 |
|
 wemyss | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A redeemed Draco is by definition not a Death-Eater (or is a repentant one). He has not gone as bad as was anticipated. It needn't mean he's a hero, or, if he is, that's he's not a sharp-tongued, scheming little bitch-boy.
After all, there was a chap at Rugby whom everyone thought would end in gaol or destitute, and he turned out to be at least amusing and not actually evil, if not precisely good. Draco may well turn into Harry some day: Harry Flashman, that is.Tags: critical analysis, essays, humour, proffers for criticism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grey area, isn't it? In his mystery MR TIMOTHY Louis Bayard recently took a now-adult Tiny Tim and made him the hero of his own story. Does that count as independent canon, or fanon (dependent on another canon?) I argue that Bayard's story is fun and well thought-out, but still dependent on the fame of, and characters from, the previous work - hence, it is fanon.
GMF has written an enormous corpus featuring the adult Flashy, but the character was in the beginning the property of Thomas Hughes and Fraser's work derives quite a bit of humour from this being Hughes's Flashy, all grown-up (I seem to recall Tom Brown himself congratulating Flashy on his 'heroism' in ROYAL FLASH!) When the character has been taken from someone else's work, and there are references to that previous work within the corpus of the succeeding work, does that not make it in some sense "fanon"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: wemyss |
Date:
August 11th, 2006 01:02 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Grey indeed.
|
I'd agree that it is a derivative work in some sense. To put it in perspective, though, I wd distinguish fanon from a new, albeit derivative, canon, in this way: Dibdin, or that appalling business about Sherlock and Irene Adler, are derivative but new canon; Solar Pons is fanon.
Otherwise, one finds oneself treating the Aeneid as Homeric-AU fanfic.
But it all comes down to a vexing question of defining one's terms, I admit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: threeoranges |
Date:
August 11th, 2006 01:29 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Re: Grey indeed.
|
To put it in perspective, though, I wd distinguish fanon from a new, albeit derivative, canon, in this way: Dibdin, or that appalling business about Sherlock and Irene Adler, are derivative but new canon; Solar Pons is fanon.
So Dibdin mentioned Irene Adler? It's been a while since I read THE LAST SHERLOCK HOLMES STORY, but I'll take your word for it. I still say it's "fanon", even though it takes Holmes in quite a different direction than ACD would have wanted.
Is that the criterion for "new but derivative", that the new writer takes the original author's universe or character in a direction that would leave said original author foaming at the mouth? (In which case Flashy would certainly qualify! Would Homer have minded Virgil's appropriation of Aeneas for different purposes, do you think?) Or is it the case that "derivative but new canon" takes over from "fanon" the moment the copyright expires? ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
