What Is Fanfiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things Ab 2011

What Is Fanfiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things about It?
Author(s): Bronwen Thomas

Source: Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, Vol. 3 (2011), pp. 1-24
Published by: University of Nebraska Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/storyworlds.3.2011.0001 .
Accessed: 08/07/2013 10:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Nebraska Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
What Is Fanfiction and
Why Are People Saying
Such Nice Things about It?
Bronwen Thomas
The term fanfiction (sometimes abbreviated as fanfic)

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 fictional universe. Fanfiction’s origins have
been traced back to science fiction 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 “profics” such as Jean Rhys’s Wide
Sargasso Sea (Pugh 2005), which functions as a kind
of prequel for Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre. Neverthe-

less, fanfiction 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 fields
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 fanfiction, revisiting—and questioning—some 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 fanfiction,
particularly with regard to understanding the processes involved in
fanfic’s production and reception. The converse question is equally rel-
evant: how might coming to terms with fanfiction 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-
fiction, 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 field, drawing on a
range of illustrative examples. I then zoom in on one instance of fanfic-
tion to demonstrate the salience of the issues outlined in my survey of
the field and to sketch strategies for addressing those issues.
A Brief Overview of Fanfiction Studies

Up to now, the study of fanfiction 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-
2 storyworlds volume 3 2011

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 rhetoric—for example, in Pugh’s (2005) claim
that fanfiction represents a democratic genre, or Stasi’s (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-
fiction alongside literary traditions and conventions, media studies ap-
proaches consciously steer clear of any attempt to evaluate fanfiction
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 fanfiction studies, Cornel Sandvoss (2005) claims
that the first “wave” of theory was heavily influenced 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 Madonna’s empowering influence on her young fe-
male followers and sets up the influential category of the “active” audi-
ence. But it was Henry Jenkins’s 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 Certeau’s (1984) notion of the “poacher” to write about fans
not as dupes of dominant ideologies but as renegades and subversives
able to undermine commodification 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 Murray’s (1998) concepts of ency-
clopedic narratives and procedural authorship.1 Referring to himself as
an “Aca-Fan,” Jenkins attempts to redefine 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 first
Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 3

wave of research on fanfiction 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 affiliation of conflicting and
competing positions and voices. For example, Jonathan Gray, Cornel
Sandvoss, and S. Lee Herrington (2007) somewhat mockingly label the
first 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 first-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 fanfiction studies take a more com-
plex approach to the issue of power, influenced by Foucault and Bour-
dieu. The second wave, exemplified 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.
Influenced by poststructuralism, the third wave is distinguished by
a greater self-reflexivity about the theorist’s own motives and positions
and by a shift in emphasis toward exploring the contributions of fans
to contemporary culture. Theorists reflect 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 fans—practices that may run counter to the rath-
er utopian visions found in earlier studies. Third-wave theorists often
draw on Nicholas Abercrombie and Brian Longhurst’s (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
affiliations 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 fandom’s 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 fanfiction may
challenge existing notions of narrative and storytelling. At the same
time, I explore how scholarship on narrative might offer new insights
into fanfiction or new methodologies for its analysis—and conversely
what is entailed by adding fanfiction 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 sacrifice depth for breadth and only rarely engage
with specific 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 fanfiction
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 fanfiction, 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
fanfiction based on Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, a novel that has

spawned one of the most prolific 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 fiercely protective of the Austen legacy, in actual-
ity these fandoms exemplify the variety of communities existing online.
Here too we find plenty of diversity in the modes of engagement that
fans display and in how they participate in processes of creation and
reception.
Approaches to Fanfiction
fanfiction and participatory culture
Perhaps one of the main reasons why people are saying such nice things
about fanfiction 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 specific 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-
fiction 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 specific 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
finger 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
confirming the limitless creativity of fans seeking out ways to display
their devotion to and passion for their favored storyworlds.
In short, fanfiction highlights the motivations and desires of read-
ers—in 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 critic’s own interpretation
of the text. Further, fanfiction 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 fiction, a variety of fanfic-
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 fic-
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 Barthes’s notion of “jouissance” (Fiske
1987). Fanfiction 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 conflicting. 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
worlds—how they inhabit them, transform them, make them their own.
fanfiction as transgressive practice

Because of the ways it gives readers such transformative powers, fanfic-
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. Fanfiction stories often provocatively play
with the various elements of the storyworlds on which they are based.

