Fics are public; personal entries are private.
Layout from
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
velvetb0x.i l u x i a
08 July 2010
mood: 
fandom banzaaaai~
fandom banzaaaai~music: Coldplay - Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall
161 | comment
love is a fire * scatterheart
love is a fire * scatterheart
20 September 2014 @ 04:32 am
Fics are public; personal entries are private.
Layout from
velvetb0x.i l u x i a
08 July 2010
27 April 2012 @ 02:44 am
How authors feel about fanfiction
( Brought to my attention by![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1)
a_white_rain, pilfered in good humor for the lolz. )
Favorite part:
"I couldn’t read the ones that had the characters IN character. It freaked me out..." (Stephenie Meyer, author of the Twilight Saga)
Now excuse me while I die of laughter over in my corner here.
~
One commenter in the aforementioned article quoted Joss Whedon: "All worthy work is open to interpretations the author did not intend. Art isn't your pet - it's your kid. It grows up and talks back at you."
I find myself in agreement; true art—where the product is born from a "labor of love," where the ultimate motivation of the artist is to convey a message, where the artist invariably imparts a piece of himself in the work—true art will have enough of a "personality," indeed enough of life in it to talk back to you. Upon revisiting it years later—if the artist revisits it with open eyes and a discerning mind—the piece will perhaps even be potent enough to make the artist reconsider the very same message he imparted in a different light. Art, in a manner of speaking, can be a method in which an artist separates an idea, or emotion, or event from himself; a method in which he can lay these things out in an "impartial" or unclouded form for others, and for himself, to examine & reexamine. Of course, each piece of art will communicate itself to viewers, readers, listeners, or what-have-you, in a different manner. Consequently, the perception of each person affected will differ. This is a part of the process that the original artist has little control over, and this lack of control is something that every artist, I think, must learn to accept. When one puts out a piece of work for the public to examine & appreciate—and this is ever more true in the liberal arts, where the purpose & interpretation of these pieces are at a more abstract level in comparison to other fields—one must inevitably surrender complete and total ownership of the piece. The artist or author might be credited for the piece, but they will never again have complete authority over said piece as they used to when the piece was exclusively theirs (for their eyes only).
Perhaps a price to pay for the recognition they will get, if there is indeed a price to pay for all the things we "acquire" in life.
~
On the issue of ownership, which has given me much to ponder about these past three days:
I must inevitably begin by asking what constitutes ownership. There has been plenty of talk about copyright infringement and ownership rights regarding music, literature, media, and other artwork, particularly in the recent aftermath of the Megaupload debacle, after which shortly followed the SOPA/PIPA disaster. Corporations, through law and the government, seek to monetize art and music more than they ever have in human history: a large part of why this cluster of issues (along with its surrounding discussions) is now surfacing in the mainstream. In order to be able to charge consumers for their ever-increasing consumption of (expensive) media, these businesses must be able to claim as absolute an ownership as they can over the product. The marketing system works upon the foundation of an equivalent exchange: the buyer receives a commodity in exchange for valuable currency that the seller can accept. Of course, producing these commodities costs money: yet another factor that raises a product’s market value. In order to protect these businesses that are integral to supporting the economy—not to mention for providing food on the table of many workers—the government seeks to protect the market: in other words, to keep the money flowing. It is here that piracy becomes a "crime" punishable by law, in that it disrupts the flow and effectively robs the sellers of the money. (Whether or not the money truly makes it to the creator of the work depends on which system is in question.) Piracy as a crime stands upon the premise that one can own information and ideas—a notion that is actually rather old but never so fully realized as it is in our modern-day commercial societies.
