lightgetsin and sahiya have posted another piece of their AU Vorkosigan fic in the bujold_fic. This piece, Seeds, is from Ekaterin Vorsoisson’s POV and is set in the lead up to the Emperor’s wedding.
More reading blather.
The Biochemist sent me the link to the ongoing discussion at Henry Jenkins’ blog about gender and fan studies, which spends a lot of time on transmedia storytelling, negative capability (new concept for me), and the debate about canon vs. fanon. The conversation continues in a second part today, discussing ownership of fan fiction and authorship. Tosenberger makes an interesting point when she clarifies her own definition of literature:
I tend to use “literature” in a very broad “written prose, poetry, and drama” sense (and yes I know that’s vague), and not as a term that marks artistic quality (i.e., “This isn’t just a romance novel, it’s literature!” — a statement that makes me want to throw things). For me, fanfiction *is* literature — it’s written fiction — that’s not commercially published. I can see why there are those connotations, though; commercial publication lends such an aura of… respectability. It’s been vetted by somebody, somewhere, who decided that *this* story was fit to sell. But “possibly commercially successful” and “aesthetically successful” are not the same thing. But the thing is, just because fanfiction hasn’t — and often can’t, when we’re talking about fanfic for in-copyright texts — be commercially published, that doesn’t mean it somehow isn’t literature, and has no chance of being *good* literature, at that.
When TB and I were emailing back and forth (before I read the second post), we touched on a few things, including the heinous Scarlett**, the upcoming prequel to GWTW told from Rhett’s perspective****, IP/copyright distinctions in the East and West, and the plethora of Austen prequels and sequels and retellings of P&P from other perspectives. Which made the link to a Salon article posted in the comments to the Austenticity post at SBTB all the more interesting to me. I don’t have a problem with a critical evaluation of chick lit or popular fiction as a reinterpretation of Jane Austen…but I get the feeling that the author of the Salon article had much the same feelings as Geoffrey Long did back at Jenkins’ blog — it’s noncanon and often outside the scope of “negative capability” and is therefore questionable and not literature (in a much narrower definition than Tosenberger’s).
**as if she would ever have left Tara
****seriously, his allure is his mystery; if you reveal the man behind the curtain, his desirability will disappear, rather like that of Ranger in Evanovich’s Plum series
Jane has posted a link to a spoiler to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. A hacker claims to have gotten access to the publisher’s network and posted spoilers. I’m not including a link, because that would be too much temptation for me. My mouse hovered over the link over at DA before moving away.
My speculation about HP.