Category Archives: literature

Evan and Gordon Talk: Can Artists Retract Their Work?

Posted on May 22, 2013 by | Leave a comment

EVAN: So today, due to lack of reader feedback, G-Town and I will be discussing a topic of his own choosing. That is, in his own words, “whether or not an artist can retract his [or her] own work.”

GORDON: It doesn’t happen often, though it’s not altogether uncommon, that we see some artist disparage his or her earlier work.

Bad Cop Bad Cop

More often than not, it’s because that earlier work was pretty rough or sloppy- heck, maybe even commercialistic. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about what we see once in a blue moon- when an artist actually attacks or her own work as being wrong.

I HATE YOUR PAINTINGS!

I HATE YOUR PAINTINGS!

Think of Botticelli burning his own works in the Bonfire of the Vanities back in Renaissance Florence.  Think of Sam Raimi regretting his infamous “tree scene” in the Evil Dead.

EVAN: Now that you mention Raimi, there is a really, really relevant example of this happening, reported as of today.

GORDON: What happened?

EVAN: In Star Trek Into Darkness there’s a scene where the new crewman [crew woman?] on the Enterprise asks Kirk to turn around, and begins to disrobe.

He turns around anyway and she is standing there in her skivvies. She asks him to turn around again.

It was highlighted in the trailer, presumably to put horny teenage boys in movie seats.

GORDON: But it was cut from the actual movie, I presume?

EVAN: Oh, it was in there.

Damon Lindelof, the screenwriter, apologized just today via Twitter for the misogynistic scene:

GORDON: Movies are a little more complicated- being collaborative and collective efforts, for the most part, but that’s still interesting

In fact, there was one example that stands out to Evan and I in particular-

EVAN: Tatsuya Ishida is the creator of Sinfest, one of the internet’s longest running consistently-updated comics. He started way back in January of 2000 and has rarely missed a day since then.

While his strip focuses on an ever-growing cast of characters, his fifth ever strip is an example of one of his one-shots. This one is called “Blaxploitation Funk Bible.”

Blaxploitation Funk Bible

Sinfest. “Blaxploitation Funk Bible.” January 1st, 2001.

Just this past summer Ishida began a long-running narrative that involved a lot of regret over these past strips, particularly ones that had a somewhat misogynistic bent. A number of his most recent character are staunch feminist children who ride around on trikes, sabotaging the Devil’s works and shaming those who watch pornography, ogle women, etc.

Sinfest. “One Shade of Grey.” June 21st, 2012.

GORDON: I personally never thought his works were all that misogynistic. Heck, the thought probably never even crossed my mind until he brought it up. And right now, he looks like he’s really self-flagellating.

Sinfest. “Contract.” July 22nd, 2012.

I guess that all brings us to the question of the day:

How’s an artist supposed handle all that? Do you even have the right to take back what you’ve done? If so, how can you address it? Ishida is turning his comic into a scathing self-criticism. Others have attempted to simply ban their own work. Botticelli, as I mentioned, personally burned his own paintings.

Bonfire of the Vanities

EVAN: Well, Ishida is personally working on amending, within his comic’s own narrative, issues of sexual objectification, etc. He’s chosen not to burn his art, but instead fix the issues he observes in his past work.

I suppose the question is whether there’s any merit to them keeping their art up-

One of my favourite YouTube musicians, Hannah Trigwell, once had this really goofy cover of 3OH3′s “Don’t Trust Me” that she took off the internet once she started getting really serious about pushing her music career.

This one Muslim artist on DeviantArt who made these funny little comics shut down his account due to embracing his faith and their belief in not portraying living things. He has since brought his account back up, though only to establish that said images are his property. He has since moved on to solely illustrating Arabic calligraphy.

So, again, is their past art worth keeping up, if only to establish where they came from?

GORDON: My gut reaction would be against destroying anything.

You can make the argument that you aren’t that person any longer- that seems more reasonable than attempting to expunge your own art. But what about artists who view their past work as immoral?

The Bad Man Punted Baxter

I’m having trouble naming any off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure one of the guys from the nu-metal band Korn [Brian "Head" Welch] had some pretty disparaging thoughts about his own work after he left the band, having converted to Christianity.

EVAN: The kid from Two and a Half Men did the same thing, more or less. He had some very negative comments about the show because he thought it was too crass, et cetera.

GORDON: Took him long enough.

EVAN: No kidding.

But I think I see what you’re saying about people not destroying their past work. To a point, it stands as a testament to where they’ve come from, of the change they’re currently living out.

GORDON: Do artists even have the right to destroy their own work?

Exploding Snowman

I mean, I’m not talking about people campaigning against the values of their old work, I mean people actually trying to get books taken off of shelves.

EVAN: Well, some people obviously can take their work down. It was this DA artist’s prerogative to take down all of his art.

The former guitarist of Korn, however, and the very many porn stars who have left the industry do not have that luxury.

GORDON: So they’re gonna have to just deal with it?

EVAN: Basically. The videos porn stars create with various studios do not belong to them. Likewise the music that Welch recorded belongs to the record studio that produced it.

GORDON: Okay, so they don’t have any legal recourse. Speaking esoterically, does an artist ever have that right?

EVAN: Sorry, could you say that again in smaller words?

GORDON: Speaking only in terms of truth and morals and stuff like that- does the artist even have the right to retract or destroy his or her own work?

