Lee Goldberg's war on fanfic
Cathy Young | February 7, 2007, 9:26pm
The February edition of Reason has my
column on fan fiction, "The Fan Fiction Phenomena: What Faust, Hamlet, and Xena the Warrior Princess have in common," in which I discuss fan-written stories based on television, film, and book characters. (As I mention in the column, I myself write
Xena: Warrior Princess fanfic.) I also discuss some of the critiques directed at fan fiction. One of those critics, writer Lee Goldberg, now
argues on his blog that I misrepresented his position.
Here's what I wrote:
[S]ome arguments advanced by fanfic’s foes make little sense. Thus Hobb exempts from her scorn professionally written Star Trek novels licensed by the copyright owner—even though the license comes from the corporation, not the creators of the characters. ... The vehemently anti-fanfic writer Lee Goldberg, who blogs at leegoldberg.com, is the author of several authorized novels based on the TV shows Monk and Diagnosis Murder—a contradiction he defends on the grounds that he does it only for the money.
Says Goldberg:
I have written extensively on my blog about fanfiction, particularly my view that the practice of publishing it in print and on the Internet infringes on the original author's creative rights (not to mention the trademark and copyright issues). I've argued that fanfiction writers should get the permission of the author or rights holder before distributing their work. If the original author or rights holder has no problem with fanfiction based on their work, then I don't either. I have also said that licensed tie-in fiction, which I have written, differs significantly on ethical and legal grounds from fanfiction because it is done with the consent, participation and supervision of the original author or rights holder. At no point have I *ever* expressed the views that she incorrectly (and I have to assume deliberately) attributed to me.
Now, I assume the views I have allegedly misattritubed to Goldberg are, (1) that he is vehemently anti-fanfic, and (2) that he has defended his authorship of tie-in novels on the grounds that he only writes them for the money.
On the first count, I think that a read-through of Goldberg's
blogposts on fanfic will suffice to prove my case. While Goldberg does in fact
state in a
number of
posts that in
his opinion, fan fiction violates
copyright and intellectual property, he devotes far more space to jeering at the moral degeneracy and weirdness of fanficcers, focusing on such fringe phenomena as
kiddie porn fanfic, a
fan who surfs the Web searching for masturbation fic,
male pregnancy fanfic,
one fan's fantasies about
Roy Orbison and cling-wrap,
real-person slashfic in which actors, singers, and other celebrities are depicted in homoerotic sexual situations, and the like. (By the way, it's hard not to notice that Goldberg seems especially incensed by gay-themed fanfiction.) He constantly engages in gross generalization; a post about a self-professed
Harry Potter smut aficionada is entitled "The Fanfic Mind." If Goldberg has ever said anything positive about fanfic writers in fandoms where the copyright holders and creators have explicitly allowed and even encouraged fan fiction -- such as
Buffy The Vampire Slayer and
Harry Potter -- I have found no evidence of that on his blog. I have, however, found
such statements as:
Money and copyright aside, what an incredible waste of creativity. Why toil on characters you don't own in a world that's not your own? It's not even literary masturbation. It's more like the literary equivalent of having sex with an inflatable woman who looks like Halle Berry.
In
another post, mocking an email correspondent who asks him for a link to some fanfic he has mentioned, Goldberg says that it's "sort of like asking a Jew to direct you to some really rocking anti-Semitic screeds." Wow, Mr. Goldberg. Tell us how you
really feel.
It was not my intent in my column to extensively discuss Lee Goldberg's views on fan fiction, or the debate about fanfic and copyright/intellectual property laws (an issue I briefly mentioned in my discussion of fantasy writer Robin Hobb's attack on fan fiction). I would say, however, that "vehemently anti-fanfic" sums up Goldberg's stance pretty well.
