mouthporn.net
#literature – @ultralaser on Tumblr
Avatar

ultralaser

@ultralaser / ultralaser.tumblr.com

peak hatemail [ choosy moms choose gif ] long and prosper, baby
Avatar
Avatar
ironbite4

Teachers have tried this and are amazed when their classes don’t go feral like in the book.  It’s almost as if the book was supposed to be satire and not a treaty on the nature of humanity.

there’s a timeskip

THERE’S A TIMESKIP

THERE’S A TIMESKIP

THERE’S A TIMESKIP

after losing control of the signal fire there’s a FUCKING TIMESKIP and when the next chapter starts everyone’s hair is several inches longer and their clothes have rotted to shreds and they’re still just kind of chilling!!!!

IT TAKES THE TERRIBLE IMPERIALISM MIND-POISONED EXCESSIVELY BRITISH BOYS IN THE ACTUAL BOOK SEVERAL MONTHS TO COMMIT A SINGLE ACT OF INTENTIONAL VIOLENCE, EVEN THE ONE (1) CHILD WRITTEN AS AN ACTUAL SOCIOPATH

AND then when they DO turn on each other it is because

THERE’S AN UNSPECIFIED WORLD WAR HAPPENING

AND A PILOT’S CORPSE CRASH LANDS ON THE ISLAND POST-DOGFIGHT AND THE CHILDREN MISTAKE THE PARACHUTE FOR A MONSTER AND SPIRAL INTO PARANOIA

BECAUSE CHILDREN INHERIT THE LEGACY AND TRAUMA OF VIOLENCE FROM THE ADULTS WAGING WAR AROUND THEM

HURR DURR IN THE REAL WORLD IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN LIKE IN LORD OF THE FLIES -

IT DIDN’T HAPPEN THAT WAY IN LORD OF THE FLIES EITHER YOU JUST HAVEN’T READ IT SINCE HIGH SCHOOL IF EVER AND DON’T REMEMBER WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE GODDAMN BOOK

yes. yes he did. i’m also gonna direct you to the real life ‘lord of the flies’ which occured in the 1960s, when six tongan schoolboys got stranded on a desert island for over a year before being rescued by an australian fisherman (who, it should be noted, later took on all six as crewmembers because the reason they were out in the first place was because they wanted to see the world, and named his ship the Ata after the island they were stranded on). nobody died. the only injuries that occurred were accidental, and when one of the boys broke his leg falling down a cliff, the others braced it and looked after him so well that it healed perfectly. if they argued, then they would literally go to opposite sides of the island until they’d cooled off. after leaving the island, they remained friends for the rest of their lives. here’s a photo of them as adults, with their rescuer (who is third from the left) and other members of his crew.

i read about this in rutger bregman’s human kind, a book i cannot recommend highly enough, but if you don’t want to go and read a whole book about the inherent goodness of humanity (which again, you really should) then the relevant excerpt can be found here.

Avatar

Went outside my fandom bubble and saw people being cancelled for shipping two characters who tried to kill each other once damn is this the limit nowadays

Trying to kill each other is a reason to START shipping characters

Murder attempt to lovers

Avatar
ultralaser

"you can't ship ppl who tried to kill each other" okay but like, that is THE ACTUAL PLOT OF THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH

THE FIRST RECORDED STORY WAS AN ENEMIES TO LOVERS FIC. THAT TROPE IS LITERALLY AS OLD AS THE WRITTEN WORD

Avatar

male gaze is not 'when person look sexy' or 'when misogynist make film'

death of the author is not 'miku wrote this'

I don't think you have to read either essay to grasp the basic concepts

death of the author means that once a work is complete, what the author believes it to mean is irrelevant to critical analysis of what's in the text. it means when analysing the meaning of a text you prioritise reader interpretation above author intention, and that an interpretation can hold valid meaning even if it's utterly unintentional on the part of the person who created the thing. it doesn't mean 'i can ignore that the person who made this is a bigot' - it may in fact often mean 'this piece of art holds a lot of bigoted meanings that the author probably wasn't intentionally trying to convey but did anyway, and it's worth addressing that on its own terms regardless of whether the author recognises it's there.' it's important to understand because most artists are not consciously and vocally aware of all the possible meanings of their art, and because art is communal and interpretive. and because what somebody thinks they mean, what you think somebody means, and what a text is saying to you are three entirely different things and it's important to be able to tell the difference.

