Is it like fanfiction? Is it fanservice?

[jlh]

So before I do something rash, I have two questions about some sorts of criticisms I've seen, because I'm not sure what they mean, or what their baggage is.

1. What does it mean to say that a professionally produced work is "like fanfiction"?

2. What is "fanservice"?

All of your thoughts, as well as any links to useful ways to define these terms, would be helpful. Thanks!

Comments

[toastoos.livejournal.com]

For #1, I've only heard it in context for a poorly written professional work, like it came off as a Mary Sue, and/or when the work being talked about is something written in relation to a tv show. The star trek books, for instance.

I've never heard of fanservice.

[erie-potter.livejournal.com]

For #1, I agree with what toastoos said for the most part, but I've also heard it occasionally used to describe something like 'The Problem of Susan' or Bridget Jones' Diary where the text is intentionally set up around an already established piece of work.

For #2, I've only heard of it in the anime/manga fandom, but in the literary world, I'd imagine it's something like pairing up people later in a series that earlier showed no signs of attraction to each other simply because it's a popular OTP.

[ina]

I only know no. 2 from anime/manga and the Japanese or Asian idol (nothing to do with American Idol or incarnations in other countries) entertainment fandom. In both I encountered it as something the fans would like to see, with a mostly positive connotation as an acknowledgment to the fans and their support. Something the fans expect to get. Creators and idols are not seen and don't see themselves as artists who have an integrity to protect but as someone who wants to entertain the fans. Which of course is my interpretation and my impression.

[phoenixsong]

I agree with #1, both variations.

[kalichan.livejournal.com]

For no. 1: I've heard this used to mean plots in an action based genre that are character/romance driven, often with soap operatic elements of wish fulfillment. Also in eps of shows, movies etc, in the context of "Wow, I've read that fic."

For no. 2: I've often heard it used with a negative connotation suggesting that the creators/authors have no overriding vision of their own, or if they do, it is subservient to and wholly influenced by fandom. Giving ppl what they want rather than what they need, or what was originally meant to happen. Also to include little tidbits that seem out of context with the rest of the plot. Like two chars. that are obviously not into each other, but throwing in a little line that makes no sense, but will make the fanpeople go "squee!"

[strawberrytatoo.livejournal.com]

From what I've heard, comparing a novel or any professional writing to fanfiction is pretty bad, I've only heard it used to describe the "Twilight" books :P

I've seen the term 'fanservice' used in TV fandoms, when the fans feel that certain scenes are forced between two characters to appease the fans.

I'm glad you asked this because I've been wondering too!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I get the feeling that the first is just a general way of saying the writing is bad, but in ways that follow cliches they don't like. The problem is fanfic does jump off from the text so there's very little that can happen in canon that couldn't happen in fanfic--or in some cases has happened in fanfic. It's just that it's used like an insult if you don't like what happened.

Or else I guess it could be neutral. I though lots of HBP was "like fanfic" in that it just happened to contain a lot of H/D cliches despite not being H/D. At that point these cliches were just so connected to fanfic in my head it was hilarious seeing them in canon. But I got the feeling when people used it as a complaint it was supposed to mean it used things they'd seen in fanfic they didn't like. Or things like "Hey, Ron's the Keeper! That's fanon!" But in general I think it's a way of putting it down because it's too predictable, has been seen before. I wonder if it's usually used by fans who put "surprise" above all things.

For the second, I feel like this is another weird thing--I've only just started encountering it in Avatar fandom. That and a third term I'd like to have explained--"ship-baiting." I can't tell if "ship-baiting" means putting in things to fool shippers into thinking a ship is going to happen (which could be almost anything) or things shippers feel is a poke at them in canon (like having Zuko/Katara in Ember Island Players).

I think that, like fan service, sometimes is about denying things in the canon, though. Like in EIP yes, there's the meta joke that the playwrite ships Zutara for many reasons other people do, but plot-wise it's there for the Aang/Katara arc (in a way that's "just like fanfic!").