EVAN: Wow, that’s a tough question. Um . . . I’d say that it depends on the medium, but overall I want to say no, they don’t.

GORDON: Interesting- why not, and also, why would medium make a difference?

EVAN: Well, in the case of Ms. Trigwell, a YouTube video is easy to take down. I have been searching for a music file of that song for years now and have not been able to find a copy. As far as that song is concerned, it no longer exists.

When it comes to . . . let’s say former porn actress Teresa Scott, the first “born again porn star” Google gives me, that’s not so easy. Her videos are [presumably] sold at adult video stores the world over, and that doesn’t even begin to touch on the number of various porn tube sites that likely host content that features her.

So obviously there’s how easy it is, but also spread, I suppose? You can’t go around taking books off of shelves either. I’m really unsure about all this, as you can probably tell.

GORDON: I said “esoterically”. The question isn’t “is this feasible”, it’s whether or not someone has the right to do so.

Does Teresa Scott have the moral right to try to get her stuff taken down if she believes it to be immoral or harmful to others? Can you retract your work, or should you have to deal with it’s existence?

EVAN: So the moral, as opposed to legal, right? Yes, I think she does.

GORDON: Okay, explain.

EVAN: If we’re talking straight morals, no legal what-have-you, the videos that Scott appeared in feature her face, her acting, as it were. I feel like on some level people should have some ownership of, well, themselves.

GORDON: What about Botticelli throwing his paintings into a bonfire at the behest of an insane Dominican preacher? Those masterpieces were robbed from the world- whether or not the artist hated them, didn’t they belong to us all? Or even if we’re being petty, what about people who disagree that that the work in question is wrong or harmful?

EVAN: ”Didn’t they belong to us all” is a really interesting viewpoint.

Does every episode of Two and a Half Men belong to all of us?

GORDON: Audience, please not that I am not claiming ownership over pornography.

But on some level, I’d say yeah- every piece of art, even crass exploitation stuff or campy sci-fi is part of who we are as a culture. On some level, everything- the good, the bad, and the ugly- is part of our heritage.

Personally, I despise most of what we have going, and what I don’t dislike, I either don’t know or don’t particularly care about. But nevertheless, I’d never want it destroyed.

There is a special place in hell for book-burners...

There is a special place in hell for book-burners…

EVAN: As a last floating question, since we really are running out of time, how do we create art without making it publicly owned? I point towards so much of Emily Dickinson’s poetry, which was published without her knowledge after her death.

GORDON: Here’s my take on it:

You don’t have to like a book or a movie or a piece of music. You can combat it with scathing reviews or satire or critiques or parodies or all-out attacks. Heck, we invented Shame Days on our blog for that very purpose. But destroy a piece of work, let alone your own?

No.

You have to deal with the consequences of your actions and the possibility that even if YOU think what you did has no value, others might disagree with you. What we create, good or bad, has intrinsic historical value, and I’ll stand up for that any day. Mein Kampf and Triumph of the Will are vicious, twisted reprehensible works for what they say, but you’d better believe I’d be starting a riot if people tried to take them out of libraries.

Deal with your work, don’t deny it. If you want to do something about an old work you think is wrong or harmful, do what Ishida’s doing and amend it.

Change people’s attitudes about your work, but leave your work itself alone.

EVAN: And, similar to how artists have taken back their art, I’d like to take back the statement I made earlier. Gordon sets it up very nicely why art should remain out in the public sphere, provided that it was first placed there by the artist of their own volition.

Everyone would like people to recant their reprehensible views, but that about-face is so much more powerful when we can see what they turned away from to begin with.

And we are, once again, way over our time limit. Coming up soon is going to be a brief hiatus for E&GT, and Culture War Reporters as a whole, so stay tuned to find out when that happens.

radioThanks for reading, and we hope that our discussion added to the discourse on this subject. You can add to it too, obviously. In the comments section.

GORDON: WHY DO YOU NOT COMMENT?

DO YOU NOT LOVE US ANYMORE?

WE CAN CHANGE, BABY, I SWEAR WE CAN CHANGE!

EVAN: I’m going to try to calm him down, open up another article or something while you still can!

→ Leave a comment

Posted in art, bizarreness, comics, Evan and Gordon Talk, feminism, film, internet, literature, media, morality, music, sex, television

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Intelligence and Intellectual Property

Posted on May 17, 2013 by | Leave a comment

As luck would have it, just as I was perusing the AV Club’s various articles on the US networks’ fall programming, regular CWR reader/my friend Marilyn brought a certain issue to my attention.

This fall CBS will be bringing the series Intelligence to the small screen [not to be confused with the CBC series of the same name that aired in 2005]. The following is the trailer, which I only saw half a minute of earlier because it failed to grab my attention:


The synopsis on the official CBS preview site reads as follows:

Josh Holloway stars as former Delta Force turned U.S. Cyber Command über-agent in a crime thriller that explores the unlimited possibilities of technology. With a special microchip implanted in his brain, he has become the first super computer with a beating heart.

Now by this point you’re probably wondering where I’m getting at with all this, so let me stop blathering as if CBS pays me [they should, considering all I've gone through reviewing 2 Broke Girls] and get to the point.

