Fanfic as Reader Response in action

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I think Fanfic is probably the best example of how readers respond to a text (broadly defined, of course, as in the case of a movie or TV show) and make it their own.

Stanley Fish would be so proud. Maybe he is writing Surprised by Spock even now.
 

Deleted member 42

I'll ask him for you, if you like. Give me a couple of questions :D
 

giftedrhonda

Gifted Goofball
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
102
I hope you post the answers on here!
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,705
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
CG, I hadn't thought of it that way--but you're completely right. And many of the criticisms I hear about fanfic are very similar in both form and content to the criticisms about reader response.

If the writer never meant to go there, is it valid for the reader to use the text as a jumping off point like that? Does the text exist as a contract between writer and reader, or does it only become valid when the reader engages it and applies meaning?
 

giftedrhonda

Gifted Goofball
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
102
Oooooh good question, MacAllister. I suspect there will be differing opinions. I read in one of my grad classes that some people feel that once you write your book and release it, it is no longer yours. It becomes the reader's book to interpret as he/she pleases.

I'm not sure I believe it to THAT extent. I think writers put a piece of themselves in their writing. Just because you're opening it up to others doesn't mean you're giving it up completely.

But I do think writing can stimulate that area of readers, even to the point of them writing fanfic as a point of agreeing/disagreeing with what you did to your novel. Kind of like a conversation, in a way.

As to whether or not a writer thinks that's ok, it's not my place to say. I'd probably be flattered in a way that someone considered my work memorable enough to want to write fanfic, but then again, you do want to make sure your work isn't diluted to where you're not as strongly associated with it.

Crazy.
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
MacAllister said:
If the writer never meant to go there, is it valid for the reader to use the text as a jumping off point like that? Does the text exist as a contract between writer and reader, or does it only become valid when the reader engages it and applies meaning?
It’s a variant of the old “if a tree falls in the forest” question. Without the act of reading, of apprehending, the text is nothing. The text’s author has no claim on what follows from the act of reading. The author had plans, dreams, intentions, but as when children leave the nest, the text has gone off to make its own way in the world.
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,705
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
Well, and there's the tension about intellectual property, as well as what constitutes "canon"...if a reader is reading tons of fanfic, in addition to legit text (for lack of a better terms off the top of my head)--does it alter the reader's perception and overall understanding of those characters, whether or not that reader intends for it to do so?
 

Birol

Around and About
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
14,759
Reaction score
2,998
Location
That's a good question right now.
Right, CG. It's the idea that the book is actually a collaboration between the author and reader, that they both bring a part of themselves to the text, creating a hybrid between the two of them. Now, this suggests that for each book written, there is an infinite variety of interpretations out there, one for each writer-reader combination.
 

giftedrhonda

Gifted Goofball
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
102
Ohhhhh yes, that's true about intellectual property.

Isn't there something called "reader-response theory", where they say something like as a reader is reading a text, he/she is constantly assuming what's going to come next. Maybe fanfic arises out of an unfilfilled need in that aspect...e.g., the reader is displeased with what occurs next...or so pleased, he/she wants to continue the saga...?

(again, it's been a few years since I've studied these, so if i'm messing up the terms, forgive me! but thanks for the brain-stimulating conversations...)
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,705
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
the book is actually a collaboration between the author and reader, that they both bring a part of themselves to the text, creating a hybrid between the two of them. Now, this suggests that for each book written, there is an infinite variety of interpretations out there, one for each writer-reader combination.
See, I don't think that's entirely true--I think there are shades of interpretations, and each reader brings, perhaps, his or her own "flavor" to the text...

But the Text is the Text. And, you know, it does have meaning. If it didn't, we wouldn't even need text, right? Moreover, outside of fiction, if the list of ingredients on our cereal boxes had no real meaning external to the reader, then what would be the point?

Words don't cease having intrinsic meaning because you arrange them to make fiction.
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
MacAllister said:
See, I don't think that's entirely true--I think there are shades of interpretations, and each reader brings, perhaps, his or her own "flavor" to the text...

But the Text is the Text. And, you know, it does have meaning. If it didn't, we wouldn't even need text, right? Moreover, outside of fiction, if the list of ingredients on our cereal boxes had no real meaning external to the reader, then what would be the point?

Words don't cease having intrinsic meaning because you arrange them to make fiction.
I’m actually a more “the text says so” guy than not. But I do find the tension fascinating. It’s a little like listening to John Cage’s fifteen minutes of silence, in which he asks the listener to fill in the music. Now that’s reader response for you!
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
sunandshadow said:
But is the text the text after you translate it into a different language? What if two different people translate it differently?
Then you've got two texts: related, but two texts.
 

