Talk:Fan fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Fan Fiction, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Fan Fiction. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
Peer review Fan fiction has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Article Improvement Drive Fan fiction was the Article Improvement Drive for the week starting on 2 May 2005.

For more details, see the Article Improvement Drive history.
This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.
To-do list for Fan fiction: edit · history · watch · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:

    Discussion that was not under a header (aka in this space), has been moved:

    NOTE: I'm of the opinion that any response to an edit made by an anon should be marked with a header or subheader title noting as such, so if you're an anon who's edited it recently, look for those! :) Runa27 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Contents

    [edit] New Format

    I've been thinking about this article for a couple of weeks now. Is there any part of the article that talks about why people write fanfiction, or the way fanfic writers form communities (based on fandom as well ship and style)? At the moment this article seems mostly a list of summaries of other articles. It would be a better read if we broke it up into broader categories and referenced the other articles as wikilinks. AR AUs could be defined in two lines, of a whole section on extending canon, including crossovers and future fic. And Elseworlds in section that included a discussion of Mary Sues and out of canon behaviour. (This is not a dismissal of Elseworld, merely suggestion that they, like the others, remove parts of canon context.) I'm willing to do research on the why, I've already got some sources. And I'm happy to write the summaries together, if can agree on which ones go together. I'll come back suggestions in a few days time, I'd like this to be properly worked out. RoseWill 11:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

    I've written a section on fan fiction format based on length and moved everything else to misc terminology for the time being. I hope you'll agree that it's better to have an article to brings everything together rather than simply a list of summaries of other articles. What I've written isn't great, but it is a start. I'll be back to edit it in a few days, if no one else has had a got it before then. I know so very little about doujinshi or manga/anime fandoms, so if anyone wants to refine that section, that would be great. RoseWill 14:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

    I have made considerable tweaks to your "Format" section (mostly minor things such as spelling corrections here and there and changing "fics" to the more professional-sounding "stories" or "fan fiction", although a portion of the section on scriptfic reglected to mention "chatfic" and also had some comments which could easily be misconstrued as POVish, which I mostly deleted or rewrote to NPOV it a bit). Obviously a lot of work went into that section, so I really would hesitate to delete it - but you do realize that several "formats" are already covered under "subgenres", right? This creates a slight redundancy and an awkward split in the article. Having a seperate subsection for formats is fine with me, but don't you think we should move things such as "MSTing" and "pastiche" down to there as well?
    I would also like to request you state where some of your rarer terminology comes from, seeing as even I'm getting embarassed at the lack of citation in this article, and I practically wrote half of the darn thing. Not that I haven't heard of "scriptfic" before, but there were a couple of terms I hadn't really seen much of before, and I recall there being more than one previous discussion centering on whether or not to include the less-frequently-used or newer terminology that may or may not end up with the same kind of foothold as say, "slash" has, and such discussions usually frowned on including anything that does not have its own article and isn't frequently-used cross-fandom, cross-archives yet. Runa27 15:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    The Scriptfic section isn't mine, and I agree both that it should go and also that it needs a little work. A lot of fanfic is also written in the present tense. Thanks for your work. I was going to through and move the other format type things into formats, and remove other repeats.
    I really just wanted some sort of sign off on changing the overall format of the article from summaries of other articles, make it over more cohesive. RoseWill 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, understandable - it's almost the same reason I started moving terminology over to Fan fiction terminology. :)
    On a side note, I really should look more closely at edit histories... *headdesk* Runa27 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Condense Types of Fanfic into List

    Most of the fanfiction types currently listed (there are twenty right now) have their own main articles, and the ones that don't could be expressed by a few well placed wikilinks and a sentence. Therefore, I would like to propose condensing the section into a list, ala this:

    ...

    We could shorten the article by quite a bit without actually deleting anything (the stuff that deserves to be saved could just be moved to its corresponding article. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    Without further input, I will take the initiative. ;-) — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    PLEASE, if you do that (I'm not sure I'd really argue all that much with it, since most of them do indeed have their own articles) consider allowing slightly longer descriptions than that person suggested! Or at least don't use the same ones. "Dōjinshi - Japanese manga fan fiction" = slightly wrong. It is not all fan fiction, not all manga, not even all fan-zine type stuff, even though all of those fall under it; the term's usage in the U.S. and other non-Japanese countries tends to refer to fan fiction in manga form, but the original term has a much broader meaning, and the mention in the fan fiction article should reflect that. Additionally, "Mary Sue" does not always "upstage the established characters" - she can merely romance one, or have her own story merely set in the same universe - and it should be noted that it is a subjective pejoritive term used to refer to characters, usually OCs, percieved as badly-characterized and unsympathetic, who usually dominate the story they appear in. Heck, maybe I'll just change that myself, and if it isn't there already, move my elaborations to the main article for Mary Sue. - R 63.21.2.196 02:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Requests for more terms

    I came here looking for definitions of slash or slasher and genner and shipper and while 'slash' and 'ship' are mentioned could more fanfic vocabulary be included? (GLD)

    It is more appropriate to have the article link to an offsite page listing those terms. The link exists at the end of the article. --Bluejay Young 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

    Some of the terms here are not widely used. Very few people use them and they have little relevance to the fannish community. If all fan fiction terms were included, the list would be up around 1,000 terms. Added to that, a lot of terms like Drabble have accepted definitions that people who are not members of fandom misuse or that people who enter fandom with out knowing much misuse. Drabble is 100 words. Fandom has several types of drabbles. Drabbles are not 101 words. Historically and in 75% of fandom, any usage other than 100 words is incorrect. The definitions should be changed to reflect the actual usage. If a fandom does not follow that, exceptions could be listed. --PurplePopple 07:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Cleanup tag

    This still needs cleaning up, badly. The timelines are back, along with a lot of stuff that the general reader looking for information doesn't care about (such as when the expression "chick with a dick" was first used). This is part of what's making the article so long and causing the length warning. The purpose of wikipedia is to have referencing links to different articles on and offsite. Ambush Commander is right: the subgroups which do not already have their own smaller articles could be written up and links could be created to those articles. --Bluejay Young 04:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

    The timelines were put in by me because a lot of the historical information in the written part are garbage. They are beyond garbage. They end up defining ALL fiction as fan fiction. That isn't the case. When attempts were made to edit out the Christian Bible as fan fiction and that garbagey information was put back in, I put in the timelines. And I'm noticing that the people making the stupid argument of Greek classics as fan fiction didn't put them on the timelines. A lot of the information on it should be just be parsed down and converted to prose. It is that simple. --PurplePopple 07:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    Nevertheless, the timelines make the article needlessly long and much of the info in them is totally insignificant. --Densetzu No Gaizen 09:26, 11 March 2006

    The problem is that a lot of those dates are signifigant. The Godawful date which was removed indicated a great big shift in on-line attitudes regarding critiquing material on-line. The badfic trend, the Mary Sue bashing, etc. on a wide scale all relates back to that. Other things connect. If the information was being cleaned up and moved to other fandom based fan fiction articles, that would make sense. --PurplePopple 04:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

    My best suggestion would be to remove some of the definitions to fandom specific fan fiction pages like say Anime fan fiction. I would also suggest seperating the article into two articles Fan fiction (Fandom) and Fan fiction (Literature) or something like that as most of the fan fiction community in the fandom end does not consider the Bible or Greek writings to be fan fiction. A lot of fan fiction members do not consider video pastiches as fan fiction. Seperating them into two seperate articles would make a lot more sense and could cut out large chunks of both. --PurplePopple 04:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'd like to point out that I did not say the Bible was fan fiction. I said that later writers wrote a type of fan fiction based on extant Biblical stories and characters. These are so-called "gospels" written long after Jesus' time, that did not make it into the Bible, such as the Infancy Gospels. I have always seen these as parodies of writings which portrayed Christ as a miracle-working superhero rather than focusing on His message and mission. I'm not saying that this necessarily belonged in the article and as of now I feel it should be left out for the sake of brevity, the article's long enough as it is. --Bluejay Young 02:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

    But cutting out the timelines is hard with out knowing why a date went in and why it mattered. This material has been around in the media fandom context since 1967. It has several million members. Trying to cull it down is hard unless it is going to be placed in a more appropiate sub-category or article. --PurplePopple 04:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

    The timelines are entirely useless. Almost every single entry is, rather than being about some contribution to the whole of fanfiction, things like when a specific site or fanfic was written. Maybe if something is verifiably the first in it's genre, like the first fanfiction archive or the first piece of slash fiction, it may be worth including its date creation/publication, but otherwise, leave it out. --PurpleXVI 09:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

    I find the timeline interesting. But it's not long enough to warrant being broken up. I'd really like to seriously reorganise the "types of fanfiction." At least the order, but I suggest the first subcatergories: Extending canon (including virtual seasons, continuation and a link to the fanon article), Alternate universe (including elseworlds, what ifs and uber fic), Characters (including Mary Sues, OCs and writing away from the main characters), Relationships (including 'shipping, het and slash, lemon and line), Styles (inlcuding MSTing, songfics and hatefic). And then perhaps one on subgenres, including wingfic and bringing back dead characters. Then we can have a bit on the fan published continuation and Doojinshi.

    What is webseries? Can we have maybe a whole paragraph explaining it so that you don't have to read the whole machinima article? Does it belong in extending the canon or in alternate universe? -- RoseWill 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Wingfic

    Wingfic is a specific type of Slash fiction in which one, and sometimes both, of the two characters (usually both from a fantasy novel) grows wings. Usually the stories will involve the character who has grown wings feeling disgusted with their new form, and the other character must show them they are beautiful via sexual intercourse (sometimes in midair). This type of slash fiction may have started within the Domlijah fandom pairing (a real person pairing between the two actors Dominic Monaghan and Elijah Wood, who are not in fact at all homosexual). Wing fics seem to be slowly spreading to other fandoms, including Harry Potter and others.

    Just for posterity. An anon editor removed it and I think it was dubious at best (the paragraph, I mean). — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Different Types of Fics

    WHERE IS EVERYBODY GETTING THIS CRAP? Conversation Fic, Real Person Fic, Family Fiction, Wingfic, darkfic?