Intelligence bears a lot of similarity to A Girl and Her Fed, a webcomic by K. B. Spangler, as well as Digital Divide, a novel she wrote set in the same world. This is fairly suspect, but we’ll get back to that in a sec. First let’s look at what CBS is saying-

The show is apparently based on Dissident, a book by writer John Dixon that has yet to be published. In an interview he posted on his blog Dixon talks about how his novel was optioned by CBS, and even goes into a little detail about what it’s all about. When asked for a single-sentence synopsis he replies:

When a tough sixteen-year-old sentenced to an isolated boot camp for orphans discovers it’s actually a mercenary training facility, he risks everything to save his friends and stop a madman bent on global destruction.

Does that sound familiar? Well, it might, if you’re a prolific reader of YA literature, but let’s pretend all you know is this blog post. If that were the case [and thank the Lord it isn't] there is no possible way you would connect the TV show Intelligence with the novel Dissident.

Now I haven’t personally read Digital Divide, though it comes highly recommended, and is only $5 on Amazon, but I am more than willing to trust an author on her own work and any similarities there might be between her writing and a three minute trailer. In a post put up yesterday Spangler describes her reactions to watching the teaser as follows:

I can overlook the tough-as-nails dusky blond hunk and the sassy brunette “minder” whose job it is to protect him.  Attitude + sexy = win.  I can ignore the whole “we gave a human the kind of power that was previously only seen in a machine” theme.  Been done before.  The shift from accessing the EM spectrum to controlling the EM spectrum (two very different things) is understandable as it makes for better action, and one can lead directly to another.  I can even overlook that they are portraying the agent and what he represents as “this generation’s Manhattan Project,” which is a major theme throughout the seven-plus years of the comic and Digital Divide, even though that trope is less well-established in the general sci-fi & government conspiracy theory literature.

But…. Guys, the uber-elite Secret Agent with the chip in his head makes constructs. He says that an “unexpected” side effect of the implant is that he can project what he sees.  “The intel I have access to… I can see it.  It’s like a virtual evidence wall.”  This is very unique and differs from other projection-type tropes, such as Gary’s in Alphas, where he translated what he perceived into images that only he could see. The Secret Agent in Intelligence can also perceive snipers from a distance, which is straight-up Rachel.  The more information that we get about these projects, the harder it is for me to separate the ideas in them as being unique from my own.

Walls of text aside, what you need to understand is that there are some similarities that result from following the same sorts of tropes [government organizations, pushing the limits of technology, etc.] and others that seems far too specific to fall under that category. Spangler goes on to say in the comments section of that post that she spoke to Dixon, and that their conversation “suggested that his novel has a very different plot than the pilot.”

K. B. is making the wisest decision possible at this point and has contacted legal counsel, and is also withholding judgement in spite of all that she has observed thus far. The most saddening thing about this entire situation, however, is how realistically she’s viewing it all. In an interview with AlterGamer titled “Cross-Medium Copyright Infringement and Intellectual Property Concerns” she admits that there “is really no best-case scenario” and that “ the little guy doesn’t have the money to go up against a multinational corporation.”

At this point in time no one can truly comment on what CBS is doing with Intelligence; if Spangler is refraining from outright accusation I can probably hold back as well. What we can observe, however, is the helplessness of the one who doesn’t have the money or influence that big businesses always will. This has happened in the past with TV shows stealing covers, and it would not surprise me if some exec somewhere made the decision to take the premise of a webcomic with an audience anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand. After all, who would really notice? Even if they did, what would happen?

As I said near the beginning of this post, all of this is fairly suspect. Until Intelligence actually airs I, and fans of K. B. Spangler’s work, will have to wait and see what happens. What’s important is that she’s taken the necessary precautions, and hopefully gets to the bottom of all of this sooner than later.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in bizarreness, business, comics, internet, literature, media, television, writing

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: The N-Word

Posted on May 15, 2013 by | Leave a comment

EVAN: Readers of every gender, young and old, today Gordon and I shall be discussing a somewhat more sensitive topic of our own choosing due to there being no comments on our last post.

Our subject of conversation for the day is, and I cleared my throat before typing this, the word “nigger.”

GORDON: I’d like to talk about just that right off the bat-

Do we have to abbreviate it? I mean, I can’t think of any other word in the English language that we won’t even say. Surely we can all agree, regardless of where we stand on the word itself, that calling it the “n-word” is on par with superstition.

Evan, am I crazy here?

EVAN: I think that comparing it to speaking of ol’ Snake-Face himself [Voldemort] is pretty accurate. People truly are concerned about even typing the word.

GORDON: In fact, not too long ago, it was decided in a moment of truly acute idiocy to take “nigger” out of American classics “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.”

EVAN: They replaced it with the word “slave” if I remember correctly.

GORDON: Forgetting that (especially in the latter) the whole point of Mark Twain (who was anti-slavery) putting it in there was to make a point about equality and humanity

EVAN: And, I mean, to maintain accuracy. It was the language of the times, after all.

GORDON: But that’s all a discussion for another day. Let’s get right down to it:

Is there an appropriate use of the word “nigger” (other than to demonstrate the language of the times in question, or to demonstrate inhumanity)?

EVAN: Do you mean to ask whether or not either of us could ever use the word outside of discussing one of Twain’s works or the topic of racism against Black people?

I don’t believe so, no. I have trouble envisioning a scenario where that would be the case.

I of course would like to point out, for any possible new readers, that I am Filipino-Chinese and Gordon is White [with some smattering of Native American, as he loves to point out].

GORDON: Only so people will think I can talk to animals.

