Subject: (whorl) Wombat on TBOTSS and fanfic

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:15:20 +0000

Wombat, he quoted and wrote:
>At 05:26 PM 6/20/01 -0700, Mantis wrote:
>>So the writing by H & H, while buttressed by interviews, snatches of
>>conversation, and editorial consensus, amounts to a patch written by fans,
>>which is rather like a fan fiction in the broad sense (rather than the
>>specific sense of "slash" or "Mary Sue").
>
>"Fanfic" is not the same thing as "fiction written by fans"; "fan" is not
>the same thing as "admirer of"; "biography" is not the same as "fiction".

Ah.  Okay.

Apparently I'm being so sloppy with terms that I'm nearly incomprehensible.

SHORT/LONG SUN                     EARTH
biography                          fiction
autobiography                      fiction
biography masked as autobiography  fiction
autobiography masked as biography  fiction
docudrama                          fiction
based on a true story              fiction

In TBOTSS, the power of the text is important: the text being TBOTLS.

Many people on Blue have read TBOTLS, a biography in novel form * (rather
like the Little House on the Prairie series, come to think of it).  People
who have never met Silk in the flesh are huge "admirers of" him, to the
point that, for example, Gaon launches an expedition to get Silk from the
Whorl, just as New Viron does.

Now then, the Little House books are not exactly "biography" or
"autobiography," (in the shelving sense for libraries and bookstores) but
they are close, since they were written by a participant (Laura) and/or her
daughter (Rose).  (Contrast with THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN, which
claims to be biography, and may have some basis in the childhood
experiences of "Mark Twain," but is understood to be fiction unencumbered
by biography.)

The Little House series proved popular, and more books have been written
(to fill in the gaps before and behind) by people further removed: the
Little Farm in the Ozarks books, if I got the title right, are presumably
more reliant upon texts (historical texts, the Little House books, diaries,
etc.) than direct personal experience of the life and times of Laura.  So
the Ozarks books are a species of fiction, written "in the tradition of"
and "continuing the saga of" an earlier series of
fiction-based-on-autobiography books; but the autobiographical/first person
pov has dropped out and been replaced with the fabrication (within limits
set by historical facts and the flavors established by the master text) of
huge "admirers of" who have read all the other books, know all the relevant
history, and can generate an esthetically competant text (semi-pastiche?).

Whatever.

Funny, I don't recall all this definition gaming/term policing when people
were calling Robert Borski's work "fanfic"--I guess I must've dozed and
missed all of his slash and Mary Sue stuff! (I could've sworn that others
used this term, but who knows, perhaps I started misusing it even then!)

But yes, on another topic (or is it? hmmm), I did enjoy PALE FIRE greatly.
More than ADA.  About as much as LOLITA, I guess.

* If you are going to argue that TBOTLS is, within its universe, strict
BIOGRAPHY as opposed to BIOGRAPHY IN NOVEL FORM (`"biography" is not the
same as "fiction"') then by all means, make your argument.

=mantis=

Sirius Fiction
Has Moved To
http://www.siriusfiction.com/

*This is WHORL, for discussion of Gene Wolfe's Book of the Long Sun.
*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.moonmilk.com/whorl/
*To leave the list, send "unsubscribe" to whorl-request at lists.best.com
*If it's Wolfe but not Long Sun, please use the URTH list: urth at lists.best.com

---

From: Kevin J. Maroney <kmaroney at ungames.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:32:02 +0000

>based on a true story              fiction

I'm not sure what point this table is making. You're being too compressed 
again.

 >Many people on Blue have read TBOTLS, a biography in novel form *

Actually, they've read _The Book of Silk_, but I mostly agree with your 
characterization of it as "a biography in novel form".

>People
>who have never met Silk in the flesh are huge "admirers of" him...

Yes. But they're not "fans" of Silk any more than the author of "Acts of 
the Apostles" was a "fan" of Jesus, Paul, and Peter. They're historians 
writing historical narrative for a didactic purpose.

>used this term, but who knows, perhaps I started misusing it even then!)

I missed the initial discussion and only noticed it when Blattid put 
"fanfic" in the subject line. Checking the archives, I can't find anyone 
using the term "fanfic" to describe Borski's pieces.

The term was introduced into the discussion to describe *Wolfe's* work as 
being fanfic-like--"wouldn't it be neat if Silk met Severian?" is the type 
of impulse which drives fanfic. But it makes no sense to apply the term to 
what Hoof and Hide (or any other unnamed redactors) are doing, because 
they're not writing fiction about fictional characters.

-- 
Wombat, a.k.a. Kevin Maroney kmaroney at ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
http://www.nyrsf.com

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:13:05 +0000

Wombat wrote

>I'm not sure what point this table is making. You're being too compressed

Something we can agree on.

>characterization of it as "a biography in novel form".

Sorry, you are wrong! <g>  Unless what you really meant to write was: "the
author Horn thought of the title as being (or even planned to name it) BOOK
OF SILK, but it became known as THE BOOK OF THE LONG SUN" (see EXODUS p.
371).

Or do you mean that they read that other guy's book (the "other book"
mentioned in the text)?

>writing historical narrative for a didactic purpose.

Why do you seem to be arguing with me when I'm using the terms you want me
to use?  I didn't write "fans," I wrote "admirers of."

I should take you to task for saying they are "historians."  Good grief!

=mantis=

---

From: Kevin J. Maroney <kmaroney at ungames.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:44:37 +0000

At 03:13 PM 6/21/01 -0700, Mantis wrote:
>Sorry, you are wrong! <g>

Oops. You're right.

 >Why do you seem to be arguing with me when I'm using the terms you want
 >me to use?  I didn't write "fans," I wrote "admirers of."

Because you seem to be veering towards using "admirers of" as a 
five-syllable perfect synonym of "fan", which it isn't. That's why I said 
"yes"--they are admirers --but went on to restate that they are not "fans".

 >I should take you to task for saying they are "historians."  Good grief!

They're historians but not in a modern sense; they're historians in the 
sense that the author of the Book of Kings was a historian, or, as I said, 
"Luke", the author  of Acts of the Apostles was a historian. I've just 
spent too long reading _Surpassing Wonder_ and the term stuck in my mind.

Skimming the archives, I think the comparison between the third-person 
portions of Hoof & Hide's book (*) and _The Killer Angels_ is spot-on.

*Do we know what _The Book of the Short Sun_ is called among its readers?
-- 
Wombat, a.k.a. Kevin Maroney kmaroney at ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
http://www.nyrsf.com

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:09:41 +0000

> portions of Hoof & Hide's book (*) and _The Killer Angels_ is spot-on.

Thanks.

> *Do we know what _The Book of the Short Sun_ is called among its readers?

We know what the editors called it: _Book of the Short Sun_ (RttW, 410).

--Adam