Now, on to the second part. Did Goldberg ever defend his tie-in novels on the grounds that he only writes them for the money? Sure he did, on the very same blog where he now claims to have been misrepresented. In fact, he devoted
an entire post to this point on June 16, 2005:
[S]omeone asked what the difference is between someone who writes tie-ins and someone who writes fanfic... beyond the fact that tie-ins are written with the consent of the author/right's (sic) holder.
There's a big difference.
I was hired to write DIAGNOSIS MURDER and MONK novels. It's something I am being paid to do. It's not like I woke up one morning with a burning desire to write DIAGNOSIS MURDER novels, wrote one up, and sent it off to a publisher (or, as a fanficcer would do, posted it on the web). The publisher came to me and asked me to write them.
I would never write a book using someone else's characters unless I was hired to do so. It would never even occur to me because the characters aren't mine.
Given a choice, I would only write novels and TV shows of my own creation. But I have to make a living and I take the work that comes my way...and that includes writing-for-hire, whether it's on someone else's TV show or original tie-in novels based on characters I didn't create. Ultimately, however, what motivates me as a writer is to express myself...not the work of someone else.
That's the big difference between me and a fanficcer.
Given a choice, fanficcers "write" fanfic.
(The numerous italics are all in the original.)
More recently, Goldberg returns to this theme in a September 20, 2006 post, "
Am I a Fanficcer?" While he does stress that his TV show-based novels are published with the consent and involvement of the owners, the "I'm only in it for the money" defense rears its head again:
What I do isn't comparable to fanfiction -- which is using someone else's work without their consent or involvement and distributing on the Internet. I don't do it as my personal artistic expression -- it's a job, one that I do to the best of my ability. ... I much prefer to write totally original work and if I could make my living only doing that, I would.
In fairness to Goldberg, I should have said that he defends his tie-in novels
partly on the grounds that he only writes them for the money. I singled out this argument because I found it particularly bizarre -- it's the first time I have seen paid hackwork held up as morally superior to an unpaid labor of love -- and because I had already mentioned the "fanfic is intellectual theft" argument in my comments on Robin Hobb. If that gave a misleading impression of Goldberg's views on fanfic, I will readily offer my apologies. However, I certainly did not put any argument in Goldberg's mouth that he did not repeatedly make on his blog.
Since we're on the subject, I will answer a question Goldberg poses in his September 20 post:
What I have yet to see any fanficcer explain why they won't to (sic) ask the creator or rights holder for permission before posting and distributing their work. ... I know the answer, of course. Fanficcers are terrified of officially being told NO... and identifying themselves in case they decide to blithely violate the author's wishes anyway.
Is Goldberg kidding? Would original fiction writers be willing to spend hours every day answering emails asking them if it's okay to post a fanfiction based on their work? In the case of movie- and TV-based fanfiction, does Goldberg expect studios to hire a staff just to field requests for permission to post a story? And to whom should the request be directed? The corporation? The creator(s) of the characters? What's more, the writers or the studio personnel would have either to read the stories -- which would be incredibly time-consuming and legally problematic -- or to authorize them unread.
I do think that it would be an ideal resolution to the legal dilemma of fan-created works if authors or creators/copyright holders were to state upfront that they do not object to non-commercial fan endeavors, perhaps under certain conditions. I also strongly believe that the wishes of any writer who has asked people not to write fan fiction based on his or her work -- or has set guidelines for such fan fiction, like Rowling or Anne McCaffrey -- should be respected. In the absence of such explicit statements, given that the widespread existence of fan fiction is by now no secret to anyone, I think silence may be presumed to equal consent. (Since a pro-Goldberg blogger indicts me for "absconding with characters" created by others, I will mention that the producers of Xena actually hired one of my fellow intellectual thieves, fanfic writer Melissa "Missy" Good, to write scripts for the show.)
Finally, since we're on the topic of misrepresentation: In a post on October 12, 2006, Goldberg suggests, on the basis of a New York Times profile of fanfic writer-turned-pro Naomi Novik, that Novik has revised her previously "liberal" views on fanfic and copyright now that she is a commercially published author herself. As some of his commenters point out, Novik has in fact specifically said that this is not so. Goldberg has yet to issue a retraction in the body of his post or even to acknowledge his error in the comments, despite having posted in the comments thread several times.