male gaze is a cinematographic theory on how films construct subjectivity (ie who you identify with and who you look at). it argues that film language assumes that the watcher is a (cis straight white hegemonically normative) man, and treats men as relatable subjects and women as unknowable objects - men as people with interior lives and women as things to be looked at or interacted with but not related to. this includes sexual objectification and voyeurism, but it doesn't mean 'finding a lady sexy' or 'looking with a sexual lens', it means the ways in which visual languages strip women of interiority and encourage us to understand only men as relatable people. it's important to understand this because not all related gaze theories are sexual in nature and if you can't get a grip on male gaze beyond 'sexual imagery', you're really going to struggle with concepts of white or abled or cis subjectivities.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
baeddel

the phrase ‘death of the author’ is quite common in discussions of books these days, or anything else, although most people certainly use it to mean something other than what Barthes meant by it. what most people mean by ‘death of the author’ is that the author doesn’t have the final say on what their writing means, so appealing to what the author intended to say is not acceptable. well, i might not disagree with that, but its a much older notion, and has an older name, 'the intentional fallacy.' christened by Wimsatt & Beardsley in 1946, summarizing the argument as so: "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art" (1).

they also coined the term 'the affective fallacy', which is sort of the opposite: judging a work in terms of its effect on the reader. their coinages are a bit mean-spirited. they call it a 'fallacy', so anyone who disagrees with them looks like a moron. they're not really fallacies—it is entirely lawful to disagree with Wimsatt & Beardsley about intention and affect. anyway, the reason they want to eliminate intention and affect from discussion is that they were part of the New Critical school and their philosophy was that a work of art is entirely confined to its objective formal-structural qualities. nobody talks about art that way anymore, and Barthes makes a dismissive quip about them in Death of the Author ("the new criticism has often done no more than to consolidate [the Author]", 3).

Barthes actually doesn't eliminate authorial intention in Death of the Author. his 'scriptor' (a replacement for the term Author, which i don't think he ever uses again) is still an organizing presence within the text. they have a design or intention—which all writers must do, apart from NovelAI—and whether or not it's available or desirable as an object of criticism doesn't come up. Barthes' point is rather that writers of narratives or poetry, in adopting a narrative or poetical voice, can only speak in a castrated way; they abdicate their own speech and speak as someone else, or something else: the dense literary system of codes. tropes, devices. even in a first-person account, when the author writes "I thought . . .", we are aware that they are not reporting their own real thoughts, but are relating a character's thoughts. or, if it is an authorial intrusion into a third person text, we don't think the author is really interrupting the narrative because they must say something which they really believe—we recognize it is a device, the device known as 'authorial intrusion', which accomplishes a certain prose effect. the moment we depart from the preface and journey into chapter one we lose access to the author's own, real voice. you see what i'm saying? it's not the critic that kills the author—it's the author.

today this is a much less surprising point, and most books assume you understand it. most of you have read Homestuck, or Umineko, or anything else which makes complicated use of literary devices. readers are not confused by them. in fact, it's hard to imagine being confused by it. but there was a time when people did seem to be very confused about what was happening in these books. even in the 1980s Gerard Genette is devoting some ink to explain to other critics that Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu is not a reliable source of biographical information about Proust. there is a great book called Revisiting the Waste Land by Lawrence Rainey, which is a long treatment of T. S. Eliot's the Waste Land (i know, i never shut up about that one) using some combination of paleography, reception studies and literary criticism. in the last chapter, which is all about the poem's contemporary reception, Lawrence quotes most of a letter a guy called John Peale Bishop sent his friend "Bunny" after reading the Waste Land where he talks through his struggle to understand it. among his confusions, Lawrence writes, "he is clearly entertaining two different, perhaps incompatible readings of the poem: he is convinced that it represents a certain reckoning with the modern world [. . .], but is also predisposed to view it in very traditional terms that regard lyrical poetry as a form of autobiography, a rehearsal of personal experience" (106).

