Just to try to keep some momentum (having done two posts in as many days), I thought I should mention that although I'm going to be trying to include more about my Bao stories on this blog, what I actually spend most of my spare time writing is academic treatises about fandom. This is something of a novelty for me, even though my academic career was kick-started by two articles in fan journal Interactive Fantasy. But I've been writing about 'culture,' and 'literature,' and 'language pedagogy' for so many years now, frankly I'm sick of it. And to be honest, fandom is something I know a little more about.
I have a paper appearing in the (fascinating) online Journal Transformative Works and Cultures in September, and I'm working on a number of others. Some of the spillover may appear here. I am very interested in responses on this, as it is, after all, research. I've been arguing in some of my papers that blogs, and other online forums, effectively represent the mass expression of fan activity, made possible by technology. I am not original in suggesting this.
I have also recently been looking at derivative works. What's the difference between a piece of fan fiction based on Dempsey & Makepeace, for example, and the recently published Dead To Me, an authorised novel based on Scott & Bailey? Or, for a more personal example, a parody of Fighting Fantasy by, say, me, and a 'real' Fighting Fantasy book by me?
You can see why I'm interested in this. I'm writing 'derivative' stories about Judge Bao. I've written gamebooks based on the Robin of Sherwood TV show (based, in turn, on an established character).
'The author is dead,' Barthes famously wrote. But in the modern world, 'authorship' has been conflated with 'ownership' and the owner is, decidedly, not dead.