I would agree with their definition of derivative as they seem to be seeing it -- something essentially like a show spinoff. By contrast I think fanfic is only ever partially about the central canon it uses, but is also drawing from other fanfic and other sources. I like Abigail Derecho's definition of it as archontic, though whether that definition catches on, who can say?
"Derivative" still sounds derogative to me, even when it's in the title of an award. In that case, they could have used other terms, like "spin-off," "tie-in," "supplemental," etc.
You make an excellent point that fan fiction is not necessarily about the source material. For that reason, "derivative" is also inappropriate, even besides the negative connotation.
I had recently finished reading Derecho's essay in "Fan Fictions and Fan Communities." I really like the idea of what she calls the "archontic," but I don't think the term will catch on. It doesn't have root word that people can easily associate with writing.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-07 04:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 06:34 am (UTC)"Derivative" still sounds derogative to me, even when it's in the title of an award. In that case, they could have used other terms, like "spin-off," "tie-in," "supplemental," etc.
You make an excellent point that fan fiction is not necessarily about the source material. For that reason, "derivative" is also inappropriate, even besides the negative connotation.
I had recently finished reading Derecho's essay in "Fan Fictions and Fan Communities." I really like the idea of what she calls the "archontic," but I don't think the term will catch on. It doesn't have root word that people can easily associate with writing.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 08:47 pm (UTC)