But yeah, I wouldn’t say just the two of us- I mean anyone. The debate around the word is if there’s ever an acceptable use for it. I’d like to cite an example of what I thought was an appropriate usage.

Famed academic Cornell West, speaking at a rally, used it quite a lot- or at least, a variation on it. Check it out:

EVAN: So Mr. West is using the word to describe a state that Black people find themselves in, equating “being Niggerized” to being marginalized and terrorized, among other things.

I feel like that’s not quite the same as using the word by itself, but I don’t believe his usage is inappropriate.

GORDON: A while ago, I was reading “Wretched of the Earth” by Franz Fanon, who discussed the effects of colonization (and post-colonized) Africa (and to a lesser extent, Asia, and South America).

While I can’t exactly recall if he addressed the word “nigger” directly, he did pretty much cover the justification some use for the term.

People, marginalized and dehumanized, fight back by appropriating the words used to demean them and turn them into marks of pride, rather than shame.

Certainly this has been true with words like “Gay” or “Christian”.

And thus, a time-space paradox was created…

EVAN: Using the term “nigger” as a means of pride. That’s really interesting.

Do you think that’s how it is used today by African-Americans? I mean, it’s certainly present in rap music and so-on, but I feel like describing its usage there as being re-appropriation of a derogatory slur for bigger and better things might be inaccurate.

It’s certainly re-appropriation, but perhaps one that makes it more casual? I’m somewhat unsure.

GORDON: Okay, what about using it not as a label, but as an term to describe the process of dehumanizing people based on race? Reducing them to animals? This isn’t used just against black people, but against ALL non-whites. Arabs get called “Sand-Niggers” or “Dune Coons.” I’ve heard other variations applied to aboriginal peoples and Asians as well.

This seems to be what Dr. West is talking about when he says “niggerized.”

EVAN: I think we’ve touched enough about how West views the word, so let’s try moving forward a little more with its usage today. What are your thoughts about the distinctions between the words “nigger” and “nigga”?

As many people might know, this was an issue in the media when a school teacher used the latter word to interact with his African-American students, thinking it to be far different from the former.

We miss this show so much…

GORDON: I don’t think the teacher was malicious in saying it (having seen both the actual news scandal AND parodies of it), I just think it was colossally stupid.

Your opinion?

EVAN: My brother mentioned this when he saw what we were going to be blogging about, that the way the last syllable is said really changes the word.

“Nigger” sounds worlds harsher than “nigga.” As far as the way it’s used among African-Americans, I would say it’s probably rarely ever the case that they use the former to refer to each other.

GORDON: I’ve heard it used both ways without much difference. I’m struggling to imagine a situation in which anyone could say “Actually, I said ‘niggAH’” and people would be cool with it.

EVAN: I really do think that the latter is used in a much more casual colloquial manner, at least among African-Americans and those who choose to emulate and live out a particular subculture.

The teacher should not have used any iteration of the word at all, but I think he was tapping into something when he said there is a difference between the two words.

GORDON: Again, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the perceptions of a man who called a black pupil a “nigga”- or anything other than his name, for that matter.

But let’s change things up here- this is something I’ve truly been curious about. What about the word “wigger”?

EVAN: In that it’s a disparaging term used to describe a White person whose behaviour mirrors that of a particular African-American subculture?

GORDON: More or less, yeah. Is it as equally disparaging? Is it more directed against whites or blacks or what?

EVAN: I’ve always seen it as a term that looks down on White people in that it’s not so much that they’re emulating certain Black people [and that they are lessening themselves by doing so], but that they’re emulating something they’re not to begin with.

There’s this appropriation of a subculture that came about due to struggle and hardship, and most of these people have never experienced such things.

GORDON: So? Is it somehow pro-equality as a term? When I’ve seen it used, it just always seemed plain mean-spirited

EVAN: Pro-equality?

GORDON: Poor choice of words. I mean “good” in that it mocks a group for trying to appropriate a culture stemming from centuries of brutal oppression.

EVAN: I’ve never had to think about the term as far as being “good” or “bad.” I stated that in my opinion it mocks people who are, in essence, posers.

I’m not sure what you mean about mean-spirited.

GORDON: When I’ve heard it used, it’s been used not in a “You guys suck for pretending to have lived through poverty and oppression”, it’s been used in “You guys are as bad as niggers”. Again, mean-spirited, if not downright malicious.

EVAN: I think it’s just a difference between how we’ve heard it used. I’ve personally never witnessed it being used in that manner.

GORDON: Well, folks, we’re overtime…

…and no closer to any answer than when we started, though certainly we’ve presented some food for thought.

How about you leave us some comments so we can discuss something next time of your choosing?

EVAN: We look forward to reading any suggestions you leave, and arguing which one would ultimately be easiest to discuss [because they're usually pretty challenging].

GORDON: Seriously, be specific with your suggestions. Vague leaves us with no direction.

EVAN: Or more accurately leaves us to twist your prompt in whatever direction we want.

Thanks, as usual, for tuning in! We will be here all week, every week, for the unforeseeable future.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in language, race, media, literature, America, Evan and Gordon Talk

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Few More Thoughts on Fan Fiction

Posted on April 26, 2013 by | 1 Comment

Gordon and I only just talked about fan fiction two days ago, but in debating its merits managed to avoid much conversation about its place in our world today. To begin with, the topic was first brought up by Marilyn in her comment on our reactions to easy-money shows, and she specifically mentioned Anne Rice.

