Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Terry Prachett famously avoided reading fan fiction to avoid the legal entanglements. J.K. Rowling has been back and forth on it. She praised the Harry Potter Lexicon early on, then became an opponent when it tried to publish an encyclopedia. Note that if not for the open admission of the author or having previously read the story when it was Master of the Universe, you probably couldn't tell that 50 Shades of Gray began as a Twilight fanfic, so it avoids a lot of this murk entirely because the author went through the trouble of removing any and all references to the inspiring work. This is actually pretty easy for Twilight FanFics (Vampire Academy and Women of the Otherworld as well) because many fanfics of those series start by completely reinventing the background of the characters.

I figured that it was easy for 50 Shades because vampirism in Twilight seems to be fairly interchangeable with being wealthy (and healthy) enough to not care about day to day problems.

So not that I think anyone is going to rush to Mercedes Lackey's defense on Dakka Dakka but let me clarify that I think Talia is a perfectly suitable protagonist for the type of story Lackey told ... for me, the trouble was, I could tell from the nature of the protagonist that this story had nothing to offer me except for, I guess, anthropological fodder?

What's her story supposed to be fanfiction of? I've never heard of her.

Heck, between Arrows, Queens and Talia, I'm kinda assuming DC comics...

The series in question is not fan-fiction. The author of the series forbade her fans to write fan-fiction based on the series.

 Manchu wrote:
The series in question is not fan-fiction. The author of the series forbade her fans to write fan-fiction based on the series.

How would one police that, exactly?

 feeder wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The series in question is not fan-fiction. The author of the series forbade her fans to write fan-fiction based on the series.

How would one police that, exactly?

Employ GW's lawyers?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This thread brought to you by 'Law Abiding Citizen'

In short, it's a pretty decent film.

Except I sat through it simply thinking the protagonist was a complete child born out of wedlock.

Whole reason for the baddy's rampage? Prosecutor Protagonist decided not to prosecute suspected murderers to protect his 96% conviction rate

What an absolute Donkey-Cave! Never mind justice and doing your job. Think of your win rate. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF YOUR WIN RATE!

Protagonist doesn't even get their own much deserved comeuppance!

Have you seen any films where the plot just gives you absolutely no sympathy for the goodies?

I was routing for Clyde Shelton through that whole movie.

 feeder wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The series in question is not fan-fiction. The author of the series forbade her fans to write fan-fiction based on the series.

How would one police that, exactly?

Functionally you can't.

Though numerous authors have sent requests to places like FanFiction.net to take down sections for their works, and such sites usually comply out of a sense of politeness and courtesy more than anything. Won't stop people from from making fan stuff though. The internet is too big.

 Breotan wrote:
Non-canon? I could have sworn I saw all three of those things in the prequel movies.

IOW, in non-canon fanfiction

I, too, believe there are only three Star Wars movies. #Notmyprequels

 LordofHats wrote:
Terry Prachett famously avoided reading fan fiction to avoid the legal entanglements. J.K. Rowling has been back and forth on it. She praised the Harry Potter Lexicon early on, then became an opponent when it tried to publish an encyclopedia.

Then there's G.R.R. Martin being totally fine with The World of Ice and Fire, which is basically canonized fan-fiction.

 Peregrine wrote:
How did they get control of the manufacturing capacity to build all those star destroyers/new TIE fighters/etc?

The Empire built the first Death Star without most of the galaxy knowing and, according to cannon, the Rebellion got X-Wings via"...hidden dry docks and hangars.".

Flexibility when it comes to logistics is not new to the Star Wars universe.

 dogma wrote:

Then there's G.R.R. Martin being totally fine with The World of Ice and Fire, which is basically canonized fan-fiction.

Martin is interesting cause public he's been very critical of fan fiction calling it copyright infringement and the stuff bad writers are made of. Then he turns around and basically seems to elevate certain things into canon status.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I, too, believe there are only three Star Wars movies. #Notmyprequels

Amen.

I agree that Thomas Covenant is really rough to follow as a protagonist. I never got past the first book, but maybe it's time to give it another shot.

Though it's really hard to like someone who gets transported to another world and is cured of leprosy, and then......rapes a girl? I know it's because he's the "Unbeliever", but good god.

Rapes a 16 year old girl. Then taunts her mother about it. And then meets the child he impregnated her with in the second book. I can't remember anything Lord Fould did that came across as much worse, other than try to kill Covenant and his protectors. (Which I totally get.)

