I'm changing my mind about fan-creations (fan fic, fan games, etc.)
People who are close acquaintances of mine for a long time have sometimes noticed that opinions I once felt very strongly about and express in a vehement fashion can wind up changing, often with little external warning.
This comes from one of the cornerstones of my philosophy: all opinions are inherently suspect, if not outright worthless, and should be attacked savagely to expose their flaws (though, as I've said before, I'm trying to cut down on the amount of time I spend doing this.)
Usually, when I express this belief to somebody, they respond with, "Oh, so only your opinions are worth anything. What makes you so special?"... completely overlooking the fact that I claimed no exception for myself.
My idea of a good argument is one where everybody (again, not excepting myself) goes away with their opinions at least slightly modified, because this suggests that everybody learned something.
</BIG LONG PREAMBLE>
The upshot of this is that I'm coming to the conclusion that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with fan[whatevers]. I just got done reading this. It's mostly a legal defense of fan fiction, but I honestly don't give a flying fornication about legality. Something is either right or wrong, regardless of the law... the law should ideally be defined by morality, but morality is not defined by laws.
However, the article makes a very persuasive argument by way of having a big long rambling preamble that goes on for miles and miles before ever coming to any thing which resembles any kind of a point (is there anything better?). It doesn't invoke so many legal principles in this portion, but instead focuses on what human impulses cause fan fiction, and what benefits flow from it.
I read it, and found myself agreeing.
Of course, this doesn't change the fact that 99% of fan fiction is pure and utter crap... but that's more a function of zero barrier to entry. If nobody ever had the idea of writing fan fiction, but everybody who did wrote original fiction (orgfic? Hee hee. I like that term) instead, the same percentage of that would be just as crappy.
So, I'm not going to take up writing fan fiction any time soon. I'm also not going to release my own characters to the public domain or stop (gently) discouraging readers who suggest that they might take a stab at writing them.
Massive control issues aside, there's a big difference between my humble efforts and those of a major multinational corporation: there's no doubt in anybody's mind which is the "real, official" version when a major multinational corporation is involved. As long as I'm just Some Person self-publishing on the internet, it'd be hrd to distinguish my official work from any fan fic that did crop up.
And that's also not to say I agree with everything put forth within the article I linked to. I believe an author can be in the position of possessing the One True Interpretation of his or her work. The fact that everybody who encounters said work will perceive it differently doesn't negate the author's vision, any more than the fact that twenty people will hear the same sound differently negates the ultimate truth of that sound.
The "real version" of my characters exist within my head, and some of them get pretty vocal and/or violent when they find themselves being misinterpreted... but... that's a different subject entirely.
This comes from one of the cornerstones of my philosophy: all opinions are inherently suspect, if not outright worthless, and should be attacked savagely to expose their flaws (though, as I've said before, I'm trying to cut down on the amount of time I spend doing this.)
Usually, when I express this belief to somebody, they respond with, "Oh, so only your opinions are worth anything. What makes you so special?"... completely overlooking the fact that I claimed no exception for myself.
My idea of a good argument is one where everybody (again, not excepting myself) goes away with their opinions at least slightly modified, because this suggests that everybody learned something.
</BIG LONG PREAMBLE>
The upshot of this is that I'm coming to the conclusion that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with fan[whatevers]. I just got done reading this. It's mostly a legal defense of fan fiction, but I honestly don't give a flying fornication about legality. Something is either right or wrong, regardless of the law... the law should ideally be defined by morality, but morality is not defined by laws.
However, the article makes a very persuasive argument by way of having a big long rambling preamble that goes on for miles and miles before ever coming to any thing which resembles any kind of a point (is there anything better?). It doesn't invoke so many legal principles in this portion, but instead focuses on what human impulses cause fan fiction, and what benefits flow from it.
I read it, and found myself agreeing.