For those of you who don’t know, Anne Rice became famous for writing vampire novels decades before the Twilight books came out [and a few centuries after Bram Stoker's most well-known work]. She also had a very particular stance on fan fiction, which I have pulled from an old archived version of her site:

“I do not allow fan fiction.

The characters are copyrighted. It upsets me terribly to even think about fan fiction with my characters. I advise my readers to write your own original stories with your own characters.

It is absolutely essential that you respect my wishes.”

A Metro article titled “How fan fiction is conquering the internet and shooting up book charts” featured the author taking a softer view on the matter, saying:

“I got upset about 20 years ago because I thought it would block me. However, it’s been very easy to avoid reading any, so live and let live. If I were a young writer, I’d want to own my own ideas. But maybe fan fiction is a transitional phase: whatever gets you there, gets you there.”

Apparently Rice was initially so dead-set against others using her characters since she felt it would affect her as a writer, but may have also been commenting all those years ago on her personal feelings about creative property and how much you can really “own” it.

Source: http://blog.naver.com/iorimania

Just last month actor Mark Ruffalo was shown various pieces of artwork showcasing a fairly close relationship between The Avengers‘ Bruce Banner, who he plays, and Tony Stark, portrayed, of course, by Robert Downey Jr. His reaction was completely positive. When asked whether or not he “shipped” the pairing known around the internet as Science Bros, he responded with:

“Yeah! I love it; it’s awesome. I endorse it 100 percent. You know what it is? It’s open-source creativity.

“I’m going to call [RDJ] and tell him, and he’s going to laugh his ass off. He’ll love that.”

 The whole idea of “open-source creativity leads me to the conversation about what it means to own a character, and for how long. Renowned comic book writer Kurt Busiek made the thought-provoking statement that ”75 years after the debut of Superman…he ought to be in the public domain.” He goes on to say that the initial expectation was that the publisher would own the character for 56 years max, and that we’re almost two decades past that.
What would it mean for Superman, or even Batman, if they were no longer the sole property of DC Comics [and, by association, Warner Bros.]? They would join the ranks of Robin Hood, Huckleberry Finn, and Tarzan, free for people to not only write stories featuring them, but to publish said works without any legal repercussions whatsoever.
Finally, a comment left by Adam on Wednesday’s post asked how we can really define the genre. He mentioned the short story “A Study in Emerald” by Neil Gaiman, which samples both Arthur Conan Doyle’s work and that of H.P. Lovecraft [both within public domain], and where it falls between basic wish fulfillment [which includes the "wouldn't it be awesome if...?" sentiment] and “serious fiction.”

To provide an example of the latter we can take a look at Seth Grahame-Smith’s “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.” It hit number three on the New York Time’s bestseller list, and even accrued some pretty positive reviews.

Gaiman’s piece won the 2004 Hugo Award for Best Short Story, while Grahame-Smith’s spawned two sequels [somehow] and much talk about a film adaptation. It’s clear that both garnered a fair amount of attention, but can the quality of that attention be chalked up to the author’s intent?

I like to think that on some level Gaiman came up with the idea of having Sherlock Holmes and Cthulhu cross paths and thought to himself how awesome that would be. On that same note, I’m sure that Grahame-Smith didn’t consider himself to be writing schlock, and put a fair amount of time and effort into adding to Austen’s novel. In a way it’s difficult to separate the two, or believe that you can really swing too far towards either extreme.

Adam’s other primary question was whether  ”the only difference between some fan fiction and an homage a publisher’s endorsement, the more relaxed attitude of fiction of forums or blogs rather than in Barnes and Noble?” And my short answer to that would be, “Yes.”

What’s really cool, though [and that I read about in the article where Anne Rice recanted her stance on fan fiction], is that fan fiction is actually helping to bridge that gap. The record-breaking 50 Shades of Grey actually began as a multi-part fan fiction series titled Masters of the Universe, and appears to be roughly 89% the same as that original draft. 

As a means of building up an audience, the not-yet-20-year-old Abigail Gibbs had millions of hits on the publishing website Wattpad as she wrote her Twilight-inspired novels in The Dark Heroine series. This number accounted in no small way to her ebook hitting no. 22 within a day on the Kindle charts.

Finally, as a means of defending the activity of writing fan fiction as a whole, isn’t it totally normal? The first every story I can remember writing was about the Power Rangers, and I swear I have that book [10 pages, max] in storage somewhere. We write about what we love, and that usually encompasses books, TV shows, movies, et cetera. This is not an uncommon thing.

In addition, for those of us who consider ourselves writers, it’s not unrealistic that we might find ourselves one day writing with the creative property of others. Someone has to continue on Spider-Man’s saga, and it certainly isn’t going to be Stan Lee. Even a writer on a show such as The Office is penning scripts for Jim and Pam and many others who they had no part in creating. In many ways it’s simple preparation for a job we want, or wish we had.

And that’s all I have to say about fan fiction for now.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in internet, literature, media, writing

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: Fan Fiction

Posted on April 24, 2013 by | 6 Comments

GORDON: A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, it was suggested that Evan and I discuss fan fiction and its merits (or lack thereof).

Now I’m going to jump right into things by saying that not only do I not believe fan fiction is good, I do not feel it has the capacity to ever be so.

EVAN: Okay. Why?

