I said a while back that I was gonna change my name due to my obscene displeasure with the final season but… nah. I’m Stamets. I love my lil gay boy and I love his lil gay family and I love the ship with the weirdly long nacelles.

  • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
    31·
    4 months ago

    Ebony D’Arkness Dementia Raven Way couldn’t have said it better herself.

    Your argument falls flat when you take the wider audience into account. If some internet stranger writes a short story revealing that Sherlock Holmes was actually the Loch Ness monster all along, nobody gives a shit. If someone discovers an unpublished manuscript written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle before his death, his words have weight.

    Fan fiction can do whatever bullshit it wants. The general public can, do, and should give greater respect to the people who created a story or those they handed their creation off too.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      41·
      4 months ago

      Don’t confuse audience reach with validity.

      Seriously, why is completely fine for old stories to have multiple versions, some contradictory, with varying degrees of reach and all be considered just as much a part of the thing as any other but not that be the case for modern stories?

      What about weird tales? All that wonderful pulpy SFF borrowed from each other and had varying degrees of consistency. We lump all of Lovecraft’s tales into a mythos, despite explicit links being rare. We also include those stories making reference to them because they’re just as much a part of the telling and retelling which made/makes them culturally significant. We don’t add all of Lovecraft’s work though as some definitely doesn’t feature in that mythos. It’s a frame for analysing some culture.

      • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
        33·
        4 months ago

        Old stories are muddied because they’re old. Authorship is lost to history.

        More recent works can be attributed to individuals or groups. Saying that anyone can ape a recent work and their schlock is just as valid as the work of the original author (or authors) is insulting to the people who worked hard to create original works.

        You want to make a work inspired by another piece of art? Go for it, people will probably respect you for doing that. That’s very, very different from writing some fan fic and screaming that your work is valid and you should be allowed to ride on someone else’s coattails.

        • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          33·
          4 months ago

          You seem really worked up by this to the point you’re strawmanning me.

          It’s culturally part of it, idk what tell you it’s just fact. Not authored by the same person, not having the same impact probably (although sometimes works by other authors outstrip the original), probably drivel, but valid all the same.

          Any other approach leads to weird inconsistencies. Like who owns a character in a group effort? generally in our legal systems a company. That company can persist beyond the involvement of all the actual authors. It makes no sense to then later exclude work they do in their own time using the same characters or settings, or ones ‘legally distinct’ but obviously the same.

          Even weirder when it’s one author who loses copyright but then writes ‘invalid’ fan work.

          Nobody creates original works, all stories are based on other stories. Sure there are degrees of similarity but drawing lines is a messy thing that even in actual law (which is not trying to be logically coherent) it takes teams to arbitrate and only draws conclusions in self-reference.