But within this gaggle of voices carrying out layered discussions online and in our day-to-day lives, I have yet to encounter people pondering the true meaning of ownership beyond how we see it in our modern-day money-driven society. Professors, experts, intellectuals, personalities, pundits, and informed ordinary citizens have all offered us their views on copyright law and piracy, but few have truly pondered on what constitutes ownership, from which we derive copyright. When can someone say that they own a piece of work? Does a creator base their claim to ownership upon the “originality” of their piece, or story, or idea? How does a consumer know who to pay for a piece of work? Beyond the necessity of the business model, is it even appropriate for a consumer to pay for a product? (I do not, of course, presume to have read all literature on this subject, a claim which would be farfetched for anyone to utter. Perhaps I have not searched far enough; if anyone is aware of a relevant article, I would love to get my paws on it for some reading!)
Claims to ownership can most often be traced back to two major foundations, both of which have their relative points we must consider:
Thoughts are gladly welcomed. ♥ Discussions are always shiny!
P.S. Apologies for the terrible lack of citations in this essay. Above are my disorganized thoughts for which I had no idea how to find references for. ^^;;
P.P.S. Here's a video by CGPGrey on the origins of copyright:
P.P.P.S. Link to original article fixed! Sorry! /o\
( Brought to my attention by
a_white_rain, pilfered in good humor for the lolz. )Favorite part:
"I couldn’t read the ones that had the characters IN character. It freaked me out..." (Stephenie Meyer, author of the Twilight Saga)
Now excuse me while I die of laughter over in my corner here.
One commenter in the aforementioned article quoted Joss Whedon: "All worthy work is open to interpretations the author did not intend. Art isn't your pet - it's your kid. It grows up and talks back at you."
I find myself in agreement; true art—where the product is born from a "labor of love," where the ultimate motivation of the artist is to convey a message, where the artist invariably imparts a piece of himself in the work—true art will have enough of a "personality," indeed enough of life in it to talk back to you. Upon revisiting it years later—if the artist revisits it with open eyes and a discerning mind—the piece will perhaps even be potent enough to make the artist reconsider the very same message he imparted in a different light. Art, in a manner of speaking, can be a method in which an artist separates an idea, or emotion, or event from himself; a method in which he can lay these things out in an "impartial" or unclouded form for others, and for himself, to examine & reexamine. Of course, each piece of art will communicate itself to viewers, readers, listeners, or what-have-you, in a different manner. Consequently, the perception of each person affected will differ. This is a part of the process that the original artist has little control over, and this lack of control is something that every artist, I think, must learn to accept. When one puts out a piece of work for the public to examine & appreciate—and this is ever more true in the liberal arts, where the purpose & interpretation of these pieces are at a more abstract level in comparison to other fields—one must inevitably surrender complete and total ownership of the piece. The artist or author might be credited for the piece, but they will never again have complete authority over said piece as they used to when the piece was exclusively theirs (for their eyes only).
Perhaps a price to pay for the recognition they will get, if there is indeed a price to pay for all the things we "acquire" in life.
On the issue of ownership, which has given me much to ponder about these past three days:
I must inevitably begin by asking what constitutes ownership. There has been plenty of talk about copyright infringement and ownership rights regarding music, literature, media, and other artwork, particularly in the recent aftermath of the Megaupload debacle, after which shortly followed the SOPA/PIPA disaster. Corporations, through law and the government, seek to monetize art and music more than they ever have in human history: a large part of why this cluster of issues (along with its surrounding discussions) is now surfacing in the mainstream. In order to be able to charge consumers for their ever-increasing consumption of (expensive) media, these businesses must be able to claim as absolute an ownership as they can over the product. The marketing system works upon the foundation of an equivalent exchange: the buyer receives a commodity in exchange for valuable currency that the seller can accept. Of course, producing these commodities costs money: yet another factor that raises a product’s market value. In order to protect these businesses that are integral to supporting the economy—not to mention for providing food on the table of many workers—the government seeks to protect the market: in other words, to keep the money flowing. It is here that piracy becomes a "crime" punishable by law, in that it disrupts the flow and effectively robs the sellers of the money. (Whether or not the money truly makes it to the creator of the work depends on which system is in question.) Piracy as a crime stands upon the premise that one can own information and ideas—a notion that is actually rather old but never so fully realized as it is in our modern-day commercial societies.
