An article in the Life section of USA Today discusses a new Harry Potter book from an unknown author. You've never heard of her because she is primarily a writer of fan fiction. Her name is Melissa Anelli, and she has just completed a book entitled, Harry, A History: The True Story of a Boy Wizard, His Fans, and Life Inside the Harry Potter Phenomenon. Anelli is the 'Web mistress' of the Leaky Cauldron, a enormously popular Potter fan website. There is only one other website that gets more hits in a given month.
J.K. Rowling actually approved of this work and even wrote the foreward. She writes, "The tale of the online fandom is every bit as extraordinary as Harry's own and has left me with a feeling of awe and gratitude." The article mentions Rowling's lawsuit to block another fan's plans to publish a Harry Potter lexicon.
Her approval of some fan fiction and disapproval of other fan fiction seems downright strange to me. The only difference between Anelli's book and the other fan's planned work that I can see is that Anelli's is more of a tribute than anything else. She describes her "love for the boy wizard, the story behind the books, and the growth of the Potter online community." On the other hand, the other potential author (the article does not provide his name) planned on adding some new material and expanding on the vast Potter universe. I suppose I can see the difference, but that line becomes even thinner with every new Potter fanfic novel that is published.
Donahue, Deidre. "Author Touched By Potter's Magic." USA Today 4 Nov. 2008: D1.
11/3/08
The Graveyard Book
I have been really looking forward to reading this book. It has been getting great reviews everywhere, and it is a young adult story that doesn't need several volumes to tell. I know - strange. Anyway, my desire to read Mr. Gaiman's novel doesn't really have anything to do with fan fiction, but the content itself definitely does.
I read the satirical newspaper The Onion religiously. Most of their articles are fake, but their reviews of movies, music, and books are genuine. Zack Handlen, an Onion book critic, mentions that "The Graveyard Book owes an acknowledged debt to Rudyard Kipling...." I read a lot of classic books, but I have to admit that at the time I couldn't exactly remember Rudyard Kipling's famous works. Out of curiosity, I logged onto Amazon.com to see what the site wrote about The Graveyard Book. Sure enough, a part of their review/synopsis states, "The Graveyard Book manages the remarkable feat of playing delightful jazz riffs on Kipling's classic Jungle Books."
While not blatant fan fiction, I find it interesting that The Graveyard Book, which from what I have since read is one of the most unique, thought-provoking novels to come out in a while, borrows many of its themes from an established classic. I haven't read The Graveyard Book or Kipling, so I guess I'll have to check out both and see for myself.
By the way - Zack Handlen gave The Graveyard Book an 'A'. I've been reading the Onion for a few years, and I've never seen a reviewer give a book that high of a mark. I would be willing to bet that it is pretty darn good. I'll let you know.
Handlen, Zack. (2008). [Review of the book The Graveyard Book]. The Onion, 43, 21.
I read the satirical newspaper The Onion religiously. Most of their articles are fake, but their reviews of movies, music, and books are genuine. Zack Handlen, an Onion book critic, mentions that "The Graveyard Book owes an acknowledged debt to Rudyard Kipling...." I read a lot of classic books, but I have to admit that at the time I couldn't exactly remember Rudyard Kipling's famous works. Out of curiosity, I logged onto Amazon.com to see what the site wrote about The Graveyard Book. Sure enough, a part of their review/synopsis states, "The Graveyard Book manages the remarkable feat of playing delightful jazz riffs on Kipling's classic Jungle Books."
While not blatant fan fiction, I find it interesting that The Graveyard Book, which from what I have since read is one of the most unique, thought-provoking novels to come out in a while, borrows many of its themes from an established classic. I haven't read The Graveyard Book or Kipling, so I guess I'll have to check out both and see for myself.
By the way - Zack Handlen gave The Graveyard Book an 'A'. I've been reading the Onion for a few years, and I've never seen a reviewer give a book that high of a mark. I would be willing to bet that it is pretty darn good. I'll let you know.
Handlen, Zack. (2008). [Review of the book The Graveyard Book]. The Onion, 43, 21.
10/28/08
"The Fan Fiction Phenomena"
I just read an article written by Cathy Young that I think others will enjoy and find helpful on the subject of fan fiction, or fanfic for short. It is a great synopsis of the present and future of the (sub)genre. Cathy Young also divulges that she herself is a fan fiction author, so she has some insight into this (sub)genre of writing and a surprisingly objective view.
Here are some brief points of the article that I found very interesting. She reasons that many of our greatest literary works are primitive forms of fan fiction themselves. Ron Moore, the producer of Battlestar Galactica and fanfic author, admits that "Shakespeare wouldn't like a lot of the incarnations of Romeo & Juliet." What's funny is that Romeo & Juliet is adapted from another story.