The language employed by fanfiction communities amply displays their
disdain for convention (PWP = Plot, What Plot?), while the system of
classification used across many fanfiction sites openly acknowledges
the potential for fan-created texts to cause offense. Slash fiction pro-
vides many examples of these more controversial transgressions—for
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 fanfics take
the characters from one fictional world and “cross” them with another.
Examples of cross-over fictions 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 film adaptations of a text, interviews
with the author or cast, and even merchandising and marketing. For
many fans of Austen’s novel, Colin Firth’s portrayal of Mr. Darcy in the
1995 BBC adaptation was so definitive that it is almost unthinkable not
to use the actor’s mannerisms and physical characteristics when writing
or reading about Darcy.4 Notoriously, Andrew Davies’s adaptation in-
cluded scenes of Mr. Darcy in the bath and emerging in a wet shirt from
the lake at Pemberley—scenes that never appeared in Austen’s novel.
These adaptations have now become part of the canon for many fans of
Austen, representing an expansion of the novel’s “metaverse” (Gwenl-
lian-Jones 2004); in turn, this expansion has arguably helped to attract
a whole new audience to Austen’s writing. There is even a fansite dedi-
cated to Colin Firth in his role as Darcy (www.firthness.com), featuring
a “Pond” section where fans can post messages and news.
Fanfiction also breaks down the boundaries between authors and
readers, since on most fanfiction 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 fanfic 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-
nity—even when those elements never appeared in the source text, or
radically depart from it.
Fanfiction is often highly reflexive 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 artifice 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 flaunting the artificiality and surreal-
ity of their stories while also continuing to be engaged and immersed
in the fictional worlds they help to flesh out and concretize. However,
in an effort to develop more sober and responsible assessments of fan
practices, recent fanfiction 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 Austen’s
legacy. Many other sites ban certain kinds of fanfic altogether (especially
Real Person Fiction, or fiction in which real-world celebrities and per-
sonages figure), 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 fanfiction is that “Fan research has been institutionally and
personally convenient” (Gray 2003: 67). In particular, online fanfiction
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 defining feature of fanfiction: namely, its self-
proclaimed status as “work in progress.” Fanfiction 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 unfin-
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 “infinitely extended middle” (Fiske
1987). However, even with narratives such as Austen’s 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 fanfiction 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 fanfiction is often dismissed as derivative and unoriginal,
fan communities proudly boast about the influence they have on peo-
ple’s 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 fanfiction sites, and Seth Grahame-Smith’s Pride and
Prejudice and Zombies (2009) clearly owes a debt to the cross-over genre
of fanfiction. For fanfiction 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 fanfiction studies often draw on narratological terminology, there
has been very little cross-fertilization to date between narrative theo-

ry and media studies vis-à-vis stories written by communities of fans.
Reception theory and the notion of gap filling sometimes feature in
the literature (Sandvoss 2007), and Gray (2003) cites Fish’s 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 Gérard Gen-
ette’s (1997) concept of the paratext in accounting for the various forms
fan activity may take, while Barthes’s notion of the writerly text figures
prominently in the work of Fiske (1987) and in Hellekson and Busse’s
study (2006). Matt Hills (2002) also borrows from narrative theory in
his development of the concept of hyperdiegesis, defined 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 Murray’s (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
fanfiction 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 fanfiction and fanvids, Tisha Turk (2010) focuses
on metalepsis, or the conflation or entanglement of narrative levels, and
argues that Genette’s (1980) original theory requires modification to ac-
count for how metalepsis works within participatory cultures and ex-
tends beyond the borders of the text. Turk’s analysis of specific 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 fanfiction
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-Jones’s (2004) analysis of the metaverses of fantasy
and science fiction suggests other strategies for promoting a closer di-