But within this gaggle of voices carrying out layered discussions online and in our day-to-day lives, I have yet to encounter people pondering the true meaning of ownership beyond how we see it in our modern-day money-driven society. Professors, experts, intellectuals, personalities, pundits, and informed ordinary citizens have all offered us their views on copyright law and piracy, but few have truly pondered on what constitutes ownership, from which we derive copyright. When can someone say that they own a piece of work? Does a creator base their claim to ownership upon the “originality” of their piece, or story, or idea? How does a consumer know who to pay for a piece of work? Beyond the necessity of the business model, is it even appropriate for a consumer to pay for a product? (I do not, of course, presume to have read all literature on this subject, a claim which would be farfetched for anyone to utter. Perhaps I have not searched far enough; if anyone is aware of a relevant article, I would love to get my paws on it for some reading!)
Claims to ownership can most often be traced back to two major foundations, both of which have their relative points we must consider:
1) Originality—defined as belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning; arising or proceeding independently of anything else. This term might be easy for us to conceive, as we use it on a daily basis—but upon closer examination, the very notion becomes complicated. When analyzed and deconstructed, everything we know is a variation upon something, are they not? Ideas stem from other, older ideas. “New” and “fresh” and “innovative” approaches to problems are fine-tuned conglomerations of past solutions to individual little aspects of the big problem, put together into a well-oiled and working whole.
Take an example that is most familiar with those involved in fandom: fanfiction. Apart from “borrowing” characters—and, indeed, the “universe”—from the original work, the fanfic writer also takes themes, ideas, sometimes characters, sometimes whole settings and scenes from other works. Say a Harry Potter fanfiction uses lore on fairies or vampires; those are derived from ancient stories passed down by word of mouth, which is then mixed in with hints of pop culture, literature (I’ve seen enough of Shakespearean deaths in fanfics not to believe in this), themes from movies, maybe even TV shows, art, music… so precisely how much of this work is truly “original”?
How much of any work is truly “original”? Published works such as the aforementioned Harry Potter series draw from other works (C.S. Lewis & Tolkien, anyone?). Those works draw from even older works: medieval literature, Greek and Roman mythology, old legends, folk tales, parables… and these things, as all things do, draw from life. (Real art draws from life—a communal experience as we know it—and this is what makes art relevant.)
The very definition of originality—“arising or proceeding independently of anything else”—makes it a problematic concept. I cannot conceive of anything truly independent from anything else in our world, which somewhat echoes that old Biblical verse warning us that there is “nothing new under the sun.”
So if point #1 will not work, what comes to mind is:
2) The human effort and time poured into the creation of a piece—which can engender in the creator intense feelings of attachment and territoriality, or an unwillingness to “allow others in.” The latter may be further broken down into a) perfectionist urges or tendencies, b) avoidance of a possible change in their perception of their work that may be forced upon them by the “others” they refuse to let in, and c) the desire for credit or sole recognition for the work.
Most of us have had endeavors in some form of “creative” effort, whether it is literature, visual art, poetry, moviemaking, and music. We are all aware of the degree of dedication it entails to create a work worthy of showcasing to the world. More than vague issues with semantics (the true meaning of originality & whatnot), this emotional attachment might be the true culprit behind our tightfisted treatment of what we perceive as “our works” (or perhaps more appropriately termed as “the fruits of our labor”). In the past, I have been very critical of authors who spoke against fanfiction, but recently realized how hypocritical I must have sounded to those who suffered through my rants (sorry, Twinness). The most amazing fanfic archive, Archive Of Our Own (or AO3 to its savvy users), made me realize precisely how much I myself am guilty of indulging in the same territorial urges when a reader suggested that I transfer some of my older aborted works from FanFiction.Net to AO3 and “orphan” them, so that other enterprising fanfic writers may continue them. Suffice it to say that my knee-jerk reaction to that comment was not an agreeable one.