Bishop ends his last letter on the subject with the amusing conclusion that "Thomas’s sexual troubles are undoubtedly extreme." other contemporary reviews of the poem encounter the same problem, trying to grasp it as both social commentary and lyric poetry. neither are really appropriate to the Waste Land—it's an artifact of how people read poetry in the period. Edmund Wilson writes that "I say, Mr. Eliot is a poet—that is, he feels intensely and with distinction and speaks naturally in beautiful verse" (111). feeling intensely is offered as a definition of 'poet', here. so if you can't access the poet's feelings and treat the poem as direct speech, you can't even call it poetry. this is the kind of criticism that Barthes is attacking in Death of the Author: the idea that works of art are expressions of an author's personal feelings, or their genius, or their life story. He writes, "[t]he image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centered on the author, his person, his life, his tastes, his passions" (3). which he calls 'capitalist ideology'!

really, we should probably never hear the phrase 'death of the author' today, because the kind of criticism that Barthes is attacking in that essay is so outmoded, so old fashioned, that it is by now extremely strange to us. i think the reason it has currency is that Barthes is French, and French men of letters get associated with a kind of extreme skepticism, even when it's inappropriate. meanwhile, all discussions about art are haunted by spectres of skepticism. what if i like different things than you? what if i intepret it differently? i think, like Kant, that aesthetic judgements cannot be justified. it is in all cases mere personal preference, up to unqualified interpretation, and anything else is hocus pocus. because i think that's true, then i must think it's true for everyone, not only me and my judgements—i think it's an objective fact about the evaluation of art. because of this fact, anyone who attempts to talk about art will be driven insane, trying to come up with justifications for claims for which justification is a priori impossible. they are like Don Quixote, jousting windmills. and if you are Don Quixote, jousting windmills, you'll need a Sancho Panza to doubt you, who may as well be Roland Barthes.

Avatar

the english major bit in question was some famous author was at a discussion of the themes in his own work and said ‘wait i didn’t put that in there’ and the critic shushed him with ‘quiet, you are just the author’

and frankly, like, yeah

you aren’t doing themes consciously most of the time, that kind of stuff comes from the unconscious and it’s up to readers to tease out what that work says about the world into which it was created

Avatar

As promised, here’s the masterpost of names once considered “made up” or otherwise bizarre that are perfectly cromulent today: 

  • Shirley: Derived from a place name meaning “bright clearing”, this was originally a surname. It was almost unheard of as a given name until actress Shirley Temple’s popularity engendered a huge spike, around 1935. 
  • Vanessa: Invented by Jonathan Swift in 1726 for his poem “Cadenus and Vanessa”. 
  • Madison: An English surname meaning “son of Maud”, it was almost completely unheard of as a first name (at least for girls) until the movie Splash
  • Ashley: A surname derived from the Old English for “ash tree clearing”. An exclusively male name until the 1960s. 
  • Beverly: Another place surname, this one meaning “beaver stream”. Used for boys since the 19th century, became popular for girls after the 1904 novel Beverly of Graustark
  • Lorelei: A rock headland on the Rhine. 
  • Eleanor: Literally “the other Aenor”. More here
  • Percival: Invented by 12th-century poet Chrétien de Troyes. 
  • Jessica: Invented by Shakespeare in 1596, possibly based on the Hebrew Jescha
  • Lucinda: A variant of Lucia first used by Miguel de Cervantes in Don Quixote (1605). 
  • Norma: Seldom used before 1831, when it was popularized by Felice Romani’s opera of the same name.
  • Elaine: Popularized after Tennyson’s Arthurian epic Idylls of the King (1859). 
  • Nemo: Means “nobody” in Latin. First used as a name by Jules Verne in Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1870).

There’s plenty more where that came from. This is merely a sample to indicate that there’s no need to clutch your pearls over the crazy names “moms these days” are making up. “Making it up out of thin air” or “pointing to a nearby object” are as historically legitimate a means of naming your child as anything else. 

