Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Is Fan Fiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things About It
What Is Fan Fiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things About It
about It?
Bronwen Thomas
tices and activities. Perhaps because of the need to defend and rearticulate the previously castigated category of the fan, there is a tendency to
employ a rather idealistic rhetoricfor example, in Pughs (2005) claim
that fanfiction represents a democratic genre, or Stasis (2006) claim that
this kind of writing is canny, sophisticated and resonant with postmodern textuality (129). While studies such as these at least try to locate fanfiction alongside literary traditions and conventions, media studies approaches consciously steer clear of any attempt to evaluate fanfiction
based on the quality of the writing, the plotting, or the characterization,
for fear of being seen to be outside or above the object of study.
In his overview of fanfiction studies, Cornel Sandvoss (2005) claims
that the first wave of theory was heavily influenced by Marxism and
tended to assume a simple dichotomy of power in which the fans were
the powerless opposing the might of the franchises and corporations
that owned the rights to the characters and storylines fans loved and
wrote about. For example, in one of the earliest studies, John Fiske
(1987) writes about Madonnas empowering influence on her young female followers and sets up the influential category of the active audience. But it was Henry Jenkinss Textual Poachers (1992) that contributed more than any previous study to the establishment of a distinctive
sphere of fan studies, and it remains a seminal text. Jenkins draws on
Michel de Certeaus (1984) notion of the poacher to write about fans
not as dupes of dominant ideologies but as renegades and subversives
able to undermine commodification and corporatization through their
collective power. In subsequent studies and on his blog, Jenkins continues to contest the stereotype of the fan as a socially isolated weirdo, and
he draws on a wide range of theoretical sources; these sources include
narrative theory, in particular Janet Murrays (1998) concepts of encyclopedic narratives and procedural authorship.1 Referring to himself as
an Aca-Fan, Jenkins attempts to redefine the terms on which the activity of fans is understood, and he has claimed that the kind of participatory culture created by fans could offer a whole new model of cultural
production. While Jenkins does allow that not all fans are resisting readers, his rhetoric can seem overblown at times, especially when it comes
to his attempt to abolish the boundary between fan and academic.
Closely aligned with the emergence of audience studies, this first
Thomas: What Is Fanfiction?
spawned one of the most prolific of literary fandoms online. The case
studies I consider bring into the foreground issues of aesthetic value
or quality as well as issues arising from the relationship of the fan text
to its source. While Austen fandoms might be seen to pose a challenge
to the notion of the fan as textual poacher, because they tend to be
quite conservative and fiercely protective of the Austen legacy, in actuality these fandoms exemplify the variety of communities existing online.
Here too we find plenty of diversity in the modes of engagement that
fans display and in how they participate in processes of creation and
reception.
Approaches to Fanfiction
fanfiction and participatory culture
Perhaps one of the main reasons why people are saying such nice things
about fanfiction is that it takes us away from the notion of texts as static, isolated objects and instead reminds us that storyworlds are generated and experienced within specific social and cultural environments
that are subject to constant change. In online environments where accessibility and participation seem almost to be taken for granted, fanfiction is about far more than the writing and reading of stories, as fans
engage in all kinds of social networking and community building not
only within the terms set by specific sites but also frequently beyond
and against these, as when fans set up their own subcultures and special interest groups. For example, Austen fans can buy Team Darcy
merchandise online and even purchase patterns for creating their own
finger puppet versions of Darcy and Elizabeth, closely resembling Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle from the 1995 BBC adaptation. Although
some purists bemoan the hamster-wheel of posthumous productivity
(Bowles 2003: 16) that has turned Jane Austen into a commodity in this
manner, others (e.g., Thompson 2008) have celebrated such activities
as continuing the best traditions of the cottage industry model and as
confirming the limitless creativity of fans seeking out ways to display
their devotion to and passion for their favored storyworlds.
In short, fanfiction highlights the motivations and desires of readersin ways theorists of narrative need to take into account. In tra6
the term fanon is used to refer to the process whereby over time certain
plot or character elements become established within the fan communityeven when those elements never appeared in the source text, or
radically depart from it.