GORDON: First and foremost, I feel that fan fiction tends to be, quite simply “bad.” I’m talking bad in a technical sense. People who write fan fiction typically aren’t writers, and in my experience, fan fiction is just poorly constructed. At the very best, a poor imitation of the original creators’ style.

Which brings me to my second point: I don’t think it’s right to try to imitate a creators’ style. I think trying to do so is inevitably going to produce second-rate work which detracts from the greater mythos, rather than contributing to it.

EVAN: To ask a question before my proper response, have you ever read any fan fiction?

GORDON: I have. I’ve read stuff like some of the Star Wars novels, some Halo novels, some alternate imaginings or expansions on literature like Jane Eyre and so on.

EVAN: To address your first point, I have read a great deal of very, very good fan fiction. Back in my earlier years I scoured the internet for a lot of WarCraft III stories, and “Odd Bedfellows” by Sumiyoshi was an incredible read. The site that hosted it has since gone through a pretty extensive change, and as far as I can tell it can’t be found anywhere on the internet. Other WarCraft stories by SickleYield, on FanFiction.net, are very, very good as well.

As to your second, I find that most of the fan fiction writers I’ve encountered are rarely ever trying to copy a particular style, which makes sense seeing as how it would be hard to pin down the writing style of a video game.

To follow up with that, I have seen plenty of stories add to a story’s mythos. On yet another WarCraft related note, there was such a hubbub made about creating a female racial leader for the Goblins in World of WarCraft [which included a lot of extensive writing on her fictional background] that Blizzard put her in the game as an NPC [she has as of yet been promoted to leader, though].

GORDON: I’d counter by asserting that these examples you’ve provided are, well, fan fiction in the loosest sense of the word. We’re talking less about a story or characters, and more about a loosely constructed bunch of worlds here. Video games, especially an MMO like Warcraft, while indeed having a history, are still pretty loosely stitched together. They have to be, to allow the players to fill out the fantasy of playing a character in ‘em .

EVAN: The examples I’ve mentioned are the exact definition of fan fiction. It can be a story about characters from Supernatural or a hero from the Marvel universe or the teacup from Beauty and the Beast, every one would be considered fan fiction; it doesn’t matter what form of media you’re drawing from.

On that note, you mentioned Star Wars novels as being fan fiction, and they aren’t. The term “fan fiction” denotes that fans are the ones doing the writing, and not professionals paid by the company that owns said characters, worlds, et cetera.

GORDON: The things they write about those poor characters from Supernatural…

But jumping back to the issue at hand, I’d again assert that more often than not, fan fiction tends to be an attempt to capture the sense of amazement or wonder or horror or whatever that the original story has.

I’d assert further that fan fiction falls short because it fails to recognize what actually makes those stories good in the first place, and simply attempts to (clumsily) transport characters or settings into a new piece.

It’s like this: I like a hamburger, so I get all the ingredients and put them on a table. It’s simply not the same thing. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.

EVAN: The thing is that you’re not entirely accurate when you say what fan fiction “tends to be.” Honestly, a lot of it is, well, porn. Quite a bit of the Harry Potter is slash, which for those of you who don’t know is pairing up couples of the same gender, typically not homosexuals within the source material itself.

Fan fiction is really whatever the author wants it to be. They may be trying to capture what they first felt when accessing whatever it was they were writing about, but they might also just feel like creating smut.

As to your second point, you’re overgeneralizing a huge amount by saying that “fan fiction” falls short. In many ways, it is its own genre, and some writers will do better than others. There are really, really awful science fiction authors, but that doesn’t mean that as a whole science fiction is not great.

It is obvious that there is a fair amount of fan fiction that is complete and utter dreck, but I personally try to steer clear of generalizations. Some people might be clumsily rubbing raw ground beef and lettuce together, but still others are grilling it first, getting the condiments ready, etc.

GORDON: Well, I have in fact read some of the fan fiction you have stated was enjoyable. I recall reading a StarCraft story, and a Superman one, and one other whose original subject matter slips my memory.

I didn’t care for them at all. They weren’t the worst things I’ve read by any means, but certainly not something I believe should have been brought out into the light of day.  I think the issue with even “good” fan fiction is this: it’s not a story, it’s an homage.

A story- a decent story- is universal. Whether you’re reading the Arabian Nights or Dracula or Tom Sawyer, there are elements- core elements- which you can relate to.

This isn’t the case with fan fiction, where the central point ISN’T to communicate the author’s message but to point at some existing work going “Hey, remember that thing? Remember how cool that was?”

EVAN: I feel like that’s a gross simplification. And an assumption that by writing characters that do not personally belong to me, I am simply referencing them for the sake of referencing them. I don’t think it’s unbelievable to think that I could write about, say, Sherlock Holmes and come up with a compelling narrative of my own.

It’s what Alan Moore did with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and it’s what J. J. Abrams is doing with Star Trek and what Michael Bay did with Transformers. Really the only difference is whether or not what’s being written is sanctioned by its creative owners.

GORDON: I HAVE read a bit of League O’ Extrodinary Gentlemen, and while it’s fun, in no way would I say that his Captain Nemo is anything like that of Jules Verne’s iconic story. I was in fact thinking about Moore’s use of this very book when preparing for today’s topic.

Though admittedly, most of that time was spent fantasizing about this car…

And ultimately my conclusion was that Moore was making his own piece. The  League of Extraordinary Gentlemen works because it’s a fundamentally good story, not because it’s latching onto these Victorian stories.

