Tavia Chalcraft wrote:
Shane wrote:
Bit of a difference between Henry James and Joe Fanwriter.
I've not yet read fanfiction that's as good in my opinion as the authors I consider great in literature (though I'm hoping!).
I personlly am convinced Bryn Lantry's "Puppeteer" is a work of literary genius. But then, I admit to having strange tastes. I mean, I rented _The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle_ the other night and laughed all the way through... :)
But, personally, I do think the distinction between "literature" and, well, whatever word you want to use for "stuff that isn't literature" is a totally artificial one. There's a difference between Henry James and Joe Fanwriter? Sure. Henry James is more known and respected in literary circles. They almost certainly have rather different writing styles. There's a very good chance that James' work is of higher quality than Fanwriters' stuff (although I haven't read anything by either individual and couldn't make a personal judgement). But, you know, it's all the same medium. It's words on paper. You can compare them; it's not apples and oranges. So, IMHO, to say "why is it sadistic when a fanwriter makes Avon suffer for dramatic purposes and not when Shakespeare makes Hamlet suffer?" (which I think was the original question here) is a valid point, and to say "fanfic ain't Shakespeare," while true, doesn't make it *in*valid.