|
X-O posted:That's all well and good but that's just his fan fiction unless it's in a book someday. Even if it's in a book it's fan fiction. Depending on what you arbitrarily define as fanfiction.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
The Godfather Part II is my favorite fan fiction. Gaz-L posted:Kitty is kinda Marvel's Dick Grayson in this regard, where they both started as tweens and gradually aged semi-realistically until they hit legal drinking age and stopped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Even if it's in a book it's fan fiction. In this case the definition would be "not published or acknowledged by the company that owns the intellectual property," and is far from arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
haitfais posted:In this case the definition would be "not published or acknowledged by the company that owns the intellectual property," and is far from arbitrary. All fiction featuring characters and concepts not created by the original creator, that is done by someone who has even a cursory interest in them, is fanfiction. Just accept it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:All fiction featuring characters and concepts not created by the original creator, that is done by someone who has even a cursory interest in them, is fanfiction. Just accept it. No. The concept is meaningless if you dilute it that far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:All fiction featuring characters and concepts not created by the original creator, that is done by someone who has even a cursory interest in them, is fanfiction. Just accept it. He doesn't actually have to accept the inaccurate definition you just made up
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
I don't have any strong opinions on fan fiction either way, and I don't really adhere to that belief since it actually makes fan fiction less distinctive but it's a good argument to use against assholes who yell at fan fiction writers because their work is "not legitimate"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I don't really adhere to that belief since it actually makes fan fiction less distinctive but it's a good argument to use against assholes who yell at fan fiction writers because their work is "not legitimate" The best argument against those assholes is a block button, not easily debunked nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
haitfais posted:The best argument against those assholes is a block button, not easily debunked nonsense. If you're actually trying to get them to stop bullying 12 year old girls who are just starting to explore creative writing, especially IRL, it isn't. Then again, its not like they're going to listen anyway so you're probably right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Replace "block button" with "banhammer" and it works either way, though that depends on a well-moderated community, which might be too much to ask. One might also counter the effects of internet bullying by offering said 12-year-olds encouragement and support, but I'll admit that might be too idealistic a perspective for the internet.
haitfais fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Where are creators yelling at 12 year old girls for writing fanfiction!?!?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
There are probably one or two, but I'm pretty sure Lightning Lord wasn't talking about creators. There are plenty of assholes on the internet willing to say horrible things to kids who dare to have Unapproved Fun with their fandom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Some of my friends have kids in the 11-15 year old range and they draw the most embarrassing possible homestuck x markiplier x undertale anime looking fanart imaginable, and I just get a goofy smile on my face when I see it because they're kids and that's what kids do. I can't imagine being an rear end in a top hat about it.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
That's to your credit, but given how long you've been on SA, I'm sure you can imagine those assholes existing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
haitfais posted:In this case the definition would be "not published or acknowledged by the company that owns the intellectual property," and is far from arbitrary. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Apr 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:It's just kind of an icky definition to be honest. A corporate doctrine shouldn't dictate how you take in or view a piece of fiction, and diminishing what Claremont-- someone who really was an unprecedented creative drive for a group of superheroes-- because it's not the official company line seems silly. Especially for something where the subtext is really important for a lot of readers. No one is talking about dictating how anyone consumes or views fiction. We're talking about the difference between fanfiction and "officially" canonical material. Everyone decides for themselves how much they actually care about that distinction, and I can't make the case that there's a wrong answer to be found there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
I only acknowledge X-Men comics where they are all hedgehogs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
I'm going to assume without checking that at least one such comic exists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