She gives other more contemporary examples as well. I haven't read either of these books, but here is a list:
Tom Stoppard - Rosencrantz & Gildenstern are Dead
John Updike - Gertrude & Claudius
Both books are based on, or at least borrow heavily from, Shakespeare's Hamlet.
Ms. Young also points out that while some are labeled as fanfic writers - not in a positive way - others are given a pass, even though their works mirror each other, and insinuates that established authors might be given that pass more often than others. Pamela Morgen, a librarian (nice!) and not an author by trade, wrote a 3-part series based on Pride & Prejudice. Sally Beauman wrote Rebecca's Tale, based on Daphne du Mauriei's Rebecca, and is not stuck with the tag of fanfic author. Why? Because one is a librarian and one is a published author? Hmmm . . . . . .
I have to add this also. I know, I know, I am pretty much summing up the entire article. I thought this is a good debate topic, though. Lee Goldberg, who is "vehemently anti-fanfic," is the writer of authorized novels based on the TV shows Monk and Diagnosis Murder. He justifies this by saying that he only writes about these shows for a paycheck and reasons that he can't be a fanfic author if he doesn't take any joy in it. So, what do you think? Is he a hypocrite of the highest order or does his defense hold merit?
Please click directly on this blog title if you are interested in reading Ms. Young's article.
Here are some brief points of the article that I found very interesting. She reasons that many of our greatest literary works are primitive forms of fan fiction themselves. Ron Moore, the producer of Battlestar Galactica and fanfic author, admits that "Shakespeare wouldn't like a lot of the incarnations of Romeo & Juliet." What's funny is that Romeo & Juliet is adapted from another story.
She gives other more contemporary examples as well. I haven't read either of these books, but here is a list:
Tom Stoppard - Rosencrantz & Gildenstern are Dead
John Updike - Gertrude & Claudius
Both books are based on, or at least borrow heavily from, Shakespeare's Hamlet.
Ms. Young also points out that while some are labeled as fanfic writers - not in a positive way - others are given a pass, even though their works mirror each other, and insinuates that established authors might be given that pass more often than others. Pamela Morgen, a librarian (nice!) and not an author by trade, wrote a 3-part series based on Pride & Prejudice. Sally Beauman wrote Rebecca's Tale, based on Daphne du Mauriei's Rebecca, and is not stuck with the tag of fanfic author. Why? Because one is a librarian and one is a published author? Hmmm . . . . . .
I have to add this also. I know, I know, I am pretty much summing up the entire article. I thought this is a good debate topic, though. Lee Goldberg, who is "vehemently anti-fanfic," is the writer of authorized novels based on the TV shows Monk and Diagnosis Murder. He justifies this by saying that he only writes about these shows for a paycheck and reasons that he can't be a fanfic author if he doesn't take any joy in it. So, what do you think? Is he a hypocrite of the highest order or does his defense hold merit?
Please click directly on this blog title if you are interested in reading Ms. Young's article.
10/5/08
Fan Fiction
"Fan fiction" is loosely defined as a work written or directed by someone who "borrows" original material from an original author or director, usually as a means of expanding on a story. The best example of this that I have found are Trekkies (Star Trek aficianados for those non-science fiction fans reading this) writing critical, in-depth articles and essays about the popular franchise. Technically, they have to get permission from whatever company owns the idea of Star Trek, and most don't. If the company or studio decides to sue, a gigantic super-rich corperation ends up in a legal battle with some guy paying homage to a story that he worships. The company looks greedy, to say the least. After all, they already have their billions of dollars and are not really going to benefit from suing some guy (or girl) typing in his/her basement. Can you really own an idea? I know that technically that is more or less the definition of copyrighting, but can "fan fiction" really be regulated? And, more importantly, should it be?
A contemporary example of legal issues over fan fiction is the newest Harry Potter saga. A self-described superfan wrote a companion encyclopedia to the magical realm of Harry Potter and the original author, J.K. Rowling, did not like that at all because she did not give authorization and allegedly had planned on writing her own encyclopedia, even though she has insisted over and over that the story arc is complete. She is in the process of suing him. I'm not sure how I feel about this situation. J.K. Rowling isn't exactly hurting for money, so that cannot possibly be the motivation for suing. Does she have a legitimate right to keep her ideas out of the hands of everyone, even people that want to help others learn and understand those ideas? Are "fan fiction" writers stealing, or are they just overly excitable authors/directors who get carried away? I'm not sure that either side is wrong or right in this particular case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)