What is Fan-Fiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things About It?

What Is Fanfiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Thingsabout It?

Bronwen Thomas

StoryWorlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, Volume 3, 2011, pp. 1-24(Article)

Published by University of Nebraska PressDOI: 10.1353/stw.2011.0001

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Chicago Library (13 May 2013 19:01 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/stw/summary/v003/3.thomas.html

What Is Fanfi ction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things about It?

Bronwen Thomas

The term fanfi ction (sometimes abbreviated as fanfi c)

refers to stories produced by fans based on plot lines

and characters from either a single source text or else

a canon of works; these fan-created narratives often

take the pre-existing storyworld in a new, sometimes

bizarre, direction. While the activities of fans may

take many forms, writing stories deriving from one or

more source texts has long been the most popular way

of concretizing and disseminating their passion for a

particular fi ctional universe. Fanfi ctions origins have

been traced back to science fi ction magazines in the

1920s and 1930s, but links have also been drawn with

oral and mythic traditions; with traditions of collec-

tive interpretation, such as Jewish midrash (Derecho

2006); and with profi cs such as Jean Rhyss Wide

Sargasso Sea (Pugh 2005), which functions as a kind

of prequel for Charlotte Bronts Jane Eyre. Neverthe-

storyworlds volume 3 20112

less, fanfi ction remained a fairly underground and marginalized activity

until the advent of digital technologies and the World Wide Web. Now

fans can access vast communities of people who share their interests,

publish and get feedback on their stories almost instantaneously, and

challenge boundaries between authors and readers, creation and in-

terpretation. Much excitement has greeted this explosion of fan activ-

ity, not only within particular fan communities but also within fi elds

of academic inquiry such as literary and narrative theory, ethnography,

feminism and queer theory, and cultural studies.

This article sets out to explore the many nice things that have been

said about fanfi ction, revisitingand questioningsome of the uto-

pian rhetoric found in earlier studies. I also ask what contribution nar-

ratology and literary studies might make to the research on fanfi ction,

particularly with regard to understanding the processes involved in

fanfi cs production and reception. The converse question is equally rel-

evant: how might coming to terms with fanfi ction require a rethinking

of basic narratological methods and aims? Finally, I reexamine debates

about the quality and aesthetic value of stories emerging from commu-

nities of fans.

In the next section I provide a thumbnail history of work on fan-

fi ction, discussing three waves of scholarship on this form of narra-

tive practice. The subsequent section furnishes a programmatic outline

of key issues and directions for future work in the fi eld, drawing on a

range of illustrative examples. I then zoom in on one instance of fanfi c-

tion to demonstrate the salience of the issues outlined in my survey of

the fi eld and to sketch strategies for addressing those issues.

A Brief Overview of Fanfi ction Studies

Up to now, the study of fanfi ction has been dominated by media and

cultural studies, with some anthropological and psychoanalytical work

focusing on the behavior and motivations of fans. Issues of methodol-

ogy and particularly the relationship between academic and fan tend

to dominate, and close textual analysis is often denigrated on the basis

that the identities and practices of fans cannot be abstracted from the

sorts of texts they write, but must be analyzed as socially situated prac-

Thomas: What Is Fanfi ction? 3

tices and activities. Perhaps because of the need to defend and rearticu-

late the previously castigated category of the fan, there is a tendency to

employ a rather idealistic rhetoricfor example, in Pughs (2005) claim

that fanfi ction represents a democratic genre, or Stasis (2006) claim that

this kind of writing is canny, sophisticated and resonant with postmod-

ern textuality (129). While studies such as these at least try to locate fan-

fi ction alongside literary traditions and conventions, media studies ap-

proaches consciously steer clear of any attempt to evaluate fanfi ction

based on the quality of the writing, the plotting, or the characterization,

for fear of being seen to be outside or above the object of study.

In his overview of fanfi ction studies, Cornel Sandvoss (2005) claims

that the fi rst wave of theory was heavily infl uenced by Marxism and

tended to assume a simple dichotomy of power in which the fans were

the powerless opposing the might of the franchises and corporations

that owned the rights to the characters and storylines fans loved and

wrote about. For example, in one of the earliest studies, John Fiske

(1987) writes about Madonnas empowering infl uence on her young fe-

male followers and sets up the infl uential category of the active audi-

ence. But it was Henry Jenkinss Textual Poachers (1992) that contrib-

uted more than any previous study to the establishment of a distinctive

sphere of fan studies, and it remains a seminal text. Jenkins draws on

Michel de Certeaus (1984) notion of the poacher to write about fans

not as dupes of dominant ideologies but as renegades and subversives

able to undermine commodifi cation and corporatization through their

collective power. In subsequent studies and on his blog, Jenkins contin-

ues to contest the stereotype of the fan as a socially isolated weirdo, and

he draws on a wide range of theoretical sources; these sources include

narrative theory, in particular Janet Murrays (1998) concepts of ency-

clopedic narratives and procedural authorship.1 Referring to himself as

an Aca-Fan, Jenkins attempts to redefi ne the terms on which the activ-

ity of fans is understood, and he has claimed that the kind of participa-

tory culture created by fans could offer a whole new model of cultural

production. While Jenkins does allow that not all fans are resisting read-

ers, his rhetoric can seem overblown at times, especially when it comes

to his attempt to abolish the boundary between fan and academic.

Closely aligned with the emergence of audience studies, this fi rst


wave of research on fanfi ction has recently come in for criticism on the

grounds of its naivety and its tendency to talk about the audience as a

homogenous group, rather than as a loose affi liation of confl icting and

competing positions and voices. For example, Jonathan Gray, Cornel

Sandvoss, and S. Lee Herrington (2007) somewhat mockingly label the

fi rst wave Fandom is Beautiful and reject the tendency of these theo-

rists to treat fans as some kind of worthy cause. Meanwhile, Alan McKee

(2004) accuses fi rst-wave theorists of perpetuating a powerless/power-

ful binary and of focusing unduly on the texts of fan culture, rather

than acknowledging that those texts and the way they are perceived are

themselves the result of larger discursive formations.