    Is anyone referencing themselves, or is all of this first-hand information? Come on, everyone here looks like they are debating on how to word definitions. Just find a bloody dictionary! Colonel Marksman 17:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

    Wow. Care to calm down so you can use the Talk page without throwing a hissy fit? IT would be nice to see comments that weren't so nastily-worded.
    The problem with your suggestion of "just find a bloody dictionary" is, nasty tone aside, that most standard dictionaries don't cover any of these terms yet. Fanfiction will no doubt make it into the next generation of dictionaries, and quite possibly "Mary Sue" as well, since it's been around for a while and people ranging from the BBC to the NY Times have mentioned it in print (which is essentially the only requirement for a word's entry into the American Heritage dictionary, at the very least), but "shipping" and "RPF"? Not as likely, and if they ever DO make it, it will be several years down the road, after they've made it into print a few more times than they have. However, both are terms VERY commonly used throughout many large fandom communities online, including and especially fan fiction communities, ie the people who read and write fan fiction, fan fiction being the topic of this article.
    The brief "word definitions" (and by the way, that's incorrect; the majority of the terms being brought up on the Talk page are actually multi-word phrases) are to clarify concepts intimately connected with, and known subgenres of, fan fiction. Technically, encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are MADE to include "definitions", albeit extended and much more informative ones than you would get from a dictionary (which would only define how the word is used and part of its origins, nothing more). So I'm not sure why you are bothering to complain about people "debating how to word definitions", considering that's really half the reason Talk pages for articles even exist.
    Now, you also have to realize that many of these concepts also already have their own Wikipedia articles, so a brief SUMMARY of them is all that is needed on the fan fiction page, since one could just link the main article from the summary there so people could go to the main article for the concept if they actually wanted to know more than was described in the summary here.
    The summaries here are meant to provide an overview of the fan fiction genre. Much as the article for Fantasy mentions the "culture" surrounding the writing, reading and enjoyment of Fantasy, as well as other related genres, I think this fits perfectly fine.
    Now, I will admit - I have never heard of "family fic", only dimly heard of "darkfic" (and then only in the context of "it's not happy, it's all.. like... dark" type things) and honest to God, "wingfic" sounded like pure, sheer, utter bullshit, but, I kid you not, there is a HUGE community (with hundreds, possibly thousands of subcommunities) devoted to RPF (Real Person Fic), so it certainly deserves a mention. I've also seen Conversion Fic, but as I noted - while it's a trend I'm seeing (and you can check this for yourself on fanfiction.net, the largest fanfiction archive online to date, which had a few of them on it last I checked), it's still quite rare. Hence, why I thought it might be worth a brief mention, but was worth no more than a single sentence's mention, if any. - RW 63.21.19.76 23:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Since all of those terms have subarticles of their own I suggest plopping the links to those subarticles at the bottom of this one and removing all those summary paragraphs, the article's too long as it is, and the slash timeline has to go, likewise the references to fanfiction.net -- a link to it would suffice. --Bluejay Young 07:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    I disagree. While some of the summaries (such as the ones for Slash and Crossover) could most certainly use some trimming down, I think the inclusion of the most well-known sub-branches (crossover, slash, etc.) and terminology (slash, canon, fanon, fandom, etc.) of the fan fiction community are an excellent way of showing the current state of fan fiction, what it's like, the kind of things you find in it and so on. Fan fiction is a fandom phenomonon, or rather, collection of interconnected phenomena, that has exploded in popularity and evolution over the past decade. Having a familiarity with the most common terms and subgenres is the only genuine way to fully understand the genre nowadays. True, you could get away with links to the other articles, but I think it lends a certain something to this one to have brief summaries, providing a pretty good overview of the phenomena, if you will. It's a massive and massively multifaceted phenomenon, and the article should reflect that.
    However, I agree it could use some trimming by now! How about starting with Slash and Crossover, and trimming down the wordy and waffling "legal issues" type section? :P - RW 63.21.19.76 23:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think that a *brief* discussion of some of the most popular and well-known subgenres is appropriate-- I would suggest no more than a paragraph or two discussing different subgenres. From my understanding of the demographics of the fan fiction community (and admittedly, I haven't read fan fiction regularly in years, but I doubt it's changed very much from the time when I did), I'd include alternate universe, crossover, slash, and *possibly* RPF. I certainly remember reading things which would have qualified as "uberfic," as defined by the author of that section, but I never remember that term being used for them anywhere; it must be a recent coinage.
    For all the other, more minor subgenres, my suggestion is to split them off into their own separate articles. The reader could then have the choice to follow those links, if they wanted to learn more, but wouldn't be inundated with a huge amount of information in the main article.
    A lot of what's here just needs condensing. There is an enormous amount of redundancy and repetition, as well as extraneous information; for instance, I think the average reader who was unfamiliar with fan fiction and wished to learn more about it would not care that some people refer to teleporting characters from one universe to another as "bamfing." The details of that could be expanded upon in a separate article about crossover fan fiction, however. I don't think that casual readers would need to be told that a "pairing" refers to a romantic involvement, either, since that's pretty self-evident. --Sethrenn 05:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    A lot of condensing has been done, thankfully, and the page seems to have gone down considerably in size and up in readability - but we need to be careful how we trim, let's not forget that, folks! For instance, the doujinshi mention actually stated that it was "technically illegal", which is completely incorrect. Doujinshi are self-published works; self-published works in general are perfectly legal in Japan, it's only the ones that are unauthorized derivative works (fan fiction) that are "technically illegal" (the "technically" is in there because while it is illegal, most copyright owners don't bother with suing fans over it, even though some artists and authors who publish fan fiction doujinshi make a slight profit off of their sales).
    I do have to disagree, though, that anybody would know what "pairing" meant. Sure, it can really only have a couple of meanings (ie two characters are put together on an adventure or become friends, OR become romantically involved), but it's not actually 100% literal, since the term "pair" is rather vague in English. To me, it's sort of like "alternate universe" - you kind of get the jist and understand what it means just from what it's called, but it's only REALLY "self-evident" once you've got an explanation to confirm it.
    I would also like to go on record saying that it is more than "some" people that seem to refer to characters traveling via magical or science fiction-esque means as "bamfing", I've seen it on two or three different sites (most notable, probably, is that it's incredibly common on the humongous, 2000+ members-strong forums system over at Godawful Fan Fiction[1]), and also, it's not JUST teleporting, as I just stated; it's just derived from a sound effect that was used to denote a teleportation. I do acknowledge that it's clearly a fairly recent usage in non-X-Men fanfiction comms, but it is out there; Googling for "bamfing in fanfic" snags me a result relating exactly to that usage, from the Godawful.net forums (I'm starting to think they may be largely responsible for popularizing it, since they seem to use it the most often in that context, but I do remember having seen it used elsewhere). Since it's not a seperate entry but a sidenote in AU, I suggest we leave it for now. The Legal Issues section needs more attention, anyway! Runa27 04:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    "Pairing" is used in discussions of human and animal sexual behavior. I think the average reader will get the drift, particularly since the context is made clear in the heading "based on relationships". If the general consensus of opinion is that it does need to be explained, just keep it short it should be fine. As far as "bamf", I don't think the general public knows or cares (yet) about "bamf". It's popular among comic book readers, and God knows I used to say "bamf" all the time when I was at university thirty years ago, but it's not (yet) like Mary Sue -- which is becoming an indigenous media term outside of fan fiction. Unfortunately. Again, if consensus agrees that it should be mentioned, keep it short. I agree that the main thing is the Legal Issues section. --Bluejay Young 07:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] History

    I've rewritten the first paragraph in history. The original text:

    Fan fiction has probably been with us since the dawn of time, first taking shape in the form of myths and folktales. Since copyright didn't exist in prehistoric times, a good storyteller could change or add to a tale any way he or she liked.

    Seemed to lack any basis in fact or logic. It couldn't have been with us since the dawn of time since there was no language and no us. I don't think the reason stories changed was due to lack of copyright, more to do with the lack of writing. And I don't see any reason changing the story was resevered for good storytellers.

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.203.9 (talk • contribs) .

    Why was the Godawful fan fictin date removed? That and FanFiction.Net were two big things from 1998 that helped reshape the face of on-line fandom. ... And they both happened on the same date. With out it, a lot of the badfic snark culture of fan fiction wouldn't be. It should be put back. --PurplePopple 08:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    I've written the introduction to include the debates over definition from the history. The history section is now only two and half paragraphs long, and doesn't say much that couldn't be also included in the intro. Do we have the timeline somewhere, because I think the history could be a condensed version of that with paragraphs on the effects etc. When were fanzines popular? When did fanfic like that start? When was ff.net created? Did Harry Potter really spawn fic than anything else? I've got some research on why people writen fanfic that I'll write into the later sections, but I want to do the history first, I find it more interesting. RoseWill 04:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


    just a quick note, before fanfiction.net went live the biggest archive of fanfiction was the rec.arts.anime.creative archive (which is still alive and used today)--Yakumo 13:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Other Fanfics

    Hi, i'm just new, but I like to contribute immediately ^^. I know other type fanfics from anime and manga dictionaries, called darkfic and deathfic:

    - darkfic: A type of fic with is dark, sombre and (sometimes) twisted. In these type of fics characters suffer a major trauma, either because an important character dies or other events which causes all characters lives to be altered permanently in a negative way - deathfic: a fanfic where some major character dies in (Bananas 20:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

    Thank you, but we're trying to cut down the number of references to specific terminology in this article.
    I have read fan fiction in the past, less now than formerly (there used to be a higher ratio of good to bad stuff). I didn't get involved in any of the online communities. I just read it. My problem with the way fan fiction and fans online are today is the group slang -- it has no meaning to me and probably to most other readers, but they assume everyone will understand it or are even interested in it. I do not want to have to learn a new set of slang in order to talk meaningfully about a given topic. One or two terms are fine but when I don't know what half the things you refer to are, it's a problem. It also makes the article too long trying to explain all of these terms. What really needs to happen is a link to a glossary of fan fiction terminology for the curious. If article contributors wish to make the article inviting and make fan fiction look like an appealing and interesting thing so that readers who know squat about it might go "Hmmmm," and seek some out, the article should be more concise. Flooding the unaccustomed reader with too many inspeak terms, even in a context of explanation or definition, can be overwhelming as well as make fan fiction look like something that is more self-indulgent than it actually is. --Bluejay Young 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed! Most of these terms are very transient. It is only a small number of current slang terms that will survive more than a few years. Past examples of fanfic slang that survived include "slash" and "Mary Sue", both from the Star Trek fandom. Surely, some terms will likewise survive from the Harry Potter or Buffyverse or other current fandoms. However, we can't know which current terms will survive and which are ephemeral. So we should be careful not to, as you say, flood the reader with lots of new and likely ephemeral terms. --FOo 12:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Lori Jareo and the Star Wars controversy

    Has anyone been following the saga of Lori Jareo and her silly move to self pub Star Wars fanfiction. I think this will potentially be an important event in fanfiction history in terms of legal aspects. [2] Anyone agree? --Shinto 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

    Believe it or not, this isn't the first case in which someone tried to self-pub fanfic even in modern times, though I can't recall the first one I saw, I do recall there being one that was Real Person Fic that was self-published with a rather infamously shady vanity press; it had something about a girl meeting and falling in (reciprocated) love with one of the Princes of England (I can't remember which prince, though). If I recall, the title was something like "American Born, British Bred" or some similar such title. The publisher may have been Publish America, but I can't be 100% sure until I've gone back and looked it up. Runa27 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] LIterature?

