fanfic nitpick

[veronica_rich]

I like writing for the occasional 'fest, but if I have to fill in one more header with my name next to "author," I may light my eyebrows on fire.

I am a fanfic writer. I am not an author. I post fanfic to LJ - I don't publish it there. To call a fanfic writer an author is like comparing me to Keith Olbermann. I rant about politics on my LiveJournal to a couple hundred people who might stop to read; I do not have my own show broadcasting to millions. If someday I were to publish that original novel (or get my own show), I would like it to mean something. I think the likes of Naomi Novik, Anne Rice, Brian Jacques, and others deserve better than to be lumped in on the same level with our playing with borrowed characters and dialogues.

Just two cents. If YMMV, feel free to say why.

Comments

[x-pixel-x.livejournal.com]

I never thought about it like that, or much at all really. Interesting.

[yoiebear.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Let's start the trend of using "writer" instead.

[nobleplatypus]

Hmm... it's an interesting issue.

I think the line can get a bit blurred. There are published books that are, essentially, fanfiction ("Ahab's Wife" comes to mind), and many different retellings of well-known fairy tales (most of Robin McKinley's work comes to mind). In all those instances, someone has taken the work of another and run with it (though I suppose it could be argued that fairy tales belong to the collective consciousness or something, "Moby Dick" is indisputably the property of Melville's estate... or whoever owns the rights at this point). Now, "Ahab's Wife" is a fantastic, thoroughly-researched story... but there is fantastic, thoroughly-researched fanfiction on the internet, too. So what makes the writer of the book an "author" and the writer of the fanfic something less? The fact that the book is in print? What if someone writes fanfiction that gets picked up by a publisher, like cleolinda? Are they only an "author" once the books hit the shelves, even though what they're ultimately putting out there is no different than what they originally posted on the internet? And what about all of the people who write books that are based on television series--does the fact that it's commissioned fanfiction make it more legit?

I dunno. There are so many words for "a person who writes things that other people read," and whether someone fits the definition doesn't necessarily make them comfortable with it. I've had poetry of mine published in literary magazines, but I'd laugh in the face of anyone who accused me of being a poet because I consider my poetry to be facetious and half-assed, and I am not comfortable with the idea of being lumped into the same general category as William Shakespeare, Alexander Pope, and Billy Collins because my crap just so happened to wind up in print. :P

Okay, I'm done editing now, promise!

[mamazano.livejournal.com]

It is mostly a matter of semantics, isn't it? The dictionary defines both "author" and "writer" as "the writer of a book, article or other text", whether for pay or otherwise.

It comes down to what you are most comfortable with. Being a journalist, you see the terminology in a different way, perhaps that myself (a biological scientist). I, on the other hand, see myself as a writer more than a scientist, but I get paid for the latter.

If I had my druthers, I would be totally pretentious, and refer to myself as a "Wordsmith." It has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

[porridgebird.livejournal.com]

You know what kills me? "Authoress." And it's always Authoress, never Writeress.

Can I call myself an Artistess? Oh wait, I'm only a Manipperess.

[gobsmacked.livejournal.com]

Maniperatrix, please.

[porridgebird.livejournal.com]

Silly wabbit. Trix are for kids.

[idle-curiosity.livejournal.com]

"Which is kind of like a blacksmith, but without the fire and tools and stuff." ;-)

I use the words interchangeably, but only because I can't stand using the same word too close to where I've used it before when I write something. I've never really thought about it.

In my job, we deal with 7 different union contracts and are constantly interpreting what a word or phrase means when it comes to paying an employee. It's amazing what a change in one little word can mean.

[compassrose7577.livejournal.com]

Wordsmith it is!! I rather like the sound of that!

I've had hobbies turn into professions... which means what do you do in your spare time then, except work?

I'm totally uncomfortable with the word "writer", because it does carry a lot of connotations that I'd prefer to avoid. (Knowing what they are doing, for instance.) But, I'm speaking only for myself.

I have no higher ambitions, so the "fanfic" reference is fine with me.

I used to work at a place (airport, actually) where someone would go in to the boss to demand a raise, and he'd give them a title, instead. No raise, just a title. It was amazing how many people would come out of his office, ecstatic with their new title.

I know we're all "wordsmiths", but we might best not get hung up on a word.

[vejiicakes.livejournal.com]

I can't say I know what this is like for a writer, but I can say this made me kneejerk to those write-ups on DevArt scorning fanart. Nevermind that plenty of talented, creative people just get more excited about doing fanart than "original art" (and therefore, anything they'd be allowed to put in a gallery). You're a fanartist; you're not an Artist.

If you write your own book or get your own show, I think it's the accomplishment itself that will mean something--not the idea of that accomplishment being wrapped up in the bestowing of a title.

Unless that title is "doctor" or something. Because you need like, a crap ton of pretty important papers for that and you just can't call yourself a doctor without 'em.

[porridgebird.livejournal.com]

Can't really agree. 'Author' coming from L. 'auctor' meaning writer or creator (depending on where you look), the definition doesn't take into account what's being written.

In my Editor Daze Days, I met some published writers who referred to themselves as writers, and some who referred to themselves as authors. You're the first I've met who makes a distinction between the two words (but that's just in my experience, doesn't mean it doesn't happen).

