contact (p. 1). She calls this a “displacement of affection” (p. 1). We’ll want to explore the connection between this kind of social networking and her insistence that women writing fan fiction “use cyberspace . . . to express desire in ways that have been socially prohibited in the past, and which continue to be publicly and generally taboo for women in our society” (pp. 2-3).
Fan fiction comes out of the closet. Finally, Melinda Lo’s article, while it presents an introduction to fan and slash fiction, and deals with some of the issues Cumberland raises, is most interesting for her observation that Jenkins’ “utopic” vision of fan fiction has been “complicated by an increasing convergence between mainstream or legitimate cultural producers . . . and grassroots fan-based creations including fan fiction and fan-made films” (p. 2). The (apparently defunct) “L Word” project stands as an example here. This gets us back to the whole question of the tension between bottom-up and top-down production on the internet (for more on this, see the post below this one). Lo discusses this trend on pp. 5-6, and we’ll want to talk a little bit about where it might be heading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
After reading these articles I couldn't help but think of this Chicago Reader article from 2005. For this author, writing Hobbit Erotica was therapeutic and saved her from her addictions. Perhaps more importantly, her fiction highlights homosexual perceptions of the Sam/Frodo relationship. I wonder if JRR Tolkien would have approved? Also, does this hobbit erotica have larger social implications? Does this say anything about our society’s understanding of masculinity?
I'm wondering, in the sort of distinction being made between fan fiction as literary production and critical commentary, where a site like Television Without Pity might fit in. The site provides scene for scene recaps of episodes of a multitude of television shows, but the recaps are done from a specific point of view and with a lot of snark that can be both affectionate and hateful. These recappers and commenters seem to devote as much time to dissecting episodes of Grey's Anatomy or House as fan fiction writers do to developing ancillary plotlines or expanding the roles of characters. They develop theories about how characters and plots should behave, comment on standard sitcom or hospital drama tropes, and mercilessly skewer shows like Seventh Heaven for its negative portrayals of women, its Very Special Episodes (taking disability tokenism to new lows), and its non-specific Christianity. It seems to me that Television Without Pity more obviously acts as a site of critical commentary in the traditional sense than fan fiction.
Thanks to Alison and Allison for these really interesting posts. I just read the "Hobbit Erotica" article and found it much more revealing than a number of the articles we read. I recommend it. The article is fascinating, as Alison points out, for what it says about the psychological and therapeutic function of writing slash (at least for the woman who is the subject of the article). It also offers some striking insights into the treatment of gender and sexuality in slash. A quote, for example:
"More important to slash fans, someone is also making them kiss, hug, cry, cuddle, and talk about their relationships. “It’s not about the orgasms, it’s about the emotions and the angst,” Maxwell says. Slash stories can be rated G, NC- 17, or anywhere in between. There’s explicit sex, but in plenty of stories the characters do nothing more than cast romantic glances at each other. Nearly all slash writers and readers are women. “I don’t know why this always surprises people,” Maxwell says. “I mean, what is the thing that men find most erotic? Hello! But men don’t go to Women and Children First to get lesbian fiction. Men write women fucking the way men like to fuck. And in slash, women write men fucking the way women like to fuck.”
About the Television Without Pity website Allison writes about. It's an intriguing format, but most of what I saw was simply recaps with snark. It doesn't seem to me the entries verge all that closely to the kind of critical/analytical/interpretive function Jenkins sees for fan fiction (which he might well be exaggerating, of course). For example the recap of last Sunday's Sopranos. This is almost all recap. Not much analysis or interpretation. Don't get me started.
To defend my argument about TWOP, I think more of the analysis shows up in the forums - a quick look at the available forums for the Sopranos shows topics like "subtexts and symbolism" and "gender and sexuality" - readers who follow the shows, the recaps, and the forums do seem to get involved with interpretation along with complaining about lame guest stars or culling recipes from episodes (there's even a Sopranos Cooking 101 forum).
Lots of what's on that site is sarcasm and spoilers, but the act of thinking and writing critically about the show - especially as the forums become more and more focused - is there.
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/scaramouche/69/wt/wt.html Damn, hope I did that right. If not, please do google the House of Troi and Worf, an awesome fanfic site about two characters in Star Trek Next Generation. What I like about this example of fanfic is that it doesn't so much comment on the content of the show as it does on the failings of the form of the t.v. show to tell a tale. The romance between these two characters only came to fruition at the very, very end of the series (to the consternation of many a nextgen fan- Deana and Worf? Are you serious??), and since the show was getting canned, they basically started a tale that they could never finish. As the host of the House of Troi and Worf says "And it wasn't until in 'All Good Things...' that this much rooted for romantic relationship was finally allowed to reach the realm of reality. But, as the old saying goes, better late and all that. Besides, what did you think fanfic was invented for, anyway?" Apparently not for commentary, ironic or otherwise, on the show, but to compensate for the failings of the network (coupled with the lack of foresight of the writers) by keeping the story alive. Even erotica in part serves to illuminate opaque narrative spots that couldn't be aired on prime time t.v., and thus capitalizes on the weaknesses of of the t.v. show as a genre and a public product (whatever did happen between Tasha and Data, anyways? You know what I'm talking about.)