alogue between media studies and narrative theory when it comes to
fanfiction. Gwenllian-Jones argues that “fictional 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 fictional 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 narratology’s movement be-
yond the confines 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 narratology’s 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 find in fanfiction communities. In particular, Richard Gerrig’s
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 refashion—and 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 unfinish,” 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 find
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-filling”: that is, the process of fleshing 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 fanfiction for fear of being accused of im-
porting values and criteria from elsewhere and stifling the creativity and
forms of resistance displayed by fans. Yet being too nice about fanfiction
may also prove counterproductive if, as Charlotte Brunsdon (1997) has
argued, this only leaves the field clear for the pronouncements of oth-
ers. Similarly, Toby Miller (2004) makes the point that by turning fans
into aficionados 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 forth—rather 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 fanfiction, we may need to explore
a new understanding of aesthetic value that reflects the decentralization
of contemporary culture. At the same time, this approach to aesthetic

value could build on models that, like David Bleich’s (1978) and Patrick
Colm Hogan’s (forthcoming), embrace subjectivity and affect, rather
than marginalizing or ignoring such aspects of readerly engagement.
What I have described as the third wave of fanfiction 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 fulfill 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 find 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 definition 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.
Sandvoss’s 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 Sandvoss’s 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 fanfiction community itself displays no scruples
about hunting down and exposing examples of “badfic,” 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 fanfictions 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 fanfiction that meet the mark in
terms of specific sets of criteria that must by their very nature be in-
flexible. A more productive approach is suggested by Sandvoss (2007),
whereby instead of focusing on the value of a specific 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
influences 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 distinctive—for example, by exploring how it pro-
vides different perspectives on a familiar fictional 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 fanfiction 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 fanfiction 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 fanfiction without looking at how the stories

are received and talked about within the specific communities in which
they are located.
In the illustrative analysis that follows, I use a fanfiction based on
Austen’s 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 analysis—one that combines close attention to the text and
a focus on the wider processes of production and reception—can of-
fer valuable insights into what fanfiction is for and what it does vis-à-
vis those who are involved with its production, interpretation, and
recontextualization.
Illustrative Analysis: “Ae Fond Kiss”

The story “Ae Fond Kiss” appears on Mrs. Darcy’s Story Site; this site lists
twenty-one female authors of fanfictions 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 Austen’s 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 first 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 fanfiction 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 Carol’s 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 fanfiction sites, which provide biographies and
links to authors’ websites, Mrs. Darcy’s Story Site simply lists the first
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. Darcy’s 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 fanfic-
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 narrative—at mul-
tiple levels.
While the site does not give explicit information about Carol, refer-
ences to specific locations in Glasgow and the story’s 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.fanfiction.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 Austen’s 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 fanfiction 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 fanfics 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” confirms that it is a relatively typical fanfiction. Although most
fanfiction is written in the first person, “Ae Fond Kiss” is told in the
third person and shifts between focalizers, both male and female,
though Elizabeth’s is by far the most dominant perspective. “Ae Fond
Kiss” also includes many examples of “in-filling” (Black 2004), particu-
larly in its fleshing out of minor characters such as “Georgie” (Darcy’s
sister) and Mrs. Reynolds (Darcy’s 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 Renée 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-
acters—to 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 Elizabeth’s frizzy hair.
In line with reviews on other fanfiction 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
superficial, 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 specific 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 didn’t 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 Carol’s 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 fanfiction 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. Darcy’s 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 fanfiction 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 fanfiction demonstrate how narrative is additive (Perez
2000); in other words, wanting “more of ” (Pugh 2005) the storyworld
that is the object of the fan’s devotion can hardly be sated by just one
narrative, and the design and navigation of fanfiction 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 defining the
story text as a stable and finite thing. As I suggest as well, the proces-
sual, malleable quality of fanfictions 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 significance 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 flit from one
story and one fandom to another without displaying any particular at-
tachment or commitment.
But perhaps the largest lesson of fanfiction is that it is time to call a
halt to the mutual suspicion that still seems to persist between narratol-
ogy, which emphasizes fine-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 fields 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 fanfiction studies, this sort of dialogue might result in a middle

ground emerging between those who have perhaps exaggerated the po-
tential significance of fanfiction and those who dismiss it as adolescent
trash. What is undeniable is that many of the challenges posed by fan-
fiction 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 Official Weblog of Henry
Jenkins, <http://www.henryjenkins.org/>.
2. Examples of anti-fan activity can be found at I Hate Harry Potter, <http://www
.ihateharrypotter.com>, or I Hate Star Wars Club, <http://ihatestarwarsclub.
blogspot.com>.
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. <http://community.livejournal.com/crack_van/>.
Derbyshire Writers’ Guild. <http://www.austen.com/derby>.
Fandom Wank. <http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/>.
FanFiction.Net. <http://www.fanfiction.net>.
Firthness. <http://www.firthness.com>.
Mrs. Darcy’s Story Site. <http://www.mrsdarcy.com>.
The Republic of Pemberley. <http://www.pemberley.com>.
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 99–114.

