Well, I'm pro-fanfic. I enjoy reading it and occasionally writing it. Not exactly hold-the-front-page news, but there you go.
I think I've been "writing it in my head" ever since I started watching TV and having book read to me as a very small child. My imagination didn't stop working once the story was told and wanted to take it elsewhere. In some ways, I think I saw it as roughly akin to the make believe games kids play - except that instead of acting them out with other kids, they sorta played out in my head. I wrote the stories down when I got older and read them to my friends. It was a surprise to find that it actually had a name (because I didn't come across the term fanfic until I discovered the internet).
I tend to avoid debates about whether fanfic is a good thing or not. I don't think I'm going to get anything out of them. I try to remember what authors don't want fanfic written about their work, but I've never come across any whose work I actually want to write about who have voiced an objection. I don't think I'd write it if the original author objected.
I've read some of the arguments about why fanfic might be considered wrong or stupid or even inferior to original fic and have found none that sway me.
Of course, there is SOME fanfic out there that *IS* stupid and/or written about subjects that make me very uncomfortable from a moral perspective (ie about my personal "squicks") - probably a lot of such fanfic exists, to tell truth. But the same can be said about published original fiction, TV shows, movies and other media. As long as "fanfic" doesn't step beyond its non-profit and source-acknowledging stance, then I personally have no moral problems with endorsing it.
And I look around published literature and wonder where to draw the line in calling something "fanfic". I've read a kinda dark and twisted short story which is a sequel to Jane Austen's novel "Emma", written by one of my favourite mystery authors (Reginald Hill who writes the Dalziel & Pascoe novels). It really fulfills all the criteria for fanfic, but of course wasn't labelled as such. I used to have a fascinating anthology which was a set of short stories retelling HG Wells "War of Worlds" from the POV of various historical persons who would have been alive at that time - again, totally fulfills the criteria for fanfic. These were both examples of clever literary manipulations of previously published works and, honestly, that's what I think fanfic at its best is.
Of course, at less than its best it can be stupid, shallow, facile, annoying and/or offensive. But that's equally true of original fiction.
Rambling and reminiscing...
I think I've been "writing it in my head" ever since I started watching TV and having book read to me as a very small child. My imagination didn't stop working once the story was told and wanted to take it elsewhere. In some ways, I think I saw it as roughly akin to the make believe games kids play - except that instead of acting them out with other kids, they sorta played out in my head. I wrote the stories down when I got older and read them to my friends. It was a surprise to find that it actually had a name (because I didn't come across the term fanfic until I discovered the internet).
I tend to avoid debates about whether fanfic is a good thing or not. I don't think I'm going to get anything out of them. I try to remember what authors don't want fanfic written about their work, but I've never come across any whose work I actually want to write about who have voiced an objection. I don't think I'd write it if the original author objected.
I've read some of the arguments about why fanfic might be considered wrong or stupid or even inferior to original fic and have found none that sway me.
Of course, there is SOME fanfic out there that *IS* stupid and/or written about subjects that make me very uncomfortable from a moral perspective (ie about my personal "squicks") - probably a lot of such fanfic exists, to tell truth. But the same can be said about published original fiction, TV shows, movies and other media. As long as "fanfic" doesn't step beyond its non-profit and source-acknowledging stance, then I personally have no moral problems with endorsing it.
And I look around published literature and wonder where to draw the line in calling something "fanfic". I've read a kinda dark and twisted short story which is a sequel to Jane Austen's novel "Emma", written by one of my favourite mystery authors (Reginald Hill who writes the Dalziel & Pascoe novels). It really fulfills all the criteria for fanfic, but of course wasn't labelled as such. I used to have a fascinating anthology which was a set of short stories retelling HG Wells "War of Worlds" from the POV of various historical persons who would have been alive at that time - again, totally fulfills the criteria for fanfic. These were both examples of clever literary manipulations of previously published works and, honestly, that's what I think fanfic at its best is.
Of course, at less than its best it can be stupid, shallow, facile, annoying and/or offensive. But that's equally true of original fiction.
[/ramble]