CC Firefly novel by Steven Brust

[franceslievens]

Steven Brust has written a Firefly fanfic novel, but that's not really the reason why I'm linking to it. Boing Boing blogger Cory Doctorow has a great couple of lines up as an intro to the novel: A garden variety psych study of why fanfic exists in the first place. And quite frankly it sounds very plausible, because thinking about it I even dream up fanfic with real people.

Comments

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

I agree with "the person-simulator" theory. And it works for fanfic readers too btw.

But in fanfiction like in any written work, there're authors and writers. Authors do create something, a universe that is "real" and that become theirs, with true characters (even though they borrowed it from another work). They have an artistic vision if you prefer. Writers just write (not necessarily poorly).

Writers write fanfic to play with Barbies, like children. Virtual Barbies. They name it after fictional characters but they are only dolls and the background is mostly an excuse. Those are opportunist fanfic writers and they are legions. In that case it's the action, that takes place in the fanfiction (and no it isn't only sex action, it can be romance or adventure or violence), that matters more than the characters who are convenient tools. So yes it's a bit like what happens in dreams.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

I think I don't quite grasp your distinction between "authors" and "writers". Are you implying the writer would have written the same story featuring Spike as (s)he would have were she writing for Miffy? But the author does start from the characters and lets the characters play out the story?

What I refered to when I mentioned dreams, is fantasising about people -- be they fictional or not. I guess that in those fantasies it is the action that counts, because you can't let your RL-crushes grow as a character. We tend to consider the character of others as constant.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

No I didn't mean that author necessarily lets the characters play out the story, I meant that for an author it's more than playing a story with borrowed characters. There's a true literary dimension then, even though they draw their inspiration from another fictional work, besides the person-simulator that works for everybody. It is what I called the artistic vision.

I have read many fanfictions and very few writers are true authors. The others, the writers, use a writing way to play out their fantasies, and of course there's nothing wrong with that. All they need is a good imagination, and good grammar and syntax...and a good knowledge of the show if they don't want to screw up the characterization. It's more demanding than a dream since nobody can go into your head to criticize your fantasy or say that the characterization sucks!

Anyway, what I wanted to point out is that there's more in the fanfiction world than the psychological process that the article mentioned.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

I don't think the Boing Boing post dismisses your distinction btw. You add an extra layer to it, by mentioning that you can reach beyond the "person-simulator" and end up making true art, even though it's with borrowed characters. There aren't man of those, though. Most of them go for imagining what-ifs. :-)

It's more demanding than a dream since nobody can go into your head to criticize your fantasy or say that the characterization sucks!
That's the exact reason why I prefer my fanfictions to stay locked inside my head. They live a nice, Mary Sue filled life there.

[iphi1.livejournal.com]

Very interesting, thanks for the link. I'm not sure I totally agree with Doctorow's theory. He might be on to something, but there has to be more to imagination than just "spinning up specialized systems for modeling and anticipating the actions and beliefs of others".

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Of course there is. This is only the part of imagination we use for social practice (if I understand Doctorow correctly). Being able to predict what others might do, is done with imagination. Saying imagination is only that, is in fact narrowing it down way too much. It doesn't account for all the other things you can do with your mind!

What I did find interesting about this theory was that he made a link between imagining what'll happen in a story (be it a book or a film or a television series) and imagining how one of your acquaintances in real life will react to something. Because these two are so far removed from each other, I forgot that they both use the same source: imagination.