And I was just having a discussion with someone about Southern Raiders and they said that in the end they thought the whole ep was "fanservice" for Zutara. Which seemed to mean that the whole ep was just about making Zutarians happy by having Zuko and Katara go on an adventure, and I find it impossible to believe that a show--especially one as well done as ATLA--would ever consider that a reason for an episode. I also think the ep is important thematically in a couple of different ways, and that it's important for the Zuko/Katara relationship, which is in itself an important thread in the actual canon.

Calling it fanservice sort of removes it from the canon. It's only in there to please the imagined wishes of Zutarians who aren't going to get their ship but are pleased at Zuko and Katara being on screen alone together. It almost can't be used in interpreting the show or it will screw you up.

I think the term is maybe getting more used as a weapon in interpretation wars--if you don't like something in canon it can literally be in there just to please fans you don't like, as if they forced it in there. Or if you like it it can be a special little gift to you. But either way it implies that it isn't the way the story "really goes," but some forcing of the story by fans.

[longtimegone]

1. What does it mean to say that a professionally produced work is "like fanfiction"?

People above pretty much have it covered, though I would consider the phrase generally neutral. Of course it could be used to deride someone's work, but also I have seen it used (and used it myself) when a professional work (esp TV) goes the way of popular fic tropes. I guess that can be either bad or good as well.

2. What is "fanservice"?

Jumping off from the last part of my answer above, I would use either "like fic" or "fanservice" interchangably. When creators go the way of fannish tropes or using fannish conventions, I'd call it "fanservice". And again, it can be good or bad depending on context.

[flourish.livejournal.com]

As far as I usually see them:

#1 refers to a work being poorly written or involving some stereotypical themes of fanfiction. It usually has to be part of a series in order for this criticism to exist, because otherwise it is simply "bad." Saying something is "like fanfiction" suggests that it is not like the original, or earlier, parts of the greater work.

#2 refers to the creator going out of their way to please the fans, beyond what is required for the storyline. For instance, Supernatural often ends up wandering into fanservice territory when it provides particularly double-entendre laden moments of "brotherly love"; other TV shows do when they show people with their shirts off, for instance; a book could answer questions that fans often have even though it isn't really important to the storyline, etc.

[rawles.livejournal.com]

1) "Like fanfiction" is, in my experience, a catch-all complaint for when a text didn't do something people wanted it to do and they can't actually articulate a rational complaint outside of: "That's not what I wanted to happen."

2) Fanservice is supposed to be when something is inserted into a canon for the express and singular purpose of specifically appealing to the fans, regardless of its relevance/value or lack thereof to the narrative. As sistermagpie said, people usually use this to validate or invalidate ideas based on their own interpretive preferences.

I find BOTH terms wildly irritating. The first because it's just laziness and a way for people not to have to construct an actually intelligent criticism. The second because in some fandoms (i.e. AVATAR) it constantly leads people to: 1) dismiss things that actually ARE important to the narrative or themes of the text just because they don't want to have feel like they're validating an interpretation of the canon OR actual aspect of the canon that they don't like, 2) be even bigger entitlement whores than they already were because they begin to operate under the often inaccurate assumption that TPTB are specifically playing to their wishes/desires.

[a-hollow-year.livejournal.com]

#1 - "Like fanfiction" = poorly written and self-indulgent wankery

#2 - Stuff inserted solely for titillation of the fans. It can be anything from a pairing hint to gratuitous naked girls/guys. The latter is how I've mostly seen it used; gratuitous nudity of the ludicrously hot male or female lead = total fanservice. (FUNFACT the icon I am using now is called "fanservice." XD)

[sisterpandora.livejournal.com]

1. Means that the professional work reads like a poorly done amateur work. It does not mean that all fanficiton is poor quality but that there are many fan works which are not done well.

2. When you add something that is unnecessary to the story simply to titillate be it out of place nudity, sex, or facts that do not enhance the story but distract from it.

I do not feel you have committed either offense.

Re: I'm glad you asked this because I've been wondering too!

[kerosinkanister.livejournal.com]

It's just that it's used like an insult if you don't like what happened.

That was actually the first thing that jumped to my mind and I think that's how I've seen it used most often.

[zorb]

1) Primary: When it's self-indulgent and tangential to the "real" story, in the perception of the fan. The HP epilogue falls into that category for me.