Fanfiction is often highly reflexive about the transgressing of these
boundaries and displays little or no anxiety about what Linda Hutcheon (2005) terms the hermeneutic paradox, whereby readers [. . .]
are forced to acknowledge the artifice of what they are reading, while at
the same time becoming active co-creators of the meaning of the work
(494). Indeed, fans seem to enjoy flaunting the artificiality and surreality of their stories while also continuing to be engaged and immersed
in the fictional worlds they help to flesh out and concretize. However,
in an effort to develop more sober and responsible assessments of fan
practices, recent fanfiction theory has revisited both the idea of the fan
as a subversive force for the good and utopian visions of the community, suggesting that certain hierarchies and boundaries still exist. For example, my own research on The Republic of Pemberley website (Thomas
2007) focuses on the ways in which the self-appointed committee members who maintain the site portray themselves as guardians of Austens
legacy. Many other sites ban certain kinds of fanfic altogether (especially
Real Person Fiction, or fiction in which real-world celebrities and personages figure), and reserve the right to exclude members if their posts
or behavior are deemed unacceptable.
entries as works in progress, and inevitably many stories are left unfinished. While fans might urge each other on to bring a story to its climax, it is undoubtedly the case that continuity is preferred over closure.
Many of the biggest fandoms online are related to serial narratives
that trade on the idea of plot as an infinitely extended middle (Fiske
1987). However, even with narratives such as Austens Pride and Prejudice, which seemingly closes on the most conventional of happy endings, the climax is, of course, as much a beginning as it is an ending,
since Darcy and Elizabeth are just setting out on married life. A good
deal of Pride and Prejudice fanfiction takes this ending as its point of
departure, as fans imagine not only what the married life of the couple
might be like but also how Darcy in particular copes with parenthood,
or how the children turn out.
Though fanfiction is often dismissed as derivative and unoriginal,
fan communities proudly boast about the influence they have on peoples engagement with the storyworlds about which they write. What
this illustrates is that the relationship between source text and its reinventions is not unidirectional, but dialogic. Authors such as J. K. Rowling and Neil Gaiman have maintained a close relationship with their
fans through contributing interviews and setting up competitions.5
Meanwhile, TV shows such as Smallville or the Doctor Who spin-off
Torchwood are widely believed to have emerged from ideas and storylines developed on fanfiction sites, and Seth Grahame-Smiths Pride and
Prejudice and Zombies (2009) clearly owes a debt to the cross-over genre
of fanfiction. For fanfiction theorists, such a move into the mainstream
can arouse anxiety that fan communities resistance to dominant cultural norms and practices is being diluted, and that commercial success and corporatization are in effect wresting these storyworlds away
from their fans. But we might equally see the interest shown by the creative industries as testament to the contribution made by fans and as a
demonstration of the durability and elasticity of the storyworlds about
which they write.
11
goal, hailing this release from future-orientation as potentially liberating. Similarly, Peter Lunenfeld (2000: 20) has hypothesized the possibility of what he calls an aesthetic of unfinish, again placing the emphasis on process rather than goal and suggesting thereby a new approach
to the analysis of narrative. Certainly, this kind of aesthetic might find
support from postmodern theory, where the idea that creativity must
involve originality has been fundamentally questioned, and where the
pleasures of repetition and repurposing may be celebrated. It might
also help explain why what keeps fans coming back is not necessarily
suspense, strong characterization, or good style so much as what David Black (2004) calls in-filling: that is, the process of fleshing out the
backstory behind characters, situations, and events, or slightly shifting
the perspective from which the familiar is to be enjoyed.
13
value could build on models that, like David Bleichs (1978) and Patrick
Colm Hogans (forthcoming), embrace subjectivity and affect, rather
than marginalizing or ignoring such aspects of readerly engagement.
What I have described as the third wave of fanfiction studies has
brought issues of aesthetic judgment to the forefront, fostering some
welcome skepticism about earlier theorists elevation of the reader to a
position of absolute supremacy. In particular, Sandvoss (2007) directly
confronts media studies tendency to shy away from such debates, and
argues that much is to be gained from engaging with literary-theoretical
approaches and models. At the same time, Sandvoss makes the point
that whereas literary texts are often valued for their ability to defamiliarize the everyday, fans seek out texts that give them the pleasure of familiarity and that fulfill rather than challenge their expectations. Yet he
also stresses that it is problematic to try to stipulate what sorts of stories
fans seek out and what meanings they find in those stories. Sandvoss
points out that the notion of what constitutes a text for fans may itself
be contentious, and calls for what he terms a functionalist definition of
value in which we focus on what texts are for; from this perspective, any
discussion of value must engage closely with what actual readers and
audiences do, as manifested by their participation in fan communities.
Sandvosss focus is on what he calls the affective bond between text and
reader, and he calls for an approach that captures the full complexity
and dynamism of the process of reading, rather than smoothing over
disagreements or forcibly aligning contradictions and complexities in
readers ongoing responses to texts and their intertexts.