    How should we address works such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead or the Pulitzer Prize-winning March, both of which are indisputably fanfic (based on Hamlet and Little Women, respectively)? DS 19:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    Ah, therein lies the rub. There are a few people who believe that unless it's released with no profit on the part of the author, it's not "fanfiction". However, as more works fall into the public domain, it becomes possible to write what can ostensibly be called fanfic, and sell it with no legal repurcussions.
    However, though, in the case of the one based on Hamlet - Hamlet itself was already historical fiction. Are you sure it's specifically based on Hamlet, and not historical fiction with a nod to Hamlet? (Haven't read it, so I can't comment myself).
    Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is very explictly taking place offstage during the Shakespeare play; besides, I think both characters are original to the Shakespeare version.--Orange Mike 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    You may want to note something about that in the Legal Issues section, in reference to things based on public domain works, such as the works of Shakespeare.Runa27 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Um, Orangemike? Is there any reason you felt the need to INTERRUPT that, instead of replying at the end? It looks like two different people wrote it now, and it makes it look like my note is a reply to your extrapolation and not to the post beforehand. Also, define "taking place offstage". If it's about a production of the play, it's not fanfic. If it's not, than it is, at least if the characters are as you say, "original to the Shakespeare version." Runa27 22:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    There is a ton of published Peter Pan (Barrie version) fan fiction (e.g., Wendy and a book and a graphic novel called Lost Girls), even though the Great Ormond Street Hospital still owns the rights to the original book and play and will until 2023. They've just commissioned an official sequel. At least, it looks like fan fiction to me. Fits all the criteria. --Bluejay Young 00:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thing is, again, many people won't consider it fan fiction unless it's not for profit (the logic behind this being you'd be more than a mere "fan", you'd be a pro, especially if you were hired to do it as is the case with the book you specicially mentioned); therefore, it will only fulfill some people's criteria, and not others'. Runa27 22:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] How's The New Version? Vote to remove clean up tag or not

    Hey there everyone. I and a handful of others have been editing like mad on this page; adding, trimming (including trimming some of my own work out of it, after realizing that it simply didn't need it), rewording, deleting bad info and putting in good, proofreading, removing extraneous POV-ish statements and even reorganizing it a bit with a Terminology section (because, folks, "Mary Sue" is not "type of" or "subgenre of" fanfiction, it's a... well, read the article, it's a term referring to a certain type of character, NOT a type of story!), correcting and rewording (basically, cleaning up) the History and Legal Issues sections, and so on.

    So, the question still remains: is it still bad enough to need the clean up tag, or can it finally be removed? I was considering doing it myself, but then I thought, no, I can't do something like that. Massive tweaks, large reworded sections, and deletion of incorrect and/or biased sections (such as saying no yuri or yaoi has a "logical plot" whereas shounen-ai and yuri feature little to no sex and "logical plots". WTF? Uh, WRONG, and blatantly biased at that. I've seen yuri stories that have explicit sex AND a good plot, they're just rare - like any other well-written work by an amateur would be! But aside from that, yuri and shoujo-ai in particular are often used interchangeably, so that definition was NOT stating the facts)... yes. But removing the clean up tag? No, no, and no.

    So, I'd like a few people to chime in here. Do you think it's ready for the clean up tag to come off, or do you think it should be left for a little longer, just in case? Runa27 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

    Let's leave it on for now. It does look tons better, especially with the timelines gone and the stuff you said. (my wife tells me that shounen- and shoujo-ai are usually considered to have more of a plot -- romantic but not strictly sexual, or if sex is described at all, it's not explicit; yaoi and yuri, less likely to have complex plots, more likely to have explicitly sexual relationships and consummation. Obviously there's a lot of room for ambiguity and subjectivity in these definitions.) --Bluejay Young 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    It's true that in general, the -ai terms are used more for romance than sex-centered stories - but this isn't always the case, as I pointed out, shoujo-ai and yuri in particular are commonly used interchangeably (probably because searching for "yuri" will bring up a lot of unrelated search results), and yuri especially can in fact refer to both sexually explicit or non-explicit stories (probably because it's shorter, and many archives have limits on the number of characters you can include in a summary). And besides, just because it's "romance-centered" does not mean it's "usually logical" as far as the plot, as anybody who's slogged through story after story trying to find a plausible, well-written romance can attest to. :P Runa27 22:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Leave, definitely. A lot of the wording in the original article is redundant, confusing or just plain messy, with overly long sentences and grammatical errors, and could stand a lot of streamlining. I think it's still too long. I cut a lot of what I considered to be irrelevant information from the introductory paragraph and History section, and condensed what was left over.
    As for the subgenre sections, see my comment in the "types of fan fiction" section-- I think there's a place for them, within reason, but the endless citations of theoretical plots for each genre (a lot of them referring to things I have no familiarity with) just add excess weight and in some cases just serve to make fan fiction authors look silly or bizarre. --Sethrenn 05:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    The last bit you mentioned, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the kind of thing I recently edited out of the crossover section (the most common setups for crossovers), or something else?
    I'm sure some of the "overly long sentences" are my fault, for which I apologize. :P Runa27 22:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    I've rewritten and condensed the introduction and history sections, and then added stuff to the history section. I'd really someone else to take what I've done and maybe condense it further. But I found the history stuff fascinating, and I think it's important in terms of issues of definition to have it there. The article is about fanfic after all, not just the current fan writing community.

    I'm still looking to reorganise the lists a little, although they are looking much better than they were. It's more diving them up differently than changing anything. Also, crack fic and drabbles need to be separated. Drabbles do not necessarily imply quickly written, they can also be quite serious in tone. Crack fics can be long and involved pieces, just with ridiculous premises.

    How about dividing it up a little into types of fanfic: Post- and inter eps, Past and future speculation, AUs, and crossover. That's four should be good. Then pairings, original characters, and length. And maybe a little on the fan writing community, and people's association with particular ships (and their names) and genres. RoseWill 03:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

    If we start naming pairings, it'll be open-season for anons to battle over which pairings are "notable." Besides, shipping already has its own article. ;) Runa27 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] In regards to the Legal Issues section (And a Side note on Mary Sue)...

    Please read the ENTIRE section before making edits to it. I realize it's long, but I had somebody add a redundant bit at the top about how some believe that fanfiction lies outside of protected speech such as parody - this is something that is addressed further down in the section, in regards to authors excercizing their right to control derivitive works and disputes over legal right of a work to exist.

    On a side-note, this: "An author who creates a Mary sue is often called a 'Mary suer', and are quite often flamed with hate mail."

    Why is it in there? First, I've never seen that term (I have seen "Suethor", though, on occasion) which considering how much fanfic I read and how active I've been in the fic community recently, implies it's not commonly-used enough to warrant anything more than a passing mention on the main page for Mary Sue (<---as in, follow the Wikilink, my friend), hardly enough to say HERE that it's "often" used (I wouldn't even say Suethor, which is in my experience way more common, is "often" used!), second, "quite often flamed with hate mail" is for one thing redundant and for another, completely unnecessary for the section in question, which is a TERMINOLOGY section, the subsection of which is specifically giving a brief explanation of the term Mary Sue, not Mary Suer or Suethor. I'm willing to add a tiny little "Suethor/Mary Suer" section underneath, in case anyone should run into the turn by chance and not know what it means, but it should be seperate, as it's a related term, not a variation on the same term. Also, who cares if alleged Suethors get hate mail online? EVERYBODY does at some point. It seems silly and superfluous to add that bit in there. Runa27 21:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

    Side note to my side note: the 'Mary suer' sentence also had bad grammar, both in the form of the word "Sue" consistently being uncapitilized (it's a girls' proper name. Sue is a short form of Susan or Susanne or Susanna, and therefore, needs caps), but also a shift in verb tense mid-sentence. Please be more careful next time you try to add something, it makes the page more readable. Runa27 21:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    Worse than that. Some chic who fancies herself a fan fiction reviewer on line referred to some story as having "Mary Sewage". --Bluejay Young 05:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] "one-shot" & "two-shot" removed

    The term "one-shot" is not specific to fan fiction. The terminology section should stick to things specific to fan fiction (Mary Sue, AU, etc.). --Bluejay Young 05:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    While I can certainly understand wanting to trim down sections (I keep wanting to tackled "slash" for a second time, for instance), I've actually never seen the terms "one-shot" or "two-shot" used for original fiction except on FictionPress maybe - but FictionPress is tied in with FanFiction.net, it's its sister site, and a lot of the same people use both.
    I think what is actually key here is - which part of the fiction community originated the term? For instance, I've seen a handful of people use the term "Mary Sue" in application to original fiction recently, but obviously, its origins (and most of its usage) lie in the fan fiction community, and for a number of years, that's the only place it was really used.
    Terms that should definitely be kept, if we go by the "originated in the fan fiction community and/or applies only to the fan fiction community or and/or has special or different usage in the fan fiction community" criteria (which is, admittedly, an excellent criteria; perhaps there should be an extra, seperate article somewhere - or does one already exist? - which explains fiction terms that apply equally to both original and fan fiction, which should be linked from the article here?):
      • Slash (originated in fan fiction community, generally not used outside of it), along with the associated terms shoujo-ai, shounen-ai, yaoi, and yuri. The latter four do have usage outside of fan fiction and indeed originated outside of it, but there should still be that side note under slash about them, IMO, because anime and manga fandoms almost never use the term "slash" or "femmeslash".
      • Mary Sue (originated in fan fiction comm, still used primarily there)
      • Lemon/Lime (originated in this particular usage with the anime/manga fan fiction community, rarely if ever used for original fiction)
    Come to think of it, while Uberfic (redundant as it may be) should obviously be kept to its (as far as I can tell) exclusively fanfic-comm usage, should Crossover really be in here? I mean, if we're removing one-shot and two-shot, certainly, Crossover shouldn't be here, right? I'm almost loath to suggest it, since I contributed quite heavily to the development of it, but people probably already know what the term "crossover" means from seeing so many of them in non-fanfiction comics, cartoons, and television (I believe the crossover subsection here refers to how John Munch officially made crossover appearances in X-Files, Homocide: Life On The Street and Law & Order: SVU, for instance, and comic books have a ton of crossovers every year, especially Marvel and DC-produced comics). Although it is under Subgenres and not Terminology, still, that's like saying "some of it is romance" or "some of it is humor", and then delving into a huge explanation for it, as if people have never heard of the concepts of humor and romance.
    Perhaps things like Crossover (which did not apparently originate in, nor are they at all exclusive to, the fanfic community), should still be listed, but without a description, only a link to its main or an outside article?
    On a side note, we should make a decision which spelling to use. Both the spelling fan fiction and the spelling fanfiction are mixed across the page. I've been trying to tweak it all towards one - the one used in the title of the article, fan fiction - but the truth is that the compound spelling, fanfiction (which by the rules of stress in English, would even be pronounced slightly differently), is FAR more common in usage. I was thinking of doing a bit of a 180 and tweaking them all to the more common spelling, and noting that it's the more common spelling in the introduction. What do you guys think? There should be one standard, really, so there's unity on the page and no appearance of people "misspelling" something that isn't being technically misspelled. Runa27 22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Difference between fan fiction and pastiche?

    I see that pastiche is listed as a subgenre of fan fiction. What, exactly, is the generally accepted difference between the two-- or is there one? I was under the impression that the term pastiche was generally used for derivative works before the term fan fiction was coined. --Sethrenn 05:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    Apparently, "pastiche" is self-published. In any case, I've moved it to "formats". Runa27 00:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


    "Pastiche" is a recognized classification subdivision in Library of Congress subject cataloging. I have seen it used in reference to a Sherlock Holmes novel that was published (is there a section on Sherlock Holmes stories being fanfic?)--contributed by a reader and writer of fanfic (the above created by me, who just registered, Cneil--Cneil 17:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

    [edit] Sources and Citations Desperately Needed

    The Peer Review has resulted so far largely in a suggestion to source and cite, especially things like "many believe" comments, and the legal issues. I agree, ESPECIALLY on the Legal Issues section.

