![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wordwhackerOkay, I'll admit it: I really did find that first Jenkins article that we had to read for this class boring. But Jenkins has completely made it up to me in this article on fan culture and collective intelligence (which I think I've read before, but I enjoy it so much that I don't care.) It's written in a very accessible style, so if you are at all interested in fandom I recommend you take a look at it. It's a bit long, but it's worth it. I'll be quoting from it somewhat liberally this week.
What makes it so topical is a discussion I had with my friends over the weekend, after we'd finished recording my podcast about podcasts (which I'll be putting up this weekend.) This is a conversation that we've had before, and it may be familiar to some of you, especially people who are familiar with fandom and fanfic in general.
We were talking about how Anne Rice is insane.
Okay, okay, so that might be a bit harsh. In the interest of protecting my ass if her lawyers come after me (which they probably won't unless I start writing fanfiction based on her characters), I'll use my "I statements". I think, based on many of the things she's said on her website and in Amazon.com reviews of her own books, that she has some ISSUES, with a capital ISSUES.
To briefly sum up: Anne Rice doesn't allow fanfiction based on her works (like the Vampire chronicles) or characters, which you probably figured out. The lawyers thing is NOT an exaggeration. (For a more detailed run-down of this, go here.) She also defended herself pretty hilariously within the (generally pretty bad) Amazon.com reviews of her book Blood Canticle. (Just Google "anne rice amazon review" and you'll find it.) She doesn't even use an editor for her books anymore, because she claims that she's worked hard enough to earn the right to go without one. (Why this doesn't apply to, oh, pretty much every other writer in existence is beyond me.)
As I was reading Jenkins' article, this paragraph jumped out at me:
"For many media producers, who still operate within the old logic of the commodity culture, fandom represents a potential loss of control over their intellectual property. [...] Television producers, film studios, and book publishers have been equally aggressive in issuing 'cease and desist' letters to fan websites that transcribe program dialogue or reproduce unauthorized images. If new media has made visible various forms of fan participation and production, then these legal battles demonstrate the power still vested in media ownership."
Okay, so this is relevant to the music-, TV- and movie-downloading culture, for sure. Though I may not necessarily agree that it's the best course of action to FREAK OUT about it, I can at least understand why a production studio would like to prevent people from posting images and scripts, or even pieces of episodes on YouTube and that kind of thing.
But what caught my eye especially was the term "intellectual property". Does this include, as Anne Rice would probably argue, characters and generally-known knowledge within her established universe? And if it does, what is the difference between writing fanfiction about Lestat wanking off, and writing a forum post in which you talk about Lestat wanking off? (Or eating a pie, or whatever.) If the writer, in each case, is clear that they aren't making any CLAIM on the character, what is it that differentiates the two? What is it that, in the eyes of Anne Rice and probably others, makes fanfiction so dangerous?
Jenkins again:
"Levy sees industry panic over interactive audiences as short-sighted: 'by preventing the knowledge space from becoming autonomous, they deprive the circuits of commodity space……of an extraordinary source of energy.' The knowledge culture, he suggests, serves as the 'invisible and intangible engine' for the circulation and exchange of commodities."
I was about to make a comment to this effect, so I'm glad that I apparently had the foresight to copy/paste this paragraph. I like Levy's talk about the potential 'energy' of knowledge spaces - and I think it's reasonable to call fandom a 'knowledge space'. And they certainly are VERY invested in 'circulating and exchanging commodities' - both of the fan-created and the source-created variety. FANS BUY STUFF. They buy your books, Anne Rice! (At least they did while you had an editor! *ba-dum TSH!*) So the total rejection of this aspect of fan culture seems like a really bad move to me.
But is it a business move? I'd say that for most people, it would be. People tend to send lawyers after other people when they feel that either their own personal character or their revenue have been compromised. It may be kind of assy, but I can understand and (depending on circumstance) maybe even respect that. If I wrote a series of books and people were writing creepy child molestation stories about it, I might ask them to take it down, or at least make it private plskthxEWW. Or if someone was distributing copies of my book for free in PDF, I might be kind of miffed, maybe even to the point of trying to do something about it. But this attack on fanfic authors had NOTHING to do with a loss of either personal character or revenue. She lost no money thanks to fanfic (if Jenkins and Levy are right, fandom probably even ENCOURAGED revenue), and they likely didn't do anything weirder in fanfic than she did herself (apparently Lestat seduces a nun at one point, and he is generally a total bisexual manwhore from what I've heard).
So what's the problem?
Jenkins:
"Fans... see unrealized potentials in popular culture and want to broaden audience participation. Fan culture is dialogic rather than disruptive, affective more than ideological, and collaborative rather than confrontational."
Here he's summing up his article and talking about the difference between "fans" and "culture jammers". But I think it might be applicable to our friend Anne Rice's concerns about people writing about her characters. A person who refuses to use an editor sounds like someone who doesn't want to think about their work as having 'unrealized potentials', or who wants an audience to dialog or collaborate with her.