haitfais posted:There are probably one or two, but I'm pretty sure Lightning Lord wasn't talking about creators. There are plenty of assholes on the internet willing to say horrible things to kids who dare to have Unapproved Fun with their fandom. Yep. Plus I've worked with kids in the past and they're quite willing to give each other poo poo IRL for this sort of thing, and it can be really discouraging for some. Endless Mike posted:I only acknowledge X-Men comics where they are all hedgehogs. The animals or male adult actors?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Yeah when you're talking about the actual events as portrayed in the comics it doesn't really matter whether you like the classification or not, the line of delineation is pretty clear. If it's in the books that are published it's part of the ongoing canon. If it's not then it's not. You can call it whatever you want in the second case be it simply ideas the author never got in, a hidden narrative, or fan fiction. It doesn't really matter what label you put on it it's all the same in this case. In a lot of cases someone will come along eventually and take the idea and make it part of the actual narrative though. For instance 10 years ago Iceman being gay was actual fan fiction and a theory a lot of people had. It's no longer fan fiction anymore because someone came along and brought it into the published storyline.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:I only acknowledge X-Men comics where they are all hedgehogs. Issue #?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
haitfais posted:In this case the definition would be "not published or acknowledged by the company that owns the intellectual property," and is far from arbitrary. That is arbitrary because it only applies to right now when that isn't the case for the 70s and 80s since both Kitty and Rachel were Claremonts through and through. Hell even part of the 90s. Like I said arbitrary as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/whoisrico/status/851845397094027264
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
X-O posted:Yeah when you're talking about the actual events as portrayed in the comics it doesn't really matter whether you like the classification or not, the line of delineation is pretty clear. If it's in the books that are published it's part of the ongoing canon. If it's not then it's not. You can call it whatever you want in the second case be it simply ideas the author never got in, a hidden narrative, or fan fiction. It doesn't really matter what label you put on it it's all the same in this case. In a lot of cases someone will come along eventually and take the idea and make it part of the actual narrative though. For instance 10 years ago Iceman being gay was actual fan fiction and a theory a lot of people had. It's no longer fan fiction anymore because someone came along and brought it into the published storyline. I am glad you agree the Rachel and Kitty thing is canon then. Because it was not hidden at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is arbitrary because it only applies to right now when that isn't the case for the 70s and 80s since both Kitty and Rachel were Claremonts through and through. Hell even part of the 90s. Guess what was never officially acknowledged in the comics Claremont was writing, or by the company he was writing them for? That's why the distinction isn't arbitrary. It was subtext, which could (and maybe should,) have found its way into the actual story, but didn't. Claremont's X-Men headcanon stopped mattering when he stopped writing X-Men.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Why is it important to argue that editorial control of a story means that what the writer made subtext out of necessity is not any kind of text at all. Like, the Iliad doesn't have a specific stanza where Patroclus puts his dick inside Achilles, but it's widely understood that the two were complete gaybos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
haitfais posted:Guess what was never officially acknowledged in the comics Claremont was writing, or by the company he was writing them for? That's why the distinction isn't arbitrary. It was subtext, which could (and maybe should,) have found its way into the actual story, but didn't. Claremont's X-Men headcanon stopped mattering when he stopped writing X-Men. Subtext is just as valid as overt heavy handedness. Saying it directly is completely unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
haitfais posted:Guess what was never officially acknowledged in the comics Claremont was writing, or by the company he was writing them for? That's why the distinction isn't arbitrary. It was subtext, which could (and maybe should,) have found its way into the actual story, but didn't. Claremont's X-Men headcanon stopped mattering when he stopped writing X-Men. I think Claremont's headcanon is pretty important That would be like saying "Jack Kirby's headcanon about Orion stopped mattering when he stopped writing the New Gods" and if that doesn't feel like blasphemy, you're comic book fanning wrong. CharlestheHammer posted:Subtext is just as valid as overt heavy handedness. Yeah thinking otherwise basically comic nerd stuff about like if continuity or canon counts or matters or if someone really died but applied to relationships, kinda funny. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Apr 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
EDIT: Somehow, I hosed up
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I think Claremont's headcanon is pretty important Sure, but that's Kirby. None of this stuff would even exist if it weren't for him, so his headcanon is arguably the word of God regardless of context. That's not to short-sell Claremont's contribution. The X-Men were dead in the water before he came along. That doesn't change the fact that everything he wrote had to be approved by authorities before publication. I fully believe that, were it permitted, Claremont would have made that subtext overt and official. Unfortunately, the final decision was not his, and Kitty/Rachel will never be officially sanctioned. But, once again, you are under no obligation to give a poo poo about what's "officially" true. If believing that Kitty/Rachel is a thing makes the stories more enjoyable or authentic for you, then don't let pedants like me stop you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Also if someone digs up a Jack Kirby interview where he says "I always envisioned the ending of my Fourth World Saga to be Orion killing Darkseid, then Superman, then marrying Lois Lane and