Birol

Around and About
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
14,759
Reaction score
2,998
Location
That's a good question right now.
MacAllister said:
See, I don't think that's entirely true--I think there are shades of interpretations, and each reader brings, perhaps, his or her own "flavor" to the text...

But the Text is the Text. And, you know, it does have meaning. If it didn't, we wouldn't even need text, right? Moreover, outside of fiction, if the list of ingredients on our cereal boxes had no real meaning external to the reader, then what would be the point?

Words don't cease having intrinsic meaning because you arrange them to make fiction.

I wouldn't confuse definitions with meaning, MacAllister. The list ingredients on cereal boxes has definition, but what those words, what that text means, varies from reader to reader. For example, if you had a loaf of bread and all the ingredients listed were natural, the individual who preferred organic food might think, "This is a loaf of good, wholesome bread." That is what the list of ingredients means to them. Whereas the single mother existing on minimum wage might think, "This bread is going to spoil before we can eat it. I'm going to get a loaf of Wonder."

Each reader of the list of ingredients interprets the text differently and applies a different meaning to it, although both agree on the definition of the text.

And some words, some texts, have different definitions depending on who is reading it, too.
 

katiemac

Five by Five
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
11,521
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Yesterday
I'm reminded of the ending to "The Handmaid's Tale," where I felt the closing page almost reads like a 'choose your own adventure.' It's completely up to the reader to decide what happens next, who is to be trusted... One reader could say she's doomed, a second thinks she's saved. What then?
 

Birol

Around and About
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
14,759
Reaction score
2,998
Location
That's a good question right now.
I did some work on Atwood last semester (actually still finishing a paper) and she states on her website that if there is ambiguity in one of her novels it is because she meant for it to be there.
 

Dawno

Shiny!
Super Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
11,261
Reaction score
3,279
Age
66
Location
someplace around here, anyone seen my keys?
Isn't a great deal of fan fic derived from Film or TV? IIRC, Star Trek purists don't consider the books "canon".

The other thing I would throw out for your consideration is that what words the scriptwriter created were then re-interpreted by the actor and director, so the actual received fiction didn't belong to the original writer in the first place.
 

giftedrhonda

Gifted Goofball
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
102
That's true - in the case of film/TV, we have an added layer separating us from the author's text...and to add to that, you have the director's artistic vision/implementation, what is cut/added, what makes it to the final cut, etc.

There are multiple layers between the original text and what we actually see...
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Dawno said:
Isn't a great deal of fan fic derived from Film or TV? IIRC, Star Trek purists don't consider the books "canon".

The other thing I would throw out for your consideration is that what words the scriptwriter created were then re-interpreted by the actor and director, so the actual received fiction didn't belong to the original writer in the first place.
Which is why the viewpoint that anything with language can be a "text" particularly applies to TV and movies. Instead of "reader response" you've got "reader-reader response."
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,705
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
ColoradoGuy said:
Which is why the viewpoint that anything with language can be a "text" particularly applies to TV and movies. Instead of "reader response" you've got "reader-reader response."
Right--which brings us back to the whole problem writers have with fanfic--that it sets up and executes relationships and events never intended, and people read that, and the knowledge/experience informs how they approach the authentic characters and settings whether that reader intends or expects that outcome, or not.

Birol said, earlier:
I wouldn't confuse definitions with meaning, MacAllister. The list ingredients on cereal boxes has definition, but what those words, what that text means, varies from reader to reader. For example, if you had a loaf of bread and all the ingredients listed were natural, the individual who preferred organic food might think, "This is a loaf of good, wholesome bread." That is what the list of ingredients means to them. Whereas the single mother existing on minimum wage might think, "This bread is going to spoil before we can eat it. I'm going to get a loaf of Wonder."

Each reader of the list of ingredients interprets the text differently and applies a different meaning to it, although both agree on the definition of the text.

By all means, then, let's work towards a definition for the distinction. :D

I might argue, for instance, that if a loaf of bread lists: unbleached wheat flour, milk, eggs, butter, yeast, cane syrup --that indeed, there is meaning to be inferred from that list, meaning provided by the definitions of those words.

When that same label goes on to list "ribonuerofleuric acid extracts, genetically modified yeast-derived laboratory-created organisms, paraffin OR assorted petroleum byproducts, US Dye #37892a (patent pending) and hexamethachloride derivatives"--the meaning is similarly altered by the definitions of those words--that is, there is meaning, then, that can reasonably be applied to definition.

Definition informs and describes meaning, and the two are in many ways inextricable in their relationship.
 