Secondary: When by some seemingly bizarre convergence, the canon does something that has been a popular fanfic trope. There's an episode (a pretty good one) of BSG that does this and gets both praise and angst from fans, depending where they fall on that issue.

2) Primary: What Res said.

Secondary: I just used it yesterday in my Stargate review to indicate that because my particular OT3 of characters got the major screentime (mostly together, squee!) in the film, I was thoroughly fanserved. I don't for a minute think TPTB made that happen on purpose for me. *g*

[ali-wildgoose.livejournal.com]

In regards to things feeling like fanfic -- personally, the only time I use that term is when the text deviates from its usual tone and themes in a way that reminds me of fan work. IE HBP having an unusual amount of snogging -- the focus of parts of that book shifted over to something that fic writers spend huge amounts of time exploring, but the canon had previously glossed over.

Hmmm..though sometimes, I suppose I'd also use that term if the canon contains a scene or whatnot that plays into the existing tropes of fandom -- like what Meg was saying.

I'd point out, though, that the latter is pretty much never derogatory and the former rarely is.

[chinawolf.livejournal.com]

Re 1, one possibility of what could have been meant is that someone might compare a canon story to a general fanfic trope and find they're similar (for example, a recent SGA episode was quite like what one might read in a fic, minus the slash). Of course, the other example would be a book that reads like bad fanfiction to the reader, which of course is very subjective.

I think your second question is easier to answer: fanservice is when a producer of canon throws a bone, so to speak, to the fans. This is most common in Japan, where it seems some shows are produced wholly to please the fans (see: Prince of Tennis). What I mean by this is that the producers/writers/canon team know the fandom, looks for stuff the fandom would like, and put those into canon whereever possible. Fanservice in Western fandoms is usually more subtle, but it can still be there, hidden in the canon so that watchers other than fannish people won't notice. There was something in the recent X-Files movie that I had to laugh at so hard I almost killed myself not laughing out loud in the cinema, and there's small stuff in SGA all the time, though that canon crowd seems to have a totally mental relationship with the fandom.

Basically, to me as a slasher, unless it's the stated mission of the show to show guys being very comfy around each other and playing up the 'bromance' (a word I hate), e.g. Boston Legal, fanservice is any repeated unnecessary to the plot or character development closeness of a given pairing, nakedness of a character, etc.. Like a shot of Spike and Angel that could be interpreted as holding hands, when they could have handed a piece of string to each other in a different way. Like the very, very good looking kid in Weeds running around shirtless a lot recently (though that turned out to be a plotpoint as well, so maybe not). To me, though, it's only fanservice if the author intended it as such. The epilogue of HP could be read as fanservice to the Harry/Ginny shippers, but I think only people with a very low opinion of JKR can actually believe that.

Just my opinions, obviously. I think definitions for words such as these are fluid.

[emsariel.livejournal.com]

As usual, rawles, you are both crankier and more articulate than I am.

Most charitably, I think that "like fanfiction" is applied when the reader thinks that the authors have sacrificed the integrity of the canon for something that will please the readers. erinfinnegan doesn't like Mary coming back into Indiana Jones with Indy's kid because after several great movies where there was no indication that she was more than an "Indy girl", here she is again with a kid to validate that: Indy is super-sexy, Mary has carried the torch for him all this time, and Indy can ALSO be a family man given the opportunity dear older female fans.

Less charitably, I agree with rawles or the other folks here, and it's a catch-all for either something that they didn't want to happen or which they inarticulately feel isn't well-done. These latter uses irritate me more because, dammit, there's some really great fanfiction out there, sometimes better than canon.

More charitably, what rawles said. Inconsistence or irrelevance for the fans. Yes, there's a big argument to be made that if fans want it, what's the problem, why can't a work please its readers? The inconsistency or unnecessary element makes the difference to me. If there's a reason for it in the character or plot, it's not (just) fanservice.

Less charitably: what rawles said. I think that usually accusations of fanservice is about dismissing a narrative choice because it isn't going your way.

[erinfinnegan.livejournal.com]

1. What does it mean to say that a professionally produced work is "like fanfiction"?

Since my post on The Crystal Skull probably brought this up, I ought to explain myself....

