Fan Fiction vs. Original Fiction

It makes me wonder about the entire reinterpretation of canon thing.

I have read a lot of excellent Hetalia fanfiction with oodles and oodles of historical notes at the end, but the characters were more based on a personified interpretation of history rather than what the writer of Hetalia came up with. While there's a lot of terrible Hetalia fanfic out there, I would say that the kind mentioned above was actually better than the source material.

Is this "wrong"? If you're writing fanfiction of 1776 or The Tudors, is it wrong to take historical information that was left out of the canon of the show but, as far as the world knows, actually happened? Is it wrong to base one's interpretation of Sherlock off of the original Sherlock Holmes stories? It it wrong to add a more accurate representation of Kabbalistic tradition than Hideki Anno researched for Neon Genesis Evangelion?

edited 2nd May '12 8:10:16 AM by ohsointocats

No. Why would it be?

It's art. There is no objective "wrong." It's merely a question of whether it will appeal to / interest people.

edited 3rd May '12 7:33:26 AM by Cthulboohoo

It did seem that previously in the thread people were complaining about others changing characterization for any reason. Are there some reasons that are more valid to change characterization than others?

Like all things in media, characterization is a matter of interpretation rather then any objective standard. At the end of the day a writer is bound only on what they believe about character X, rather then what might actual be true or accepted by the majority of the fans.

It's not "wrong" to derail a character, but it's also not wrong for your audience to dislike the changes. Messing with an established character is risky business, because fans of the character are attached to the way s/he is. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done or can't be done well. Just means you should be cautious. Or acknowledge that you can never appeal to all your readers.

I think the real issue is whether the derailment is compelling and used to tell a compelling story. For instance, Dragon Ball Abridged takes great liberties with its characters, exaggerating traits for comedic effect, tossing out other traits, and occasionally rebuilding characters from the ground up. People don't really mind though, because the new characters have been funny, entertaining, and well used.

I can think of many other adaptations that chang heroes to jerkasses, villains to well misunderstood woobies, hyper-competent detectives to bumbling fools who get lucky a lot, etc. that are much loved. It's when the work isn't very good that people whine about it. If the character is less interesting / funny / whatever, and the story isn't compelling, well then that will be just one more thing that fans of the original will complain about.

So you can make changes, just make sure you make them well.

Which includes the below.

edited 3rd May '12 12:01:01 PM by Cthulboohoo

Here's how I see it: If you are going to change a character's personality, you need to stick with that personality and that new personality must root itself into the backstory and the unraveling plot. It's the same as writing original fiction- you need to keep your characters consistent. Clumsy handling of character development (or lack of development) is one of the biggest downfalls of Alternate Characterization fanfics.