(Somewhat longer version cross-posted at The Y Files.)
gedanken's sin for free! | February 8, 2007, 10:55am | #
Edna,
You've got to get over using physical anaologies for intangible arguments. It's apples and oranges.
As far as loss value goes, most fanfic writers are.. well.. um.. FANS!
That means that they have not only 'been there, bought that, wear the tee-shirt' they also have the towels, the ears, the figures, the PAID spinoff books, the vhs tape, the dvd, the director's cut dvd, the "special extra Anniversary Edition full of stuff we could have included last time but didn't so we could sell you another copy" DVD, the toys, the boots, the wallpaper the... well, you get the idea.
My point here is that the people that everyone is worried about 'damping the profits' are in fact the primary source OF those profits.
Does anyone really think that Serenity would have made any significant boxoffice if it weren't for the loyalty of the Browncoats who dragged their friends and acquaintances out to the theater? Is anyone BUT a self-described Browncoat writing Firefly fanfic? I'd be plenty surprised.
So while, academically speaking, one could argue that fanfic unfairly uses someone else's characters, the entire phenomenon of fanfiction is ultimately an artifact of the same FANDOM that caused the ficton to be successful at all.
Kind of biting the hand that feeds you to whine about it.
(now if one is SELLING fiction based on another's copyright, that's another fish kettle entirely).
And mostly, who cares?
rob | February 8, 2007, 6:09pm | #
I'm with you mediageek - that was some good stuff, Tod!
I don't write fanfic, but if I did, it would start with me as Ash (from "Army of Darkness") going skeet shooting for those damn flying monkeys from Wizard of Oz!
"Pull!" shouted Ash.
The Tin Man complied, with a vengeful laugh, by tossing yet another doomed flying monkey out of the cupola of the Wicked Witch of the West's castle.
Suddenly, a sulphuric plume of smoke explodes to Ash's left. The Witch strides out of the smoke, broom in one hand, a bony claw pointing to Ash.
"Thou didst find me beautiful once," the Witch said accusingly.
"Honey...You got real ugly," Ash replied.
"Now listen up, you primitive screwhead. See this? This... is my boomstick! The 12-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You *got* that?" Ash asked the Witch with a mocking grin.
"YOU SHALL DIE!" She screamed, her eyes bone white, possessed by the dark spirits.
"Yo, she-bitch! Let's go!" Ash responded.
Her blackened lips pull back in a wild animal snarl. "I'LL SWALLOW YOUR SOUL!"
Ash leaps into the air in a flying side kick, while firing round after round into the Witch. Her lifeless corpse lands at his feet.
As the Scarecrow nervously edges nearer, Ash stops him. "It's a trick. Get the Tin Man's axe."
"The Wizard left ME in charge," replied the Scarecrow with all the haughty authority of a city planner.
"Well hello Mr. Fancy-pants. I got news for you, pal. You ain't leading but two things right now: Jack and Shit. And, Jack just left town."
"You think you're a real bad-ass, don't you?" sniffed the Cowardly Lion in a very metro-sexual tone of voice, as he stroked the ribbons in his mane.
"Good? Bad? I'm the one with the gun." replied Ash, as he brought chainsaw to bear, decapitating the Witch.
"Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?" demanded the Scarecrow angrily.
Ash replied with a grin. "Nope. Just me baby... Just me."
Turning back toward the castle with a shit-eating-grin as he finishes re-loading the shotgun, Ash again yells "Pull!"
Cathy Young | February 8, 2007, 6:42pm | #
So, Lee Goldberg once again denies ever saying that he writes his tie-in novels only for the money. Sorry, but what part of
"I much prefer to write totally original work and if I could make my living only doing that, I would" is so hard to understand?