Ok, I took a look at the forum for The Sopranos and I see what you mean, Allison. Not publishable criticism (in a peer reviewed journal), but there is some critique going on here. Certainly a cut above the recaps. I was tempted to jump in, but who has time for this unless you're REALLY obsessed with the show?
I have to say that with shows like Grey's Anatomy, Lost, The Sopranos, etc. fans are bound to start their own narratives simply because these shows are so enthralling, and do promote participation from the audience (even if that participation is only via an emotional reaction--these shows thrive because the audience is so riveted and emotionally attached). I think the reason fanfic is so popular and booming at the moment is not only due to therapeutic reasons but, as Julia said, to make up for certain failings of the show. Jenkins points this out too when he discusses Star Wars fans recreating the Phantom Menace sans Jar Jar Binks. As a former huge Lostie, I was engrossed in quite a few websites last year--some created by the creators of the show, and others by fans. (One created by some guys in London was particularly awesome), and these websites not only produced narratives but really amazing visuals. We've talked about fanfic as texts, but what about as visual media? With so many disappointed and pissed off Lost fans (a group in which I include myself), I imagine it will only be a matter of time before someone creates a fanfic/slash episode where the monster is finally something a tad scarier than black smoke, Sawyer and Kate get it on (again), and Locke and Jack finally face off in an epic battle. Whatever ends up being created, I think what will be the main motivation for the creation will be to resolve or achieve closure on a show that captured so many imaginations. As Lethem says in his article, artists wander in the fields of inspiration via other artists. (or something close to that). And so, I think that these fanfics can not only provide critical commentary, but can also produce some great works of art via pastiche/collage of beloved cultural artifacts. They take the original and mess with it, and as Lethem argues, that's pretty much what's been going on in the art and literary world since the 20th century began.
*sidenote* I love being in a class where we're all so willing to expose our nerdy extracurricular interests. Well done all.
Re the rhetorical question buried in the quote Julia uses, "what did you think fanfic was created for, anyway?" There's a can of worms (to coin a phrase). If we take Pugh's long view and fold fan fiction into general literary production the question gets historicized and complicated in some interesting ways. Then there's the Maxwell woman from the Chicago Reader story, whose fanfic seems created at once as the product of an addictive personality and as a form of therapy. Then there's the whole exploring your gender and sexuality angle, and of course Jenkins' (somewhat self-serving, for he is a critic) notion that fan fiction is created out of a kind of critical impulse. Then there's Julia's point that fanfic seems created to compensate for the failings of the canonical show. There seem to be multiple answers to the rhetorical question Julia quotes.
Re Natalie's post. She notes we've been talking about fan fiction as text, but wonders about fan fiction as visual media. OK, so I went to YouTube and searched for fan fiction. Presto, an ambitious looking series of trailers for a Harry Potter fan fic video popped up, produced apparently by a 19-year old film student. You should find it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq6sGHz6KkY
Her own website for this and other projects is at
http://www.freewebs.com/missphoenix/
So, more convergence as fanfic migrates from the hard page to the electronic page to video and then YouTube.
Another, semi-cynical theory as to the impetus behind a lot of fan fiction: laziness. Sortakinda. As someone who used to fancy myself a creative writing-type person, I can certainly see the allure of writing fanfic. For one thing, it's easier to have a jumping-off point at which to begin writing. Imagining up entirely new environments / circumstances / characters is hard, particularly if you plan on folding everything into a narrative interesting enough that other people will want to go out of their way to read it. If I wanted to create an entirely new superhero--let's say, Dr. Language (his verbal utterances are also expressed as physically present word balloons that appear above his head, and which he can manipulate in a variety of ways, such as shouting "Less than equals equals equals equals!" and grabbing the resulting "<====" and stabbing someone with it)--it would take some effort on my part to figure out what he can do, where he is, what he's doing, why he's doing it, what his strengths and weaknesses are, who he's fighting, what he looks like (5'10; black hair; slim; extremely dashing, according to all the ladies!), etc. Conversely, I could take Batman and the Joker and have all of that built in, only needing to produce an original storyline that features these already-familiar characters. Also complicating matters is the fact that writers, for the most part, like people to read their work. The Adventures of Dr. Language might capture a few people's attention, but who? How would I promote it? Who would I promote it to? I'm sure there's a site somewhere on this big wide Internet where people can go post random superhero yarns, but meh. If I write a Batman story, though, I can already think of three different sites to which I could post it on which it would be read and very possibly commented on / discussed by a number of people.
I'm not saying that the preconceived premise and built-in audience elements are why people write fanfic. But they may at least be factors, however small or subconscious, in the decision to write fanfic as opposed to something else.
Brett's post, I think, ultimately brings us back to Lethem's article and its assertion that ALL writing takes off from other sources, so that the context for writing Brett talks about would, for Lethem, be the default one. I also think Brett's post, at the end, reminds us how much writing fanfic is connected to community, both in the sense of having a ready-made audience for your writing and putting it in dialogue with readers who are going to read and comment on it. This certainly happens to Maxwell in the Chicago Reader piece.
Post a Comment