The second and third waves of fanfi ction studies take a more com-

plex approach to the issue of power, infl uenced by Foucault and Bour-

dieu. The second wave, exemplifi ed by studies such as Cheryl Harris

(1998) and Mark Jancovich (2002), is mainly preoccupied with respond-

ing to the emergence of new media forms that contributed to an ex-

plosion in fan activity and that facilitated all sorts of new possibilities

and interactions between fans. Charting the movement of fans into the

mainstream, second-wave theory sees fans not so much operating out-

side of social hierarchies as themselves participating in the construction

and maintenance of the uneven distribution of power.

Infl uenced by poststructuralism, the third wave is distinguished by

a greater self-refl exivity about the theorists own motives and positions

and by a shift in emphasis toward exploring the contributions of fans

to contemporary culture. Theorists refl ect in a much more person-

al way about their own engagement with fandoms and with fan texts,

and instead of fans being seen as isolated or marginal, their activities

are treated as a fundamental aspect of everyday life. Prominent theo-

rists of the third wave such as Matt Hills and Jonathan Gray are much

more prepared to critique both existing terminology for fan studies and

also the practices of fanspractices that may run counter to the rath-

er utopian visions found in earlier studies. Third-wave theorists often

draw on Nicholas Abercrombie and Brian Longhursts (1998) continu-

um model of fan involvement to more precisely understand the diverse

forms that fan engagement may take, and they contest divisions such

as those between high and low culture by exploring fans of Bach


or Chekhov alongside Trekkies or Potterheads (Pearson 2007; Tulloch

2007). There is also a renewed emphasis on exposing fan-tagonisms

(Johnson 2007) within and across fandoms, on understanding how fan

affi liations change and mutate (Hills 2005), and on exploring how the

activities and practices of anti-fans (Gray 2003) may merit close atten-

tion.2 Third-wave theory turns its attention to fandoms paratexts and

attempts to examine fan engagement as part of an ongoing experience.

For example, Jonathan Gray and Jason Mittell (2007) examine the place

of spoilers within fan communities and adopt a phenomenological ap-

proach to better understand how a well-told tale lives and thrives after

its telling (18).

In the spirit of the third wave, this essay revisits some of the key

claims that have been made about the extent to which fanfi ction may

challenge existing notions of narrative and storytelling. At the same

time, I explore how scholarship on narrative might offer new insights

into fanfi ction or new methodologies for its analysisand conversely

what is entailed by adding fanfi ction to the corpus of narratives con-

sidered by scholars of story. While studies by such authors as Karen

Hellekson and Kristina Busse (2006) proudly locate themselves as com-

ing out of a tradition of English studies dominated by close reading, in

practice these studies sacrifi ce depth for breadth and only rarely engage

with specifi c narrative techniques. There is also a tendency to want to

turn fans into critics or even amateur narratologists (Gray and Mittell

2007) and to highlight and celebrate only those interpretative abilities

that are shared by critic and fan alike. In my own studies of fanfi ction

to date, I have combined textual analysis with a focus on the process-

es involved in producing and disseminating stories. Attending to these

processes can illuminate how fans interact with and interpret the sto-

ryworlds to which they keep returning, whereas focusing on the text

itself without understanding how it is being responded to and used by

fans leaves much unexplained. Furthermore, if we are to take seriously

the challenges posed by fanfi ction, it is important to start by looking at

what fans are doing, rather than trying to impose terms and values on

their activities.

In the discussion that follows, most of my examples are drawn from

fanfi ction based on Jane Austens Pride and Prejudice, a novel that has


spawned one of the most prolifi c of literary fandoms online. The case

studies I consider bring into the foreground issues of aesthetic value

or quality as well as issues arising from the relationship of the fan text

to its source. While Austen fandoms might be seen to pose a challenge

to the notion of the fan as textual poacher, because they tend to be

quite conservative and fi ercely protective of the Austen legacy, in actual-

ity these fandoms exemplify the variety of communities existing online.

Here too we fi nd plenty of diversity in the modes of engagement that

fans display and in how they participate in processes of creation and

reception.

Approaches to Fanfi ction

fanfiction and participatory culture

Perhaps one of the main reasons why people are saying such nice things

about fanfi ction is that it takes us away from the notion of texts as stat-

ic, isolated objects and instead reminds us that storyworlds are gener-

ated and experienced within specifi c social and cultural environments

that are subject to constant change. In online environments where ac-

cessibility and participation seem almost to be taken for granted, fan-

fi ction is about far more than the writing and reading of stories, as fans

engage in all kinds of social networking and community building not

only within the terms set by specifi c sites but also frequently beyond

and against these, as when fans set up their own subcultures and spe-

cial interest groups. For example, Austen fans can buy Team Darcy

merchandise online and even purchase patterns for creating their own

fi nger puppet versions of Darcy and Elizabeth, closely resembling Co-

lin Firth and Jennifer Ehle from the 1995 BBC adaptation. Although

some purists bemoan the hamster-wheel of posthumous productivity

(Bowles 2003: 16) that has turned Jane Austen into a commodity in this

manner, others (e.g., Thompson 2008) have celebrated such activities

as continuing the best traditions of the cottage industry model and as

confi rming the limitless creativity of fans seeking out ways to display

their devotion to and passion for their favored storyworlds.

In short, fanfi ction highlights the motivations and desires of read-

ersin ways theorists of narrative need to take into account. In tra-


ditional literary criticism and even many reader-response approaches,

the reader is discussed as a monolithic entity, and hypotheses about

his or her responses derive mainly from the critics own interpretation

of the text. Further, fanfi ction has the potential to reveal why certain

kinds of readers are drawn to certain kinds of texts. As mentioned ear-

lier, scholars such as Camille Bacon-Smith (1992) have turned to psy-

choanalytical theory in attempts to understand why it is that so many

women and young girls write and read slash fi ction, a variety of fanfi c-

tion based on constructing same-sex relationships between characters,

and also why fans enjoy returning to familiar storyworlds and charac-

ters time after time. Other theorists point to the complex and even con-

tradictory motivations of fans. For example, Jenkins (1992) argues that

they are torn between fascination and frustration, while Sheenagh Pugh

(2005) claims that fans want both more of and more from the fi c-

tional worlds they endlessly revisit.