But does putting in the effort to pull together different ideas and blend them into a “new” form entitle the “creator” to call the work their own? Is this a sufficient basis for ownership? Our market says yes; this is why we pay musicians for their music, moviemakers for Hollywood hits, writers for their “groundbreaking” fiction, or traditional artists for their “unique” art pieces. When does it change from “the work of [insert creator here], edited / rearranged / reinterpreted / amended by [insert your name here]” to “the work of [insert your name here], inspired by the work of [other creator here]”?
Take an example that is most familiar with those involved in fandom: fanfiction. Apart from “borrowing” characters—and, indeed, the “universe”—from the original work, the fanfic writer also takes themes, ideas, sometimes characters, sometimes whole settings and scenes from other works. Say a Harry Potter fanfiction uses lore on fairies or vampires; those are derived from ancient stories passed down by word of mouth, which is then mixed in with hints of pop culture, literature (I’ve seen enough of Shakespearean deaths in fanfics not to believe in this), themes from movies, maybe even TV shows, art, music… so precisely how much of this work is truly “original”?
How much of any work is truly “original”? Published works such as the aforementioned Harry Potter series draw from other works (C.S. Lewis & Tolkien, anyone?). Those works draw from even older works: medieval literature, Greek and Roman mythology, old legends, folk tales, parables… and these things, as all things do, draw from life. (Real art draws from life—a communal experience as we know it—and this is what makes art relevant.)
The very definition of originality—“arising or proceeding independently of anything else”—makes it a problematic concept. I cannot conceive of anything truly independent from anything else in our world, which somewhat echoes that old Biblical verse warning us that there is “nothing new under the sun.”
So if point #1 will not work, what comes to mind is:
2) The human effort and time poured into the creation of a piece—which can engender in the creator intense feelings of attachment and territoriality, or an unwillingness to “allow others in.” The latter may be further broken down into a) perfectionist urges or tendencies, b) avoidance of a possible change in their perception of their work that may be forced upon them by the “others” they refuse to let in, and c) the desire for credit or sole recognition for the work.
Most of us have had endeavors in some form of “creative” effort, whether it is literature, visual art, poetry, moviemaking, and music. We are all aware of the degree of dedication it entails to create a work worthy of showcasing to the world. More than vague issues with semantics (the true meaning of originality & whatnot), this emotional attachment might be the true culprit behind our tightfisted treatment of what we perceive as “our works” (or perhaps more appropriately termed as “the fruits of our labor”). In the past, I have been very critical of authors who spoke against fanfiction, but recently realized how hypocritical I must have sounded to those who suffered through my rants (sorry, Twinness). The most amazing fanfic archive, Archive Of Our Own (or AO3 to its savvy users), made me realize precisely how much I myself am guilty of indulging in the same territorial urges when a reader suggested that I transfer some of my older aborted works from FanFiction.Net to AO3 and “orphan” them, so that other enterprising fanfic writers may continue them. Suffice it to say that my knee-jerk reaction to that comment was not an agreeable one.
But does putting in the effort to pull together different ideas and blend them into a “new” form entitle the “creator” to call the work their own? Is this a sufficient basis for ownership? Our market says yes; this is why we pay musicians for their music, moviemakers for Hollywood hits, writers for their “groundbreaking” fiction, or traditional artists for their “unique” art pieces. When does it change from “the work of [insert creator here], edited / rearranged / reinterpreted / amended by [insert your name here]” to “the work of [insert your name here], inspired by the work of [other creator here]”?
Thoughts are gladly welcomed. ♥ Discussions are always shiny!