    [edit] Subdivided major sections to better organize the page

    As per a suggesstion from the Peer Review, I reorganized the Subgenres section into two sections, one relating to those based on "Setting" (AU, Uberfic, and Crossover), and those based on "Character Relationships" (Alternate Pairing, Slash, Het, RPF, Lemon and Lime). I also switched the stuff that wasn't so much subgenres but formats (MST, Drabble, Virtual Season, Dojinshi, etc.) into a seperate section called "Formats of Fan Fiction", as well as reorganizing the Terminology section into "Referring to Characters" (Mary Sue, Self-Insert, OC, etc.) and "Misc." (Canon, Fanon, etc.) and added two terms to "Referring to Characters" Terminology, OOC and IC. I know we're mostly looking to cut things, but it occurred to me that people who aren't into fan fiction (read: people who are more likely to be needing good info to be on this page) would not know the terms. Runa27 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Kudos...

    Thank you to whomever it was that edited the History and "Reviews" sections. They both read much better now (and I say this as one of the last few people to edit it before you!). I'm still wondering if the "Reviews and Flaming" section should even be in there, although I suppose it IS an integral part of much of the fan fiction community online, and would by that logic need to stay in. At least now it isn't this massive and biased-sounding bit like it kind of was before, though I am going to further attempt to NPOV it and retitle it simply "Reviews" or "Review Systems" or something like that. Runa27 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Nevermind

    Boy, am I tired... if you managed to catch what I wrote before, all I have to say is: Nevermind. Fancruft does not really "redirect" here. I just includes a "see also", because fan fiction works are typically seen as fancruft; therefore, the fancruft essayist(s?) merely wanted people to understand what fan fiction was, i.e. get the reference. Apologies. Runa27 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] My recent changes

    Folks? The Mary Sue term has its own main article. ;) The basics are still covered here, no need to add itemized lists of Mary Sue traits, as that's already found in Mary Sue.

    Also pared down Fanon by replacing the example with a much shorter and less-complicated one (the Ni Var example was interesting, sure, but it took up a huge amount of space by comparision).

    Also tweaked Canon, original fiction (by way; please don't add "original fanfiction" in there, unless you've got a source that points to it still being in remotely common usage. I haven't seen it even used for years, not since fanfiction.net removed the "original" section from their archive! I think enough is enough; we should be tracking down good sources for the current terminology and stuff by this point, not adding more and more terms that aren't commonly-used. I do admire the fact that whomever it was at least did not add it in as a seperate term, but rather under "Original Fiction", since it's really just a perversion of the two terms that usually only means original fic, but also, if you add it again? Well, then next time, in addition to sourcing it - try to cut down on the length a little, please? Thanks), and a couple of other little areas.

    Additionally, I reorganized a handful of sections; mostly, alphabetizing the Terminology section to standardize the page.

    I also completely rewrote the "Reviewing" section. The stuff about concrit versus flames sounded silly, and filler-like. I mean flames are "generally frowned upon"? That's a bit obvious, dontcha think? :P However, Reviewing is somewhat key to the subculture(s) surrounding fan fiction, so I chose not to remove it but rather to rewrite it with a focus on how the technology of the "Review" systems is unique to the online environment, and how it's usually set up. You may or may not want to add on to this. If you do? Please don't bother to mention flames. EVERYBODY has heard of "flames". Additionally, it should be fairly self-evident that a review system that allows instantaneous, often uncensored communication will eventually be used to send flames. Why bother to point out the blatantly obvious? By all means, mention how the technology affects people, but why bother spending like half that section talking about how people occasionally flame each other, and how this is Not Typically A Nice Thing To Do?

    Anyway. STILL not touching the Legal Issues section, though I'm considering going through and finding every Wikipedian Lawyer I can and inviting them over to look at this.

    Hmm... or maybe there's a WikiProject in that! *goes to check if there's a Legal Examinations/Explanations WikiProject of some sort yet*

    By the way, as pointed out in the peer review (see above) Star Trek is getting an awful lot of attention here; so was Buffy (the latter of which was partly my fault). I suggest varying examples. The examples in both AU and Crossover include both Star Trek and Harry Potter, which are used in other places on the page. Perhaps we could tweak these?

    Runa27 17:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

    Anthony says: The problem with the Legal Issues section is that the legalities themselves under discussion are numerous and extremely vague. The fact that some series creators sanction fanfiction and some do not further complicate an already mind-boggling issue. In addition, the U.S. copyright laws have become increasingly draconian in the last twenty years. With the many changes and revisions to said laws, designed to protect not the creation nor the creator but the corporation which controls both, and that corporation's lawyers, fanwriters may not have adequately up-to-date information on what is and is not legally sanctioned usage in a particular context.
    And I say: "original fic" or "orig!fic" are still being used by today's fan writers, including some really excellent-writing friends of ours who should ought to know better. *headdesk* If you mean specifically "original fanfiction", I did a google search and found plenty of sites still using that expression. Thank you for all your hard work. --Bluejay Young 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Point 1: Yes, I recently discovered Wikiproject Law, and I posted a plea for help regarding cleaning up and updating the Legal Issues section.

    Point 2: Original fic and orig!fic are both viable shorthand for "original fiction", and despite the laziness of them, even I use the former on occasion myself. The term I had a hard time believing was still in wide use was "original fanfiction". If you found sites that have been recently updated that used the term, by all means work that in - with a cite or two, of course (that reminds me. I still haven't figured out how to do mid-article cites save for URL form. I should get on that!).

    Point 3: Thank you! :D

    Point 4: Hallelujah! Someone (who is an assistant profressor in the subject of law, no less. I can never remember which university, I'll have to look it up when I get home and have time to go through my Gmail archive) I contacted a while back about a paper I wanted to cite has responded with a very encouaraging note about giving me a stable link to the finished draft of the paper when it comes out, etc.. Dr. Elizabeth Judge. She was very nice! :) It'll be a good source for us, because since it's an academic paper, it features a LOT of citation, including one or two for the "it comes from the oral storytelling tradition" theory. The paper itself also focuses on eighteenth-century fan fiction, which is very much lacking from the current version of the article's "History" section (we're basically going from "oral storytelling" to medieveal times, to the 20th century. A lot of gaps!). Very interesting stuff on copyright law of the time, too. I'll update you guys when she's got it up and ready for citing. :D Runa27 23:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

    Tweaked a few more things earlier, REreorganized part of the terminology section - the one that focused on terms referring to characters (look, either completely alphabetize it, or completely organize it by subject. It makes no sense to have Anti-Sue be the third one down under Mary Sue, but then have IC above Mary Sue and OOC below Anti-Sue! If you're gonna stick Anti-Sue under Mary Sue, at least have the decency to move IC, since the terms obviously wouldn't be alphabetical anymore, you might as well not be lazy, and group them ALL in that subsection. HOWEVER, I highly recommend keeping it alphabetical, so it's standard across the article!).
    Also invited two members from WikiProject Law over here, hopefully they will contribute a little something. Runa27 05:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] Was BOLD! Mentioned which parts of Legal Issues seemed to need cites

    As per "Be bold", I went through and edited Legal Issues, changing the wording here and there and liberally sprinkling [citation needed] throughout.

    To explain why I slapped [citation needed] in the places I did (some of these may actually be quite easy for people with better resources than I to fix):

    According to current United States copyright, copyright owners have the right to control or restrict the publishing of "derivative works" based on their material, though they do not receive ownership of those works. The owner of the original work (film, TV show, etc.) therefore most likely has some legal power over fan fiction, though the laws as written do not address the issue directly. [citation needed] Generally, authors who do not want derivative works being written without their direct permission and/or the ability to control it, request to major archives the removal and banning of such derivative works based on their own. There has yet to be a case of a major archive failing to comply with such a request, and many of them feature a full list of authors whose work cannot be the source of a fan fiction on their site.

    Basically, my only qualm with this section is twofold:

    1.) WHICH PART of United States copyright law addresses derivative works? Cite please! A good example of what I'm talking about is Age of Consent's subpages, which list specific sections of laws, amendments and civil codes that state [whatever it is]. We should be trying to model Legal Issues somewhat after that, if possible, I think.

    2.) How exactly do they "not address the issue directly"? This goes basically hand in hand with citing the specific parts of copyright law, though clarification may still be needed post-cite.

    I would also highly suggest that by paragraph three of the Legal Issues section, we address the differences between U.S. and non-U.S copyright law, with citation to support it. As it is, the article barely acknowledges that the Japanese exist, let alone any other Asians or Europeans (excluding a very vague referenc to Russia) or South Americans, or Africans, or Australians! Very U.S.-centric at this point. While it is true that a large portion, indeed, perhaps even a majority of English-language fan fiction is written by United States citizens or residents, that only accounts for one large portion of the fan fiction community. I know that there are considerable Spanish-speaking, Portuguese-speaking and Japanese fan fiction communities online. Hell, fanfiction.net supports Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Italian, German... LOTS of languages. And a goodly number of them have a LOT of stories published under them (especially Italian, German, Spanish, and Portuguese). So clearly, non-U.S. laws are just as important as U.S. ones.

    Now, back to tracking my [citation needed] notes:

    That said, American copyright law specifically protects parody, and also includes a provision that the specifically protected categories are not necessarily the only protected categories.[citation needed] Because of this, some argue that most fan fiction lies in a legal gray area between fair use and violation of copyright law - at least in cases where U.S. copyright law would apply to the author or online publisher of the story. [citation needed]

    1.) WHAT PART of American copyright law "specifically" does this, and how is it worded?

    2.) WHO argues that it lies in a "legal gray area"?

    It must also be noted that, separate from copyright issues, many characters in American television and film productions are also registered trademarks of the producing company. However, this typically is seen as only requiring that fan fiction writers make certain that their work cannot be confused with the trademark holder, and do not claim to be endorsed or produced by them; it does not ban the use of a character any more than the registered trademark status of Coca-Cola prohibits its mention here.[citation needed] Most authors try to avoid legal trouble by including short disclaimers at the beginnings of stories or chapters regarding the copyright or trademark status of the original work or characters

    I'm a bit lacking in trademark law knowledge, but I do know that words such as Coca-Cola(tm), Kleenex(tm) and Xerox(tm) must appear with trademark marks with them, no matter how you're using it, in print. I would like to suggest citation and clarification of this related "trademark" issue!

    Although fan writers argue that their work does not cost the owner of the source material any income, and often acts as free promotion while fan writers themselves earn no profit, legally, copyright (and trademark) infringement can still occur even when the infringers do not profit. However, the non-profit nature of fan fiction is still important, because it limits or eliminates the damages that a court could find and also makes possible some defense against claims of infringement under copyright fair use.[citation needed]

    HOW does it make it possible, and what legal precedent do we have to show that this could be the case, or is there any at all? Just because a statement is fairly logical (e.g. a statement of the idea that if no profit is made, it's possible for very few or no monetary damages to be required if convicted of infringement) does not mean it should go uncited. I'm especially way of the section that states it "also makes possible some defense against claims of infringement under copyright fair use." HOW does it make that possible? And what're the laws or precedents that prove or suggest such a thing, if any?