Work along these lines suggests that fans should by no means be

viewed as purely passive consumers; instead fans desires are active and

indeed excessive, spilling over into the kind of powerful and transgres-

sive force given expression in Barthess notion of jouissance (Fiske

1987). Fanfi ction thus poses an important challenge to conceptualiza-

tions of storyworlds that focus on their universality and familiarity,

demonstrating that, in fact, readers and audiences relations with those

worlds are diverse and sometimes confl icting. These fan-produced nar-

ratives also underscore that work focusing on how storyworlds are trig-

gered by textual cues must be supplemented with research address-

ing the whole question of what readers and audiences do with those

worldshow they inhabit them, transform them, make them their own.

fanfiction as transgressive practice

Because of the ways it gives readers such transformative powers, fanfi c-

tion has also been hailed as a transgressive force, offering a voice for

marginalized groups and revealing the subversive potential of seeming-

ly safe or familiar storyworlds. The sense of transgression may be felt

even more powerfully where the source text is a canonical work of liter-

ature like Pride and Prejudice. Fanfi ction stories often provocatively play

with the various elements of the storyworlds on which they are based.


The language employed by fanfi ction communities amply displays their disdain for convention (PWP = Plot, What Plot?), while the system of classifi cation used across many fanfi ction sites openly acknowledges the potential for fan-created texts to cause offense. Slash fi ction pro-vides many examples of these more controversial transgressionsfor instance, stories based on Darcy/Wickham or Darcy/Bingley pairings or ships in Austen fandoms.3 For their part, Alternate Universe stories transgress boundaries of space and time, perhaps relocating Darcy and Elizabeth to a high school or college in the United States (Ten Years by alice-in-vunderland at FanFiction.Net) or Aunt Cathy (Lady Catherine de Bourgh) to the Sunny Acres nursing home (Delusions of Grandeur by Jennifer H at Derbyshire Writers Guild). And cross-over fanfi cs take the characters from one fi ctional world and cross them with another. Examples of cross-over fi ctions featuring Pride and Prejudice at FanFic-tion.Net include stories crossing the novel with the Twilight, Harry Pot-ter, and X-Men franchises.

Fans display no regard for boundaries when it comes to medium, and so a canon may encompass fi lm adaptations of a text, interviews with the author or cast, and even merchandising and marketing. For many fans of Austens novel, Colin Firths portrayal of Mr. Darcy in the 1995 BBC adaptation was so defi nitive that it is almost unthinkable not to use the actors mannerisms and physical characteristics when writing or reading about Darcy.4 Notoriously, Andrew Daviess adaptation in-cluded scenes of Mr. Darcy in the bath and emerging in a wet shirt from the lake at Pemberleyscenes that never appeared in Austens novel. These adaptations have now become part of the canon for many fans of Austen, representing an expansion of the novels metaverse (Gwenl-lian-Jones 2004); in turn, this expansion has arguably helped to attract a whole new audience to Austens writing. There is even a fansite dedi-cated to Colin Firth in his role as Darcy (www.fi rthness.com), featuring a Pond section where fans can post messages and news.

Fanfi ction also breaks down the boundaries between authors and readers, since on most fanfi ction sites people who post stories also com-ment on and review stories posted by others. Indeed, it is quite com-mon for fans to progress from reading and reviewing fanfi c to writing it themselves. While fans debate and even police elements of the canon,

for example by complaining that a story is OOC (Out of Character),


the term fanon is used to refer to the process whereby over time certain

plot or character elements become established within the fan commu-

nityeven when those elements never appeared in the source text, or

radically depart from it.

Fanfi ction is often highly refl exive about the transgressing of these

boundaries and displays little or no anxiety about what Linda Hutch-

eon (2005) terms the hermeneutic paradox, whereby readers [. . .]

are forced to acknowledge the artifi ce of what they are reading, while at

the same time becoming active co-creators of the meaning of the work

(494). Indeed, fans seem to enjoy fl aunting the artifi ciality and surreal-

ity of their stories while also continuing to be engaged and immersed

in the fi ctional worlds they help to fl esh out and concretize. However,

in an effort to develop more sober and responsible assessments of fan

practices, recent fanfi ction theory has revisited both the idea of the fan

as a subversive force for the good and utopian visions of the communi-

ty, suggesting that certain hierarchies and boundaries still exist. For ex-

ample, my own research on The Republic of Pemberley website (Thomas

2007) focuses on the ways in which the self-appointed committee mem-

bers who maintain the site portray themselves as guardians of Austens

legacy. Many other sites ban certain kinds of fanfi c altogether (especially

Real Person Fiction, or fi ction in which real-world celebrities and per-

sonages fi gure), and reserve the right to exclude members if their posts

or behavior are deemed unacceptable.

fan fiction as work in progress

Perhaps one of the main reasons theorists have been saying such nice

things about fanfi ction is that Fan research has been institutionally and

personally convenient (Gray 2003: 67). In particular, online fanfi ction

is ripe for analysis because it makes visible the process of creation and

reception as authors and their readers engage in ongoing interactions

about their stories. The process of updating that takes place on many of

these sites (Thomas forthcoming) also contributes to what Hellekson

and Busse (2006) see as a defi ning feature of fanfi ction: namely, its self-

proclaimed status as work in progress. Fanfi ction is usually published

in installments or chapters, and on sites such as FanFiction.Net read-

ers can track when stories are updated. Readers are thus likely to view


entries as works in progress, and inevitably many stories are left unfi n-

ished. While fans might urge each other on to bring a story to its cli-

max, it is undoubtedly the case that continuity is preferred over closure.