Avatar
Avatar
neoflect

rather than death of the author i subscribe to a critical framework i like to refer to as Schrodinger’s Author where the authors intentions are important except for when i dont like them

Avatar
Avatar
marxman95
“The Grapes of Wrath was written because Steinbeck stole the notes of a hardworking Dust Bowl-era journalist named Sanora Babb, who was trying to write her own book. When she finally had a chance to pitch it, she found that the market was overpowered by a successful book—based entirely on her notes. When Steinbeck saw the things in person that he later wrote about, he couldn’t stand to look at it for more than a day. Babb spent much of her career working with and chronicling impoverished farmers. Her book wasn’t published until the year before she died. In 2004. She would be a household name if not for the theft.”

Fuck you, Steinbeck. (via theangelofbucephalon)

Steinbeck based his book on reports made by Sanora Babb (leaked to him by her boss, Tom Collins, to whom Grapes of Wrath is dedicated). Sanora Babb was planning to write her own book, but Steinbeck published before she did. Babb was told that the market could not bear another on the same subject. Her book, ‘Whose Names are Unknown’, was finally published in 2004. I haven’t read either book yet, but am now definitely going to be reading ‘Whose Names are Unknown’ soon. Babb’s novel is described as showing how by re-creating rudimentary democratic practices the refugees restructure their lives as a unified community, resisting violent discrimination. In ‘Whose Names are Unknown’, we hear the whole powerful story from the point of view of a woman who had actual experience with both the origin and the destination of the migrants.

Sanora Babb was a member of the US Communist Party in the 1930s and 40s, dropped out of the party due to the authoritarian structure and in-fighting.

(via jinerviet)

here are some sources, in case you were looking for them

HOLY SHIT

(via cearbhal)

so that’s fitzgerald, and now steinbeck outed as thieves, who stole the intellectual property of women to write their “masterpieces”. i’m sure there are many more examples of male theft from women in the literary domain, probably as many thefts as in the sciences. men are pathetic, talentless pieces of shit. 

Avatar
ultralaser

I THOUGHT ACADEMIA TOOK A FIRM STANCE AGAINST PLAGIARISM

Avatar
Avatar
tariqah

Man writer: Describes the nipples of a 17 year old in detail

The literary world: If we don’t give this man a booker prize we will literally die

Avatar
sophrosynic

This reminds me that they literally cancelled the Nobel Prize for Literature this year because several men in the academy were accused of harassment and assault, and YET ppl want to talk abt how shitty books written by men are “””classics””” because they’re “””””highly acclaimed”””” when the ppl who laud this shit are just misogynists and harassers who see their behaviour reflected and validated in this stuff.

And I’m getting vagued for pointing this out

Avatar

stop telling girls interested in lit that they need to read these great american classics by violent misogynists in order for their opinions to be valid or for their minds to be developed

Stop telling girls who’ve already read misogynistic pieces that their opinions aren’t valid if they thought the book was shit

Avatar

Rant about fanfiction writing

I was just informed by my brother (who thinks he’s a better writer than anyone else because he has some fancy degree in writing) that fanfiction “doesn’t count” as “real writing” because you aren’t using your own “ideas.”

He doesn’t know that I write fanfiction. He probably wouldn’t have admitted his opinion if her did. But it has pretty much solidified that I will never tell anyone I know in person what I write.

I’ve already been told by several family members that my obsession with a “stupid tv show” is ridiculous and that I’m “too old” to fangirl.

Sigh. /rant

In Defense of Fanfiction

I am a professional writer and editor in real life. I have a double degree in English and writing and am currently in school once more to obtain a master’s degree. If your brother’s fancy writing degree was worth anything at all, he should be able to admit that the vast majority of all literature is in fact fanfiction of someone else’s story and its elements. In other words, no one’s idea is, by definition, original.

Let’s take a look at just a few examples to support my theory that some of the most important or well-known pieces of literature ever created qualify as fanfiction:

Ancient/Old Literature

·        Around 2000 BCE: The Epic of Gilgamesh was inspired as a fanfiction of a historical King of Uruk, mixed with Mesopotamian mythology. The story includes the character Utnapishtim, who lives through a world-wide flood by building a ship per the instructions of the god Enki and ultimately landing on a mountain in the Middle East, similar to Noah’s story from the Bible (dates for the book of Genesis vary anywhere from 1400 BCE to 800 BCE). Many historians suggest that the story of Noah was directly inspired by Gilgamesh’s story of Utnapishtim. Other historians suggest the two were simply inspired by a similar source. Either way, there’s too many startling overlaps to classify Utnapishtim and Noah as only a coincidence.