Of course, this doesn't change the fact that 99% of fan fiction is pure and utter crap... but that's more a function of zero barrier to entry. If nobody ever had the idea of writing fan fiction, but everybody who did wrote original fiction (orgfic? Hee hee. I like that term) instead, the same percentage of that would be just as crappy.
So, I'm not going to take up writing fan fiction any time soon. I'm also not going to release my own characters to the public domain or stop (gently) discouraging readers who suggest that they might take a stab at writing them.
Massive control issues aside, there's a big difference between my humble efforts and those of a major multinational corporation: there's no doubt in anybody's mind which is the "real, official" version when a major multinational corporation is involved. As long as I'm just Some Person self-publishing on the internet, it'd be hrd to distinguish my official work from any fan fic that did crop up.
And that's also not to say I agree with everything put forth within the article I linked to. I believe an author can be in the position of possessing the One True Interpretation of his or her work. The fact that everybody who encounters said work will perceive it differently doesn't negate the author's vision, any more than the fact that twenty people will hear the same sound differently negates the ultimate truth of that sound.
The "real version" of my characters exist within my head, and some of them get pretty vocal and/or violent when they find themselves being misinterpreted... but... that's a different subject entirely.
Posted by Hedgemistress on Saturday, April 28, 2007 08:27PM
- 46 comments
(link)
/
« Pound sterling? More like pounded, less-than-sterling! · Hot Fuzz »
Login to post a comment.
#46 Hedgemistress:
> I would be far more disappointed if you had banned somebody who was really putting up an interesting argument, and I doubt that you would have banned such a person in the first place.
Well, yeah... no matter how concerned I am that arguing eats or wastes my time, I don't actually consider an interesting argument to be a waste of it. The last thing I would do is ban somebody who actually challenges my opinions, or puts up an intelligent defense of their own. Those people are precious commodities. :P
I ban people from commenting on things so very very rarely because, as they say, hope springs eternal... it's always possible that the person going "Well, that's because you're dumb." will turn it around and come up with something slightly more valid.
Monday, April 30, 2007 06:16AM
#45 PirateHead:
Not that I expect you to mind, but my knee-jerk reaction to "Anyway, I'm not wasting any more time with this. You're not posting on my blog any more." is that it seems like petering out of a fight.
However, the more I think about it, the fact that his arguments really had no merit does make them pretty much a waste of time. I would be far more disappointed if you had banned somebody who was really putting up an interesting argument, and I doubt that you would have banned such a person in the first place.
I thought of something really pithy to say while reading this thread, but it's slipped my mind now. I'll come back and add it in if I catch it again.
The thought off the top of my head, however, is that it is absolutely wrong to regard an opinion as sacred and respect people's right to hold an opinion regardless of contrary evidence, experience, etc. The *only* value in opinions is that they can be influenced an arbitrarily large number of times. At first, opinions may easily be influenced - and each time your opinion changes in some way, it may be harder to change again due to the extra effort you have put into your considerations - but once an opinion has matured to the point where it can no longer be changed, it is either a fact or it is worthless.
So, my philosophy goes thus: if one has any opinions that one is not willing to change, one must ask one's self: "is this indeed a fact or an opinion?" If the answer is not "fact", then the opinion has no worth.
Monday, April 30, 2007 03:17AM
#44 Hedgemistress:
> By proposing this reason I was trying to expose the possibility that you might be practicing this philosophy for reasons such as insecurity.
Savagely attacking, nothing more.
Perfectly stated. You attacked my REASONS, so as to avoid having to examine the validity of the opinions themselves. Ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy... and not part of my philosophy.
(I hasten to point out my original post says that you were "attempting to" practice it.)
Citing imagined flaws in somebody's upbringing isn't attacking opinions... it's attempting to remove the credibility of the PERSON stating them, so you never have to examine the opinions themselves.
In practice, the exact opposite of what I advocated. Hence, "attempting to."
Here's what you fail to grasp, though: citing reasons why I might be cynical doesn't invalidate my philosophy, even if you had conclusively linked it to cynicism.
If you can cite the reasons that somebody's a great optimist, does that invalidate their optimism? No, it simply explains where it came from.