P.S. Apologies for the terrible lack of citations in this essay. Above are my disorganized thoughts for which I had no idea how to find references for. ^^;;
P.P.S. Here's a video by CGPGrey on the origins of copyright:
P.P.P.S. Link to original article fixed! Sorry! /o\
mood: 
thoughtful
thoughtfulmusic: Zaz - Je veux
28 February 2012 @ 11:10 am
To commemorate the upcoming 1st anniversary of the unprecedented 2011 Great Tohoku earthquake-tsunami and the subsequent nuclear meltdown of the first three reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, NPR (National Public Radio) is airing a special investigative report that details the events of that disastrous day in Japanese history. Journalists have only been recently allowed into the highly radioactive Fukushima Daiichi power plant, and this journalist is one of the few who were there. The program will begin at 1100 CST and will be livestreaming here. (If you miss it, you'll still be able to listen to it as a podcast. It is the Tuesday, 28 Feb 2012 show.)
All of my thoughts & feelings go out to the Japanese people, as does my wholehearted admiration of how graceful & dignified they as a people have handled their situation. Truly a model for the rest of the world to emulate! Whenever I think of that calamity today, I still feel the same gut-wrenching dread that defies the whispering of my logical brain: despite the fact of Japan's momentous recovery from the Hiroshima & Nagasaki tragedies of WWII, I fear for their country & people. I have always loved their culture & the true national identity that they stand for, which is something one does not see often in today's very incongruous & increasingly global modernized societies.
In the true fashion of an otaku in full fantardery, I shall believe in Japan's power to survive & overcome. We have seen it before, and we shall see it again. And in closing, I leave good news to my fellow fantards in the form of a well-worn quote: "All true great art is born from great suffering." We all eagerly await the windfall. >')
mood: 
coffeeee
coffeeeemusic: Bjork - Moon
26 January 2012 @ 03:56 pm
Title: A Web of Pearls
Writer:iluxia
Words: 4,100 (excluding lengthy footnotes)
Rating(s): PG-13 for some frightening themes.
Pairs/Characters: Doumeki/Watanuki (established, past, hinted); Watanuki-introspective. Platonic Watanuki/Yuuko.
Prompt: Response tohundred_wishes Prompt #062: Spider, and also to Prompt Challenge #002: Crossover. It isn't really a crossover, but plenty of the themes reference to other fandoms, because I'm a geek like that. See footnotes.
( 'He knows better, he truly knows better. But when he catches sight of her, he steps in.' In which Watanuki succumbs to temptation and his lonely heart. )
( Footnotes & afterthoughts. )
Apologies for the crossover-happy, overly lengthy, and nerdily charged footnotes. Please feel free to skip; the story reads fine without them! I am simply assuming that plenty of you are all geeks and nerds like me; quite correctly, I'm sure! 8)
A gift toaventria because the idea of a hitobashira creeps the living shits out of her, and also because I so wrote this for her so she could read the footnotes. She is adorable in her Japanese lore/culture cluelessness. ♥
Writer:
iluxiaWords: 4,100 (excluding lengthy footnotes)
Rating(s): PG-13 for some frightening themes.
Pairs/Characters: Doumeki/Watanuki (established, past, hinted); Watanuki-introspective. Platonic Watanuki/Yuuko.
Prompt: Response to
hundred_wishes Prompt #062: Spider, and also to Prompt Challenge #002: Crossover. It isn't really a crossover, but plenty of the themes reference to other fandoms, because I'm a geek like that. See footnotes.( 'He knows better, he truly knows better. But when he catches sight of her, he steps in.' In which Watanuki succumbs to temptation and his lonely heart. )
( Footnotes & afterthoughts. )
Apologies for the crossover-happy, overly lengthy, and nerdily charged footnotes. Please feel free to skip; the story reads fine without them! I am simply assuming that plenty of you are all geeks and nerds like me; quite correctly, I'm sure! 8)
A gift to
aventria because the idea of a hitobashira creeps the living shits out of her, and also because I so wrote this for her so she could read the footnotes. She is adorable in her Japanese lore/culture cluelessness. ♥mood: darned footnotes
darned footnotesmusic: Tsukiko Amano - Koe
20 January 2012 @ 07:11 am
/trolls viciously.