·        20-ish BCE: The Roman author Virgil wrote The Aeneid, which is a direct sequel to the previously created epic The Iliad attributed to Greek bard Homer. Virgil was also known for writing pastoral poems based off and inspired by the work of the great poet Theocritus (280 BCE). As a fun addition, Theocritus himself was known for rewriting the cyclops villain (Polyphemus) of Homer’s Odyssey into a love-sick idiot in his work, Idyll XI.

Medieval Era (500-1500-ish CE)

·        700-1000: The Alphabet of ben Sirach was an anonymous Hebrew collection of satires that included a parody of the biblical Genesis story of Adam and Eve. The story gave Adam a totally different wife by the name of Lilith, the character of which was inspired by Babylonian mythology. The whole of the collection is additionally wrapped in a fictional account of telling the stories to the historical figure of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar—another real person fanfiction of a celebrity from that time.

·        Around 1000: The world’s first novel, The Tale of Genji by Lady Murasaki Shikibu, inspired the massive outpouring of Japanese Noh theater plays involving characters from the novel, such as Aoi no Ue (Lady Aoi), which has been attributed to a few people (Zeami Motokiyo and Inuo). This play appropriates the Lady Aoi from Shikibu’s psychological novel to explore her death and is only one example of the available fanfictions of the novel.

·        1308-1320: Dante’s Divine Comedy (known most famously for the Inferno) is a literal OC self-insertion of the Italian Dante Alighieri himself into the hell, purgatory and heaven from Catholic / biblical texts. Its format is in an epic, in an attempt to outdo the Aeneid and Iliad before it. It also includes an insertion of a ghostly Virgil, who copied the Iliad to write the Aeneid. Furthermore, Dante’s work includes insertions of real historical people that Dante didn’t like. It’s possibly the most self-indulgent fanfiction ever created while also being named one of the greatest poems in literature.

·        1392: Geoffrey Chaucer (known as the father of English literature) wrote a  famous collection called The Canterbury Tales. The collection takes its basic format and inspiration from Italian author Giovanni Boccaccio’s The Decameron (written in 1351). It’s suggested that some of the tales Chaucer uses actually originated from Boccaccio’s work.

Renaissance Era (1550-1660-ish CE)

·        1590: English poet Edmund Spenser borrowed the legend of Arthur of the Round Table in his epic poem, The Faerie Queene. In it, Arthur is pretty love-sick over the fairy queen.

·        1597: English playwright Shakespeare borrowed various mythologies and historical figures and mixed them together. Not even his most popular play, Romeo and Juliet, was original. He took the idea from a poem written by Arthur Brooke in 1562, called, “The Tragicall Hystorye of Romeus and Iuliet.” Even more interesting, Brooke had taken his idea from the 1554 Giulietta e Romeo by Italian author Matteo Bandello. (Shakespeare repeatedly sourced other people’s ideas or historical existence for his plays.)

Enlightenment Era (1660-1789)

·        1667: English poet John Milton wrote Paradise Lost, a fanfiction epic of the biblical story in the book of Genesis about the fall of creation and humankind into imperfection.

·        1712: English poet Alexander Pope wrote a mock-heroic epic called the Rape of the Lock to make fun of all the serious epic writers before him, borrowing such images as the way epic warriors put on armor and connecting it to the way rich people put on rich clothing and jewelry. He used other standard epic elements as repeated throughout The Iliad, Aeneid, and so forth.

·        1759: French writer and inventor, Voltaire, wrote a satire Candide. It borrowed various elements from Tales from a Thousand and One Arabian Nights, a collection of Middle Eastern folktales from the Islamic Golden Age.

Romantic Era (1789-1850)

·        1819: In Don Juan, English poet Lord Byron took the pre-dated legend of Don Juan, which was about a man who seduced a lot of women, and reversed the original plot so that Don Juan ended up seduced by a lot of women.