    Most major studios and production companies tolerate fan fiction[citation needed] ,and some even encourage it. Paramount Pictures, for example, has allowed the production of two series of Star Trek fan fiction anthologies, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, a series of seven anthologies of fan fiction selected by contest, and Bantam's Star Trek: The New Voyages which followed Bantam's Star Trek Lives by reprinting stories from various fanzines.

    My only qualm here is the "most marjor studios and production companies" bit. "Most" implies a majority, which means more than 50% of the "major" companies relating to what sounds like TV and film production, but where is it proven that they actively tolerate it, as opposed to generally ignoring it or not bothering to have an official stance? Surely somebody has written on it?

    A noted exception is Lucasfilm, which has threatened or sued many sites precisely because of their non-commercial nature.[citation needed] Strangely, though, the company encourages fan-produced films, and once made available a small library of sound effects.

    WHO was threatened, WHO was sued, and WHERE is it proven that it was "because of their non-commericial nature"?

    Many writers and producers do not read fan fiction, allegedly for fear that they might be accused of stealing a fan's ideas. But some do encourage it: when Buffy the Vampire Slayer went off the air, for instance, creator Joss Whedon encouraged fans to read fanfiction during the show's timeslot.[citation needed] J. K. Rowling says she loves fan fiction of all kinds, though she admits to finding some of the works to be 'quite bizarre'[citation needed] . Douglas Adams also reportedly appreciated fan fiction based on his works, to the extent that some would say that there are scenes in So Long, and Thanks For All the Fish that seem to be inspired by fan fiction[citation needed] .

    These are lesser problems, but where did Whedon suggest this to fans? Where is the Rowling quote taken from? Who has stated which scenes in Adams' book "seem to be inspired by fan fiction"?

    Also noteworthy is the series of Darkover anthologies published by Marion Zimmer Bradley, beginning in 1980 consisting largely of fan fiction extended into her canon. At the time, the intent was to make Darkover a shared universe similar to the Cthulhu Mythos. The author eventually discontinued these after a 1992 skirmish with a fan who claimed authorship of a book identical to one Bradley had published and accused Bradley of "stealing" the idea.[citation needed] The resultant lawsuit cost Bradley a book, and her attorney advised against permitting fan fiction of any kind. This incident is credited by some[citation needed] to have led to a "zero tolerance" policy on the part of a number of professional authors, including Andre Norton, David Weber and Mercedes Lackey.

    1.) What author? What book? What lawsuit? Who was her attorney at the time? 2.) WHO credits it to have led to the "zero tolerance" policy?

    This was a repeat of the summary given on the Marion Zimmer Bradley article, and I put it there. There is much more information at Fanworks' article on MZB. --Bluejay Young 08:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    Due to the ongoing nature of television production, some television producers have implemented similar constraints, one example being Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski. His demand that Babylon 5 fan fiction be clearly labeled or kept off the Internet confined most of the Babylon 5 fan fiction community to mailing lists.[citation needed] Anne Rice also aggressively prevents any fan fiction of any of her characters (mostly those from her famous Interview with the Vampire book) or anything to do with any of her books[citation needed] . Similar efforts[citation needed] have also been taken by George R. R. Martin, author of the famous Song of Ice and Fire series, among other fantasy and science fiction novels[citation needed] . Many authors do this, they claim, in order to protect their intellectual copyright and especially to prevent any dilution, saturation or distortion of the universes and people portrayed in their works[citation needed] . Many people claim to have been turned off of writers after hearing reports of these or similar anti-fan fiction stances, or after having allegedly born part of the brunt of anti-fan fiction campaigns.

    1.) Where and when was this demand posted my Straczynski? 2.)I've heard of Rice's "aggression" towards fans, but where are the verifiable sources for it? Surely there are at least a couple? 3.)WHAT efforts, and how were they similar? Claims I heard about Anne Rice's behavior towards fans have basically painted her as slightly deranged, stalking former fanfic writers, even in their offline life, allegedly even harassing them at work (you see why I would require verification from a reliable source on claims as to either author's "efforts" against fan fiction, right? Possibly Martin was less aggressive than Rice, and quite possibly the accounts of Rice cyber-stalking and harassing former fanfic writers offline were exaggerated). 4.)Oops. That one seems to be a stray [citation needed] . If it's still there tommorrow, I'll take it out; I'm so sleepy, I thought the sentence was referring to other writers of science fiction and fantasy. 5.)THIS one I know of - Robin Hobb had a rant on her site about why she doesn't allow fanfic based on her work, and it included the insinuation that only her interpretation and portrayal of the characters is valid, and that people would confuse fanon with her canon (the former of which is... well, it is what it is, but he latter of which certainly has some semblance of validity, as I've seen many a fanon concept adopted cross-fandom as if it were canon, or people forgetting which inventions were fanon and which canon, especially in complex story universes such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Harry Potter. Of course, some people could easily express such things in essays instead of fan fiction in a lot of cases and still confuse people, but fanfic makes it considerably easier and quicker, usually). If I can track down a link to her rant, I shall link it; I also suggest that anybody who knows of any other authors that take this stance and have been quoted as such, please link the verifiable quotes/statements of opinion from there as well, so that the "many" doesn't seem ridiculous (though I suggest we consider changing it to "some", as "some" can be extended to "many" but would be more accurate in this case).

    One curious case is that of Larry Niven's Known Space universe. In an author's note in The Ringworld Engineers, Niven stated that he was finished writing stories in this universe, and that "[i]f you want more Known Space stories, you'll have to write them yourself." Internet writer Elf Sternberg took him up on that offer, penning a parody in which members of Niven's hyper-masculine Kzin species engage in gay sex and BDSM. [3] Niven responded by denouncing Sternberg's story in the introduction to a later volume[citation needed] and issuing a cease-and-desist for copyright violation. To date, Sternberg holds that the story is constitutionally protected parody [4], while Niven maintains that it is a copyright violation that lies outside of protected speech, though he has not legally pursued the matter further. [5]

    My only qualm is that it doesn't state which later volume.

    In countries such as Russia, where copyright laws have been lax at best[citation needed] , it is not uncommon to see fan fiction based on the work of popular authors published in book form[citation needed] . Sergey Lukyanenko, a popular science fiction author, went as far as to incorporate some fan fiction based on his stories into official canon (with permission of the writers of the said fan fiction)[citation needed] . Perhaps the most famous case, however, is Dmitri Yemets' Tanya Grotter book series, a "cultural response" to Harry Potter, which provoked a lawsuit from J. K. Rowling's estate [citation needed] .

    1.) HOW are they lax, who says they are, and what proof of it is there? I don't even care if this is allegedly common knowledge, or even if "lax" isn't meant to insinuate that they don't protect copyright owners' right, or not, because it should still be cited. 2.)IS it, in fact, "not uncommon" to see printed fan fiction? Who says? Where did they say this? When did they say that? Is this still the case? What are some specific titles? 3.)WHICH stories into WHICH official canon? 4.)Please cite the lawsuit! I know it allegedly stopped publication of the Dutch translation of the book, but seriously, when did it happen and who exactly was involved?

    In the United States, many tie-in novels and novelizations have the curious status amongst some of being officially sanctioned, for-profit fan fiction - though once again, this largely depends on one's definition of fan fiction. Series from Star Trek to Buffy the Vampire Slayer have numerous books that exist outside the officially canonical world of the series, much like fan fiction, but which have the official sanction of the show's creators or owners. The refusal by Paramount Pictures (owners of the Trek franchise) to allow printed adventures to be considered part of the canon has led many fans to consider the books to be a form of fan fiction despite their legal and licensed status, and a similar attitude prevails amongst fans of Buffy, where the series' creator has explicitly declared that the novels and novelizations based on the series are not canon material[citation needed] .

    I'm almost sure he has (at very least, he's referred to certain comic books as "canon"), but I cannot recall where; in any case, this needs a cite!

    The attitude of copyright holders toward incorporating fan fiction into the canon varies. It is generally the case that the writers hired for a television or movie are under strict orders not to read fan fiction out of fear that doing so will cause the copyright holder to be sued later for infringement[citation needed] . However, some copyright holders such as the case of the BBC and Doctor Who have mechanisms to allow for unsolicited submissions of stories into the official canon, and it is also the case that the writers of canon stories have sometimes been recruited from fan fiction writers[citation needed] .

    1.) IS it generally the case? Who has commented on that? What proof do we have that this is actually something they're under "strict orders" not to do? And how is it that the original copyright holder, who allegedly has "control over derivitive works", can be sued for using concepts that happen to match up with a completely unauthorized derivitive work? 2.)I know at least one Stargate: SG-1 novelist was, but who was she? Are there any other examples? Who? When? how were they discovered? Are such works really considered canon, or just sanctioned works with one of those infamous "official merchendise, but not actually canon" type situations?

    Hopefully, having pointed out specific areas in need of improvement and citation will help bring it up to speed!

    Regards, Runa27 06:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Regarding the June 16, 2006 edit

    Today I edited the article again to remove a new term that had been added. My edit description was, as always, limited in space. It was:

    ("sickfic/HC" rem. from "Misc. Terminology". Was not in alphabet. ord. Also, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in "Subgenres", under "Character Relationships", but was also badly-written, unsourced...)

    Here is what was input by an anon user and removed by me:

    Sickfics, also known as H/C (or hurt/comfort) are stories in which one or several charectors are injured, ill, or hurt, and the other featured charectors care for him/her. These are often drama/fluff stories. While every fandom includes it's own share of sickfics, they are most common in medical dramas such as ER and House, and shows that portray weak/strng charectors, either deliberately written into the show, or made by the mind of the author (for example, stories written for the WB's drama Supernatural often contain a strong/weak relationship with Dean and Sam, respectively, even though they are close equals in the show). In some instances, it's a charcetor, not a show, with which sickfics are popular. For instance, while Charmed has it's share of sickfics, this genre of writing is done overwhelmingly about the charector "Chris".

    The reasons I removed this were:

    • READ THE REST of the article, people! AND the Talk page! This is, firstly, NOT "Misc. Terminology", and secondly, the sections are alphabetical now; not only is this term very clearly relating to character relationships, for which there is a section under Subgenres, but it also was stuck at what seemed like random in between "Fandom" and "Fanon". It's been generally agreed (and yet to NOT be agreed) here and in the Peer Review, that the subsections should have some sort of order, either alphabetical, or logical (for instance, either "Anti-Sue" goes first because it's an "A" term, or it goes after Mary Sue, since it references it), and so far we've been going with alphabetical. But this... it made no sense at all where it was put.
    • It wasn't sourced, especially claims such as specific H/C being "most common in medical dramas" (by the way, that should read more like "in fandoms surrounding medical dramas" or "in medical drama fandoms", since it's not in the dramas themselves that you're referencing, it's the fan fiction for them). We have enough unsourced stuff without adding more, especially when it's a minor subgengre.
    • "Charcetor" is NOT an English word as far as I know. Neither is "strng" or "charecter". Not only did you misspell "character", but you misspelled it two different ways. Please spell-check and proofread your entries before you put them in, people, otherwise the page is less professional-looking.
    • Why is "Sickfic" the first part of the title anyway, in my experience it's not as common as "hurt/comfort" in this usage, in fact, I've never seen it used outside of more disturbing non-H/C fics? This is why it's important to begin SOURCING these things!
    • That is NOT the definition of "fluff" stories ("fluff" implies light-hearted and non-serious, which by its very setup, hurt/comfort is not). The semantic implication here is bizarre.
    • We've been combining and deleting definitions, especially those that did not apparently have their own main article and were completely unsourced, in order to try to cut down on the size and improve the overall quality of the article. More than one user has suggested or agreed to this. This term was in fact added without bringing it up on the Talk page at all.
    • Did I mention the unsourced thing?