To Mark A. York: actually, I hesitated to bring up the sexuality issue, because I think that implied accusations of bigotry should not be tossed around lightly. However, Goldberg's tendency to single out gay-themed fanfics as examples of moral turpitude and general ickiness fairly leaps out when you read his fanfic-related posts. I ran them by two friends who are about as scornful of politically correct hypersensitivity as you get, and they both had the same impression. And no, I am not saying that gay-themed fan fiction is beyond criticism, particularly if it ventures into such morally dubious territory as sexually explicit stories using real people as characters. I'm saying that there's plenty of similarly bad stuff of the hetero variety that, mostly, seems to be off Goldberg's radar screen. To use an example someone gave in the H & R thread discussing my fanfic article: I wouldn't be particularly thrilled if I discovered that "Cathy Young" was a character in sexually explicit "
Reason fanfic" posted on the Internet by H & R regulars. However, it wouldn't make an ounce of moral difference to me whether the stories were Cathy Young/Jesse Walker or Cathy Young/Kerry Howley. (And yep, I'm straight.)
I have also looked at some of the comments threads on Goldberg's blog. I don't know if fanficcers are nuts, but I have seen anti-fanficcers compare fanfic writers to rapists and child molesters. Me, I'd say it's "nuts" to compare fanfic to anti-Semitic screeds. But what do I know, I'm just a "fanficcer," right?
Looking at the comments in this thread, I find the arguments about why fanfic infringes on the rights of the creators to be utterly inadequate. No, edna, it's not like coming into your garden and painting your red flowers purple or planting blue flowers among them. The "garden" -- the original work, be it a TV show or a book -- remains intact. If you really want an analogy, this is more like someone taking pictures of your garden and posting them on their website with various alterations to suit their taste. As long as they did not falsely claim that this is either their own garden or an actual and unaltered representation of your garden, where in the world is the harm to you? As for the "hitting you over the head but not taking your wallet" analogy, it's really too silly to respond to.
I can, at least, see some merit in the argument that a writer who single-handedly created original characters (and in the case of fantasy, an original world) and exercises full control over that character in her work has a right to object to fans "borrowing" those characters and settings for works of their own. It seems to me that in other media where there are multiple creators, and legal rights belong to the corporation rather than the artist(s), there is simply no such moral argument. If you take my own fandom: the character of Xena was originally created by John Schulian, a writer on
Hercules: The Legendary Journeys who thereafter had no involvement with the
Xena series despite having his name on the credits. On
Xena: Warrior Princess, there were at least six writers and executive producers who helped shape the characters and settings over the course of the series (not to mention the actors!). Ironically, too, the makers of
Xena were famous for borrowing from multiple sources ranging from Greek mythology to Hong Kong action movies to Wagner's operas to American popular culture, with episodes adapted from
Groundhog Day and The Producers (to name just two).
Finally, to Ed. By "pro-Goldberg blogger," I meant simply that you repeated Goldberg's charge that I misrepresented his views without ever bothering to check. As for your critique of my "mangling the English language" in my stories: I really don't want to turn this thread into a defense of my fanfiction (although, since I am a professional writer with two published books under my belt, it's a professional slam as well). But here's a funny thing. I took all three examples of what you regard as "mangling the English language" and ran them through Google Book search and the "search inside" function on Amazon.com. I found numerous examples of each usage in published books, many of them highly acclaimed. And I'm sure that if you decided to nitpick Lee Goldberg's books in a similar manner, you'd find plenty of fodder.
Finally, I fully agree that this is a silly debate and we could all be doing something much more productive right now, like humping inflatable Halle Bery dolls. The only reason I made this post was that Lee Goldberg accused me of mispresenting his blog comments in my column.
Lee Goldberg | February 8, 2007, 7:17pm | #
You wrote:
"what part of "I much prefer to write totally original work and if I could make my living only doing that, I would" is so hard to understand?""
Cathy,
I have to agree with you. What IS so hard for you to understand about that clear statement?