sending their own son Bruce Wayne back in time with the omega effect" that doesn't mean that canonically Darkseid is dead, nor that Orion married Lois Lane, or is Batman's dad. I am not a Claremont expert, so maybe there's just a poo poo ton of published subtext about their relationship the way there is about (say) Mystique and Destiny, but a writer of anything non-creator-owned who talks about what they thought maybe they'd do isn't exactly fan fiction but it also isn't "canonical" in a way that really lends any meaning to the word at all. Unless it's canon that Luke Skywalker is named Luke Starkiller because I mean technically framer's intent so both names are officially canon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:Also if someone digs up a Jack Kirby interview where he says "I always envisioned the ending of my Fourth World Saga to be Orion killing Darkseid, then Superman, then marrying Lois Lane and sending their own son Bruce Wayne back in time with the omega effect" that doesn't mean that canonically Darkseid is dead, nor that Orion married Lois Lane, or is Batman's dad. I am not a Claremont expert, so maybe there's just a poo poo ton of published subtext about their relationship the way there is about (say) Mystique and Destiny, but a writer of anything non-creator-owned who talks about what they thought maybe they'd do isn't exactly fan fiction but it also isn't "canonical" in a way that really lends any meaning to the word at all. Unless it's canon that Luke Skywalker is named Luke Starkiller because I mean technically framer's intent so both names are officially canon. Yeah but I'm sure you'd agree that despite it being work for hire, Claremont's word and opinion on the X-Men holds more value than Scott Lobdell's. Not that I'm saying you're implying that theyre equal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
All comic writing is at it's core fan fiction. Canon and not canon are by themselves nothing of importance. Though if you really want to go at it nothing in current Marvel canon disproves the Rachel kitty stuff. Even if kitty is current,y in a relationship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:All comic writing is at it's core fan fiction. Once again, at that point fanfiction becomes meaningless as a concept. It's a pointlessly simplistic assertion that fails to recognise that corporate-owned, shared fictional universes have been a thing longer than television. Any argument that begins with this as a premise fails by default.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
In presenting your argument as to why fanfiction must of necessity be an unambiguous term of definite meaning, you've both granted Kirby headcanon "word of God" in his position as a freelance artist contributing to a corporate-owned shared fictional universe, and removed it from Claremont due to him only contributing to a corporate-owned shared fictional universe under contract. While you argue about where one must draw a particular line in the sand you've obliterated another. Either the intent of the creator matters or it does not, regardless of how you classify it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
haitfais posted:Once again, at that point fanfiction becomes meaningless as a concept. It's a pointlessly simplistic assertion that fails to recognise that corporate-owned, shared fictional universes have been a thing longer than television. Any argument that begins with this as a premise fails by default. I agree fan fiction in regards to corporate comics is meaningless as a concept. That is like my whole point, it's a meaningless and arbitrary distinction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
I found the first draft of Batman v Superman's script. https://twitter.com/KidsWriteJokes/status/695659243270184960
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:Also if someone digs up a Jack Kirby interview where he says "I always envisioned the ending of my Fourth World Saga to be Orion killing Darkseid, then Superman, then marrying Lois Lane and sending their own son Bruce Wayne back in time with the omega effect" that doesn't mean that canonically Darkseid is dead, nor that Orion married Lois Lane, or is Batman's dad. I am not a Claremont expert, so maybe there's just a poo poo ton of published subtext about their relationship the way there is about (say) Mystique and Destiny, but a writer of anything non-creator-owned who talks about what they thought maybe they'd do isn't exactly fan fiction but it also isn't "canonical" in a way that really lends any meaning to the word at all. Unless it's canon that Luke Skywalker is named Luke Starkiller because I mean technically framer's intent so both names are officially canon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Heyyyy I forgot to bookmark the chat thread again! Hot take though using corporate ownership as your barometer for what's "real" in a madeup funnybook universe is a laughably pathetic position to hold and an ultimately insignificant side-effect of the horrific state of late-stage capitalism! As far as I'm concerned Claremont created the X-Men, it wasn't really any good before he started and it's barely ever been good since he left, so I'm way more inclined to believe his takes on the characters, I really don't give a poo poo what a huge faceless corporation later published in some bad comics. "Canon" is a lie. I will always trust the creators of this medium. Without them this is nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
purple death ray posted:Hot take though using corporate ownership as your barometer for what's "real" in a madeup funnybook universe is a laughably pathetic position to hold and an ultimately insignificant side-effect of the horrific state of late-stage capitalism! Agreed.  to tyrants.Also it was good to look at when Kirby and then Adams were drawing it, otherwise agreed. Well, there's Morrison and the likes of Jason Aaron and Si Spurrier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 17:05
|
|