I don't read a lot of fanfiction - OK, I've only read one Penny Arcade fanfiction ever and that's kind of it, well, outside of doujinshi I've bought but can't read - but I hear a lot about fanfiction from exposure to fans, so I make certain assumptions about it's nature that may not be true to all fanfic. Assumptions such as:

1. Romantic entanglements. Fanfic, I presume, hooks up character who readers want to see hook up in a way which doesn't happen in the show, whether it's Mulder X Scully or Scully X Cancer Man or Kirk X Spock or Hermione X Snape.

2. Wish Fulfillment. I assume fanfic fulfills wishes of fans - wishes like, "I wish Indiana Jones was my dad so I've written a story where I throw in a thinly veiled Mary Sue version of myself as Indy's son."

3. Rule Breaking. I assume fanfic breaks rules of the universe it's written for as a way of wish fulfillment. In oldschool Doctor Who, the Doctor never kisses anyone. Doctor Who fanfic is a lot of kissing, based on LJ icons I've found.

So when I say The Crystal Skull is written like fanfiction, I'm saying it breaks rules of the Indiana Jones universe in order to include Mary Sue characters and a wedding.

2. What is "fanservice"?

Fanservice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanservice) - it's very common in anime, with unimportant shower scenes by female characters (the shower scene in Psycho is important to the plot, one of very few important shower scenes), or the addition of beach episodes for the sole purpose of showing off characters' swimsuits. It's like the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated - does that really have to do with sports? Really?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Okay, since this thread is about this I had to provide a link to a discussion I'm having now about fanservice in Southern Raiders...

http://community.livejournal.com/atla_unspoiled/34391.html?thread=386391#t386391

[erinfinnegan.livejournal.com]

1) "Like fanfiction": "That's not what I wanted to happen."

In the case of my Case Against The Crystal Skull, I couldn't really articulate what I want to have happen in a new Indiana Jones movie. I guess I would want, on a minimal level, for the movie to be consistent with the other three movies... which it wasn't!

Alternately, if The Crystal Skull was fan fiction, it would be the awesome-ist fic ever! I would totally respect it as fan fiction, because I don't expect fan fiction to follow canon universe rules. I expect fan fiction to be wish fulfillment. The movie was wish fulfillment, therefore it reminded me of fanfiction.

[ali-wildgoose.livejournal.com]

Okay, I guess I have to come in and disagree with your fanfic assumptions! Keep in mind that when I say all of this, what I'm talking about is the kind of fanfic that I would actually read or write. There's plenty of bad fanfic, but there's plenty of bad everything -- if I was talking about comics I wouldn't spend much time talking about trashy superhero series, either.

1) A lot of fanfic is about romantic entanglements to some degree or another, but not all of it. Also, a lot of romantic fanfic -- and almost all of it that's slash -- has nothing to do with what the writer wishes would happen in canon. They just think that Character A and Character B would have an interesting relationship and decide to explore it through fiction, regardless (and often flying in the face of) canon. Good fanfic makes that relationship makes sense.

Which leads to:

2) Fanfic is less about wish fulfillment than it is about exploring whatever it is that the author finds interesting, whether that be romantic or otherwise. (And I stress that there is a LOT of "gen" fic in which romance is either downplayed or entirely absent) Much of the time, people write fic about things they would NEVER EVER EVER want to have happen in the canon -- in fact, that's kind of the point. To take the characters places they would otherwise never go. Which is why alternate universes are so popular, why people often wait until canons are closed to write fic, why so many people like to fill the gaps between episodes -- the fan community creates for itself what the canon will never give them. 12-year-olds on ff.net might write about Indiana Jones being their dad, but older and more....uh, heh well talented fans are more likely to write about the time Indy spent in a German POW camp.