I wouldn't say that she's necessarily WRONG to feel that audience participation in her work is a kind of threat. And if she wants to insist that her fans not participate in this kind of way, then that's fine - they can either respect her wishes, or keep their fanfiction private. But if that's the case, I think she needs to re-evaluate her own presence online and the other ways in which her fans interact with her and with each other. Again, the forum vs fanfiction question. It's difficult to know where to really draw the line. It's like the Amazon.com reviews business: you have to take the bad reviews with the good. If you want fans visiting your website and talking about you on forums, it's difficult to completely divorce that from fanfiction. They're activities which are intricately linked in fan culture, and denying one will definitely have an effect on the other.
What makes it so topical is a discussion I had with my friends over the weekend, after we'd finished recording my podcast about podcasts (which I'll be putting up this weekend.) This is a conversation that we've had before, and it may be familiar to some of you, especially people who are familiar with fandom and fanfic in general.
We were talking about how Anne Rice is insane.
Okay, okay, so that might be a bit harsh. In the interest of protecting my ass if her lawyers come after me (which they probably won't unless I start writing fanfiction based on her characters), I'll use my "I statements". I think, based on many of the things she's said on her website and in Amazon.com reviews of her own books, that she has some ISSUES, with a capital ISSUES.
To briefly sum up: Anne Rice doesn't allow fanfiction based on her works (like the Vampire chronicles) or characters, which you probably figured out. The lawyers thing is NOT an exaggeration. (For a more detailed run-down of this, go here.) She also defended herself pretty hilariously within the (generally pretty bad) Amazon.com reviews of her book Blood Canticle. (Just Google "anne rice amazon review" and you'll find it.) She doesn't even use an editor for her books anymore, because she claims that she's worked hard enough to earn the right to go without one. (Why this doesn't apply to, oh, pretty much every other writer in existence is beyond me.)
As I was reading Jenkins' article, this paragraph jumped out at me:
"For many media producers, who still operate within the old logic of the commodity culture, fandom represents a potential loss of control over their intellectual property. [...] Television producers, film studios, and book publishers have been equally aggressive in issuing 'cease and desist' letters to fan websites that transcribe program dialogue or reproduce unauthorized images. If new media has made visible various forms of fan participation and production, then these legal battles demonstrate the power still vested in media ownership."
Okay, so this is relevant to the music-, TV- and movie-downloading culture, for sure. Though I may not necessarily agree that it's the best course of action to FREAK OUT about it, I can at least understand why a production studio would like to prevent people from posting images and scripts, or even pieces of episodes on YouTube and that kind of thing.
But what caught my eye especially was the term "intellectual property". Does this include, as Anne Rice would probably argue, characters and generally-known knowledge within her established universe? And if it does, what is the difference between writing fanfiction about Lestat wanking off, and writing a forum post in which you talk about Lestat wanking off? (Or eating a pie, or whatever.) If the writer, in each case, is clear that they aren't making any CLAIM on the character, what is it that differentiates the two? What is it that, in the eyes of Anne Rice and probably others, makes fanfiction so dangerous?
Jenkins again:
"Levy sees industry panic over interactive audiences as short-sighted: 'by preventing the knowledge space from becoming autonomous, they deprive the circuits of commodity space……of an extraordinary source of energy.' The knowledge culture, he suggests, serves as the 'invisible and intangible engine' for the circulation and exchange of commodities."
I was about to make a comment to this effect, so I'm glad that I apparently had the foresight to copy/paste this paragraph. I like Levy's talk about the potential 'energy' of knowledge spaces - and I think it's reasonable to call fandom a 'knowledge space'. And they certainly are VERY invested in 'circulating and exchanging commodities' - both of the fan-created and the source-created variety. FANS BUY STUFF. They buy your books, Anne Rice! (At least they did while you had an editor! *ba-dum TSH!*) So the total rejection of this aspect of fan culture seems like a really bad move to me.
But is it a business move? I'd say that for most people, it would be. People tend to send lawyers after other people when they feel that either their own personal character or their revenue have been compromised. It may be kind of assy, but I can understand and (depending on circumstance) maybe even respect that. If I wrote a series of books and people were writing creepy child molestation stories about it, I might ask them to take it down, or at least make it private plskthxEWW. Or if someone was distributing copies of my book for free in PDF, I might be kind of miffed, maybe even to the point of trying to do something about it. But this attack on fanfic authors had NOTHING to do with a loss of either personal character or revenue. She lost no money thanks to fanfic (if Jenkins and Levy are right, fandom probably even ENCOURAGED revenue), and they likely didn't do anything weirder in fanfic than she did herself (apparently Lestat seduces a nun at one point, and he is generally a total bisexual manwhore from what I've heard).
So what's the problem?
Jenkins:
"Fans... see unrealized potentials in popular culture and want to broaden audience participation. Fan culture is dialogic rather than disruptive, affective more than ideological, and collaborative rather than confrontational."
Here he's summing up his article and talking about the difference between "fans" and "culture jammers". But I think it might be applicable to our friend Anne Rice's concerns about people writing about her characters. A person who refuses to use an editor sounds like someone who doesn't want to think about their work as having 'unrealized potentials', or who wants an audience to dialog or collaborate with her.
I wouldn't say that she's necessarily WRONG to feel that audience participation in her work is a kind of threat. And if she wants to insist that her fans not participate in this kind of way, then that's fine - they can either respect her wishes, or keep their fanfiction private. But if that's the case, I think she needs to re-evaluate her own presence online and the other ways in which her fans interact with her and with each other. Again, the forum vs fanfiction question. It's difficult to know where to really draw the line. It's like the Amazon.com reviews business: you have to take the bad reviews with the good. If you want fans visiting your website and talking about you on forums, it's difficult to completely divorce that from fanfiction. They're activities which are intricately linked in fan culture, and denying one will definitely have an effect on the other.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
My comments, and they may be long. :p
Date: 2008-10-24 03:28 pm (UTC)I can completely understand sending lawyers after people when your revenue has been compromised. You worked to earn your money, and why should someone else take money for using what you created? And I can understand being miffed about your characters being screwed over if someone else writes them, too, but going so far as to send lawyers out, effectively saying, "You can't play with my toys," just smacks of being childish. The fanfic writers were never making money off Anne Rice's work. Ever. And fanfic even encouraged buying of the actual products, and I can attest to this at least on a personal basis, because when I'd read well-done fanfic that referenced and event or a character that I wasn't familiar with from previous readings, I'd go out and buy the next book so I could learn more. And I somehow doubt I'm in the only person in the world who did things that way, either. She made money through fanfic. Indirectly, but money was still made. I'm not saying she should be thrilled about that, but her reaction just went over the top, to the point of driving fans underground and alienating them. Honestly, if I'd written fanfic for her books and I'd been harassed by C&D letters or guestbook spam, it would make me not spend another cent on her books. Ask me to take it down, sure. I can do that. But as the first link on this entry mentioned, writers got stalked. If I took down my Anne Rice fanfic, only to get another letter by her author's when I try to put up a Harry Potter fic, then there's a freaking problem!
She's an egomaniac, to put it bluntly. She wants her things to be hers and hers alone, and it's always about her. Note how "it's essential that we obey her wishes" regarding her own fanfic but she continued to lead the crusade against fanfic in general? Or how she felt so personally slighted by bad reviews that she had to hop onto Amazon and tell the world just how great she is and how her stories are perfect?
I think her attitude wouldn't bother me as much (though it would still bother me) if it wasn't for blatant hypocrisy. "Fanfic is evil and I won't allow it! Now leave me alone while I write my version of the life of Jesus Christ." She's essentially writing Bible fanfic, even if it's under the guise of "exploring her relationship with the Lord." She's taking someone else's work, and making her own version. Now yes, granted, the Bible isn't under anything resembling a copyright so far as I know, so that dims the line a little bit, but the essence is still there. Someone else did the initial work, and she's filling in the "unrealized potential", as Jenkins put it.
If I wrote a series of books and people were writing creepy child molestation stories about it, I might ask them to take it down...
Part of the problem is that when you allow fanfic, you open up a very large can of worms. What to allow and what not to allow. Allow fics only within your personal canon, or only by good writers, or with pairings that trip your particular trigger? If you ask the rest to take their fics down, you're playing favourites, and that's still creative censorship. If someone really wants to write child molestation fic because they think it would be an interesting dynamic to explore between two characters of yours, it's no different from the teenybopper who writes the self-inserts, or budding writer who can really spin a good story. With fanfic, it's really got to be an "all or nothing" thing. You either allow it, or you don't.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-24 07:23 pm (UTC)I can completely understand sending lawyers after people when your revenue has been compromised.
Exactly! But like you said, they're totally not. (Thanks for reiterating that whole point, I'd meant to harp more on that but I got distracted.)
If you ask the rest to take their fics down, you're playing favourites, and that's still creative censorship.
Still, I don't think it would be unreasonable for an author to "play favourites" re: what they allow and what they don't - it's definitely still creative censorship, though, which is a good point. But if an author is going to invoke creative censorship in the first place, then where an individual author draws the line between "acceptible" and "not acceptible" becomes the new focus instead of "yes fanfiction" or "no fanfiction". The line is similarly blurry on the "no fanfiction" front: talking and theorizing about her characters is fine, but you're not allowed to do it in an authorial voice. So what constitutes an authorial voice? If someone is talking on a forum about how awesome it would be for Lestat to run for governmental office and decided to put quotations around something that he would theoretically say, or describe in a prose-like fashion what he might do, does that cross the line? Both of these responses involve user participation in her work, but for some reason one is much more threatening than the other.
I wonder if Anne Rice's strong reaction is basically a by-product of the fact that she's more intimately aware of (and by extension, even somewhat involvced in) the fan community and its activities? I mean, she isn't actively PARTICIPATING in the community, but she definitely acknowledges its presence in both accepting and rejecting ways. Maybe it's a combination of her particular personality (being an "egomaniac," as you so nicely put it X-D) and her knowledge of fandom which provides for her really intense, ambivalent relationship with the fan community.