In the same volume that contains Sandvosss study, Hills (2007) attacks what he calls the distant reading tradition of media studies; in
this tradition, according to Hills, it is acceptable to comment on media
texts without actually bothering to watch or read them. Hills also points
to the problems of using an approach in which the scholar is meant to
be objective or detached in order to study fan communities in which
enthusiasms may be excessive and beyond control. Indeed, academics
who are also fans (or aca-fans) are likely, according to Hills, to project
their own interpretations onto the fan texts being analyzed.
Interestingly, the fanfiction community itself displays no scruples
about hunting down and exposing examples of badfic, with sites such
14
as Fandom Wank and Crack Van directing users toward the good stuff
while reveling in the worst excesses of the bad. But these assessments
are not premised on a centrally held set of criteria; rather, they grow
out of an ongoing debate and discussion about what merits reccing
(recommending) and what does not. Hence participants always have
a right to reply and an opportunity to contest and challenge the values
and interpretations of others. Once again, if an aesthetics is constructed purely on the basis of what fanfictions are, rather than on the basis
of what fans do with these texts, then the only options remain a kind of
whitewashing, where we pretend that the writing really is not as bad as
it seems, or a crude selection policy, according to which we only consider for discussion those examples of fanfiction that meet the mark in
terms of specific sets of criteria that must by their very nature be inflexible. A more productive approach is suggested by Sandvoss (2007),
whereby instead of focusing on the value of a specific text, or abandoning altogether any notion of value, we focus instead on what he calls
the spectrum of textuality (31) to encompass the broader effects and
influences that the text may have and go on to have. Thus, rather than
imposing a set of values, analysts can focus on what makes this kind of
narrative practice distinctivefor example, by exploring how it provides different perspectives on a familiar fictional world or set of events
or allows fans happily to move in and out of various storyworlds and
also between the storyworld and the real world of their day-to-day
existence.
With fanfiction it is also important to recognize that what may be
valued by one community or fandom may not hold equal value for another. For example, my studies of The Republic of Pemberley website
(Thomas 2007) or fans of the author Mark Danielewski (Thomas 2011)
have shown that these fans are quite prepared to pass judgment not just
on the merits of the texts they discuss but also on others responses to
and interpretations of those texts. While other fandoms may be much
less hawkish and intimidating, nevertheless reviewing and critiquing
are an intrinsic part of all of the fanfiction sites that I have visited, and
indeed the constant dialogue between authors and their readers, and
the fact that these roles are so readily interchangeable, make it impossible to fully appreciate fanfiction without looking at how the stories
Thomas: What Is Fanfiction?
15
are received and talked about within the specific communities in which
they are located.
In the illustrative analysis that follows, I use a fanfiction based on
Austens Pride and Prejudice to weave together many of the strands of
my discussion up to this point. I also aim to demonstrate how an integrated analysisone that combines close attention to the text and
a focus on the wider processes of production and receptioncan offer valuable insights into what fanfiction is for and what it does vis-vis those who are involved with its production, interpretation, and
recontextualization.
17
19
Conclusion
What my analysis of Ae Fond Kiss demonstrates is the inappropriateness and impossibility of focusing solely on the fanfiction text, without
taking into account how aspects of the interface and website design impact upon the reading experience, or how that experience is shaped by
the responses and discussions generated by the stories. Both the writing
and reading of fanfiction demonstrate how narrative is additive (Perez
2000); in other words, wanting more of (Pugh 2005) the storyworld
that is the object of the fans devotion can hardly be sated by just one
narrative, and the design and navigation of fanfiction sites is all about
selecting and reading across stories, often in a random rather than a directed fashion. The notion of the inexhaustible story (Douglas 2001)
thus poses a challenge to models of narrative that insist on defining the
story text as a stable and finite thing. As I suggest as well, the processual, malleable quality of fanfictions also has implications for how we
assess the quality of narratives. In this context judgments made about
story design, characterization, and writing style cannot be made in the
abstract, without recognizing the significance that these narrative elements may have for a particular community of readers, thanks to the
contexts of production and reception in which a given narrative circulates. Nor can assumptions be made about how all fans engage with the
storyworlds at issue. For all the fans who actively participate and interact on these sites, there are others who simply lurk or who flit from one
story and one fandom to another without displaying any particular attachment or commitment.
But perhaps the largest lesson of fanfiction is that it is time to call a
halt to the mutual suspicion that still seems to persist between narratology, which emphasizes fine-grained analysis of textual features and patterns, and media and cultural studies, which have traditionally focused
more on audiences, reception processes, and issues of ideology and the
place of textual practices within broader social formations. In particular, dialogue between these fields would seem to be productive in allowing us to debate the aesthetic value of new media forms and explore
how storyworlds are put to use as well as constructed and processed.