3) Hmm. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by breaking the rules? Like, there's magic system rules, continuity rules...hard and fast stuff. Which most decent fic authors are pretty damn meticulous about, sometimes more than the creators themselves. Then there's the question of whether or not the fic is kept in character, which is a little squishier -- there's some room for interpretation in terms of how characters will reaction to non-canon situations, or interact with other characters they aren't often around, or what scenes might take place outside the limits of whatever rating/audience the canon itself is constrained by. And there are thematic rules, which again is about taking the characters and their universe places they otherwise wouldn't go. I would say that good fanfic breaks the rules sometimes in very calculated ways, but again, that's more about exploration that about some kind of willful dismissal of the original text.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the wiki link! I was really surprised to see that it was so much about nudity when that was never the context in which I'd heard it used—I've only really heard it used to describe scenes in which characters interact but the plot isn't moved forward. The example that comes to mind for me in terms of what I thought people meant by fanservice would be the conversation that Sokka and Zuko have in the war balloon in The Boiling Rock, where Zuko talks about Mai and Sokka mentions Yue. In a way it subtly sets us up for the return of Mai and Suki, but as such the conversation does nothing to advance the plot of either the episode or the series, but is a fun-to-watch conversation between two characters about events that have already happened. Would you call that scene fanservice? Or really, any of the events that happen between Western Air Temple and the finale—I would say that they tie up various loose ends and cement Zuko's membership in the Gaang, but it is fair to say that neither boiling rock, nor southern raiders, nor firebending masters actually advance the plot of Aang defeating Ozai.

The only thing I'd say about what you've said about fanfiction—other than that it isn't wish fulfillment, but Ali says that better than I would—is that the new Doctor Who series is actually all about kissing. It isn't the fanfic that's a lot of kissing; obviously people wouldn't have the icons if there wasn't kissing in the show. The new series is significantly different than the old one in terms of very overtly and canonically shipping the Doctor with his companion. Which I think is one reason why the Who fandom is so wanky right now; the old Who fans are Displeased.

While what you said reminded me that I wanted to post this, I didn't mean for it to be in response to you! They've been used a lot lately in talking about Avatar and Batman to a certain extent as well. These are terms I've heard used for a year or so now and I wasn't sure that I was extrapolating the right meaning from them. Reading over these replies I can see that I was a little more extreme than perhaps I needed to be. I had been beginning to think that fanservice = anything that doesn't very directly advance the plot, including (extraneous) character development, to be honest, and I wanted to clarify the term. So thanks, you were really helpful!

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I just went in and read it again with the further discussion and wow, that person really has a low threshold of what constitutes "OOC" and "fanservice" and also "show don't tell." They seem to want all events ever to be focused on one goal, and to see all moments of Zuko and Katara together to be merely shout outs to the Zutarians. Too bad, since that realationship is so important to the show overall. It's sort of like that very fannish way of seeing the romantic relationship as paramount and not being interested in the friendships. And the stuff about "show don't tell"—my god, it's a half hour animated show! If everyone's emotional arcs were only told indirectly we'd be here all year. It's not literary fiction, people. I can't even follow what they mean by "OOC" except perhaps "character change" and I think there, again, we run into that same old "bad narratives train bad readers" where there is so much genre where the characters never change (hello JKR) that if they do their later behavior must be OOC.

Which is all to say, omg whatever.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I mean...with regards to show don't tell, sometimes you do tell. Even in real life there are times where sometimes you just say look, this is what I'm feeling and why. That's done throughout the show. The characters aren't always confused about what they feel. Even Zuko who has a storyline about sorting out what he really wants and why and all that...even he can tell Aang about how his whole life he's felt inadequate--"My father says my sister was born lucky; I was lucky to be born." He remembers that because he knows that's how he feels. All the characters have moments like that.

And yeah, it seems like any kind of character change or even complexity is a problem here. It's not necessarily wrong that Zuko regresses with Katara. And particularly all that stuff with Katara's anger at him and her father...that's consistent and makes sense. It's not wrong because Katara can't long for her father and love him and yet still be angry at him once he's safe beside her.

It really does read like just the flipside of seeing everything romantically. Because yeah, the Zuko/Katara relationship such as it is is surprisingly rich because it's got some dark things not present in their relationships with other characters. It's a shame to reject that aspect of it because if it's rich or dark it must be romance.

Also, and I remember thinking this often with HP, I think people really overestimate fanservice or shout-outs. It's like they think just because they're looking at canon so intensely canon must eventually be looking back at them just as much. It's complicated since there are places where writers can do shout-outs, but I don't think it's nearly as much as people think.