I don't believe calling a fanfic writer an "author" diminishes the meaningfulness of getting published, any more than two men marrying diminishes the sanctity of marriage.

But that's my 1.5 cents. (I doubt it's worth 2. *g*)

[immortal-jedi.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I don't really agree with you. An author is a writer. The dictionary says that an author is "a person who writes a novel, poem, essay, etc.; the composer of a literary work, as distinguished from a compiler, translator, editor, or copyist."

When we write, even if it's just fanfiction, we are authors. Now, granted, some of us are not as good as others; some of us need to practice more. But that's part of the point of fanfiction, right? We tell the stories that we come up with, and in doing so, if we are actually working at it, we polish our ability to write.

So, we are both writers and authors. We write, but what we write doesn't always matter. Because we're authors. We're not published authors, at least not most of us. But some of the stories that we write are a lot better then some of the stories that are published.

[danglingdingle.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I'm in the position to say anything to this, since I've only learned how to use the words as they've taught me to...Which is, in its simplicity, as follows:

Author: Book writer, published, or is at least writing a real book. A litterateur.
Writer: Writes stuff like fan fiction, articles, editorials etc. Things with not much of real literary value, but are mostly based on opinions and/or other kind of likes and dislikes.

Then there's Novelist: Writes short novels, can be used interchangably with Author only if there's a published book from the Novelist with multiple novels in between the self-same covers.

So from my point of view, the conseptual difference between a writer and an author is huge, but I do see the language differently too, naturally, so my vote is void :P

[mneiai.livejournal.com]

OMG, yes. I have actual fights with people over the definition of "author."

[delle.livejournal.com]

I am the author of the story, because I wrote it.

BUT. I write fanfiction, not "novels" (which I find incredibly pretentious and have seen it from other fanfiction writers.) and I post it to the Internet, I don't publish it.

Semantics, I suppose; all of it.

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

Actually, "to publish" can simply mean "to make known or available." So, when you post a story to the internet, you really have published it (you just aren't making money off your publication, most likely). And, as porridgebird points out below, you can even have multiple copies of your stuff printed without necessarily having it approved by anyone for publication (if you're willing to spend enough money on it).

I wonder how long it will be before things like Kindle (amazon's electronic book gadget) means that somewhat conventionally published authors will never hold a paper and ink copy of their work in their hands. :^(

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

Pulled from dictionary.com:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
au⋅thor   

–noun
1. a person who writes a novel, poem, essay, etc.; the composer of a literary work, as distinguished from a compiler, translator, editor, or copyist.
2. the literary production or productions of a writer: to find a passage in an author.
3. the maker of anything; creator; originator: the author of a new tax plan.
4. Computers. the writer of a software program, esp. a hypertext or multimedia application.
–verb (used with object)
5. to write; be the author of: He authored a history of the Civil War.
6. to originate; create a design for: She authored a new system for teaching chemistry.

Usage Note: The verb author, which had been out of use for a long period, has been rejuvenated in recent years with the sense "to assume responsibility for the content of a published text." As such it is not quite synonymous with the verb write; one can write, but not author, a love letter or an unpublished manuscript, and the writer who ghostwrites a book for a celebrity cannot be said to have "authored" the creation. The sentence He has authored a dozen books on the subject was unacceptable to 74 percent of the Usage Panel, probably because it implies that having a book published is worthy of special lexical distinction, a notion that sits poorly with conventional literary sensibilities and seems to smack of press agentry. The sentence The Senator authored a bill limiting uses of desert lands in California was similarly rejected by 64 percent of the Panel, though here the usage is common journalistic practice and is perhaps justified by the observation that we do not expect that legislators will actually write the bills to which they attach their names. · The use of author as a verb in computer-related contexts is well established and unexceptionable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looking at the second instance of bolded text, I can see where you're pulling this from. Fanfic "authors" make a point of claiming no rights - no responsibility - for most of the characters and settings they use for valid legal reasons. But many of the ideas used in an individual's fanfic, that individual's style, and any original characters and settings dreamed up by that individual were and are, in fact, authored (created) by that individual.


So, I'd say it really depends on the works in question, on how original the writer manages to be within the established parameters.

[porridgebird.livejournal.com]

I totally forgot to ask this earlier! What about self-published work?

There's some magnificent stuff out there that's self-published, and there's some horrendous grade-school-level scrawling. Does a writer gain the title "author" because s/he had the money to pay a vanity press?

(Interesting topic! Thanks for posting!)

[roguedemon.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I won't argue with you, not at all. The odd thing though, is that I've read fanfic that was way better written than crap I've pulled off the shelves. And your political rants (and many others I've read on LJ, and other places online, for free) are so much better than those of many, many people who are getting paid a ton of money.

But I totally get what you are trying to say. The semantics don't matter to me as much, but I can certainly understand why they matter to you.

However, what gets published, and what sells well, can be incredibly random and very political. And frankly, the media has all too often been one gigantic epic fail, and the people who attain positions of prominence in the media are not always the most deserving of it. I don't think I have a real answer, but perhaps that's why I don't feel as strongly about it.