USA Today on fan fiction. Oy.

I NEVER use the file that went through beta as the file that I post. It's more complicated, but I sit with the beta in one window and the story in the other, and make the changes. Besides, I might have changed the story since I sent it to beta.

Me too. That's how I work.

Oh, how...patronizing.

Consuela, is it worth reading or only a source of wincing?

It's USA Today. That said, it's not quite as patronizing as it could be. Of course, it's chock-full of the standard inaccuracies.

Well, at least the USA Today article didn't commit the "all fanfiction = slash" error. Plus, I liked the fact that the author admitted that:

I can't say I blame fans for taking writing duties into their own hands. A good story is becoming increasingly difficult to find in movies and on TV; today's big cheeses prefer to spend money on uninspired remakes and realitysomethings. (snip) Despite their flaws, fan-fic scripts often entertain me more than the shows on the air.

I was a little bugged by the fact that the author kept referring to stories as "scripts," but that's a pretty minor gaffe compared to others I've seen.

I also have to applaud this statement:

As long as fan fiction is properly labeled and doesn't make a profit, the work's original creators should try to take it as the ultimate form of flattery.

What do the rest of you think of the four reasons the author gave for why people write fanfiction?

"The Flying Nun and the Chupacabra."

So help me, I kinda want to read this...

What were the four reasons?

• wacky situation
  
• pinch of sex
  
• character expansion
  
• tired of waiting for the inevitable

I hate it when people assign motivations to me. I don't do "wacky situations". I rarely do "pinch of sex". Sometimes I like to expand characters, but that's rarely my primary motivation. And ... "waiting for the inevitable"? Nope.

I write... why do I write? Because there's something I want to explore, because there's a character I want to understand, because there's an image I need to get down, because someone gave me a challenge, because I want to take a character somewhere we won't see on the screen, because I want to experiment with form or style or perspective, because I want to play with a situation that the show didn't or won't. Because I want to twist them until they break.

All of that, and none. And any journalist who tries to say why I wrote something is missing the fucking point.

Cold Luna bar:

And nobody ever sits around pontificating about why Ann Patchett writes novels, do they? Is the creative instinct so closely tied to financial benefit that there's no way for the average person to comprehend the desire to create for free?

Granted, it sounds like the author was explaining a phenomenon to people who may have only heard of it in passing and are marginally curious. The biggest question in the mainstream's mind would be "Why?"

The biggest question in the mainstream's mind would be "Why?"

So why not ask? Instead of making blanket assumptions? At least, if they start asking, they'll get several different responses, and won't come across as nearly as patronizing as they usually do.

I loved the Margot Adler piece on NPR a month or so back -- she interviewed several members of the Sugarquill gang. It was funny and engaging and not patronizing. Nicely done.