My philosophy will either stand up to scrutiny or it won't, regardless of what emotional factors did or did not go into its formation.
To attack MY OPINIONS, you would need to show the flaws in the OPINIONS, not point to flaws you see in me.
Response to Edit:
Ignoring the fact that you haven't successfully practiced my philosophy...
Simple addition hasn't solved world hunger, therefore simple addition is worthless.
I can't fix my refridgerator handle with an artificial heart valve pump. Time to get rid of those!
Now, I feel that in the many messages up to the one where I called you an asshole, I have very patiently elaborated on my philosophy in a way that should remove any doubts as to the fact that 1my philosophy isn't the same thing as just being an asshole to people, and 2) what you were doing is not what I'm advocating.
I would have liked to go on ignoring your childish insinuations indefinitely, but I'm notoriously bad at ignoring insults... and when the conversation turned towards the fine point of whether attacking an opinion made one an asshole--with you having hypocriticalyl attacked a person--I found it easier to give in. Oh, well. No changing the past.
However... to bring this back around to me having patiently elaborated, etc., etc., at this point you're clearly just arguing for no other reason than to be an asshole... defending your own reprehensible opening tactic in childish terms, ignoring what I've actually said in favor of your first impression knee jerk reaction to my statement on opinions as a whole, etc.
(See how optimistic I am? I could assume you're just that big an idiot that you haven't understood a word I've said, but I'm going with the more charitable assumption that you're a jerk.)
Anyway, I'm not wasting any more time with this. You're not posting on my blog any more.
Sunday, April 29, 2007 02:45PM
#43 .crimson.Taint:
finish
Sunday, April 29, 2007 02:37PM
#42 Worldweaver:
>What part of attacking opinions vs. attacking people don't you understand?
Is it just that attacking people is so much easier?
No no, you must know that I was not attacking you. If I had intended to attack you I would have insulted the slug-woman picture on your blog icon but instead I practiced your philosophy. It was not a veiled insult of any kind, I was proposing a reason that you might be so cynical.
By proposing this reason I was trying to expose the possibility that you might be practicing this philosophy for reasons such as insecurity.
Savagely attacking, nothing more.
EDIT-
But the clinch is that since we both used your "philosophy" and neither of us are ever going to change our minds - making your philosophy worthless.
Sunday, April 29, 2007 02:15PM
(Edited on Sunday, April 29, 2007 02:23PM)
#41 Hedgemistress:
1. You're not a psychologist.
2. A psychologist needs more to work with than what you had... somebody using their psychologist credentials to back up a veiled insulting remark based on as little as you had there would be full of it.
3. You were practicing my philosophy in that you were attacking perceived flaws in my opinions in the hopes of changing them. That doesn't mean that every single thing you do goes towards that end.
I explained the philosophy in question in the original post. If you happened to be wearing a purple polka dotted tie while making the post, that doesn't make wearing such a tie part of my philosophy, does it?
What part of attacking opinions vs. attacking people don't you understand?
Is it just that attacking people is so much easier?
Sunday, April 29, 2007 02:06PM
(Edited on Sunday, April 29, 2007 02:15PM)
#40 Worldweaver:
Hedgemistress wrote:
> "Savagely attacking PEOPLE to try to undermine their opinions." != "Savagely attacking opinions.", in case you're curious.
Oh! But I was just practicing your philosophy. At that point in time I was dissecting the reasons some person could be so cynical. Do you tell a psychologist he is attacking you when he is assessing your mental state?
> (By the way, that absolute bullshit about my childhood? That was you attacking me. Not my opinion. Me. Textbook example of somebody not willing to settle for attacking an opinion.
>
> Asshole.
>
> I thought I could ignore it, but I just want it to be clear which one of us is or isn't on some kind of high ground.)
>
> Now that that's out of the way...
>
> 'splain to me WHAT about an opinion morally protects it from savage attacks. WHY is it wrong?
