This thing about fanfic bugs me: is there a better way? Also cute new Sinfest & GWS

[philippos42]

OK, I feel kind of like this guy, lumbering out of Hades and asking the wrong person for "story time." But I have this thing on my mind.

(Not the SOPA thing, though yeah, take Danielle's advice and write your Congressmen. Heck, write other people's Congressmen.)

I know one or two pretty good writers on my flist, and there are certainly some good fan artists online.

And I think, why do you tie yourself to fan works? You don't own it; you don't control it; you don't get any royalties, ever--is it just a cheap way to get attention? In fact, you put all these disclaimers on your work, because it's not even public domain--the trademarks belong to someone else. Is it worth it?

I hear bluefall's pretty upset about what DC did to Birds of Prey. But I remember reading some of her Harrierverse stuff and thinking it was pretty cool.

Why not, for example, file off the bits of the Harrierverse that identify it as made of DC trademarks, and publish it as your own thing? You could do it as a webcomic if you found a willing artist.

There are so many concepts that want love, and we know what they are:

That heroic vigilante/detective single father guy, the marksman.
The slightly goofy couple who have fun chasing mysteries (maybe one of them has powers).
The broken bird who sends her agents into dangerous situations while she uses her hacking skills to be as absurdly prepared as possible.
The spooky young woman for whom violence is mother tongue, chasing justice and craving mercy.
et cetera.

Waiting and whining for DC (or whomever) to do these is pretty much useless. They're not bringing back these things, nor things like them, and they don't care.

But if it's yours, you can do what you want, and DC can't pull it out from under you, nor "ruin" it by going in a different direction.

Heck, you could leave the trademarks in the public domain, or copyleft it, if that's your thing.

Think about it.

Comments

[katya]

Illegal, no. Frowned upon and not earning her friends? Yes.

[blackruzsa]

Well she does have a fan following that could put anything just below Harry Potter and Twilight to shame.

So that bit is just smoke in the wind now, as usual.

[valtyr]

To be honest, I doubt people would be so annoyed about perceived similarities if it weren't for her (completely deserved) reputation as a plagiarist, and her consequent dishonesty and threatening legal action on people who discussed it.

A decent job of filing off the serial numbers is not so terrible, in my view, but after her terrible fandom behaviour I'll never touch any of her work.

[blackruzsa]

? I haven't seen that.
Source?

And what do you mean by 'completely deserved' reputation as a plagiarist?

[valtyr]

Source for what, the plagiarism? The threats?

I mean it's completely deserved because she stole the work of pro writers to patch into her fanfic. Not just the endemic use of one-liners and brief exchanges from series like Buffy and Blackadder, but entire sections from fantasy novels with only minor alterations made, completely uncited and unacknowledged at time of posting.

[blackruzsa]

Oh.
Well, I'm kind of torn about what to say. On one hand, yes, that is blatant copying especially without disclaiming,
but on the other hand, that does not mean she does so in her professional work, so I think it's unfair to call ad hominem, especially when fanfiction is on that line of ambiguity that says it's not for profit... but idk.

Basically saying she deserves to be called a plagiarist doesn't sit well with me... I guess like saying Lady Gaga is unoriginal because some of her songs resemble Madonna's.

I'm not saying I have all the facts, but I've read her books and her ideas are good and as original as they can be in this day and age, and I don't think what she wrote in fanfic should affect how her original published works are judged.

[valtyr]

She doesn't need to plagiarise in her original work to be called a plagiarist. She plagiarised her fanfic; she stole the work of others and presented it as her own. That makes her a plagiarist.

There is a considerable difference between 'inspired by' and 'copy paste'. If you want to write a story about an orphan who goes to magic school and fights evil, you're legally in the clear. If you start copying out chunks of Harry Potter, you're not. You're plagiarising JK Rowling.

I don't judge her published works, as I haven't read them. I judge her, for her plagiarism, refusal to admit wrongdoing, lies, legal threats and generally appalling behaviour, and I'm sufficiently disgusted with her character to not want to touch her work.

[valtyr]

Oh, someone did a write-up of the events - you can read it here, if you're interested. It provides side-by-side comparisons of her work and some of the sources she plagiarised, so you don't have to take my word for it.

[blackruzsa]

I'm reading through it
and a lot of what I'm seeing is that the side opposing Cassandra Clare is made up of a number of inflammatory and generally unsavory messages about an issue she herself didn't even pursue or argue about (she accepted the removal, didn't argue the blacklist, did say she wished she'd been warned but otherwise tried to stay out of it) after she'd apologized.

I saw someone who was pushed into anger and ranting, and no matter how 'she should have handled it with more grace', that was a lot of pressure to put on someone to force them back into the issue.

Due respect, but I don't believe her character should be judged on a half-sensible, half-idiotic debate wherein she lost her composure.

I accept this probably put you off her work, I'm not forcing you to go and read it (although it is reaaaallly good) but I don't think it's right to call her a plagiarist whose title is well-deserved.

I want to say it's not personal, but, yeah, I feel personally insulted reading it. The above is my reasonable opinion, but I honestly want to bash a few inflammatory heads in right now.

[valtyr]

Er... where did I say anything about her anger and ranting? I am referring to the work she stole, presented as her own, and then repeatedly lied about.

I don't call someone a plagiarist because they 'lost their composure'. That would be ridiculous, and I'm rather insulted you're suggesting it's what I'm doing. Let me spell it out.

Stealing someone's work and presenting it as your own is plagiarism.

Cassandra Claire stole the work of multiple authors, and presented it as her own.

Therefore, Cassandra Claire is a plagiarist.

I am calling Cassie Claire a plagiarist because she plagiarised. She deserves to be called a plagiarist because she committed multiple acts of plagiarism.

If you like her work, that's fine. If her previous plagiarism doesn't put you off liking her work, that's fine too. Up to you. But she is a plagiarist because words have meanings, and plagiarist means a person who has plagiarised, and she plagiarised.

She's a plagiarist, and she absolutely deserves to be called a plagiarist, and she lied extensively and repeatedly to minimize her plagiarism. Such dishonesty disgusts me. Not 'anger and ranting'.

Again, let me spell it out.

Anger and ranting: eh, whatever.

Loss of composure: I think we've all been there.

Not handling a situation with grace: My own usual technique.

Plagiarism and lying: unacceptable to me.

I hope this clarifies matters, as you appear to have drastically misunderstood my position.