I am told you're ordinarily an even-handed writer, so I have to assume it's your love of fanfiction that's clouding your reason.
"So, Lee Goldberg once again denies ever saying that he writes his tie-in novels only for the money."
Yes, I do...and am baffled by your inability to comprehend it. Perhaps if you put the quote from me in context, you would see the distinction...and so would your readers.
I love writing about the characters in DIAGNOSIS MURDER and MONK. I have a strong, personal connection to them from exec-producing/writing DM and contributing episodes to MONK. I enjoy writing the books very, very much.
But I wouldn't be writing the tie-in books unless I'd been approached to do so because THE CHARACTERS DON'T BELONG TO ME.
While it's absolutely true that I am being paid to write the books, that is emphatically NOT the only reason I am writing them nor I have EVER, at any time, said that it was. To say that I have is a falsehood.
I have turned down offers to write other tie-ins for other series because I don't have the personal connection to the characters that I have with DM and MONK. I love these characters and couldn't write these books if I didn't.
As you've pointed out, I've said lots and lots of things about fanfiction that you can disagree with...so I hope that you'll refrain from inventing new ones that I never said.
Lee
Ryan | February 8, 2007, 9:15pm | #
Cathy Young wrote: "[S]ome arguments advanced by fanfic’s foes make little sense. Thus Hobb exempts from her scorn professionally written Star Trek novels licensed by the copyright owner—even though the license comes from the corporation, not the creators of the characters."
The only thing that doesn't make sense is phrasing it in such a way as to create a contradiction where one doesn't exist.
The copyright owner, even if not the creator, has purchased the copyright from the creator.
It didn't somehow magically fall into the current copyright owner's hands while he twisted his corporate mustache.
The creator has been compensated, knows what rights he or she has sold (including novelization rights, for which the creator still, by the way, receives compensation, even if he or she doesn't write the novelization), and has, in selling those rights, turned control of his or her characters, stories, themes, et cetera, to the current copyright owner.
Withholding scorn for professionally written Star Trek novels isn't a contradiction: it's consistent respect for someone else's property, regardless of whether the owner is the creator, or a company which bought it from said creator.
"The vehemently anti-fanfic writer Lee Goldberg, who blogs at leegoldberg.com, is the author of several authorized novels based on the TV shows Monk and Diagnosis Murder—a contradiction he defends on the grounds that he does it only for the money."
Again, it's not a contradiction -- even if he does do it "only for the money."
As for the rest of the post, I'll not comment, since I don't know Goldberg, and haven't read his blog enough to know the context of the posts quoted.
Alexander Williams | February 9, 2007, 5:21pm | #
I have to go with Eric on this one, folks. By York's measure, I'm a successful, multiply-published literary genius with the ability to pass judgment not only of him, but his entire chosen mode of expression. After all, I've been published on more than one occasion by mainstream non-vanity presses and created at least one character who someone else was paid to use in a work-for-hire novel. I'm a veritable
industry, by comparison to him, so my opinion should be, by his measure, subsequently more weighty.
I think he's an ass. Goldberg can join him in that evaluation. And I don't mean that as a personal assessment, but a professional one.
Frankly, the argument that the creation and free distribution of fanfic is injurious to the original creator is ludicrous on the face of it ... unless we assume the original writer is doing a truly, madly, deeply crappy job of what passes for their occupation. If folks whose hobby it is to write material inspired by you threaten your livelihood, my suggestion would be they actually kick it up a notch and gain some ability.
Frankly, this discussion is silly. Copyright only applies to issues of sale. We're just talking about free distribution. First Amendment pretty much covers that particular little situation, and it's pretty clear.
And, as an aside:
Monk novels. I can understand wanting to extend and expand the BSG universe in one's spare time but I cannot imagine actually taking the money to write
Monk novels. OK, I can imagine taking the money, and Goldberg's repeated statement that he didn't do it because of any particular passion for the setting.
Now, Monk / Psych fanfic ...
