Fanfic communities as... role models? Huh...

I found the portrait of collaborative authorship Jenkins paints in his analysis of the Harry Potter fanfic community to be very intriguing. In the age of media convergence, the individual relationships that shape a story’s development -- between author and original, author and audience, author and editors, etc. -- are all accessible via a single communal space. And the internet makes more such relationships possible, facilitating (potentially!) a greater degree of specialization and refinement. The idea of collective intelligence applies here as well; according to the folks at Writer’s University, “a good beta reader... admits to the author what his or her own strengths and weaknesses are -- i.e., ‘I’m great at beta reading for plot, but not spelling!’ Anyone who offers to check someone else’s spelling, grammar, and punctuation should probably be at least worthy of a solid B in English, and preferably an A” (189).

The second claim -- the one about spelling and grammar -- is interesting. In putting mastery of spelling, grammar, and mechanics on par with knowing whether a certain plot or character arc is sufficiently consistent with the source material, these groups are effectively creating new standards for knowledge. Under the current system of grade evaluation, the education system penalizes students for failing to master some knowledge -- knowledge of how to diagram a sentence, for example -- just as it fails to reward students for mastering knowledge that falls outside the pale of what’s “essential” for their personal development. No matter how gentle the pedagogue, a F in English is a F. It might be “deserved”... but the effect it can (and often does) have on a young learner’s or would-be writer’s confidence is, well, catastrophic. It’s a disincentive to further learning and further effort in the classroom. What the fanfic community does is build and develop a self-sustaining system of rewards for its participants -- all knowledge and all contributions are valued as part of a single, collaborative effort to produce the best fan fiction possible. I wonder, then: would a similar system of rewards for specialized group projects be possible to implement in the classroom? What might it look like, and what possibilities would it open up for “grade” evaluation?

One more thing. According to Jenkins, the “shift” from limited opportunities for authorship to “mass distribution via the Web” and online writing communities “could lead to a heightened awareness of intellectual property rights as more and more people feel a sense of ownership over the stories they create” (188). While more litigation would almost certainly be a shame, I don’t think a “heightened awareness” of intellectual property rights would be such a bad thing if it got people talking about what it means to “own” an idea. As Jenkins suggests, the distinction between “copy” and “original” is blurring. Increasingly, we are being challenged to imagine “original” creation as occurring along a continuum ranging from direct imitation of a single character, setting, or style to highly sophisticated integration of a number of themes and ideas from various cultural sources.

Here, we could learn a lot from fanfic communities, who tend to put the source material first and the individual second. The concept of idea ownership is essential in a capitalistic information society. It helps us determine what’s fair. But people were telling and writing stories long before “author” was a viable career option. When it comes to creative writing and the other arts, a discussion of intellectual property rights could lead to an increased awareness not of what we own as individuals, but of what we share as a single cultural community.