malsperanza

Muahaha. Here's

So, appropriation and interpretation are not the same thing,although appropriation is (at least in part) a form of interpretation.

And writing a fanfic is not simply a form of interpretive reading of the text, though it can only occur when the reader interprets the text and then transforms it (or elements of it) into something new.

Here are the debates I am going to skip:

*Who is the owner of the new text?
*Who is the owner of the original text?

Not answered because: These two questions are dead ends; arguing about ownership leads to no new insights.

*Is there a scale of appropriation, so that a fanfic that sticks very close to canon has a different status from one that departs radically from canon?

Not answered because: While fandom sometimes assigns greater or lesser moral or ethical value to one or the other, it is essentially a crapshoot: Sometimes a departure from canon is seen as cheating; sometimes too-close adherence to canon is seen as plagiarism or lack of inventiveness.

But the success or failure of a fanfic depends on a) its quality in its own terms (persuasive characters, compelling plot, rich underlying ideas, skilful prose); and b) how it reuses the original text, with what insight and wit. A good fanfic can meet the standards of both a) and b) while being close to canon or far from it. Degrees of appropriation are not, therefore, in themselves, a significant measure of what fanfic does.

However, this leads us nicely to the question I do want to ask:

*In what quality does fanfic differ from mere interpretive reading? What does fanfic do?

Fanfic adds a new work of art to the world, but does so through a more open "borrowing" from another work of art than is usually considered reasonable. In order to justify its blatant theft of, and dependence upon, another artist's creative work, it has to contribute something new and wonderful of its own and provide some valuable insight into the original.

Here's an example drawn from the world of Serious Fiction (and therefore not suffering the stigma of being "mere fanfluff," or "merely pop fiction"):

Jean Rhys's novel Wide Sargasso Sea, retells Jane Eyre from the pov of Rochester's mad first wife. It's a good book; in fact, I like it a lot more than Jane Eyre, which is a dead bore (if you ask me). It shares with Jane Eyre a theme of anger at injustices, especially against the weak and vulnerable, but it has an additional anger toward the assumptions embedded in Jane Eyre itself (that Rochester is essentially good; that the solution to a woman's problems in the world is to be in lurve and marry the boss, &c.).

Though it's a fine book on its own, Wide Sargasso Sea is a much better book (IMO) if you can read it against Jane Eyre. It's a conscious dialogue with, and critique of, one of the warhorses of (so-called) Women's Literature. As a result, it is not quite an independent work of art all on its own.

And yet, does that diminish it? Is Rhys "cheating" because she didn't come up with her own idea? Of course not; because there is no cheating in art, only bad art. If Rhys had written a clumsy ripoff or a cheap parody, then the work would have been diminished. Quality, skill, the infusion of whole new ideas and perspectives are what give her book its own identity. And even better: she illuminates Bronte's book; and Bronte's book is the better for having hers nearby--more interesting, more problematic.

More worth rereading.

In any case, no work of art is entirely independent; artists steal from one another at every level; filmmakers use the term "rubato," stolen, or "hommage" for such citations (which are often unacknowledged). A delightful example in film is O Brother, Where Art Thou, which swipes repeatedly and consistently from both The Odyssey and The Wizard of Oz, two stories about adventurers who wander in magical realms while just trying to get home. When I realized that the Coen Bros. were telling me that The Wizard of Oz is America's very own Odyssey, I fell over laughing. Just think of all the ways that idea illuminates America. Not to mention children's lit.

So fanfic both adds a new work of art to the world and illuminates the original work, breaks it open, compels rereading and comparison.

In short, whether the main purpose of the fanfic is to appropriate the original text for its own pleasure, or to interpret the original text for ours, the best ones do both.

So what happens to the battle for meaning when the four elements of Author, Text, Reader, and World are enlarged to six, adding Second Author and Second Text?

The complexities increase exponentially, and everyone wins.

OK, I'm going back to bed now.

*Eyes kitchen floor, which is filthy*