For fanfiction studies, this sort of dialogue might result in a middle
20
ground emerging between those who have perhaps exaggerated the potential significance of fanfiction and those who dismiss it as adolescent
trash. What is undeniable is that many of the challenges posed by fanfiction are replicated across other kinds of new-media narratives, and so
we ignore these challenges at our own peril.
Notes
1. See Henry Jenkins, Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry
Jenkins, <http://www.henryjenkins.org/>.
2. Examples of anti-fan activity can be found at I Hate Harry Potter, <http://www
.ihateharrypotter.com>, or I Hate Star Wars Club, <http://ihatestarwarsclub.
blogspot.com>.
3. Examples of Darcy/Wickham slash are much more common. See, for example,
Truth Discovered by Jadecastle6 or Two Sides of the Same Coin by Lizard2,
both on FanFiction.Net. For an example of Darcy/Bingley slash see Concerning the Pianaforte by DragonRawr, also at FanFiction.Net.
4. Whysuddenly admits to having Colin Firth in mind when composing The
Wedding Night and Conversation in the Morning, published together at
FanFiction.Net.
5. See R. Lyle Skains (2010) for a discussion of interactions between authors and
their readers online.
Works Cited
websites
Crack Van. <http://community.livejournal.com/crack_van/>.
Derbyshire Writers Guild. <http://www.austen.com/derby>.
Fandom Wank. <http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/>.
FanFiction.Net. <http://www.fanfiction.net>.
Firthness. <http://www.firthness.com>.
Mrs. Darcys Story Site. <http://www.mrsdarcy.com>.
The Republic of Pemberley. <http://www.pemberley.com>.
scholarly works
Abercrombie, Nicholas, and Brian Longhurst (1998). Audiences: A Sociological
Theory of Performance and Imagination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bacon-Smith, Camille (1992). Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the
Creation of Popular Myth. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P.
Black, David A. (2004). Character; or, The Strange Case of Uma Peel. GwenllianJones and Pearson 99114.
Thomas: What Is Fanfiction?
21
Bleich, David (1978). Subjective Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.
Bowles, Kate (2003). Commodifying Austen. Jane Austen on Screen. Ed. Gina
Macdonald and Andrew F. Macdonald. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1521.
Brunsdon, Charlotte (1997). Screen Tastes: Soap Operas and Satellite Dishes. London:
Routledge.
De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven F. Rendall.
Berkeley: U of California P.
Derecho, Abigail (2006). Archontic Literature: A Definition, a History, and Several
Theories of Fan Fiction. Hellekson and Busse 6178.
Douglas, Jane Yellowlees (2001). The End of Books or Books without End: Reading
Interactive Narratives. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P.
Fiske, John (1987). Television Culture. London: Routledge.
Genette, Grard (1980) Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Trans. Jane E.
Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
(1997). Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Gerrig, Richard (1993). Experiencing Narrative Worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.
(2005). Psychological Approaches to Narrative. Herman, Jahn, and Ryan
47074.
Grahame-Smith, Seth (2009). Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Philadelphia: Quirk
Books.
Gray, Jonathan (2003). New Audiences, New Textualities: Anti-Fans and NonFans. International Journal of Cultural Studies 6.1: 6481.
Gray, Jonathan, and Jason Mittell (2007). Speculation on Spoilers: Lost Fandom,
Narrative Consumption and Rethinking Textuality. Participations 4.1. <www
.participations.org/Volume%204/Issue%201/4_01_graymittell.htm>.
Gray, Jonathan, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington, eds. (2007). Fandom:
Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. New York: New York UP.
Gwenllian-Jones, Sara (2004). Virtual Reality and Cult Television. GwenllianJones and Pearson 8397.
Gwenllian-Jones, Sara, and Roberta Pearson, eds. (2004). Cult Television. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
Harris, Cheryl (1998). A Sociology of Television Fandom. Theorizing Fandom:
Fans, Subculture and Identity. Ed. Cheryl Harris and Alison Alexander. Creskill,
NJ: Hampton.
Hellekson, Karen, and Kristina Busse, eds. (2006). Fan Fiction and Fan Communities
in the Age of the Internet. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Herman, David (2005). Storyworlds. Herman, Jahn, and Ryan 56970.
Herman, David, Manfred Jahn, and Marie-Laure Ryan, eds. (2005). Routledge
Encyclopedia of Narrative. London: Routledge.
Hills, Matt (2002). Fan Cultures. London: Routledge.
(2005). Patterns of Surprise: The Aleatory Object in Psychoanalytic
Ethnography and Cyclical Fandom. American Behavioral Scientist 48.7: 80121.
22
23
24