Transcribe
Translate
Jinx, v. 1, issue 2, whole no. 2, March 1942
Page 10
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Page Ten - JINX "What's Wrong With Fan Fiction" by Hpesop Trebliq Fandom, supposed;y, is an excellent training ground for the amateur author. Well, where non-fiction is concerned, the supposition is unquestionably correct, but not for fiction, my friend. Fan writers, as a general thing, do not make good pro fiction writers. They'r under an awful handicap, and the name of the handicap is fandom,. The reason can be expressed in one word: Imitation. It is more than the sincerest form of flattery. Psychologically, it is one of our most important motivating influences. It determines how we shall talk, how we shall act in the company of our fellows, and how we shall - which is the point - write. Environment is basically imitation. And environment together with heredity determines an individual's entire personality and outlook. Environment is the form and heredity the degree. That is why a Georgia share-cropper does not talk like an English lord. It is why writers cannot imagine or portray creatures and civilizations that are utterly alien to earth. Man cannot conceive of that which has no connection with their experiences; or more accurately, that which has no earthly parallel in some form or other. Culture is essentially imitation. Imitation of those who we admire who are cultured. And, likewise, art is imitation.. Imitation of that form of art which we like best and with which we are most familiar. Genius is originality. It is the ability to rise above imitation to create something new. Fans are not geniuses (or genii if you prefer). Neither are they, for the most part, very good fiction writers. The reason again: Imitation. They set out to write a story. A fantasy story, of course. Naturally enough they write their story around the lines of other stories they have read like it in the pros. The good stories they have read may spring to mind, but these do not have the influence they should; they are submerged by the vague remembrance of the patterns of a thousand other not-so-good stories. The result is as lamentable as it is inevitable. Another "fan story". Another uninspired, and thoroughly hammy story without originality, without personality, without, even, a plot worth speaking of. If the writer keeps on writing, soon the haminess disappears. The other drawbacks remain. A story by this writer is not ludicrously bad, but neither is it the sort of thing you feel you'f like to re-read some time. It is simply dull. It has no color and no interest. And it is something more than likely that all future stories by the same writer will be quite competent, and equally tiresome. Some day he may sell. But he will never make a living out of writing. For his stuff is smooth enough, but not too obviously amateurish, and like a million other tales by a million other amateurs. It lacks a little something that makes editors yelp and lope off for their check-books. Something variously called "punch", "color", and "individuality". The latter is the best term. It is the name for that quality in a story that stamps it as being written by a person, and not by just another writer. Style. A way of saying things in your own way, and not as a multitude of others have said them. Fans imitate the hacks in the science-fiction magazines. Which is very bad indeed, because the hacks strive for a saleable standard of mediocrity and achieve it. Their stuff is professional. but it is not individual. With the result that fans imitate those hacks and produce something that is neither professional nor individual. It's a pretty vicious cycle. Who are the fans who can write good fiction? The Futurians, Lou Goldstone, Barry Jenkins, Fred Fischer, Lee Eastman, W.E. MacQueen, Speer, Rothman, and a few others. All of them, you'll notice, are well-read. And that's the answer. With a background of Conrad, Thackeray, ,Dickens, Wilde, and the really good modern authors, you're bound to have a good style. And an individual one. With a background of Hamilton, Kummer, Cummings, and Schachner, you're pretty bound to have a bad style. Unfortunately, there are no two ways about it. If you want to write, read those who are good writers. That doesn't mean the classics alone, although there's some damn good stuff in some of 'em - it means Sturgeon, the best of Hubbard, Keller, Moore, and Lovecraft. Study the way in which they get across an effect. To get the full benefit of this reading, follow Morley's
Saving...
prev
next
Page Ten - JINX "What's Wrong With Fan Fiction" by Hpesop Trebliq Fandom, supposed;y, is an excellent training ground for the amateur author. Well, where non-fiction is concerned, the supposition is unquestionably correct, but not for fiction, my friend. Fan writers, as a general thing, do not make good pro fiction writers. They'r under an awful handicap, and the name of the handicap is fandom,. The reason can be expressed in one word: Imitation. It is more than the sincerest form of flattery. Psychologically, it is one of our most important motivating influences. It determines how we shall talk, how we shall act in the company of our fellows, and how we shall - which is the point - write. Environment is basically imitation. And environment together with heredity determines an individual's entire personality and outlook. Environment is the form and heredity the degree. That is why a Georgia share-cropper does not talk like an English lord. It is why writers cannot imagine or portray creatures and civilizations that are utterly alien to earth. Man cannot conceive of that which has no connection with their experiences; or more accurately, that which has no earthly parallel in some form or other. Culture is essentially imitation. Imitation of those who we admire who are cultured. And, likewise, art is imitation.. Imitation of that form of art which we like best and with which we are most familiar. Genius is originality. It is the ability to rise above imitation to create something new. Fans are not geniuses (or genii if you prefer). Neither are they, for the most part, very good fiction writers. The reason again: Imitation. They set out to write a story. A fantasy story, of course. Naturally enough they write their story around the lines of other stories they have read like it in the pros. The good stories they have read may spring to mind, but these do not have the influence they should; they are submerged by the vague remembrance of the patterns of a thousand other not-so-good stories. The result is as lamentable as it is inevitable. Another "fan story". Another uninspired, and thoroughly hammy story without originality, without personality, without, even, a plot worth speaking of. If the writer keeps on writing, soon the haminess disappears. The other drawbacks remain. A story by this writer is not ludicrously bad, but neither is it the sort of thing you feel you'f like to re-read some time. It is simply dull. It has no color and no interest. And it is something more than likely that all future stories by the same writer will be quite competent, and equally tiresome. Some day he may sell. But he will never make a living out of writing. For his stuff is smooth enough, but not too obviously amateurish, and like a million other tales by a million other amateurs. It lacks a little something that makes editors yelp and lope off for their check-books. Something variously called "punch", "color", and "individuality". The latter is the best term. It is the name for that quality in a story that stamps it as being written by a person, and not by just another writer. Style. A way of saying things in your own way, and not as a multitude of others have said them. Fans imitate the hacks in the science-fiction magazines. Which is very bad indeed, because the hacks strive for a saleable standard of mediocrity and achieve it. Their stuff is professional. but it is not individual. With the result that fans imitate those hacks and produce something that is neither professional nor individual. It's a pretty vicious cycle. Who are the fans who can write good fiction? The Futurians, Lou Goldstone, Barry Jenkins, Fred Fischer, Lee Eastman, W.E. MacQueen, Speer, Rothman, and a few others. All of them, you'll notice, are well-read. And that's the answer. With a background of Conrad, Thackeray, ,Dickens, Wilde, and the really good modern authors, you're bound to have a good style. And an individual one. With a background of Hamilton, Kummer, Cummings, and Schachner, you're pretty bound to have a bad style. Unfortunately, there are no two ways about it. If you want to write, read those who are good writers. That doesn't mean the classics alone, although there's some damn good stuff in some of 'em - it means Sturgeon, the best of Hubbard, Keller, Moore, and Lovecraft. Study the way in which they get across an effect. To get the full benefit of this reading, follow Morley's
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