And if you DID write a Sherlock Holmes story, I’d like to think I’d immediately be able to tell it apart from the Sherlock Holmes of Arthur Conan Doyle. While you’re a good writer, I don’t think you could capture all the perfections (and indeed, imperfections) that make that authors work connect with us the way it does.

EVAN: You’re completely missing the point here.

By writing about Sherlock Holmes I am not necessarily going out of my way to emulate the author and mimic his writing style and pen a story or novel or whatever that stands up to what which Doyle originally created.

All I’m doing is writing a story with the character.

That can be well-written or poorly written. It can be a huge homage to everything that Doyle did in his detective stories, or it can be very much its own thing. It can attempt to connect with people the way the original work did, but I will say again that for many this is not their intent. Their intent is just to write a story; lofty aspirations don’t always come into it.

GORDON: So let’s do the math here. How much of the fan fiction genre would we say is comprised of porn?

EVAN: I don’t think either of us are qualified enough to assess that.

GORDON: But if we had to estimate.

EVAN: I don’t think I can hazard a safe guess. There is an unbelievable amount of fan fiction out there, with thousand more words being written as we have this talk.

GORDON: 40-50%? Just considering the amount of smut churned out?

EVAN: Like I said, it’s hard to comment. I suppose if you take tumblr into account maybe as low as 30%? But neither of us are on tumblr, or deviantART, or FanFiction.net, so honestly we don’t know.

GORDON: Okay, let’s say 30%. We’re going to discount that, and focus on the other 70%. Of that percentage, how much would we estimate is technically well written?

EVAN: I know where you’re going with this, so I’m going to put a hold on it for a second.

I still liken fan fiction to a genre, and when you look at the amount of fantasy out there, how much is actually good? You walk into a bookstore and look at their fantasy selection, and how many of these are actually decent novels?

In every case you are going to find both good and bad, and the extremes of each. There is really horrible published work; there is likewise some amazing unpublished writing out there.

Your assessment at the very beginning was that fan fiction is never good, and does not “have the capacity to ever be so.” I just don’t think that’s true.

GORDON: There are going to be exceptions to most any rule, I will admit, however, I believe that when you crunch the numbers you’ll find that even compared to high fantasy, which produces cringingly bad work like there’s no tomorrow, fan fiction doesn’t even rival that.

Assuming one out of every two fan fictions pieces is technically well written (and that’s being generous), and one in two of THOSE works is actually compelling, we’re left with a pretty pitiful percentage. In sum total I’d put good fan fiction at a generous 15%. What am I to make of a genre that produces roughly one good piece for every nine bad ones?

EVAN: You’re to treat it like any other genre.

Apatow-esque comedies are incredibly stupid and rarely have any merit whatsoever. The vast majority are not very good, yet last I checked we both think Superbad is decent stuff.

What you do is you acknowledge that there is an exception to every rule, and that generalizing is never a fair option. It applies to people just as much as it applies to genres, different types of media, etc.

The blanket statement that something does not have the capacity to ever be good is something that everyone should avoid.

GORDON: Okay, I’ll cede you that one.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we are officially out of time. Be sure to comment below with a topic for us to discuss next week.

EVAN: In an unprecedented turn of events, Gordon has suggested that we do a poll for you to vote who you agree with more; there is also the option that we are both dead wrong.

Remember to comment on whatever you want us to talk about! Thanks for tuning in, and see you next Wednesday.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Evan and Gordon Talk, internet, literature, video games, writing, Youth

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: Why Christian Media Is So Bad

Posted on January 30, 2013 by | 3 Comments

EVAN: The particular topic of discussion that comes to us today is more one that finds itself passed back and forth within Christian circles, and that is: “Why is Christian media so bad?”

GORDON: I think the problem is self-imposed by the religion (I use the term loosely) itself. We’re not talking about a lack of funding (we’ve got plenty of good low-budget films), or a lack of good directors (there’s plenty of decent talent out there), we’re talking about an issue that runs right down the core of it all.

“Christian” media can’t just be media- they have to drag in everything that goes with it.

EVAN: So basically what you’re saying, and we talked about this a little earlier, is that Christian media more often than not has an agenda, correct?

GORDON: I’d say plenty of it has an agenda, but no, I don’t think that’s the core issue-  there’s plenty of other preachy movies out there.

EVAN: So what are you saying, exactly?

GORDON: I’m saying that “Christians” can’t make good media because they won’t allow themselves to. Every protagonist has to fit the moral code to a tee, so that they wind up as either Aslan 2.0 or the epitome of Christian morality: John Smith, the middle class suburban, patriotic family man. Which is why I keep putting “Christian” in quotation marks.

We’re not talking about Catholic peasants in El Salvador or the East Orthodox Church in Ethiopia.

EVAN: Okay, I like that a lot, this idea that those creators of Christian media [and primarily I think we're talking about films] box themselves in. They’re telling the same sorts of stories to who they perceive to be their audience [and they're not wrong]: white suburban middle class families.

To sort of break this up a little, I actually saw a Christian film that was reasonably passable at some point last summer.

GORDON: Was it related in any way to Steve Taylor?

EVAN: Is that any way related to “End of the Spear”? It was not, if that’s what you’re referring to.

[Steve Taylor is the only good Christian musician who ever has or ever will have existed.]

GORDON:  So what was the movie you saw?

EVAN: It was called “To Save a Life,” and it stood out for a couple of reasons:

1) The cinematography was shockingly good for something produced and made by Christians. You can tell which movies they are within the first few seconds.

2) The “villain” of the piece was actually the pastor’s kid. Which was- refreshing, and kind of nice.

It kind of broke out of the whole stereotype you introduced earlier.

GORDON: Huh- interesting. I’ll have to check out the trailer. But let me ask you this:

Can a Christian make a James Bond movie?

EVAN: You mean a movie starring a suave, debonair British man who beds women and guns down henchmen as naturally as he dons his suit jacket every morning?

I’d say no, probably not.

GORDON: I think that’s the problem. It’s not just that you can’t have any explicit sex or graphic violence or excessive profanity (which are overused and abused as is), you can’t have anything even remotely sensual or rough or crude. It rips away reality and humanity in the name of not stepping on anyone’s toes.

Self-imposed legalism.

EVAN: Well, I’d say the difference is that you can’t have a protagonist who glorifies such things as wanton sexuality-

I say that Christian filmmakers will never produce anything like James Bond because of who the character is.

GORDON: Did you like the movie “Fight Club”?

EVAN: I liked it a fair amount.

GORDON: Did you like “Ocean’s 11″ or “Snatch”?

EVAN: I haven’t seen the latter, but I very much enjoyed the former.

GORDON: Did you like “Superbad”? “Kick-Ass”? “Ironclad”?

EVAN: I enjoyed aspects of the first, thought the second was a shaky, though fairly decent adaptation of the source material, and thought the third was pretty unfair in its depiction of “strong female characters.”

But I think you’re going to have to get to your point-

GORDON: Could a Christian make any of these movies?

EVAN: I think a Christian could, yes. In relation to “Fight Club”, at least, Christian author Ted Dekker has penned novels [sold both in and out of Christian bookstores] which offer a fairly decent psychological thriller aspect to the reader.

GORDON: Ah, Dekker. The whole reason he stands out as an exception is- I believe- that he grew up among Indonesian headhunters, and not in Middle America. Again, it’s about having that different perspective on life.

EVAN: And I think what he’s realized, as a creator of the arts, as someone who has a hand in shaping Christian media, is that you can have these other sorts of exciting, thrilling stories told with a faith-built worldview. People of every religion want a little excitement.

GORDON: Of that there’s no question. The heavy use of the video library at our school stands in testament to that.

But again I think the issue is that “Christian” self-imposed isolation inevitably leads to the vast majority of their work winding up as “White People Problems” or “Chronicles-of-Narnia-minus-the-good-stuff”…

EVAN: Or “Lord-of-the-Rings-but-way-more-heavy-handed.”

GORDON: Exactly.

EVAN: I mean, we’ve talked a little bit about why Christian media can be bad [terrible production values, cookie-cutter story lines, sheer absurdity], but how could it be better [to harken back a little to our last talk]?

GORDON: They have to stop being terrified of the big bad world. They have to realize they can show characters with flaws- real flaws- not drunkard stereotypes and the occasional swear word.

Saying this will get you expelled from Liberty, Pensacola, and BJU

EVAN: I mean, a deeply flawed person who finds redemption is a much more compelling story than a white bread sort of guy with his middle class problems.

And they have to stop coddling their audience. Yes, Christians turn to Christian media for “better alternatives,” but the odd cuss word won’t negate an overall positive message; neither will a fight scene, or two guys sitting around enjoying a beer.

GORDON: There’s this one scene in a (Christian) movie Steve Taylor directed:

A character hurts his hand loading something into the back of van. He lets loose a cuss word and his buddy chides him for it, saying “God don’t like it when we cuss.”

Later on in the film, the buddy hangs his head and apologizes, saying “I’m sorry. I was upset that you cussed- I should’ve just been upset that you hurt your hand.”

EVAN: Wow. That is very, very good.

GORDON: That right there is the problem not just with Christian media, but with the whole religion.

EVAN: Misplaced priorities.

GORDON: More obsessed with present clean-cut paragons of middle class etiquette than anything really real.

That’s why we turn to “secular” movies for actual substance. The struggle for identity in “Fight Club”, the heroism in “Kick-Ass”, the friendship in “Superbad.”

EVAN: I think what’s really ironic is that Christian media-makers have a Christian-made work out there that’s immensely popular. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” came out just this past December.

GORDON: I again reference an (alleged) quote by Steve Taylor.

“I’m not a Christian artist- I’m an artist who is Christian- it affects what I do.”

EVAN: Really well-put. And something that a lot of us [I speak for many in our graduating class] as writers, musicians, artists, et cetera would benefit from keeping in mind.

And that puts us more than a little overtime.

GORDON: Well, people, you know what that means. Time to vote on our subject for next week.

EVAN: My contribution this time around is . . . wow, I never think ahead . . . masculinity. You’ve done a post about “Manly Culture” in the past, but I want to talk about what it is at present, and how we feel about the shifts and trends and things.

GORDON: Interesting subject. I submit we speculate on the upcoming Star Wars movies.

EVAN: If you think you’re up for it, then yeah, cool. I’ve read quite a few of the post-original-trilogy books, so I know a reasonable amount about the subject.

GORDON: Nerd.

And with that witty response, we’re out! Have a good night, everyone.

EVAN: Spend it with better friends than Gordon.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in America, bizarreness, Christianity, Evan and Gordon Talk, film, literature, media, morality, music, religion, television

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,