Let's Have A Ramble: Fandom Publications
I came across something interesting in a review today, which combined with my restlessness and it being Sunday, lead to this post which I am sure will be a bunch of ramblings.
"It is not very clear where the stories are from – I presume they are collected from a variety of sources of fan fiction, but perhaps some were written especially for this anthology." Was part of a long review of a furry science-fiction anthology. I thought it interesting that the reviewer felt the need to state such a thing, and it got me thinking a few things.
One of which was how the reviewer immediately assumed all the stories within the anthology were fan fictions rather than stories written for the anthology. (which, to my knowledge, every single story in this anthology was written specifically for this anthology. Much like how they are for every anthology that goes to print within the fandom unless stated otherwise.)
Now, the reviewer's viewpoint could have been influenced by the fact that the editor for this anthology has put together a lot of anthologies where such stories have been collected. I can acknowledge that, but to assume that this one was, more so without any kind of note in the forward stating such, well... you know what they say about assuming.
Oh, and let me state, no, none of my works are in this anthology. If one was, I would not be commenting. As you all know, I am not one to respond to any kind of review that is posted towards my work. That just asks for trouble, and shows that you feel your work needs to be defended and can't stand up on its own.
I've published inside and outside of the furry fandom. More so inside, because there are certain elements within writing it that I find enjoyable and fun to write. (writing with twitching ears, wagging tails, etc adds a lot of emotion to a scene if done properly and in moderation)
Do I find the furry fandom's work to lesser in quality when compared to stuff outside of it?
NO.
I have seen a lot of things go wrong with works that have been published. Anyone who has talked to me or been to a panel I am on knows that I will gladly talk about the things I have seen. In a world where more and more small presses are cropping up, it's extremely ignorant to believe that just because it's a fandom based publisher means it's of a lower quality.
Now, that said, sometimes it is a lower quality. I'm not stating that it's all amazing works overflowing with perfect prose and such. But rather, I am stating that assuming that something is a lower quality simply because it's part of a fandom is like saying someone is of a lower social standing simply based on the colour of their skin.
(okay, that's a bit extreme, but you get the point)
Let's look at Bronies.
Yes, Bronies.
There's a lot of crap out there that have been produced by Bronies. Does that mean it's all bad? Hell no. In fact, they have produced some of the most imaginative stuff I have seen, which is amazing given that they are such a young fandom.
Fan fiction is defined as fiction about characters or settings from an original work of fiction, created by fans of that work rather than by its creator. (from Wiki)
So let's consider the following:
Dr. Who, Star Wars, Star Trek, Aliens, Supernatural, Buffy, Angel, and all the other TV/Movie novels.
Are these not technically fan fictions? (if the writer is a fan of the media being written about, which I would hope they were otherwise they wouldn't do it proper service) And yet they are being published by the big boys of the publishing world. (though again, as with small presses, this doesn't mean they are good)
In the end, just because it's written by a fandom, or published by a fandom based publisher, that doesn't instantly mean it's bad. I mean, the furry fandom has a number of publishers, as well as award winning authors. (awards from outside the fandom btw) Not many other fandoms can claim the same thing. Trekkies, Ringers, Star Warians(?), Whovians, etc. can't because their fandom is based off a copyrighted something.
Furries aren't.
And that gives a hell of a lot more freedom when it comes to producing works that are unique, fresh, and most of all, not fan fiction.
Now, hopefully that made some sort of sense. Time to get back into my writer's cage and actually get some work done.
"It is not very clear where the stories are from – I presume they are collected from a variety of sources of fan fiction, but perhaps some were written especially for this anthology." Was part of a long review of a furry science-fiction anthology. I thought it interesting that the reviewer felt the need to state such a thing, and it got me thinking a few things.
One of which was how the reviewer immediately assumed all the stories within the anthology were fan fictions rather than stories written for the anthology. (which, to my knowledge, every single story in this anthology was written specifically for this anthology. Much like how they are for every anthology that goes to print within the fandom unless stated otherwise.)
Now, the reviewer's viewpoint could have been influenced by the fact that the editor for this anthology has put together a lot of anthologies where such stories have been collected. I can acknowledge that, but to assume that this one was, more so without any kind of note in the forward stating such, well... you know what they say about assuming.
Oh, and let me state, no, none of my works are in this anthology. If one was, I would not be commenting. As you all know, I am not one to respond to any kind of review that is posted towards my work. That just asks for trouble, and shows that you feel your work needs to be defended and can't stand up on its own.
I've published inside and outside of the furry fandom. More so inside, because there are certain elements within writing it that I find enjoyable and fun to write. (writing with twitching ears, wagging tails, etc adds a lot of emotion to a scene if done properly and in moderation)
Do I find the furry fandom's work to lesser in quality when compared to stuff outside of it?
NO.
I have seen a lot of things go wrong with works that have been published. Anyone who has talked to me or been to a panel I am on knows that I will gladly talk about the things I have seen. In a world where more and more small presses are cropping up, it's extremely ignorant to believe that just because it's a fandom based publisher means it's of a lower quality.
Now, that said, sometimes it is a lower quality. I'm not stating that it's all amazing works overflowing with perfect prose and such. But rather, I am stating that assuming that something is a lower quality simply because it's part of a fandom is like saying someone is of a lower social standing simply based on the colour of their skin.
(okay, that's a bit extreme, but you get the point)
Let's look at Bronies.
Yes, Bronies.
There's a lot of crap out there that have been produced by Bronies. Does that mean it's all bad? Hell no. In fact, they have produced some of the most imaginative stuff I have seen, which is amazing given that they are such a young fandom.
Fan fiction is defined as fiction about characters or settings from an original work of fiction, created by fans of that work rather than by its creator. (from Wiki)
So let's consider the following:
Dr. Who, Star Wars, Star Trek, Aliens, Supernatural, Buffy, Angel, and all the other TV/Movie novels.
Are these not technically fan fictions? (if the writer is a fan of the media being written about, which I would hope they were otherwise they wouldn't do it proper service) And yet they are being published by the big boys of the publishing world. (though again, as with small presses, this doesn't mean they are good)
In the end, just because it's written by a fandom, or published by a fandom based publisher, that doesn't instantly mean it's bad. I mean, the furry fandom has a number of publishers, as well as award winning authors. (awards from outside the fandom btw) Not many other fandoms can claim the same thing. Trekkies, Ringers, Star Warians(?), Whovians, etc. can't because their fandom is based off a copyrighted something.
Furries aren't.
And that gives a hell of a lot more freedom when it comes to producing works that are unique, fresh, and most of all, not fan fiction.
Now, hopefully that made some sort of sense. Time to get back into my writer's cage and actually get some work done.
date
newest »
newest »
Rechan wrote: ""Fan fiction is defined as fiction about characters or settings from an original work of fiction, created by fans of that work rather than by its creator. (from Wiki)"By that definition, most com..."
Good point.
So then do we tack on that they have to have the publisher/rights holder/creater's permission first to not be considered fan fiction?
And even with that change, that doesn't make furry fiction anything even remotely close to fan fiction.
By that definition, most comics are going to be fanfic. Whoever created Batman, Superman et al are not the ones writing and drawing the comics anymore. And the same could be said for the movies, TV shows etc spawned from those works.