Last edited:

Birol

Around and About
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
14,759
Reaction score
2,998
Location
That's a good question right now.
You need to finish your argument. How is the meaning altered by the definitions of those words? How is the meaning applied to definition? How does definition inform and describe meaning?
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,010
Reaction score
10,705
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
Okay, sure. Let's start with the bones of the two words, themselves:

define
c.1384, from O.Fr. definir "to end, terminate, determine," from L. definire "to limit, determine, explain," from de- "completely" + finire "to bound, limit," from finis "boundary." Definite (1553) means "defined, clear, precise, unmistakable;" definitive (c.1386) means "having the character of finality." Definition is recorded from 1645 as a term in logic; the "meaning of a word" sense is from 1551.

mean (v.)
O.E. mænan "to mean, tell, say, complain," from W.Gmc. *mainijanan (cf. O.Fris. mena, Du. menen, Ger. meinen to think, suppose, be of the opinion"), from PIE *meino- "opinion, intent" (cf. O.C.S. meniti "to think, have an opinion," O.Ir. mian "wish, desire," Welsh mwyn "enjoyment"), probably from base *men- "think." Meaningful first attested 1852.

It's very hard to ascribe any, umm, meaning to a word without defining it. And vice versa. Inextricably related. We're dealing with two words that are also synonyms:
Main Entry: meaning
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: signification
Synonyms: acceptation, allusion, bearing, bottom line*, connotation, content, context, definition, denotation, drift, effect, essence, explanation, force, gist, heart*, hint, implication, import, interpretation, intimation, meat, message, nitty-gritty*, nuance, pith, point, purport, sense, significance, spirit, stuff, subject, subject matter, substance, suggestion, symbolization, tenor, thrust, understanding, upshot, use, value, worth
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang

So if the question is, as you pose:
How is the meaning applied to definition? How does definition inform and describe meaning?
Essentially, the concepts of meaning and definition are intertwined. They very nearly do mean the same thing. That is, they very nearly describe the same idea.

Meaning is perhaps impossible without definition. And definition, likewise, is perhaps impossible without meaning. Definition provides the boundaries of the thought--together, they create a word.

You cannot define a word without ascribing meaning. And you can't ascribe meaning to that word without any edges or boundaries to it.

So a word, then, tells us both what it means and what it does not. Cane syrup is not aspartame.

Now, where really interesting things start to happen is when we use words to mean something other than their definitions--and when that happens in advertising, for example, it's, ummm, lying. That ability of words, though, does not negate the relationship between meaning and definition. We can dissemble with words without disconnecting meaning from definition. What you have to do to accomplish that, though, is either deny both meaning and definition, and use the word falsely--which is evil--or somehow expand the word to include meaning that's beyond or outside the definition--which is metaphor.

(ETA: w00t! This forum is even cooler than the old nightowl thread...)
 
Last edited:

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Medievalist said:
Definition limits meaning.
Oooh--them's fighting words! As Mac implies, definitions can layer on new dimensions of interpretation. They can expand meaning, too. At least it seems to me. And I really woudn't fight you over it. It wouldn't be seemly.

Pronunciation: 'sEm-lE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): seem·li·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English semely, from Old Norse s[oe]miligr, from s[oe]mr fitting
1 a : [SIZE=-1]GOOD-LOOKING[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]HANDSOME[/SIZE] b : agreeably fashioned : [SIZE=-1]ATTRACTIVE[/SIZE]
2 : conventionally proper : [SIZE=-1]DECOROUS[/SIZE] <not seemly to brag about oneself>
3 : suited to the occasion, purpose, or person : [SIZE=-1]FIT[/SIZE]
- seem·li·ness noun
- seemly adverb

So I read here it wouldn't be proper.

Pronunciation: 'prä-p&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English propre proper, own, from Anglo-French, from Latin proprius own
1 a : referring to one individual only b : belonging to one : [SIZE=-1]OWN[/SIZE] c : appointed for the liturgy of a particular day d : represented heraldically in natural color
2 : belonging characteristically to a species or individual : [SIZE=-1]PECULIAR[/SIZE]
3 chiefly dialect : [SIZE=-1]GOOD-LOOKING[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]HANDSOME[/SIZE]
4 : very good : [SIZE=-1]EXCELLENT[/SIZE]
5 chiefly British : [SIZE=-1]UTTER[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]ABSOLUTE[/SIZE]
6 : strictly limited to a specified thing, place, or idea <the city proper>
7 a : strictly accurate : [SIZE=-1]CORRECT[/SIZE] b archaic : [SIZE=-1]VIRTUOUS[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]RESPECTABLE[/SIZE] c : strictly decorous : [SIZE=-1]GENTEEL[/SIZE]
8 : marked by suitability, rightness, or appropriateness : [SIZE=-1]FIT[/SIZE]

And so on. . .