![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Readers and writers
So I know that ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
fanficrants can be a scary place, but this post is actually generating some interesting discussion, particularly in this thread.
Who owns a story? The writer? The reader? A writer of course can pull down any story at any time, but do they have the "right" to demand that every copy of the story be deleted? (From the Google cache, from the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine, from people's harddrives, etc.) Does a reader have the "right" to be able to find the story again? Do they have the "right" to download it, to pass it on to friends, to write their own fanfic based on it? Complex questions, I think.
I tend to think that, once a story is posted to the Internet, we lose control over what happens to it. It's out there, in the world, free to be read, reviewed, linked, copied, downloaded, fanficced. Why should we expect more control over our writings than traditionally published authors? A professional writer could never demand the return every publically available copy of a book. Once published, it's out there. Even if such a thing were possible, the story would live on, in the minds of the people who had read it.
Personally, I tend to think of a story as a collaboration between its writer and its readers. The writer creates the story, but it doesn't really come to life until someone else reads it. Perhaps this is a part of why we all adore reviews so much: a review is proof that someone read, that the story did indeed take on that life of its own. Maybe not the life we inteded for it, but a life all the same. (I think this is true for all stories, not just fanfic, although of course the feedback loop is more immediate in fandom.)
Anyway. Just my random thoughts on a Thursday evening. What do you all think?
fanficrants can be a scary place, but this post is actually generating some interesting discussion, particularly in this thread.Who owns a story? The writer? The reader? A writer of course can pull down any story at any time, but do they have the "right" to demand that every copy of the story be deleted? (From the Google cache, from the Internet Archive/Wayback Machine, from people's harddrives, etc.) Does a reader have the "right" to be able to find the story again? Do they have the "right" to download it, to pass it on to friends, to write their own fanfic based on it? Complex questions, I think.
I tend to think that, once a story is posted to the Internet, we lose control over what happens to it. It's out there, in the world, free to be read, reviewed, linked, copied, downloaded, fanficced. Why should we expect more control over our writings than traditionally published authors? A professional writer could never demand the return every publically available copy of a book. Once published, it's out there. Even if such a thing were possible, the story would live on, in the minds of the people who had read it.
Personally, I tend to think of a story as a collaboration between its writer and its readers. The writer creates the story, but it doesn't really come to life until someone else reads it. Perhaps this is a part of why we all adore reviews so much: a review is proof that someone read, that the story did indeed take on that life of its own. Maybe not the life we inteded for it, but a life all the same. (I think this is true for all stories, not just fanfic, although of course the feedback loop is more immediate in fandom.)
Anyway. Just my random thoughts on a Thursday evening. What do you all think?
no subject
On the other hand I feel that once someone has written something and it's been read by anyone at all, the writer can't control the meaning of that writing, not at all. The story isn't even completed anyway until it has an audience, as far as I am concerned. And I don't think it's possible for a reader to interpret a piece of writing in an invalid way. Sure there may be better and worse readings of a piece of writing, but in the end, I think the author is possibly the *worst* judge of whose interpretation is best.
The power of writing is that it's open to interpretation. So hile the author might not like what someone saw in his/her work and might find it completely contrary to his/her intentions, I don't think the writer should even try to hunt people down and change what they think about something. I find that doing so only makes the other person's interpretation seem all the more valid.
no subject
Interesting thought. Sort of a "the lady doth protest too much" kind of thing? Regardless, stories will mean different things to different people, and I don't think we can ever say that any one reading is the "true" one, although I do think it's fair to say one reading can be *better* than another. But then I am a known relativist. ;)