[ SECRET POST #4311 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4311 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.




__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 23 secrets from Secret Submission Post #617.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Fandom secrets you can't be bothered to make

[(Anonymous)]

I mean... if you define fanfiction simply as “fiction based on a previously created work”, then the vast majority of creative works are fanfiction.

The Aeneid is fanfiction of the Trojan war, the Oedipus trilogy is fanfiction of the myth of Oedipus, the Divine Comedy is fanfiction of the Bible, La Morte D’Arthur is fanfiction of the King Arthur myth. Going to more recent times you have things like The Wide Sargasso Sea (fanfiction of Jane Eyre) Ben Hur (fanfiction of the New Testament) and writers like Gregory Maguire and Alan Moore have pretty much made their careers out of writing stories based on past creators’ work. And just because they’re writing in a pre-established universe doesn’t necessarily mean it’s easier than writing original work, because a lot of times they’re not “just” writing about pre-existing characters they’re frequently using these well-established characters as jumping off points to explore larger issues related to either the characters/original stories themselves or the historical environment in which they were created, which requires a certain level of research, understanding and care. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that writing “original” works is somehow intrinsically more difficult than writing fanfic, I think they both have unique challenges.

Sorry for the off topic ramble, I just get kind of irritated when people define fanfiction as just “nearly written porn about fictional characters thrown up on ff.net” when the whole concept of derivative works goes back millennia.

Same Anon

[(Anonymous)]

What does irritate me though is when people say a writer is “better than the actual writers” or “should be writing the show/books/whatever” when it’s clearly just that the fanfic hits popular pairings/plots/headcanons. Like I swear to God 90% of the most popular fics in the Captain American fandom are godawful but because they have Angsty Twu Luv Foreva Stucky/Stony they’re considered amazing.

Re: Fandom secrets you can't be bothered to make

[(Anonymous)]

I mean... if you define fanfiction simply as “fiction based on a previously created work”, then the vast majority of creative works are fanfiction.

But, I mean, is that actually a useful definition of fanfiction? It's a valid definition, but I don't think that it's the only possible definition, and I don't think it matches up with the most common usage. I think that, most of the time, when people talk about fanfiction, they mean "the fiction produced by fandom". Not derivative works in general.

And there are times when it is actually useful and meaningful to talk about the specific kinds of fiction produced by fandom, not derivative works in general.

AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

But then how do you define “fandom”? What differentiates it from any other “subculture characterized by feelings of empathy and camraderie with others who share a common interest” (paraphrasing Wikipedia) other than the relative age of the source material? For instance would it be inaccurate to call intellectuals during the Renaissance “fans” of the Classical Greek/Roman eras given how much their attitudes (obsessive rereading and studying of the canon, extensive writing and artwork making use of Classical myths and characters, overall praise and celebration) parallel modern fan culture?

You do make a very good point though, that it’s quite important to talk about fandom and fan fiction in the modern sense of the term, and it’s useful to have a definition as such. The broader point I was trying to make was that a lot of the behaviors and practices we see in fandom aren’t some modern phenomenon they’ve long been parts of our culture. I get irritated sometimes when I see fannish behavior dismissed or demeaned because in my opinion the only reason it’s treated as such is because the object of fannish interest is not viewed as “worthy” of such interest or because the fandom is part of some mocked minority such as young women.

And typing this all out I realized I’ve gotten hilariously off topic so sorry OP :P.

Re: AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

But then how do you define “fandom”? What differentiates it from any other “subculture characterized by feelings of empathy and camraderie with others who share a common interest” (paraphrasing Wikipedia) other than the relative age of the source material?

Right, sure, it's a totally valid question. And I don't think that there's any one correct definition of fandom - there's a lot of really useful, different ways to talk about it.

But the way that I usually define it for most purposes - and I think it matches pretty closely with the way that people use the term in everyday conversation - is to understand fandom as, essentially, a specific subculture, a social group built around certain ways of interacting with media and pop culture with a specific, and relatively modern, history (growing mostly out of science-fiction fandom beginning in the 30s and 40s). And sometimes, even more specifically, a subset of that subculture that really deals with writing fanfiction, and shipping, and that's been associated with specific websites like FF.net, AO3, Tumblr, and Livejournal.

Of course that's only one way to define 'fandom' but I think it's a useful one. And I totally agree that nothing that fandom does is really totally new. It just takes on new features because of, like, modern cultural literacy and modern forms of communication and stuff like that. I think it's actually kind of a really interesting development. There's certainly no reason to demean it.

Re: Fandom secrets you can't be bothered to make

[(Anonymous)]

Fanfiction isn't really defined as works derived from or inspired by existing stories. It's specifically works set within the parameters of an already-established canon.

There's certainly some gray area, but I think it's a little indulgent to call a fiction based on the Trojan war a fanfic, in the way fanfiction is used as a genre.

Re: Fandom secrets you can't be bothered to make

[(Anonymous)]

That still includes works like Wide Sargasso Sea, R&G Are Dead, almost anything Alan Moore’s written, tons of stuff by Ancient Greek playwrights...I’m probably forgetting tons of stuff too.

But I get what you’re saying, and I’m off topic anyway :P

Re: Fandom secrets you can't be bothered to make

[(Anonymous)]

I certainly think it's a good point that a lot of "real works" are essentially fanfics. Don't get me wrong, I agree. But it's more of a philosophical point than a practical one, for how fanfic is actually used - informal works written by fans and shared within fan communities, generally for non-public domain works.

Re: Fandom secrets you can't be bothered to make

[(Anonymous)]

You're right and you should say it, because, most people don't want to admit the classics are largely just published fanfic that got away with it.