    In short, you're going to add more terms, then please do the following:

    • Bring it up first on the Talk page.
    • Make sure it has its own main article; assuming that it is notable enough for its own article, make sure you link it from the term's spot on this page.
    • Source it. ESPECIALLY when you're saying any particular subgenre is "most" popular in specific fandoms.
    • Make sure your summary of it reads well, is clear even to people who don't know what you're talking about, is concise, and is properly spelled.
    • Put it in the CORRECT place, in the CORRECT order. In this case, again, it was put under "Additional associated terminology"'s subsection "Misc." section, but you'd want to add it to "Common subgenres of fan fiction"'s subsection "Subgenres based on character relationships", and preferably in alphbetical order. The more common name for the concept from what I've seen on places like Godawful Fan Fiction is "Hurt/Comfort" or "H/C" for short, so you'd want THAT to be the title, and then since it's an "H" word at the beginning of the term, you'd want to put it between "Alternate Pairing" and "Lemon and Lime".

    Thanks. Runa27 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Other misc. comments on other edits

    For the most part, I would like to thank User:Bacteria for his(?) many small edits. For one, the decapitilization of a lot of the words in the headers to conform with the Wikipedia standards, which I've been meaning to do for ages? THANK YOU! Also, I noticed a number of nice little grammar fixes AND the wonderful change of referencing Charmed instead of Buffy (it's my own fault, really, I know the Buffyverse better than other fandoms, so I ended up referencing it more than most others). And, of course, fixing a large number of links. Thank you very much.

    I do have to voice a bit of concern though for your re-insertion of comments regarding flames and reviews: Unfortunately, some fanfiction stories become the subject of "flames"- angry reviews about how terrible they think a fanfiction is, without either giving good reason for why or giving constructive criticsm.

    Again, as I've stated before, the idea that some authors get flamed sometimes is self-evident. As review systems are normally not moderated very much, it's not a particularly shocking nor notable thing that sometimes people send nasty or unpleasant notes. If you insist upon reinserting such things, I would strongly suggest you alter it to reflect how it's unexpected, or why it's at all important.

    Also, flames sometimes DO give a "reason for why", sometimes even a "good" one. I see this all the time, especially, with stories with controversial themes, or which exploit recent tragedies such as September 11th or the tsunami last year, or the hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. I also see it a lot with people whose stories completely change a character's personality for the sake of a plot or a pairing, or whose stories feature characters seen as Mary Sues, or which mess around with the canon background or setting, or pairings that don't seem to make as much sense (or, conversely, that the reviewer simply doesn't agree with). People will very frequently say why they hate it, just not very nicely. :P "Flame" covers that prospect just as much as "without giving good reason for why".

    Since I apparently cannont convince people to not state the obvious about flames existing, I'm opting to rewrite that portion as the following, which is infinitely more NPOV-ish, at least by comparision:

    Since many such sites do not automatically moderate these systems, frequently the systems are abused and used to send to send flames, spam or trolling messages. For this reason, many such unmoderated systems allow the author the option of receiving only "signed" (non-anonymous) reviews, and many sites that sport such systems feature the suggestion to reviewers that they take the oppurtunity to give the author some constructive criticism, though it should be noted that this does not always stop "trolls" or those who simply disapprove of the work in question from commenting on the story.

    That a good compromise? :) Runa27 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    Whoops! It wasn't User:Bacteria but rather the user immediately before Bacteria that edited the Reviewing section. My apologies to Bacteria for the misattribution, I was comparing one of my really old edited copies to yours, and forgot that the red-inked portions merely indicate changes, not changes made with that particular edit. ^_^ Runa27 04:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Japanese terms

    A few minor review comments about Japanese things:

    Yaoi is going to be a problem - there seems to be a difference of opinion between the native Japanese and foreign usage of the word. It seems to me that the article is treating yaoi as explicit sexual contact and shonen-ai as more of an unrequited or one-sided relationship, while generally, yaoi does not necessarily have to be explicitly sexual in nature. Therefore, the difference between the terms is a bit blurry. I'd have to say that it most likely has more to do with the overall bent of the story than what occurs in the story (in short, yaoi has S&M-type graphic/shocking stuff in it while shonen-ai is more of a character development/plot-driven story, and generally has no explicit content, and sometimes no implicit content either). Clearly, the issue is that the English and Japanese communities are using the same terms in different contexts; neither is wrong, but without explaining the context properly, it gets confusing. How do you want to deal with it here in terms of standardization?

    The Lemon/Lime thing is news to me, and the etymology seems a bit contrived, IMHO (I don't recall hearing it once in two years in Japan, and I learned a lot of stuff that wasn't in the dictionary). I'll have to do some looking around to verify it. I don't doubt that the contrast works, but the explanation is odd. MSJapan 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


    This article's addressing of yaoi and shounen-ai is purely in terms of how it is used in the English-speaking fan fiction community. Perhaps we should make it clearer that it's only the English-speaking community where this line is so blurred (and believe me, boy is it blurred in the English-speaking fan fiction community. More so with yuri and shoujo-ai, probably thanks to yuri being shorter - and thus ideal for summaries limited by character length - but also drawing a lot of unrelated search results)?
    I'm not sure why the "Cream Lemon" bit was added in recently, but "lemon" definitely is a Japanese slang term meaning "sexy", at least according to, IIRC, Animerica a couple of years back. Coincidentally, it was an Animerica article (which I have the hardcopy of somewhere, I'll try to dig it up) on same-sex sexuality in Japanese culture and the resulting changes in Western fandom that was my main source for the yuri/shoujo-ai/yaoi/shounen-ai usages (though the article seemed fairly accurate as to the usage in Western fandom, I might add, given my own experience reading fan fiction). Again, I'll try to dig it up. I won't mind rereading it. Before it got crappy layouts and went all "cheesy free publication" on us, Animerica was actually really good, both for information and for prose (*sigh* I miss the old Animerica...).
    Thank you very much for your input. :) Runa27 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Fanfiction is older than TV shows

    Forgive a new voice in the mix, and also my idea that may potentially make this article longer.

    For years there have been dozens of published Sherlock Holmes novels, such as "Seven Percent Solution" and "Beekeeper's Apprentice," to name but two. For decades there have been organizations dedicated to the dissection of every clue and hint in the canon stories--"canon" being a termed used by default to refer to the original stories by groups such as the Baker Street Irregulars. I don't know if that affects the scope and focus of the current article, but it's something worth considering when thinking about the theory of fan fiction. Whether it's worth any mention in the current article or not, but it pinged me, who is a fan of both Sherlock Holmes, Buffy, Harry Potter, etc. (though I've only written in Buffy and a couple of other fandoms)--Cneil 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

    You know, the canon terminology had that in it last I looked - apparently, the Baker Street Irregulars were amongst the first, if not the first, to use the term in that context.
    The Baker Street Irregulars do still get a mention in the History section, though - I just read it.
    If you believe that the Sherlock Holmes fandom, in particular the Baker Street Irregulars, deserves more attention, you may want to consider being bold and starting an article on it. After all, all or most of the terminology here already had or has its own article, and the Legal Issues section has already been split off into Legal issues in fan fiction. :) I'm somewhat in favor of covering every notable aspect of it, in order to build up the main article here (sort of like making this article the keystone, which can't be properly held up without other stones, i.e. articles, providing support). Runa27 22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    PS: Of course fan fiction (though not by that name) is "older than TV shows." If you read the current history, you'll find that even more modern, published fan fiction dates back to about the 18th century or so (well, I think the article currently reads "turn of the 19th century", but there was an academic paper I was going to cite here that looked at legal issues surrounding "Eighteenth Century" fan fiction, including unauthorized sequels to the likes of Robinson Crusoe). That was quite a ways before the heyday of TV. ;) Runa27 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've been trying to keep the "older than tv shows" fact in this article. That's why I keep putting the Brontes back in, for one thing -- 1820s RPF! I'm glad you found an academic paper on it. --Bluejay Young 05:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

    Fan fiction is much older than TV shows: the New Testament is fan fiction. 220.237.4.226 16:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    That's certainly one theory. :) Although I'm of the opinion that both Testaments are more of a hyperbolized historical fiction/oral history (for instance, there's a lot of evidence to support the previous existance of certain cities mentioned in the Old and New Testaments that were supposed to have been destroyed by the wrath of God, including Jericho, which if I recall correctly, was shown to have possibly been victim of an earthquake. Or repeated earthquakes throughout its history, one or the other).
    Also, the Biblical Apocrypha are Biblical fan fiction in an even truer sense, as they are very literally not considered canon. ;) Runa27 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Legal issues section is its own article now

    So if you've been on this Talk page, but haven't read the article recently or didn't notice it, it's over at Legal issues in fan fiction. I'm also in the process of creating a couple of redirects there, such as Legal issues with fan fiction or The legality of fan fiction. Runa27 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] On the subject of the Mary Sue article

    I'm curious as to why there is a link to a fic called "My Imortal" in the Mary Sue portion of the main article. I was under the impression that Mary Sue was a common vocabulary term on the net long before that story came out, and although it is a classic example of a Sue (Or it *probably* is, I can't get past the first "chapter"), I can't understand how it warrents mention here. Beyond that, I don't really believe it's right to site specific examples of Sues in the first place, as a Sue is the sort of character that's highly likely to provoke internet trolls (which here means people who are prone to indiscriminate flaming). I hope I'm not being rude.

    Not at all! I just moved the Terminology section to its own article, and while I was editing over there, I caught that and deleted it.
    You are exactly right that it doesn't warrant a mention here. Here's why:
      • Whomever added it declared that it made Mary Sue "an internet phenomenon". This is hilarious, considering my own Mary Sue parody series was started BEFORE it was even published! My God, I must be psychic! No wonder it never got more than 10 reviews on fanfiction.net - nobody must have known what a Mary Sue even was! :P *ahem* It was an "internet phenomenon" long before the mid-2000s (when that story was published to the net). The term itself was coined by a certain fan fiction author in the Star Trek fandom during the 1960s, in the heyday of science fiction fanzines. Hop on over to the Mary Sue page, and you'll find it - including references, and an actual copy of the story in PDF format, if I recall correctly.
      • Simply having a lot of reviews doesn't make a fan fiction all that notable (not enough for Wikipedia, anyway); most reviews on FanFiction.net consist of "this sucks" or "omg soo cuuuute!" or somesuch, and people frequently hold conversations or arguments on the review boards, further adding to the bloated review count (and then that's not even counting trolls, spammers, and unfavorable reviews) on any given story. Now, if it had become infamous overnight, especially if it was referenced in print somewhere like the New York Times, or somesuch, THEN it would be notable. But until then? Nope!
      • Did I mention that the term "Mary Sue" was also featured in print (the NYT, for one, and that just off the top of my head) - long before that story was published?
    So yeah, I removed that, even after moving it. Runa27 20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] Terminology is being moved to its own article

    I've taken the liberty to start an article called Fan fiction terminology, which will house, well, just what it sounds like. I figure that, as with the Legal issues with fan fiction split, this oughta really help to streamline this article and make it less overwhelming! :)

    Any help with the move, including tweaks over at the new Fan fiction terminology page, are welcome! Runa27 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Recent tweaks

    [edit] History section

    I did a bunch of little tweaks again, including the addition of a note on 18th century printed fan fiction. I know it existed, because there's a paper in the works by Dr. Elizabeth Judge (which I've mentioned a few times in discussions about this article) about just that (and the copyright battles that ensued, of course). I am still waiting to hear word from her on whether the paper is finished and published and ready to cite or not, but she assured me it eventually would be, which is why I broke down and said "oh, fine, I'll add in a mention." She distinctly referenced an unauthorized Robinson Crusue sequel in the draft version of the paper I read, so that's the one I put in. I will cite her paper as soon as I can (and as soon as I figure out how to do that. -.-) Runa27 23:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] How about seperating the subgenres into a list - or the Terminology article?

    I suggest we seperate the subgenres sections into a seperate list article, similarly to how I seperated the terminology section out; or, I was thinking of going and simply moving the subgenres into Fan fiction terminology under their own subsections there.

    Which do you folks figure is best - or should it be moved at all? With how massive the concept has gotten over the years, all the legal issues, jargon, subgenres, I'm starting to think that the best thing for this article is to move a lot of things (as we've already started doing with Terminology and Legal issues) that have gotten massive out to their own articles and provide an overview (history, formats, debate over how to define it, major theories relating to it) on the main article. As one person during the previous peer review said, I beleive, it's possible that the only way to get it to be a truly good article is to "build it from the ground up" - get the major supporting articles to be really good, and provide an overview and linkage here.

    I'm going to wait at least until Monday before I start moving the Subgenres sections out. Please give for or against arguments below, so I can see how much consensus there is and if maybe there's a reason not to seperate them (I don't really see a particularly persuasive one at the moment, but I'm game for a rational debate on the matter and may be persuaded otherwise if need be). :) Runa27 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


    Whew! That was a lot of work. I copied the entire subgenres section over to Fan fiction terminology, under the rationale that it would be proper to include the information there either way anyway. Did not delete the "Subgenres" terminology from the original article here because I wanted some discussion on what exactly to do with it over here (keep it? Link to the terminology page?), but I think having the information on Fan fiction terminology is a good idea either way, so I went ahead and copied it over (with some tweaks here and there). I'm of the opinion that they could still use some reorganization, however. On a side note - I now feel like even more of a Wikipedian, because I learned how to use intra-page links today. :D (Yes, I fixed the messed-up ones on Fan fiction terminology.) Runa27 20:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    Link to the terminology page and delete the subgenres here -- otherwise it will be very redundant. I'm sorry I haven't been more active on your requests for attention to this and the terminology and subgenres pages but lately this whole subject tends to make my head spin. --Bluejay Young 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sometimes Occam's Razor IS the best method. I mean, my God! Look at how nice and clean and palatable and less-daunting the page looks now! :D You were right of course, that if they were in their own article, they needn't be here as well. ^_^ I'm glad I was right to think it would make sense (I've been a little sleep-deprived lately, so you never know...). Runa27 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] Response to recent edits from an anon user 216.231.46.4

    User 216.231.46.4 wrote in his/her edit summary "Deleted paragraph saying Dante, Stoppard, et al are versions of fan fic, the paragraph confuses literary allusion with fanfic and is original research violating wikipedia policy)". I would like to respond with my reasoning for a reversion I'm about to make of most of the changes in their edit here, since the anon user under the IP 216.231.46.4 was not signed into an account where I could respond to them, and they did not post a note on the talk page themself.

    The paragraph you mention in your edit is:

    One of the broadest definitions of fan fiction is simply unauthorized written work based on a published one. In this interpretation, works such as the books of the Biblical Apocrypha are used as an early example of fan fiction. Fan fiction is also seen by many as a modern equivalent of the oral literature tradition of shared stories. In this view, retellings of fairy tales can be considered fan fiction. In both of these views, Virgil's Aeneid would be fan fiction based on Homer's Iliad, and Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead would be fan fiction based on Shakespeare's Hamlet.

    I am not sure why on earth you're bringing up Dante, since he is as a point of fact not mentioned in the paragraph you've removed (Virgil's Aeneid is, but Virgil is not Dante. Nobody is arguing that Dante's Inferno is not original fiction/literary allusion in that paragraph. At all).

    Furthermore, while I will admit that most of that is in dire need of a source (like most of the article, really), there are people that believe most of it, and it shouldn't be removed entirely. As it notes, that's a broad definition, and there are at least an equal if not greater number of people that don't hold to it; however, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be represented at all. ESPECIALLY since you deleted, in your rush to edit out alleged claims of literary allusion being equated with fan fiction, the ENTIRE (and notable) view of it being a modern extention of the oral storytelling tradition. I've seen this view noted in academia and newspaper articles alike, with increasing frequency, and often used as a way of explaining why fan fiction exists or is popular in the first place; two pieces in fact, that I'm preparing to cite take or mention this view, including one from a noted law professor's academic paper on 18th century fan fiction, so deleting reference to this view of it is not a good idea at all; next time, please discuss something like that on the Talk page or sprinkle a [citation needed] ({{fact}}) tag next to it, OK? :)

    Also, note that I have sources I'm getting ready to cite that support the precise point of view/theory that you've just removed from the introduction. Therefore, this is not original research, it's just at the moment unsourced.

    Again - I believe proper procedure for this kind of thing is to liberally sprinkle [citation needed] and/or bring it up on the Talk page, especially when so little of the rest of the article is sourced. I do appreciate the attempt at removing original research, but do be careful next time that you're not in fact removing something that just isn't properly sourced yet, OK? :)

    Oh, but I will grant you Stoppard's play, since I only know of it secondhand from another user, and therefore cannot determine myself at this time that it is fan fiction in the true sense or not. Technically, a better example of professionally published fan fiction (if you don't take the view that it isn't fanfic if it's professionally published/produced) is probably something like Hook, which is a film sequel to the story of Peter Pan; Hook, of course, was not written by J.M. Barrie (did movies even really exist at the time he was alive?), so some would probably see it as a form of fan fiction, though I'd probably want to dig up a source claiming that first, especially with all the uncited information already here (I'll admit that a lack of cites is not helped by me, who does not yet know all of the ins and outs of citation yet).

    Anyway, I'll delete some of the examples given, but I'm otherwise reverting 216.231.46.4's edit, because I'm preparing to provide some sources that do in fact bring up/expound the very thing he/she deleted every mention of. Runa27 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Point of fact - I had the article open in another tab editing it, so at the same time as you're reading this you should be able to see the following edit summary under "history", immediately after where I (partially) reverted 216.231.46.4's edit (I say "partially" here because I actually did remove most of the references to specific titles in my previous edits, since I gather that that was 216.231.46.4's main bone of contention here, and I have yet to find a good source other than other users that specifically mentions them and considers them fan fiction, so I find it an easy concession to make ^_^):
    tweaks to my previous edit - I mention Robinson Crusoe because I am going to cite a source that references an illegal sequel to it and calls said sequel "fan fiction"! Please do not remove!
    I seriously am not kidding. Please do not revert the "illegal Robinson Crusoe sequel" reference (even if you do edit the section for clarity or whatnot), because I DO have a source I'm getting ready to cite that includes a direct, well-cited reference to a real copyright case from the 18th century involving an illegal sequel to that very novel, and the same source refers to it as a work of "eighteenth-century fan fiction". This source would be Dr. Elizabeth Judge's recent paper on, of course, eighteenth-century fan fiction (and the problems with copyright infringement that involved it). The only reason I haven't cited it yet was that the version I originally saw was a "draft copy", and after I contacted her about it, she asked that I wait until the final version was out and on a stable link before I cited it for anything. Runa27 20:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    Okay, the above was August 2006. Now almost 4 months later, still no citation on this Robinson Crusoe fanfic is illegal statement. It seems to me absurd to include such works as fanfic; was there a Robinson Crusoe fandom in the 18th C? No fandom, no fanfic. And just what law is being broken? Alan; 22 Nov 2006.

    In order of comment:
    1.)Yes, it was in August 2006. That was right before I started classes. Some of us occasionally have a life outside of Wikipedia. I got busier, and also started in on more pages, and then had more work at work and college, and I just in the end forgot about that one citation. Although, of course, that's not the only reason the cite hasn't turned up - the other (more pressing one) would be because I EMAILED Dr. Judge about using her paper as a citation (since the version I found through Google said it was a "draft copy", and that anyone planning to cite it for anything should email her first), and she said she would "let me know" when the final version of the paper was on a stable link. She has failed to email me again about this, and I have no idea if she has the stable version up yet. I will Google shortly, but I cannot promise I'll find it right away. If push comes to shove, I'll email her again. I do apologize for letting it go for so long, though.
    2.) To be exact, it was NOT a "Robinson Crusoe fanfic is illegal statement". Robinson Crusoe is of course NOW in the public domain, so fanfic is legal based on it - if written in current times. That was not the point of the mention, however, and why you're referring to it in that way at all, I have no idea, since the actual point of the mention was to note that WHEN ROBINSON CRUSOE WAS NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, there were sequels NOT written by the author that were floating around (in print form, of course), and that there is at least one court case (cited in the paper I mentioned and that I wish to GOD she emailed me back about already) where the original author of Robinson Crusoe sued over it and won.
    3.) It is NOT absurd, because there is an academic paper referring to such works as "18th Century Fan Fiction" - in the TITLE of the paper (again, I'll try to find the stable link copy of the paper for you). If it had not referred to it as such, I would not refer to it in the way I did here, since there would be no source that called it that. But there is - it's just that unfortunately, both me and (apparently) Dr. Judge forgot about the thing. Again, I'll Google it and I'll email her. Once you see the paper, you'll see what I mean and you'll see that I was not making shit up out of thin air.
    4.) "No fandom"? Are you kidding me? "Fandom" is... well, I have no idea how you are using it, really. Basically, a "fandom" is just... the fans. And if Robinson Crusoe did not have fans before it was in the public domain, I will eat my underwear.
    5.)Your statements imply to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that fan fiction did not exist before the term "fan fiction" existed, or that you follow some specific definition of "fan fiction" that excludes 18th century works or for-profit works. If so, please state your bias. I'm not going to say your definition of the term is wrong, but it's only one of several working definitions of the term. I could swear I (and others) had phrased the article in such a way as to note that not everyone believes fan fiction "officially" goes back that far or that for-profit works can count as fan fiction, but that quite a few people do hold to these definitions. We need to represent all sides, all major definitions, since all the definitions I saw on this page back in August, at least, were definitions that many people did in fact use. Again, if I can find this damn paper, you'll see these works referred to in academia as "fan fiction".
    6.)"just what law is being broken"? Why, none, since you're using PRESENT tense. But I was NOT using present-tense. A law WAS being broken - but would not be being broken today, since the work in question is now in the public domain. At the time, however, it was NOT in the public domain, and the sequel was unauthorized. Thus, the unauthorized sequel was breaking copyright law, and the author of the original work chose to bring suit against the copyright infringer, and won.
    I hope this answers all of your concerns. Now, I'm off to Google this stupid paper and see if she's finally got it on stable link already. Runa27 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    See below! I found it... sort of. -.- Runa27 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] The citation... sort of

    ARGH! Non-draft copy still not available, apparently. I did, however, find the draft copy:

    Eighteenth-Century Fan Fiction and Copyright Law (Draft copy)

    And here:

    From Dr. Elizabeth Judge, University of Ottawa: "Eighteenth-Century Fan Fiction and Copyright Law, presented at Cont/texts of Invention, A Working Conference of the Society for Critical Exchange (Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, 20-23 April 2006)
    The second link above includes a podcast from the conference as well. I'm at work, and cannot check it out right now any further, but there it is. Runa27 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Tweaks to External Links

    The link to Winglin does not work (and I've never heard of Winglin, either), so it's been removed. If it's a significant archive, then feel free to add it in again - after the link works.

    I've also removed "mad4ff.com". It's a small site (the largest sub-forum only has 48 threads), not a major archive like FanFiction.net (I'm not fond of FanFiction.net, but it's indisputable that the thing IS the primary fan fiction archive online, has millions of stories and supports dozens of languages. THAT is notable, not a site where there's only a few hundred people, maximum). Besides, it appears to not be a true fan fiction archive so much as a set of forums. I don't believe it's notable enough to link - only the really big, super-popular sites should linked from here, otherwise the External Links section is going to look like a page from del.ico.us :P. Runa27 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Article Improvement Drive nomination

    Whoops! I nominated this thing for an Article Improvement Drive, and forgot to post about here! :) Runa27 22:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I voted for it at AID just now, but I think it unlikely to get enough votes for adoption. Would any of the regulars here mind if I did some substantive edits on the article? Espresso Addict 05:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Go ahead! :) I know for instance, that "Formats" could use a lot of work, and the majority of the article still badly needs citations. I'm also trying to hunt down some book covers to add (things like those Chinese knockoff Harry Potter books, or The Wind Done Gone, you know) so that we've got a picture. Runa27 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'll give it a bit of thought before wading in -- there's a lot that might be said, but the more I think about it, the more I think citations are a bummer! I have copies of quite a few 'lit fanfic' novels (tho' not The Wind Done Gone, I fear) if you'd be interested in my scanning them -- off the top of my head, Wide Sargasso Sea, a couple of Rebecca continuations, Gertrude and Claudius, The Penelopiad, Ahab's Wife, The Hours, Mary Reilly, Jack Maggs -- I don't know if any of them is particularly photogenic, though. Espresso Addict 04:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] More on external links

    I've just removed some. I think these should be strictly limited -- there's simply no end to the number of links that could be added if every fandom got its own major archive list, or every fanfiction-related 'essay' on the net got included. Espresso Addict 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    We could add a fandom directory, perhaps Directorium, a fannish wiki, as many of the moderator-operated ones seem to spend most of their time on hiatus. Espresso Addict 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    While I understand limiting the links section and agree with some of the removals, RestrictedSection.org is actually notable (though with the pathetically poor description, I can see why it was removed). It was one of the first sites created in response to FanFiction.net's famous ban of "NC-17" (read: EXTREMELY "adult") stories (see: FanFiction.net, probably under "controversies"), and word has it that they've been threatened with a cease and desist from JK Rowling's lawyers at least once previously for hosting erotica that involved underage characters (one of the few things Ms. Rowling will not tolerate when it comes to fan fiction) - and apparently, they refused to back down and refused to remove the material. They were, for a while at least, very talked-about, as they were really walking the line from what I recall. Also, well-known in the HP fandom (I'm not sure anyone in it who reads fanfic hasn't at least heard of it), and HP fandom is one of THE biggest producers of fan fiction today. Though of course, RestrictedSection is more properly linked from FanFiction.net, I suppose.
    Additionally, I was kind of sad to see the LostWriters link go. I mean, I don't think it's a very notable site per se, but it was a very interesting article, and pretty well-written, too. Runa27 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    It's always a bit of an opinion call. I'm aware of Restricted Section's history and importance in the HP fandom, but don't forget that HP fandom, however notorious now, is a flash in the pan compared with fandom in general. If you have one HP link then a case could be made for having one of each significant fandom, and then the list swiftly becomes an unmanageable link farm.
    Re the LostWriter essay: if it's the one I'm thinking of, it seemed no more notable to me than 100s I can think of published every week and linked on Metafandom. But do put 'em back if you're worried, you've got more of a sense than I of what's appropriate for the page. Espresso Addict 22:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


    That's true. I suppose that's why I ended up deciding not to re-ad RS; it's more notable in reference to HP or FanFiction.net than Fan Fiction in general, at least until it gets itself sued and establishes some kinda legal precedent. :P
    Really, I will admit I'm not planning to add any of the ones I've noticed removed yet back in, because most of them aren't "notable" except in select aspects (even though some are interesting in and of themselves. ), and a lot of the archives are tiny (I mean, they're not BAD probably, but they're not big, either).
    Really, unless an article or page really delves into some aspect of fan fiction, or is super-uber-notable in respects to it, it shouldn't be in the External Links. I think that should be our criteria for any article, really, but especially here, since fanfic is mostly an online phenomenon nowadays. For instance, FanFiction.net was amongst the first major web archives, and (regardless of a sincere lack of real user friendliness) it's to this day indisputably the largest and most popular (in terms of links, hits, AND daily usage). It's notable enough for its own substantial article on Wikipedia (albeit one that's giving me hell to edit, heh), and nobody could really argue that it doesn't deserve one due to its impact on the genre today. So, that one gets a link, and it gets a link that should stay. Anything else... well, depends on if it was actually published in a newspaper or magazine of note, or if it details history or whatnot (for instance, Fanfic Symposium is used as a reference here for a good portion of the History section, which I'd argue is one of the best portions of the article, last I checked anyway. Although technically, that should be under a "References" section, but I'm not sure how to set that cite up properly. Though I suppose merely dividing it into a References section would help, and if I get the chance tomorrow, I may just do that). I did run across a page whilst Googling that was by a Libertarian that had a lot of interesting stuff on how different Libertarians might view copyright law, which tied into fan fiction. That is unique enough, that it's very tempting to add, even though I'm almost positive it was from a blog. I may post it just on the Talk page so people can see it for themselves and decide if it's worth integrating into any of the fan fiction articles. Anyway, thanks for your diligence. :) Runa27 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree, this article is the perfect place for the links to fanfic sites. Any you are a little too quick on the trigger when removing sites, esp. w/o any concensus. A link to each major genre shouldn't be too hard to manage MookiesDad 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Proposed merge with webnovela

    I oppose the proposed merge. I don't think the content at webnovela will improve the present article. Espresso Addict 02:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    I've removed the merge tag, as no-one supported here. Espresso Addict 15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Links/ref to Hardy Boys & Tom Swift

    There are many thousands of fandoms, of which these are just two. There's no reason to believe that these are sufficiently different from the others to merit either mentioning them in the history section or adding links to small archives. I've reverted these insertions a couple of times. Any other opinions? Espresso Addict 03:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

    I feel they ARE useful to illustrate the scope of fan fic - it ain't just Star trek/Wars anymore :). Besides which, the articles Hardy Boys and Tom Swift will soon be cross-linking to this page when referencing their respective fan fictions. Please bear with me will I get all the pages together. If I see the Fan Fic links becomming too outre, I;ll delete them myself but lets give it a chance for a while OK? MookiesDad 03:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    They are unncessary and far too specific. What if I want my fan ficions links to star wars fan fictions? Can't have specific examples. Everyone will want thier examples too. Fansites should be linked to extremely sparingly, and treating any particular groups with special reguard should be avoided. Kevin_b_er 03:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


    I thought there were no examples of fan fiction, in which case the links were just mearly too specific. But there's already a good example of "What is fan fiction?" in the external link fanfiction.net, which appears to be a large and neutral database of the unofficial fictional writing. From Wikipedia:External links:

    • On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
    • Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
    • Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks.

    The specifc mentions of certain topics for fan fiction are such that they no longer add relevant important information not available in an encyclopedia beyond the first one so the reader understand from an example. That example is provided though that one website and seems to be neutral enough. Specific links don't add things the reader would need to better understand the subject, and the already existing should suffice. I removed the links. Kevin_b_er 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

    After the addition of yet another archive, I've removed the link to fanfiction.net in the external links in the hope of discouraging further link farming. The wiki article on fanfiction.net linked under 'See also' should be sufficient. Espresso Addict 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Hey...

    If there are any (not so) well known fan fic writers....Do they deserve a mention?I know a few.

    Aside from those who've gotten themselves into legal troubles over unauthorized sequels or too-close-to-the-original parodies (Such as The Wind Done Gone), there aren't many worth mentioning on Wikipedia. And the people in the aforementioned "legal troubles" category are better mentioned in the Legal issues in fan fiction subarticle. Technically speaking, the only "famous" fanfic writer I can think of who would be indisputably a fan fiction writer (in that it was unpaid and unauthorized work based on another's) would be Cassandra Claire... but her work was never much more than an internet meme, and she's in fandom circles more well known for having gotten herself tangled up in a nasty plagiarism (e.g. almost word-for-word copying a lengthy passage from a novel, among other things) scandal over on FanFiction.net a few years back (oh, and apparently for having a particularly crazed little group of obsessed fans, but that's beside the point). There really aren't many 100% "notable" authors of fan fiction that everyone would agree on, and even the ones you COULD consider relevant today are usually more infamous than famous - and thus would take more explanation (if you want to create a "notable authors of fan fiction" subarticle, though, that'd be fine by me, so long as you had a few names everyone could agree on and some decent exposition for it).
    As for "(not so) well known" ones... NO. We have been struggling and struggling and struggling to create a decent article which covers the subject well without going overboard, and one of the worst problems has been the addition of a bazillion links to non-notable archives and sites and blogs, many of which also committed the cardinal WP-linked-site sin of not only being non-notable but also not even interesting. No offense. Feel free to mention some good authors here on the TALK page, but not in the article. They'll get reverted for sure; go ahead, try it. Try to edit the page - the whole page, not just the links section - you'll see a hidden warning for editors NOT to keep adding links without bringing them up on the Talk page first. Runa27 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] WikiProject Fan Fiction

    I finally got around to getting a template for this page, which is arguably the most important page under the scope of WikiProject Fan Fiction. :) Yay! Runa27 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/n/Talk%7EFan_fiction_3806.html"