>
> (While ad hominem attacks about somebody's parents are hunky-dory.
>
> Asshole.)
It's good that we've come to an agreement that using your philosophy makes you an asshole.
And don't try to say something like, "my philosophy doesn't use ad hominem" because I'll quote you -
"Worldweaver: You are at this moment (or at the moment in which you posted your comment, you were) practicing my philosophy..."
Sunday, April 29, 2007 09:17AM
(Edited on Sunday, April 29, 2007 09:33AM)
#39 Elation:
wall of
textFOOTNOTESGiven that I only read the first paragraph of that article, I'd have to say that the author of said article only proved themselves wrong.
I quote, "A girl owns a number of Barbie dolls.".
Again, I quote: "A girl owns a number of Barbie dolls."
Once more: "A little girl owns a number of Barbie dolls."
If your hobby can be compared to a little girl dressing up barbie dolls then you've got a whole load more problems than just the legality of the situation.
I write fanfiction. But I write it about Action Man, not Barbie- so I'm fine.
Sunday, April 29, 2007 04:29AM
#38 Popisfizzy:
Ah, okay. Still, it's the characters (and mainly dialogue), that always screw me up when I'm writing anything, which is the main reason nothing I write gets finished. Not that anyone really cares, of course. In the end I'm still Miscellaneous Person #820952 with Miscellaenous Story #23442509053 that no one will ever read, and no one cares about reading. All-in-all it's just something to do anyways.
[Edit]
I do actually plan on releasing this game sooner or later. I've been working on it, or things for it (see my hub, minus pif_EncryptedSave and pif_RandomNumbers, and you'll find things I released that just so happened to be something I'll use in my game that could be useful), since I joined in January of '05. I've just had multiple things hinder the progress of the game, and have had to rewrite the source twice, after realizing that the code was horrible each time (after I finish some things on my to do list, I'll be going on the third rewrite <_<).
Sunday, April 29, 2007 01:10AM
(Edited on Sunday, April 29, 2007 01:15AM)
#37 Hedgemistress:
Well, I didn't think you were talking specifically about characters, I just use that as an example of something I retained from my adolescence... and, of course, re-worked and re-worked until it was something my adult self finds useable.
And creative insomnia is a precious thing. :P
Sunday, April 29, 2007 01:02AM
#36 Popisfizzy:
Hedgemistress wrote:
> On the subject of changing the subject, I'd encourage you to keep mining the ideas you had when you were younger for as long as they seem fertile. I'm using characters and ideas I came up with when I was 12 or younger in the stories I'm writing today.
>
> (Voice in head goes: "And it shows!")
I don't have any real set characters. I have worlds and places, and kind of start with a top-down perspective. The reason I started with this when I was young was because I could never get to sleep easily, so I thought what a world I could create would be like. Of course, a large amount has changed since then, but I still identify the universe as coming from that point.
I'd also like to finish at least one short story about it. I'm decent at writing, but I always make it sound awkard in dialogue (social interaction screws me over again! -_-).
I currently have three paragraphs of a short story finish and saved to a .txt file in my member's space from when I had to get my laptop repaired, and backed up everything. That's about the furthest I've gotten in writing a story that takes place in this universe, and I always think "I should work on that story.", but then stop and move onto something else.
[Edit]
Note: The "I'm decent at writing." line comes from what other people have said. I always look at what I write ankd think to myself, "Oh my god, I wrote that?". I've revised the story I was talking about twice.
Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:51AM
#35 Hedgemistress:
I was just thinking that. :P But I've always favored organic conversations over focusing on a set topic.
On the subject of changing the subject, I'd encourage you to keep mining the ideas you had when you were younger for as long as they seem fertile. I'm using characters and ideas I came up with when I was 12 or younger in the stories I'm writing today.
(Voice in head goes: "And it shows!")
Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:43AM
#34 Popisfizzy:
Funny how none of these posts have any relation to the main topic of your post, eh? <_<
Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:25AM
#33 Hedgemistress:
Yes, I gave the Pussycat Dolls a chance.