·        1820: English poet John Keats wrote a poem as a retelling of the Greek mythological creature called Lamia, which was a half-woman and half-monster (description varies depending on the Greek source). A lot of his works borrowed heavily from Greek mythology and literature, and he idolized the English Renaissance poet Edmund Spenser, to a point where his first work was called, “Imitation of Spenser” (1814). In it, he borrowed various images from Spenser’s epic, The Faerie Queene.

·        1843: English writer Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol, based off the various stories compiled in the 1841 and 1842 The Lowell Offering, a publication magazine written by a group of intellectual but mostly anonymous women. He borrowed the certain pieces of plot, language, and descriptions for Scrooge’s ghostly encounters from the stories “A Visit from Hope” (anonymous), “Happiness” (anonymous), and “Memory and Hope” (by someone named Ellen). A Christmas Carol is additionally littered with biblical allusions all over the place.

·        1844: French writer Alexander Dumas borrowed The Three Musketeers, as well as many of the story’s side-characters, from The Memoirs of Monsieur d'Artagnan by French author Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras. He didn’t even change the names or who the villain, the Cardinal, was.

·        1845: American author Edgar Allan Poe wrote The Thousand and Second Tale of Scheherazade, in which he has the mythical Scheherazade from the Tales from a Thousand and One Arabian Nights telling another story about the legendary Sinbad the Sailor.  

·        1861: Hungarian author Imre Madach wrote The Tragedy of Man, which reverses the biblical moral principles of God and Satan: In this story, God is the violent and evil ruler, and Satan is the jaded/trickster victim just trying to open humanity’s eyes to the truth.  

Modern Era (1900ish-1950s)

·        1922: Irish novelist James Joyce wrote his stream-of-consciousness novel Ulysses, which was based off of Homer’s Odyssey, to a point where he took the characters and simply renamed them, as well as aligned the structure of his book to the various episodes in Homer’s work.

·        1930: The Nancy Drew series was created under the penname Carolyn Keene, who did not exist. Instead, an American man named Edward Stratemeyer would write three pages of a story, then send it to one of several ghostwriters who wanted to write Nancy Drew. The ghostwriter would take the story and expand it. The anonymous group of ghostwriters all writing about the same character still exists today. Each individual ghostwriter has made changes to Nancy’s personality, looks, and age, as well as the type of plots said character engages in.

·        1937: English writer JRR Tolkien wrote The Hobbit and then Lord of the Rings in the 1950s. He borrowed the names of characters and places after those seen in the Icelandic sagas Poetic Edda and Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson. Tolkien admitted he based the physical appearance of Gandalf off of the Norse god Odin. He modeled the character of Aragorn directly after Beowulf, from the old English epic (700-1000 BCE) Beowulf. Aragorn himself even paraphrases the Anglo-Saxon poem, “The Wanderer,” as an example of a verse created by his people of Rohan. Another fun fact is that Tolkien specifically borrowed the phrase “my precious,” from a Middle English poem called Pearl. Additionally, Tolkien was a big fan of romantic prose/poetry writer William Morris and wanted to write like him, so he borrowed a lot of phrases, aesthetics, and even names from such works like the 1888 The House of the Wolfings by Morris, including the place called “Mirkwood.” Of curious note is that Morris’s work was massively influenced by Virgil’s Aeneid.

·        1938: African-American author Richard Wright wrote a collection of stories called Uncle Tom’s Children, with an obvious borrowing of the title from Uncle Tom’s Cabin, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1852.

·        1930s-present: DC and Marvel comics mostly just updated the mythological gods and goddesses for a modern era, appropriating their names, special relics, and abilities for their heroes, and then mixing them with some modern-day cover identifies. As an example, Wonder Woman was originally a nod to the Greek goddess Diana, a nod to the female Amazon warriors, and a redesigned image of Rosie the Riveter. As another example, the Flash is a reproduction of the Greek god Hermes, his winged helmet further clarifying the connection. Even the name Superman was not entirely original. 1938 Illustrator of Superman, Joe Shuster, took the name “Superman” from the German “Ubermensh,” a term coined by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. As a final example, sometimes the appropriation from mythology is incredibly obvious, as in the case of Thor.