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. 15–21.
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 Definition, a History, and Several
Theories of Fan Fiction.” Hellekson and Busse 61–78.
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, Gérard (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
470–74.
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: 64–81.
Gray, Jonathan, and Jason Mittell (2007). “Speculation on Spoilers: Lost Fandom,
Narrative Consumption and Rethinking Textuality.” Participations 4.1. <www
.participations.org/Volume%204/Issue%201/4_01_graymittell.htm>.
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 83–97.
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 569–70.
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: 801–21.

——— (2007). “Media Academics as Media Audiences: Aesthetic Judgments in
Media and Cultural Studies.” Gray, Sandvoss, and Harrington 33–47.
Hogan, Patrick Colm (forthcoming). Affective Narratology: The Emotional Structure
of Stories. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.
Hutcheon, Linda (2005). “Reflexivity.” Herman, Jahn, and Ryan 494–95.
Jancovich, Mark (2002). “Cult Fictions: Cult Movies, Subcultural Capital, and the
Production of Cultural Distinction.” Cultural Studies 16.2: 306–22.
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. 285–300.
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. 198–217.
Lunenfeld, Peter (2000). “Unfinished Business.” The Digital Dialectic. Ed. Peter
Lunenfeld. Cambridge, MA: MIT P. 6–23.
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 167–85.
Miller, Toby (2004). “Trainspotting The Avengers.” Gwenllian-Jones and Pearson
187–97.
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 98–109.
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 19–32.
Skains, R. Lyle (2010). “The Shifting Author Reader Dynamic: Online Novel Com-
munities as a Bridge from Print to Digital Literature.” Convergence 16.1: 95–111.
Stasi, Mafalda (2006). “The Toy Soldiers from Leeds: The Slash Palimpest.” Hellek-
son and Busse 115–33.
Tabbi, Joseph (2003). “The Processual Page: Materiality and Consciousness in Print

and Hypertext.” Journal of New Media and Culture 2.2. <http://www.ibiblio.org/
nmediac/fall2003/processual.html>.
Thomas, Bronwen (2007). “Canons and Fanons: Literary Fanfiction Online.” Digital
Dichtung. <http://www.brown.edu/Research/dichtung-digital/2007/Thomas/
thomas.htm>.
——— (2009). “Gains and Losses? Writing It All Down: Fanfiction and Multimo-
dality.” New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality. Ed. Ruth Page. Lon-
don: Routledge. 142–54.
——— (2011). “Trickster Authors and Tricky Readers on the MZD Forums.” Mark
Z Danielewski. Ed. Alison Gibbons and Joe Bray. Manchester: Manchester UP.
86–102.
——— (forthcoming). “‘Update Soon!’ Harry Potter Fanfiction 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. <http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol28no2/
thompson.htm>.
Tulloch, John (2007). “Fans of Chekhov: Re-Approaching ‘High Culture.’” Gray,
Sandvoss, and Harrington 110–22.
Turk, Tisha (2010). “Metalepsis in Fan Vids and Fan Fiction.” Metalepsis in Popular
Culture. Ed. Karin Kukkonen and Sonja Klimek. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
87–107.


What Is Fanfiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things Ab 2011

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

What Is Fanfiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things Ab 2011

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

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

Author(s): Bronwen Thomas

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

The term fanfiction (sometimes abbreviated as fanfic)

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

A Brief Overview of Fanfiction Studies

2 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 3

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

4 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 5

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

6 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

fanfiction as transgressive practice

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 7

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

8 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

fan fiction as work in progress

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 9

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

the narrative structure of fanfiction

10 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 11

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

12 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

toward an aesthetic of fanfiction

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 13

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

14 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 15

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Illustrative Analysis: “Ae Fond Kiss”

16 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 17

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

18 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 19

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

20 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 21

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

22 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Thomas: What Is Fanfiction? 23

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

24 storyworlds volume 3 2011

This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:06:50 AM

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen