owlmoose | Readers and writers

So I know that

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A highly publicized incident taking place in Virginia lends some credence to the idea that an amateur writer might wish to remove his work from the public view because of its effect on his professional life. Jim Webb, who is running for senator in that state has been asked to withdraw because of his 'XXXXX-rated' fiction. This demand was issued by the oddly named Traditional Values Coalition. The incident in one of Webb's novels they cite as the reason for this demand is the usual taken from context and exaggerated in position passage as is most of this sort of nonsense. However, it is easy to see how a person who has written a few less than chaste lines might decide that such footsteps were better erased before they can rouse the easily roused sheep against him should he ever harbour thoughts of public service.

There are many reasons why one would prefer that certain writings be expunged from the record. I have done that myself from time to time. As to 'rights', I am not so presumptuous as to think I can declaim ex cathedra on that topic. If there is something I read which I truly value, I make a print-out of it so that I may indulge in the archaic habit of curling up with a cat and a good read. And I cannot possibly fault those original creators who prefer that their carefully crafted characters not be pulled this way and that by those who had no hand in the genesis. They have every reason to expect their preferences, however irritating, be respected.

Fair enough, but I would tend to say that the time to worry about that is *before* you post a story publicly, not after. There are so many ways a webpage can be archived, up to and including printouts by others, which can make their way into other hands. Once you've released your writings into the wild, it's dangerous to assume that you can ever call them all back. You can wipe away some of the footprints, but they'll probably never be all gone.

And I cannot possibly fault those original creators who prefer that their carefully crafted characters not be pulled this way and that by those who had no hand in the genesis.

To be honest I am a bit surprised to hear you express this opinion, given how vigerously you usually defend fanfic as a literary tradition. The idea that a writer "owns" their characters, even those that they've invented, is a fairly new one, and I'm not sure it's a particularly useful way of looking at a creation. Do you see a difference here?

In the case to which I assume you are alluding, Conan Doyle did not forbid the use of his invented world by those who wished to 'meta-fic'. I believe the real flood of such came after his death, however, even when he was alive, he indulged those who invested Sherlock with all the attributes of a living man. It may have annoyed him but he did not try to cut it off altogether.

Most writers seems to be charmed that their creations inspire the level of affection and interest which manifests itself as fanfiction. Those few who are offended and forbid such use of their creations should be heard - this is my opinion. My defense of fanfiction as a legitimate genre yields to my greater defense of an individual's privacy. If Anne Rice thinks she has sole title to her characters, I gladly grant her that. She has so befouled the vampire tradition, I loathe her anyway. ;) Vampires as rock stars! Hmph!

Readers and writers

I

Re: I

I