Many of the biggest fandoms online are related to serial narratives

that trade on the idea of plot as an infi nitely extended middle (Fiske

1987). However, even with narratives such as Austens Pride and Preju-

dice, which seemingly closes on the most conventional of happy end-

ings, the climax is, of course, as much a beginning as it is an ending,

since Darcy and Elizabeth are just setting out on married life. A good

deal of Pride and Prejudice fanfi ction takes this ending as its point of

departure, as fans imagine not only what the married life of the couple

might be like but also how Darcy in particular copes with parenthood,

or how the children turn out.

Though fanfi ction is often dismissed as derivative and unoriginal,

fan communities proudly boast about the infl uence they have on peo-

ples engagement with the storyworlds about which they write. What

this illustrates is that the relationship between source text and its rein-

ventions is not unidirectional, but dialogic. Authors such as J. K. Rowl-

ing and Neil Gaiman have maintained a close relationship with their

fans through contributing interviews and setting up competitions.5

Meanwhile, TV shows such as Smallville or the Doctor Who spin-off

Torchwood are widely believed to have emerged from ideas and story-

lines developed on fanfi ction sites, and Seth Grahame-Smiths Pride and

Prejudice and Zombies (2009) clearly owes a debt to the cross-over genre

of fanfi ction. For fanfi ction theorists, such a move into the mainstream

can arouse anxiety that fan communities resistance to dominant cul-

tural norms and practices is being diluted, and that commercial suc-

cess and corporatization are in effect wresting these storyworlds away

from their fans. But we might equally see the interest shown by the cre-

ative industries as testament to the contribution made by fans and as a

demonstration of the durability and elasticity of the storyworlds about

which they write.

the narrative structure of fanfiction

While fanfi ction studies often draw on narratological terminology, there

has been very little cross-fertilization to date between narrative theo-


ry and media studies vis--vis stories written by communities of fans.

Reception theory and the notion of gap fi lling sometimes feature in

the literature (Sandvoss 2007), and Gray (2003) cites Fishs work on

the interpretative process as a useful reference point for re-examining

how fans engage with the texts they endlessly revisit. Meanwhile, Gray

(2003) and Gray and Mittell (2007) draw extensively on Grard Gen-

ettes (1997) concept of the paratext in accounting for the various forms

fan activity may take, while Barthess notion of the writerly text fi gures

prominently in the work of Fiske (1987) and in Hellekson and Busses

study (2006). Matt Hills (2002) also borrows from narrative theory in

his development of the concept of hyperdiegesis, defi ned as the creation

of a vast and detailed narrative space, only a fraction of which is ever

directly seen or encountered within the text, but which nevertheless ap-

pears to operate according to principles of internal logic and extension

(137). Hills explicitly links his term to Murrays (1998) notion of the en-

cyclopedic narrative and to the possibility of theorizing what he calls

an implied narrative world. The term has been extensively employed in

fanfi ction studies to account for the ways in which continuity and co-

herence may exist across texts associated with particular fandoms, and

to provide a means of encompassing the multifarious ways in which

fans connect to various sectors and inhabitants of the narrative spaces

to which they return.

In her analysis of fanfi ction and fanvids, Tisha Turk (2010) focuses

on metalepsis, or the confl ation or entanglement of narrative levels, and

argues that Genettes (1980) original theory requires modifi cation to ac-

count for how metalepsis works within participatory cultures and ex-

tends beyond the borders of the text. Turks analysis of specifi c fan texts

demonstrates the centrality of metaleptic transgressions of diegetic lev-

els, especially where the fans extradiegetic desires are allowed to intrude

or impose on the storyworld. Though Turk, like many other fanfi ction

theorists, is perhaps guilty at times of overstating the sophistication of

fans, her analysis does demonstrate how narratological concepts such as

metalepsis can throw light on the complex modes of engagement that

help drive this form of narrative.

Sara Gwenllian-Joness (2004) analysis of the metaverses of fantasy

and science fi ction suggests other strategies for promoting a closer di-


alogue between media studies and narrative theory when it comes to

fanfi ction. Gwenllian-Jones argues that fi ctional worlds, of necessity,

always exceed the texts that describe them, relying on large part on the

reader who must import exterior information to and imaginatively en-

gage with the text in order to actualize its latent aspects. The recovery

of the fi ctional world from its fragmented and partial textual presence

is a dynamic cognitive process in which textual data, knowledge of the

real world, and imagination are all marshalled (92). Such an approach

opens up the possibility that postclassical narratologys movement be-

yond the confi nes of the text, and particularly the work of cognitive

narratology, can contribute to our understanding of how readers pro-

cess narratives and of how storyworlds in turn connect with and actu-

alize all sorts of latent desires and needs.

Cognitive narratologys focus on how readers process narratives, and

construct mental models that take the shape of storyworlds, is ideally

situated to account for many of the activities and forms of engagement

that we fi nd in fanfi ction communities. In particular, Richard Gerrigs

focus on how words become worlds (2005: 474) and his suggestion that

narrative transports readers into other times and other places (1993)

provide an obvious starting point for this kind of approach. Equally,

the idea that storyworlds are themselves subject to constant revision by

those who participate in their construction allows us to go beyond tex-

tual blueprints to the worlds that are made and remade on the basis of

those blueprints. As David Herman (2005) puts it, storyworlds offer us

mentally and emotionally projected environments in which interpret-

ers are called upon to live out complex blends of cognitive and imagi-

native response (570). Although the focus of such approaches is still

perhaps on how texts provoke such a response, rather than on mapping

out and engaging with the environments in which those responses are

enacted, work of this sort does offer the possibility of combining textu-

al analysis with some consideration of what readers do with the worlds

they fashion and refashionand also of what motivates fans to stay

with and expand the storyworlds they choose to enter.

Joseph Tabbi (2003) has challenged narratology to come up with a

way of dealing with what he calls the processual text, and he relishes

the prospect of a return to a focus on narrative as journey rather than


goal, hailing this release from future-orientation as potentially liberat-

ing. Similarly, Peter Lunenfeld (2000: 20) has hypothesized the possibil-

ity of what he calls an aesthetic of unfi nish, again placing the empha-

sis on process rather than goal and suggesting thereby a new approach

to the analysis of narrative. Certainly, this kind of aesthetic might fi nd

support from postmodern theory, where the idea that creativity must

involve originality has been fundamentally questioned, and where the

pleasures of repetition and repurposing may be celebrated. It might

also help explain why what keeps fans coming back is not necessarily

suspense, strong characterization, or good style so much as what Da-

vid Black (2004) calls in-fi lling: that is, the process of fl eshing out the

backstory behind characters, situations, and events, or slightly shifting

the perspective from which the familiar is to be enjoyed.

toward an aesthetic of fanfiction

More generally, engaging with issues of aesthetic value and judgment is

necessary if we are to move away from the current dilemma facing the-

orists of this mode of narrative practice. The dilemma is that it has be-

come impossible to criticize fanfi ction for fear of being accused of im-

porting values and criteria from elsewhere and stifl ing the creativity and

forms of resistance displayed by fans. Yet being too nice about fanfi ction

may also prove counterproductive if, as Charlotte Brunsdon (1997) has

argued, this only leaves the fi eld clear for the pronouncements of oth-

ers. Similarly, Toby Miller (2004) makes the point that by turning fans

into afi cionados and heaping praise on their ability to do the kind of

interpretative work valued by the academy, we may be covertly repli-

cating the kinds of evaluative discourse that claim to be able to distin-

guish between good and bad stories or storytelling practices. In me-

dia studies circles, such binaries have long been contested, and instead

Gray (2003) proposes that we focus on a range of values that allows for

challenge and change, and that may be modulated according to genre,

medium, and so forthrather than continue to use debates about qual-

ity as a barrier to engagement. It seems, therefore, that when it comes to

trying to talk about the aesthetics of fanfi ction, we may need to explore

a new understanding of aesthetic value that refl ects the decentralization

of contemporary culture. At the same time, this approach to aesthetic


value could build on models that, like David Bleichs (1978) and Patrick

Colm Hogans (forthcoming), embrace subjectivity and affect, rather

than marginalizing or ignoring such aspects of readerly engagement.

What I have described as the third wave of fanfi ction studies has

brought issues of aesthetic judgment to the forefront, fostering some

welcome skepticism about earlier theorists elevation of the reader to a

position of absolute supremacy. In particular, Sandvoss (2007) directly

confronts media studies tendency to shy away from such debates, and

argues that much is to be gained from engaging with literary-theoretical

approaches and models. At the same time, Sandvoss makes the point

that whereas literary texts are often valued for their ability to defamil-

iarize the everyday, fans seek out texts that give them the pleasure of fa-

miliarity and that fulfi ll rather than challenge their expectations. Yet he

also stresses that it is problematic to try to stipulate what sorts of stories

fans seek out and what meanings they fi nd in those stories. Sandvoss

points out that the notion of what constitutes a text for fans may itself

be contentious, and calls for what he terms a functionalist defi nition of

value in which we focus on what texts are for; from this perspective, any

discussion of value must engage closely with what actual readers and

audiences do, as manifested by their participation in fan communities.

Sandvosss focus is on what he calls the affective bond between text and

reader, and he calls for an approach that captures the full complexity

and dynamism of the process of reading, rather than smoothing over

disagreements or forcibly aligning contradictions and complexities in

readers ongoing responses to texts and their intertexts.

In the same volume that contains Sandvosss study, Hills (2007) at-

tacks what he calls the distant reading tradition of media studies; in

this tradition, according to Hills, it is acceptable to comment on media

texts without actually bothering to watch or read them. Hills also points

to the problems of using an approach in which the scholar is meant to

be objective or detached in order to study fan communities in which

enthusiasms may be excessive and beyond control. Indeed, academics

who are also fans (or aca-fans) are likely, according to Hills, to project

their own interpretations onto the fan texts being analyzed.

Interestingly, the fanfi ction community itself displays no scruples

about hunting down and exposing examples of badfi c, with sites such


as Fandom Wank and Crack Van directing users toward the good stuff

while reveling in the worst excesses of the bad. But these assessments

are not premised on a centrally held set of criteria; rather, they grow

out of an ongoing debate and discussion about what merits reccing

(recommending) and what does not. Hence participants always have

a right to reply and an opportunity to contest and challenge the values

and interpretations of others. Once again, if an aesthetics is construct-

ed purely on the basis of what fanfi ctions are, rather than on the basis

of what fans do with these texts, then the only options remain a kind of

whitewashing, where we pretend that the writing really is not as bad as

it seems, or a crude selection policy, according to which we only con-

sider for discussion those examples of fanfi ction that meet the mark in

terms of specifi c sets of criteria that must by their very nature be in-

fl exible. A more productive approach is suggested by Sandvoss (2007),

whereby instead of focusing on the value of a specifi c text, or abandon-

ing altogether any notion of value, we focus instead on what he calls

the spectrum of textuality (31) to encompass the broader effects and

infl uences that the text may have and go on to have. Thus, rather than

imposing a set of values, analysts can focus on what makes this kind of

narrative practice distinctivefor example, by exploring how it pro-

vides different perspectives on a familiar fi ctional world or set of events

or allows fans happily to move in and out of various storyworlds and

also between the storyworld and the real world of their day-to-day

existence.

With fanfi ction it is also important to recognize that what may be

valued by one community or fandom may not hold equal value for an-

other. For example, my studies of The Republic of Pemberley website

(Thomas 2007) or fans of the author Mark Danielewski (Thomas 2011)

have shown that these fans are quite prepared to pass judgment not just

on the merits of the texts they discuss but also on others responses to

and interpretations of those texts. While other fandoms may be much

less hawkish and intimidating, nevertheless reviewing and critiquing

are an intrinsic part of all of the fanfi ction sites that I have visited, and

indeed the constant dialogue between authors and their readers, and

the fact that these roles are so readily interchangeable, make it impos-

sible to fully appreciate fanfi ction without looking at how the stories


are received and talked about within the specifi c communities in which

they are located.

In the illustrative analysis that follows, I use a fanfi ction based on

Austens Pride and Prejudice to weave together many of the strands of

my discussion up to this point. I also aim to demonstrate how an in-

tegrated analysisone that combines close attention to the text and

a focus on the wider processes of production and receptioncan of-

fer valuable insights into what fanfi ction is for and what it does vis--

vis those who are involved with its production, interpretation, and

recontextualization.

Illustrative Analysis: Ae Fond Kiss

The story Ae Fond Kiss appears on Mrs. Darcys Story Site; this site lists

twenty-one female authors of fanfi ctions based on Pride and Prejudice

and includes, in addition, special features, a store, and a message fo-

rum where users can post their reviews and comments. The site also

features stills from movie adaptations of Austens work as well as links

to various sites that explore aspects of her life and works. The commu-

nity appears tight-knit, referring to each other as dears, but the site is

in many ways less open than others, since it does not explicitly invite

contributions or make visible its guidelines and protocols.

Ae Fond Kiss, which fi rst appeared on the site in 2006, is catego-

rized as WIP (work in progress) and R (restricted, has some adult con-

tent). Systems of categorization are common across fanfi ction sites and

help users to navigate in terms of genre, favored pairings of characters,

and so on. Ae Fond Kiss falls into the category of AU (Alternate Uni-

verse stories): it imagines Elizabeth Bennet working as a schoolteacher

in present-day Glasgow, while Jane Bennet is recast as a social work-

er, and Bill Collins is an irritating mature student whom Elizabeth

meets at a training college. Twenty-one chapters of the story were post-

ed before the author, Carol, mysteriously disappeared. Subsequent

message forums record appeals for her to get in touch as well as read-

ers disappointment that the story has been left incomplete. The last

chapter posted introduces an unexpected complication in the Eliza-

beth/William (Darcy) relationship, with Elizabeth suspecting William


of becoming involved with Caroline Bingley. This turn of events might

explain why those posting on the message boards are so desperate for

Carol to continue, despite the fact that we last hear from Carol in 2007.

Indeed, messages were still being left for her in January 2010, demon-

strating the tenacity of the fans as well as their commitment to the idea

of community. What is more, it appears that for users of the site track-

ing Carols story and interacting on the message boards, the updates

on her health are as much a part of the story as the chapters that she

posted on the site.

Unlike some other fanfi ction sites, which provide biographies and

links to authors websites, Mrs. Darcys Story Site simply lists the fi rst

names of the writers and provides a link to the stories they have au-

thored. Similarly, while other fansites separate complete from incom-

plete stories, Mrs. Darcys Story Site does not; nor does it provide infor-

mation about when a story was posted or updated, although this can be

deduced from the message boards. As was suggested earlier, for fanfi c-

tion readers, being able to track the evolution of a story seems to be at

least as important as having access to the completed version, once again

suggesting the importance of process in this kind of narrativeat mul-

tiple levels.

While the site does not give explicit information about Carol, refer-

ences to specifi c locations in Glasgow and the storys use of Scots dia-

lect suggest some familiarity with the locale, and on the message boards

Carol reveals that she was born in Aberfeldy. There is also plenty of

evidence to indicate that the author is very familiar with the teaching

profession. Compared to, for example, most of the contributions to

www.fanfi ction.net, Ae Fond Kiss displays a very mature and confi -

dent writing style and makes informed references to many other literary

works (Shakespeare, Norman McCaig, the Burns song of the title), as

well as to Austens larger oeuvre. The story also makes extratextual ref-

erences to real people, such as the actor Iain Glen, and to rock bands

such as Pearl Jam and Bad Company, resulting in the kinds of metalep-

sis Turk (2010) notes in her analysis of fanvids.

In keeping with a lot of AU fanfi ction based on classic texts, the lan-

guage is a mix of homages to Austen and contemporary slang (Mr ar-

sehole Darcy; SOB), and the story also resembles other fanfi cs in its


knowing humor (for example, recasting Mary Bennet as a goth). In

terms of the aesthetics of the form, therefore, it is important to recog-

nize that what might otherwise appear as clumsy gaffes and anachro-

nisms are in fact deliberate, and as Turk (2010) has argued, it is exact-

ly this clash of diegetic levels that contributes so much to the pleasure

to be derived from such stories. Rather than being wholly transported

(Gerrig 1993) into another world, the fan keeps one toe in the realm of

the real world, with the banal and the mundane rubbing up against

the fantastical and the surreal.

An examination of the structural and stylistic features of Ae Fond

Kiss confi rms that it is a relatively typical fanfi ction. Although most

fanfi ction is written in the fi rst person, Ae Fond Kiss is told in the

third person and shifts between focalizers, both male and female,

though Elizabeths is by far the most dominant perspective. Ae Fond

Kiss also includes many examples of in-fi lling (Black 2004), particu-

larly in its fl eshing out of minor characters such as Georgie (Darcys

sister) and Mrs. Reynolds (Darcys housekeeper). The story also relies

on a number of plot twists (Elizabeth is seeing Charles, Jane is with

William Darcy) and expansions (new characters such as Roddie Gra-

ham, Elizabeth narrowly escaping being raped by George Wickham, a

sex scene involving Darcy and Elizabeth).

Readers responses to the story are a mix of the intimate and the

playful, as when Rene O confesses that due to the Scottish setting now

I see Colin Firth in kilt all the time (November 13, 2006). The com-

ments also reveal the intensity of the readers engagement with the char-

actersto the point where the boundaries between the textual and the

extratextual threaten once more to collapse, as when one contributor

advises Carol about the correct management of Elizabeths frizzy hair.

In line with reviews on other fanfi ction sites (see Thomas 2011), most of

the comments are complimentary, with many readers commenting that

the story has convinced them that modern takes on Pride and Prejudice

can work well. But although many of the comments may appear rather

superfi cial, they do bear out the claims of theorists such as Turk (2010)

and Debra Journet (2010). These scholars argue that in formulating

their responses to and engaging in discussions about specifi c texts, fans

frequently engage in the kind of analysis preferred by literary critics,


particularly where they attempt to back up their interpretations with

reference to the text or to existing scholarship. For example, Margaret F

(January 22, 2007) offers a nuanced analysis of the character of Fanny

Bennet and contrasts the depiction of the character in Ae Fond Kiss

with those found elsewhere. Thus, while I have argued that fans pow-

ers of analysis have perhaps been exaggerated, and that there is a danger

of elevating such skills at the expense of other strategies for engaging

with texts, the evidence suggests that fans take their role as reviewers

seriously.

In her interactions with her readers, Carol reveals some of the in-

spiration for her ideas and also shows a willingness to respond to her

readers comments and suggestions (Now why didnt I think of that,

February 8, 2007). A close affective bond of the kind described by Sand-

voss (2007) is established between the author and her readers, based

on a complex mixture of sympathy for Carols real-world problems, on

the one hand, and dependence on her as the source of further install-

ments, on the other hand. As on many other fanfi ction sites, comments

are interlaced with emoticons and a liberal sprinkling of exclamation

marks, compensating for the lack of face-to-face contact and helping to

reinforce the intensity of the exchanges. The message boards therefore

provide us with invaluable insight into the emotional journey that the

readers undergo and suggest that their engagement with the narrative

entails much more than merely processing the words on the page, en-

compassing their interactions with the author and with each other as

the discussions unfold. Indeed, the fans may be said to participate in a

form of collective intelligence (Jenkins 2006), as they work through

elements of the plotting or share insights into aspects of the Scottish

setting that may be unfamiliar to others. In male-dominated fan com-

munities built around texts that present readers with some kind of puz-

zle, this collective intelligence can mask a certain amount of competi-

tiveness and point scoring (see Thomas 2011). In predominantly female

fan communities, however, collectivity is as much about emotional sup-

port as it is about intelligence, and on Mrs. Darcys Story Site fans are

careful to welcome new members and seem genuinely to look out for

one another, as is evident in the concern displayed for Carol when she

drops out of contact.


Conclusion

What my analysis of Ae Fond Kiss demonstrates is the inappropriate-

ness and impossibility of focusing solely on the fanfi ction text, without

taking into account how aspects of the interface and website design im-

pact upon the reading experience, or how that experience is shaped by

the responses and discussions generated by the stories. Both the writing

and reading of fanfi ction demonstrate how narrative is additive (Perez

2000); in other words, wanting more of (Pugh 2005) the storyworld

that is the object of the fans devotion can hardly be sated by just one

narrative, and the design and navigation of fanfi ction sites is all about

selecting and reading across stories, often in a random rather than a di-

rected fashion. The notion of the inexhaustible story (Douglas 2001)

thus poses a challenge to models of narrative that insist on defi ning the

story text as a stable and fi nite thing. As I suggest as well, the proces-

sual, malleable quality of fanfi ctions also has implications for how we

assess the quality of narratives. In this context judgments made about

story design, characterization, and writing style cannot be made in the

abstract, without recognizing the signifi cance that these narrative ele-

ments may have for a particular community of readers, thanks to the

contexts of production and reception in which a given narrative circu-

lates. Nor can assumptions be made about how all fans engage with the

storyworlds at issue. For all the fans who actively participate and inter-

act on these sites, there are others who simply lurk or who fl it from one

story and one fandom to another without displaying any particular at-

tachment or commitment.

But perhaps the largest lesson of fanfi ction is that it is time to call a

halt to the mutual suspicion that still seems to persist between narratol-

ogy, which emphasizes fi ne-grained analysis of textual features and pat-

terns, and media and cultural studies, which have traditionally focused

more on audiences, reception processes, and issues of ideology and the

place of textual practices within broader social formations. In particu-

lar, dialogue between these fi elds would seem to be productive in al-

lowing us to debate the aesthetic value of new media forms and explore

how storyworlds are put to use as well as constructed and processed.

For fanfi ction studies, this sort of dialogue might result in a middle


ground emerging between those who have perhaps exaggerated the po-

tential signifi cance of fanfi ction and those who dismiss it as adolescent

trash. What is undeniable is that many of the challenges posed by fan-

fi ction are replicated across other kinds of new-media narratives, and so

we ignore these challenges at our own peril.

Notes

1. See Henry Jenkins, Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Offi cial Weblog of Henry

Jenkins, .

2. Examples of anti-fan activity can be found at I Hate Harry Potter, , or I Hate Star Wars Club, .

3. Examples of Darcy/Wickham slash are much more common. See, for example,

Truth Discovered by Jadecastle6 or Two Sides of the Same Coin by Lizard2,

both on FanFiction.Net. For an example of Darcy/Bingley slash see Concern-

ing the Pianaforte by DragonRawr, also at FanFiction.Net.

4. Whysuddenly admits to having Colin Firth in mind when composing The

Wedding Night and Conversation in the Morning, published together at

FanFiction.Net.

5. See R. Lyle Skains (2010) for a discussion of interactions between authors and

their readers online.

Works Cited

websites

Crack Van. .

Derbyshire Writers Guild. .

Fandom Wank. .

FanFiction.Net. .

Firthness. .

Mrs. Darcys Story Site. .

The Republic of Pemberley. .

scholarly works

Abercrombie, Nicholas, and Brian Longhurst (1998). Audiences: A Sociological

Theory of Performance and Imagination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bacon-Smith, Camille (1992). Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the

Creation of Popular Myth. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P.

Black, David A. (2004). Character; or, The Strange Case of Uma Peel. Gwenllian-

Jones and Pearson 99114.


Bleich, David (1978). Subjective Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.Bowles, Kate (2003). Commodifying Austen. Jane Austen on Screen. Ed. Gina

Macdonald and Andrew F. Macdonald. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1521.Brunsdon, Charlotte (1997). Screen Tastes: Soap Operas and Satellite Dishes. London:

Routledge.De Certeau, Michel (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven F. Rendall.

Berkeley: U of California P.Derecho, Abigail (2006). Archontic Literature: A Defi nition, a History, and Several

Theories of Fan Fiction. Hellekson and Busse 6178.Douglas, Jane Yellowlees (2001). The End of Books or Books without End: Reading

Interactive Narratives. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P.Fiske, John (1987). Television Culture. London: Routledge.Genette, Grard (1980) Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Trans. Jane E.

Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell UP. (1997). Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge UP.Gerrig, Richard (1993). Experiencing Narrative Worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale UP. (2005). Psychological Approaches to Narrative. Herman, Jahn, and Ryan

47074.Grahame-Smith, Seth (2009). Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Philadelphia: Quirk

Books.Gray, Jonathan (2003). New Audiences, New Textualities: Anti-Fans and Non-

Fans. International Journal of Cultural Studies 6.1: 6481.Gray, Jonathan, and Jason Mittell (2007). Speculation on Spoilers: Lost Fandom,

Narrative Consumption and Rethinking Textuality. Participations 4.1. .

Gray, Jonathan, Cornel Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington, eds. (2007). Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. New York: New York UP.

Gwenllian-Jones, Sara (2004). Virtual Reality and Cult Television. Gwenllian-Jones and Pearson 8397.

Gwenllian-Jones, Sara, and Roberta Pearson, eds. (2004). Cult Television. Minne-apolis: U of Minnesota P.

Harris, Cheryl (1998). A Sociology of Television Fandom. Theorizing Fandom: Fans, Subculture and Identity. Ed. Cheryl Harris and Alison Alexander. Creskill, NJ: Hampton.

Hellekson, Karen, and Kristina Busse, eds. (2006). Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Herman, David (2005). Storyworlds. Herman, Jahn, and Ryan 56970.Herman, David, Manfred Jahn, and Marie-Laure Ryan, eds. (2005). Routledge

Encyclopedia of Narrative. London: Routledge.Hills, Matt (2002). Fan Cultures. London: Routledge. (2005). Patterns of Surprise: The Aleatory Object in Psychoanalytic

Ethnography and Cyclical Fandom. American Behavioral Scientist 48.7: 80121.


(2007). Media Academics as Media Audiences: Aesthetic Judgments in

Media and Cultural Studies. Gray, Sandvoss, and Harrington 3347.

Hogan, Patrick Colm (forthcoming). Affective Narratology: The Emotional Structure

of Stories. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.

Hutcheon, Linda (2005). Refl exivity. Herman, Jahn, and Ryan 49495.

Jancovich, Mark (2002). Cult Fictions: Cult Movies, Subcultural Capital, and the

Production of Cultural Distinction. Cultural Studies 16.2: 30622.

Jenkins, Henry (1992). Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture.

London: Routledge.

(2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York:

New York UP.

Johnson, Derek (2007). Fan-tagonism: Factions, Institutions, and Constitutive

Hegemonies of Fandom. Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated

World. New York: New York UP. 285300.

Journet, Debra (2010). Literate Acts in Convergence Culture: Lost as Transmedia

Narrative. Rhetorics and Technologies: New Directions in Writing and Commu-

nication. Ed. Stuart A. Selber. Columbia: U of South Carolina P. 198217.

Lunenfeld, Peter (2000). Unfi nished Business. The Digital Dialectic. Ed. Peter

Lunenfeld. Cambridge, MA: MIT P. 623.

McKee, Alan (2004). How to Tell the Difference between Production and Con-

sumption: A Case Study in Doctor Who Fandom. Gwenllian-Jones and Pear-

son 16785.

Miller, Toby (2004). Trainspotting The Avengers. Gwenllian-Jones and Pearson

18797.

Murray, Janet (1998). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace.

Cambridge, MA: MIT P.

Pearson, Roberta (2007). Bachies, Bardies, Trekkies and Sherlockians. Fandom:

Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. Gray, Sandvoss, and

Harrington 98109.

Perez, Gilberto (2000). The Material Ghost: Films and Their Medium. Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins UP.

Pugh, Sheenagh (2005). The Democratic Genre: Fan Fiction in a Literary Context.

Bridgend, Wales: Seren Books.

Sandvoss, Cornel (2005). Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Cambridge: Polity.

(2007). The Death of the Reader? Literary Theory and the Study of Texts

in Popular Culture. Gray, Sandvoss, and Harrington 1932.

Skains, R. Lyle (2010). The Shifting Author Reader Dynamic: Online Novel Com-

munities as a Bridge from Print to Digital Literature. Convergence 16.1: 95111.

Stasi, Mafalda (2006). The Toy Soldiers from Leeds: The Slash Palimpest. Hellek-

son and Busse 11533.

Tabbi, Joseph (2003). The Processual Page: Materiality and Consciousness in Print


and Hypertext. Journal of New Media and Culture 2.2. .

Thomas, Bronwen (2007). Canons and Fanons: Literary Fanfi ction Online. Digital

Dichtung. .

(2009). Gains and Losses? Writing It All Down: Fanfi ction and Multimo-

dality. New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality. Ed. Ruth Page. Lon-

don: Routledge. 14254.

(2011). Trickster Authors and Tricky Readers on the MZD Forums. Mark

Z Danielewski. Ed. Alison Gibbons and Joe Bray. Manchester: Manchester UP.

86102.

(forthcoming). Update Soon! Harry Potter Fanfi ction and Narrative as a

Participatory Process. In New Narratives: Stories and Storytelling in the Digital

Age. Ed. Ruth Page and Bronwen Thomas. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.

Thompson, Allison (2008). Trinkets and Treasures: Consuming Jane Austen. Per-

suasions On-Line 28.2. .

Tulloch, John (2007). Fans of Chekhov: Re-Approaching High Culture. Gray,

Sandvoss, and Harrington 11022.

Turk, Tisha (2010). Metalepsis in Fan Vids and Fan Fiction. Metalepsis in Popular

Culture. Ed. Karin Kukkonen and Sonja Klimek. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

87107.

Documents

What is Fan-Fiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things About It?