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I agree that Thomas Covenant is really rough to follow as a protagonist. I never got past the first book, but maybe it's time to give it another shot.

Though it's really hard to like someone who gets transported to another world and is cured of leprosy, and then......rapes a girl? I know it's because he's the "Unbeliever", but good god.

I think that might be another one where it's intentional. The books spend a lot of time making sure we don't forget that Covenant did something horrible, and the story never gives him any convenient excuses, dodges, forgiveness or easy ways to mitigate the consequences. Even his clumsy attempts to make it up to the victim only produce more suffering. The effects of the rape and what people do in reaction to it are felt in the world for a long, long time afterwards--it's pretty much the original sin of the setting. The ways that we can harm ourselves and others through self-hate are major themes of the series, and Covenant is interesting (but not likeable) to me in the way he embodies that theme. His arc is one of growing awareness that this wasn't just a figment of his imagination, he's done something terrible, the consequences are spiralling out of control, and there's no way to take it back or be meaningfully forgiven.

The second book is where you'll know if you'll like the series or not. It gives a lot more insight into the world, the actual nature of the conflict, and why a place as nice as the Land would need someone like Covenant to protect it. It brings up more conventional fantasy heroes, and without resorting to trite "evil will win because good is dumb", demonstrates why they're ill-suited to fight Foul because only someone as sceptical and self-hating as Covenant can understand how Foul is really trying to win. I can entirely understand the first book being a deal-breaker, but I think it's worth persisting.

I think what we've got here is a difference between "terrible protagonist" and "anti-hero."

If it's the intention of the author of the work that the protagonist be a character that's comfortable doing bad things or being dislikable, then that's fine.

A "terrible protagonist" is a character who is either dislikable when they're meant to be sympathetic, or is just annoying when they're supposed to be a bad ass.

Yes, like prequel Anakin.

I think it's possible to be both. It seems far too easy to create a bad anti-hero. Just look at comic books in the 90's. I'd argue Thomas Covenant fits in there, too. If you write an anti-hero who makes your book unreadable, I'd say you wrote a bad protagonist.

Absolutely the hardest thing to do in writing I reckon. The protagonist is the lens that the reader/viewer sees the world through, and to make that character inherently dislikable is a high risk strategy as it risks alienating the reader/viewer.

Therefore you have to find a balance between giving an anti hero enough redeeming qualities to allow the consumer to identify with them without making them seem schizophrenic and neither one nor the other, or going full on (like Covenant, I'm unfamiliar but I'll take your word for it) where they seem so unlikeable that the consumer has no interest in following their story.

Anti-heroes and heroines are really difficult.

Some really work - such as Punisher, because they represent the frustration of some readers that the goodies never actual 'finish the job'. Without the goody-two-shoes to riff against, their direct approach can lose impact.

Then there's the temptation for writers to attempt some kind of redemption for the anti-hero. Sometimes it can work - for example Deadpool during the 'We Don't Need Another Hero' arc. I think the character's typical irreverence helps there, as does his ultimate failure to become an out-and-out hero. But most of the time the attempted redemption is just lazy writing, and strips the character of all motivation.

Actually, I'd say The Punisher works because he engenders sympathy because of how he came to be. He's a man in immense pain and grief, and while he does bad things, they're generally targeted at bad people, which gets him off the hook somewhat.

Frank is actually a really tragic figure, moreso for the fact that his creation was all too plausible, no radioactive spiders or toxic waste, just good old fashioned human spite.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Actually, I'd say The Punisher works because he engenders sympathy because of how he came to be. He's a man in immense pain and grief, and while he does bad things, they're generally targeted at bad people, which gets him off the hook somewhat.

Frank is actually a really tragic figure, moreso for the fact that his creation was all too plausible, no radioactive spiders or toxic waste, just good old fashioned human spite.

Handling in this fashion is probably what made the characterization of him work so well in Daredevil Season 2. It isn't that he wanted to be bad, or he would've killed DD, but his anger and sorrow drives him to do what are actually awful things. Sometimes he also had a bit of a movie monster element to him as well in that he is unstoppable and can appear at any moment. Whenever they try to make him wholly good, or near about, it almost never works well.

I don't think it's coincidence that the standout moment for me in DD S2 (and for a lot of other people by what I've seen) is the scene in the graveyard.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I don't think it's coincidence that the standout moment for me in DD S2 (and for a lot of other people by what I've seen) is the scene in the graveyard.

That was an excellent scene.