Talk:Things with Beards

Copy of discussion when page was nominated for a featured article:

Nominated by Pinky G Rocket on June 21, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Not Yet Right now the page needs a "Needs More Fandom" flag and doesn't look appropriate for Fanlore. If I understand this correctly, "Things with Beards" was professionally published--how is this possible if it was fanfiction? The page does not address copyright issues or whether fandom debated whether or not it counted as fic. All the quotes from readers appear to be SF readers in SF publications. It has its own entry in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, where it is described as a short story and not fanfic. The way the article is framed makes it sound like it wasn't fanfic, which means the template is incorrect. The way the Fanlore page is written now, it looks like a science fiction story that received some science fiction awards, and it's not clear what the connection to fandom is or why it should be on Fanlore at all. That is, maybe it does belong on Fanlore, but currently the page does not explain why.--aethel (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a transformative work based off The Thing (1982), without authorization or approval from anyone that worked on the film. In addition, it has been self-described by the author as fanfic.

Essentially a fanfic sequel to John Carpenter’s The Thing, my story follows MacReady after the events of the movie, returned to his life with his memory full of weird holes.

It's also not the first time that transformative work has been published in Clarkesworld. I'll add the author's description of it being fanfiction, but given that is a transformative work, I do believe it is suited for Fanlore.

I can see that you're drawing a line in the sand between this being a professional work and a piece of fanfiction, but I'm not really sure where or how you're drawing that line.

Copyright issues and if it counts as fic or is not really something I found while doing research for the article. The most I found on that front was a quote from a review that decried derivative work being nominated for professional writing awards.

And by the way, isn’t that stealing? Shouldn’t the Nebula nominees be original works, with original characters and original ideas?

In general, The Thing fandom is a small fandom that does not engage heavily with fanworks in the same way that other modern-day fandoms do, so I think trying to find discussions on copyright issues and "is this fic" is trying to chase down something that doesn't really exist. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aethel I would dispute that "it's not clear what the connection to fandom is", because to me this is clearly the work of a fan and arises from the fandom surrounding the film. And so I wonder if the venue where it was published necessarily takes away from that? I am assuming the argument that it doesn't qualify as fanfiction is that fanfiction is inherently amateur (which our page on fanfiction alludes to although it's not strictly stated as part of the definition, but one line refers to "true" fanfiction -- or at least, identifiable amateur stories by fans using copyrightable creative works so I'll assume that's our working definition of a fanfic). But it does still arise from fandom and is therefore at least fannish. Perhaps we could debate about the suitability of the Fanfiction infobox for the page, but that doesn't mean that the subject itself isn't suitable for Fanlore at all.

This isn't just a sci-fi story, because it's a sci-fi story that uses the characters, concept and IP of The Thing (and doesn't even attempt to disguise that fact, like other works that file off the serial numbers). So I don't think it's right to regard it as if a Fanlore page was made for a sci-fi story with no discernible link to fandom; the link is there. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

For me the main issue is that the page doesn't read like a page about a fanfic. A fanfic that got published professionally is noteworthy, but the reception section just says it was controversial for being gay. I think the page itself needs to state how unusual this is and why/how it got published. Clarkesworld making a habit of publishing fanfic would be an interesting addition to the page. If no one bat an eye at this being published, then that is itself noteworthy. If The Thing fans don't really write/share fanfic as a hobby, but instead publish it professionally, then that is something that can be explained on the page itself. If The Thing fans tend to be homophobic men, demographic differences could be highlighted more explicitly as well.

Where I draw the line between fanfiction and not fanfiction is who is reading it/how it was received/what is the context of the work. Do people who read fanfic read this story? Do people who read this story think of it as fanfic? Being published for money doesn't mean it can't be fanfic, but professional publications are usually at a remove from fan community activity, so if it's published in a professional venue, then it's less likely to be a fandom document/part of a fan community's history. That is, if Fanlore is documenting fandom history, then we cover fanfiction because it is a record produced by fan communities and is evidence of the communities' activities.

I reread the page, and I think it'll be fine with more context added, but I don't want to see a situation where Fanlore starts creating pages for every published Sherlock Holmes and Jane Austen pastiche with New York Times book review quotes for the fan reaction section. That's what I was worried about.--aethel (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Not Yet: This feels like a wikipedia page since it still lacks the "Fannish" aspect IMO. Also I didn't notice from the first paragraph that it's noteworthy because it is professional work and was considered controversial, so if that could be incorporated (also the "controversary" isn't mentioned/ I like how that seems to be euphemicals called "social themes", maybe that was the way to do this when it was released?) Maybe worth looking into that more to flash the article out? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)