·        1949: English author George Orwell reviewed a book called We by Russian author Yevgeny Zamyatin. He wrote a rave review on it and declared that he would try to write something similar, which ultimately became 1984, sharing many similar plot points and concepts while bringing the story of We into a more realistic environment. The novel We also inspired Ayn Rand’s Anthem and Kurt Vonnegut’s Player Piano, for which Vonnegut admitted he also borrowed concepts from Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

·        1950s: The Chronicles of Narnia by British author C.S. Lewis was based on biblical stories conveyed through various mythological elements as well.

Postmodern Era (1950s-Present, debatably)

·        1977: African-American author, Toni Morrison, wrote a critically acclaimed novel called Song of Solomon, which took its title name, as well as the names of several characters and plot points, from the Bible.

·        1988: British-Indian author Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was inspired by the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammed. Its title is a direct reference to controversial verses once placed in the Quran but then removed. These highly controversial and sensitive connections to Islamic and Old Testament personalities of Gabriel and Satan resulted in the banning of Rushdie’s book from several regions.  

·        1997-2007: The Harry Potter series by British author JK Rowling borrows heavily from historical alchemy, including the age-old legend of the philosopher’s stone and the 1652 book Culpeper’s Complete Herbal, which was about the medicinal and occult properties of plants, which helped her build how magic was used in her stories. Rowling also admits the 1652 book inspired many of the character’s names. She appropriates several historical figures as well for her own purposes (as a sort of real-person fanfiction), including references to alchemists Nicolas Flammel and Paracelsus. She even admits to, while writing Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, dreaming about Flammel showing her how to make a philosopher’s stone.

·        2003: American author Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code and its twisting conspiracies are based almost entirely on the books of Margaret Starbird, most of which were written between 1993 and 2003.

·        2009:  Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by American author Seth Grahame-Smith, is a rehashing of Jane Austen’s 1813 Pride and Prejudice. But with zombies.

·        2015: American writer of critically acclaimed The Outsiders, S.E. Hinton, claims that she has posted anonymous fanfictions of her own novel, as well as at least four Supernatural fanfics, being a huge fan of the show and of the paranormal.

As a professionally educated and trained writer and editor myself, I had to study the intertextualities of several of the pieces I mentioned above. But this is not an exhaustive world list by any means and is missing some other fantastic and influential writers—I’ve included only what has come to my mind in a short time. Plots and characters and ideas have been largely passed around throughout the history of literature. Without fanfiction, a solid portion of well-known literature would not exist.   

In fact, many authors and even inventors will say that there is no such thing as an original idea. Certain pieces get touted as creative because they combine previously suggested elements in a different or thought-provoking way. (Don’t even get me started on how science fiction is a driving force behind many scientific advancements today!)

If you’re writing fanfiction, then you’re participating in a tradition that spans millennia. There is no piece of literature created in some “original” vacuum. That is precisely why literary critics, and those who have professionally studied fiction in an academic setting, use the word “intertextuality” to describe how works of fiction are ultimately interrelated in some way or another.

Therefore, fanfiction is the legacy of literature. If Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Keats, Poe, Dickens, Tolkien, and Brown can write fanfiction about and expand other people’s works, you can too. So the next time someone tells you to stop writing fanfiction, or tells you that it’s not a valid form of art, tell them that they obviously have never read the most important historical works of fiction, or even many popular modern stories, which are all rehashed fanfiction stories, borrowing characters and names and setting and even syntax.  Rant written for @greenappleeyes and everyone else unfairly shamed for writing fanfiction. Content was retrieved from my own class notes, as well as publically available online interviews and articles. 

Avatar
Fan fiction is what literature might look like if it were reinvented from scratch after a nuclear apocalypse by a band of brilliant pop-culture junkies trapped in a sealed bunker. They don’t do it for money. That’s not what it’s about. The writers write it and put it up online just for the satisfaction. They’re fans, but they’re not silent, couchbound consumers of media. The culture talks to them, and they talk back to the culture in its own language.

This is probably the best, non-judgmental description of fan fiction I’ve ever heard of in main stream media. 

Source: TIME
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net