And now, nobody ever happens to ask me what I'm listening to at work when I'm playing traditional folk music, orchestral music, erudite audiobooks, jazz fusion, or anything else...
Anyway, yeah, what SSGX said on the subject of subjectivity is pretty much what I would say. An opinion that's entirely unfalsifiable (excepting the "chocolate"-style ones) is extra-worthless, in that it's disconnected from reality.
To put it another way: why would you hold an opinion that cannot be defended, much less express it?
Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:14AM
#32 Quinn Isley:
Actually SSGX, I can probably give you several examples of where a simple conversation has altered my own and other peoples opinions on things they feel very strongly about.
A personal one is where I have had many civil conversations about religion with people and over time have weighed and judged their opinions and have found that while I still dislike organized religion and find that Christianity isn't for me, I am willing to admit there are good people who are church going folks and that it can be a good place for people. And trust me, I used to hate Christians with all my being. But I was willing to listen.
Lexy has, and will admit, that from discussing music we like, she gave the pussycat dolls a chance and she now likes their first album. Before that, she wouldn't even give any music of that variety the time of day. But because she was willing to listen to my opinions, she altered hers.
Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:03AM
#31 SuperSaiyanGokuX:
On subjective vs. objective:
I believe that any opinion worth having/defending is one that is based on evidence, and tested against opposing beliefs...
This, in a nutshell, is the same as any scientific hypothesis...
In this, they're essentially the same, and can (and should!) be held to the same standards...
[Edit:]
> Then you just take the "all opinions are wrong" principle? That doesn't get anywhere either.
Not quite, actually... She's taking the "all opinions may be wrong" prnciple... The difference is subtle, but very important...
Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:57PM
#30 Popisfizzy:
Hedgemistress wrote:
> Pleasant, civil discussions are like debates in that they never do anything but pass the time if they're founded on the principle of "This is my opinion and nothing you can do will change it." or "Aren't all opinions equally right and wrong?" premises.
Then you just take the "all opinions are wrong" principle? That doesn't get anywhere either.
Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:56PM
#29 SuperSaiyanGokuX:
I don't think that kind of discourse works with anything other than the most weakly held opinions; the stuff people would be willing to give up, because they didn't really care to begin with...
Try that sort of method with someone who has a racist belief, or while engaged in a religious topic... It doesn't offer anything...
Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:55PM
#28 Popisfizzy:
Hedgemistress wrote:
> That difference is illusory, though. Science starts from subjective perceptions and opinions about the world around us. You could choose to stop at the opinion stage, and then... well, it wouldn't be science, but "mere opinion". It is your action in pressing onward, with the questioning and testing, that magically transforms subjective into... well, progressively less and less subjective, if we're going to be brutally honest about science. :P
Still, the subjective and objective parts hold. Science may start at a subjective level, but eventually it will become objective. Opinion, on the other hand, will start subjectively and end subjectively. The point at which it's no longer subjective, it's no longer an opinion, so you can't apply the same idea to opinions.
> Two people who argue about something that has a basis in reality but isn't (somewhat arbitrarily) lumped with "science" could argue until the end of time... but only if at least one of them attributes undue value to his or her opinion. If both are willing to assume that they may themselves be wrong, one or both of them will walk away the wiser. They won't necessarily stumble upon The Universal Truth in a twenty minute bull session... but they'll be one step closer.
And I still don't see anyone coming out of it closer to a universal truth at all. All I see is them (possibly) coming out closer to a universal opinion, which is distinctly different.
Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:53PM
#27 Hedgemistress:
That's (everybody try not to drop dead of shock) not my favorite way of getting things done, but it's a good one... and it still fits into my philosophy, only more as a case where you're setting no inherent value on your own opinion.
Pleasant, civil discussions are like debates in that they never do anything but pass the time if they're founded on the principle of "This is my opinion and nothing you can do will change it." or "Aren't all opinions equally right and wrong?" premises.
Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:51PM