Yeah, that's from Henry Jenkins' original book.

Can't stop the signal.

fic is culture's response to our mythology being owned by corporations

So is it not the same sort of fic if it predates corporations? Because I've beens saying fic is a response to consuming a story, not to the ownership of the story, and therefore it goes back many a year.

I agree, fic is a natural human response. But, in non-copyright situations, there's a legitimacy that post-corporate fic doesn't have in the broader culture. I don't completely agree with the sentiment, but I think it's near enough to be useful as a starting point.

Because I've beens saying fic is a response to consuming a story

I agree with this. I mean, in the way I mean fic where it is freely distributed though possibly within known communities, the legal status of the original story or characters or people isn't the point. It's a response to or continuation of or different look at the story.

Fic that undergoes another transformation in an attempt to sell the work and probably try to make money off of it is a whole different story. But it's no longer what I'd call fic at that point, so it's irrelevant to me when defining fic.

So is it not the same sort of fic if it predates corporations? Because I've beens saying fic is a response to consuming a story, not to the ownership of the story, and therefore it goes back many a year.

I can see how this is a reasonable way of defining it, but how are we going to convince people that what Shakespeare wrote was fanfic?

I consider the onus on their part. I can't, apparently, resist the argument, so I just list stories, and ask them to tell me why it doesn't count. I don't usually go to Shakespeare, but the premise of any re-used character is good.

Folk tales and folk songs that have as many variations as there are story-tellers and singers - I'm not sure that it is fair to count those as fan fic. And yet I feel sure that the variations come from the same urges that fic emanates from.

Right now everyone seems concerned that there is ownership of characters and environments, and therefore you can't tell any stories about them yourself. I think the key is when this sense of ownership became so key to everything.

I found myself explaining fanfic to one of my nurses yesterday. She wanted to know what I was "learning" on my tablet, and I decided to be actually be honest with her. She was mildly "People do that, huh?" but didn't express any outright disbelief or outrage like some other people I've explained it to out of the blue.

I think the key is when this sense of ownership became so key to everything.

Yeah, ownership is definitely one of the issues. Some people react to the concept of fanfic with the same outrage they'd express if you got your car stolen. "They can't do that!"

Another issue is, I think, the way originality is held up as the ultimate goal of any creativity. If everything about your novel isn't original, you're not being creative.

Now, this is kind of bullshit, because it's not possible to be completely original, and even Dickens and Shakespeare stole ideas, plots, and characters from other sources. And certainly tv writers do the same.

I was describing Castle to my sister the other day, and she said, "Oh, it's like Murder She Wrote!", and I had to agree. It's also like Moonlighting and a dozen other shows as well.

And yet if I tried to sell an original novel with a totally creative plot in which Castle the writer teamed up with Beckett the detective, I'd get sued by CBS or whomever. It really doesn't make a lot of sense.