How To Write Your Fanfic, or: What is Fan, and What is Fiction?

[Huinesoron]

I've tried for three days now to get my thoughts coherent on this one, and I think I've finally pinned it down to two Principles of Fanfic:

1. You can make anything work, but
2. you have to be clear what you're changing - and know the rest well enough to know what you're not.

Fanfic is about change. At its most gentle, it just backfills a scene that Tolkien never recorded: Bilbo choosing the gifts to leave after his departure, for example. Sometimes the change is to add a character, either away from the plot or in it. Sometimes it's to change the style, perhaps to give an irreverant retelling (see the Leithian Script) ). And sometimes it's full AU - Sauron gets the Ring, Elrond goes to Numenor, Ulmo turns evil instead of Melkor.

And all of those can work! I strongly believe that any story concept can be well-written, however outlandish it seems. But to do it properly, you have to know the canon well enough to see exactly what changes you need to make - and to make only those changes, and know what the consequences of them will be.

Coming back to Rings of Power: from their legal position, their One Change is the compressed timeline. Being unable to even admit the Silmarillion exists, they can't treat (say) the absence of Celeborn as a change: they are legally required to consider it gap-filling. But we can still think about them as changes, and judge them that way.

You asked "Is there a formula by which fan fiction is to be judged?" I think there is, at least from a changes perspective:

1. Do the changes affect the plot as they should?
2. Do they contribute to the story being told, or improve the viewer/reader's experience?

hS

[Formendacil]

At one point, I had a longer reply in mind, but those half-formed ideas dissipated long before I sat at a computer and now here we are.

I do have one thought, though, that sticks with me:

A good fanfic extends the runway when I've run out of the original and want something more.

That's probably not quite broad enough--a lot of fic deviates quite a bit from its origins (and I think Hui has a pretty workable theory), but I also find that I believe in Sturgeon's Law, and the 10% that rises above is going to do at least two things: tie me back as the reader to the original and give me something in addition to the original--i.e. in some way, add more, though "adding" could be changing/deviating/retelling/what-iffing as much as gap-filling or extending.

[Boromir88]

I've also been trying to get my thoughts together for a few days. And now that Huey has given a baseline it's given me a few ideas.

Originally Posted by Huey

And all of those can work! I strongly believe that any story concept can be well-written, however outlandish it seems. But to do it properly, you have to know the canon well enough to see exactly what changes you need to make - and to make only those changes, and know what the consequences of them will be.

I agree and a few examples to show good changes from poor (imo)

Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring. I remember from the extended commentaries Jackson stating when making decisions on what needed to be cut, or not, they went by the general guide of "if it's not about Frodo and the Ring it needs to advance the story to have a reason to stay in." So, obviously he brings up having to cut out Bombadil, but also interesting that he mentions cutting out the scene when the Fellowship was attacked by wolves at night. He said Frodo, the Fellowship, and the Ring had to get from point A to point B and the wolf attack wouldn't add anything extra to advance that story. But he made the decision to keep Gandalf's imprisonment in Orthanc, because that was an ancillary scene so we knew what happened to Gandalf when he never showed up in Bree. This is why I think Fellowship of the Ring was the best film Jackson did, because he stuck to a pretty clear purpose in making the choice "this story has to be about Frodo and the Ring. If it does not involve Frodo and the Ring, then it has to advance the story to stay in." Like the audience would want to know why Gandalf wasn't where he said he was going to be. If only he showed this kind of clear thinking and vision in The Hobbit movies. Instead of throwing in everything with the kitchen sink, and Bilbo getting lost in his own movies.

If you haven't watched the extended commentaries, I think they would be quite helpful in understanding the questions you raise here. I don't agree with all the changes Jackson made, but he explains a reason for a lot of them, and gives a better understanding of their own creative thought process.

Now, perhaps a bad example. Again, at least in my opinion, but others might feel differently. I really enjoyed Bakshi's Lord of the Rings (even viking Boromir and pantsless Aragorn) but I didn't like either of the Rankin/Bass's The Hobbit or Return of the King. It wasn't so much there was no Beorn or Arkenstone story. Sometimes just cutting something out is a good thing for fanfiction writing. I just didn't get it, The Rankin/Bass Hobbit left me with more questions than it should have because of a poor conclusion. Like for some reason we are told 8 dwarves died, but besides Thorin and Bombur we don't know who died and who survived, because Bilbo never says bye. Gandalf just says Thorin and Bombur died, ok time to go home. I feel like they could have just cut down the number of dwarves in the Company, because apparently the rest aren't important enough to know what happened to them. At least tell us which ones didn't make it!

[Galadriel55]

Thanks for all the responses so far! This has definitely given me something to think about. And in particular Hui's theory - I would rep you if I could, but apparently even now with so much activity I've repped you too recently. I don't know if this was always obvious to you, but it was not obvious to me - but it's one of those things that once said aloud you suddenly realize that's exactly what you've been looking for. Thank you very much for sharing your "formula".

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I agree and a few examples to show good changes from poor (imo)

Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring. I remember from the extended commentaries Jackson stating when making decisions on what needed to be cut, or not, they went by the general guide of "if it's not about Frodo and the Ring it needs to advance the story to have a reason to stay in." So, obviously he brings up having to cut out Bombadil, but also interesting that he mentions cutting out the scene when the Fellowship was attacked by wolves at night. He said Frodo, the Fellowship, and the Ring had to get from point A to point B and the wolf attack wouldn't add anything extra to advance that story. But he made the decision to keep Gandalf's imprisonment in Orthanc, because that was an ancillary scene so we knew what happened to Gandalf when he never showed up in Bree. This is why I think Fellowship of the Ring was the best film Jackson did, because he stuck to a pretty clear purpose in making the choice "this story has to be about Frodo and the Ring. If it does not involve Frodo and the Ring, then it has to advance the story to stay in." Like the audience would want to know why Gandalf wasn't where he said he was going to be. If only he showed this kind of clear thinking and vision in The Hobbit movies. Instead of throwing in everything with the kitchen sink, and Bilbo getting lost in his own movies.

If you haven't watched the extended commentaries, I think they would be quite helpful in understanding the questions you raise here. I don't agree with all the changes Jackson made, but he explains a reason for a lot of them, and gives a better understanding of their own creative thought process.

Now, perhaps a bad example. Again, at least in my opinion, but others might feel differently. I really enjoyed Bakshi's Lord of the Rings (even viking Boromir and pantsless Aragorn) but I didn't like either of the Rankin/Bass's The Hobbit or Return of the King. It wasn't so much there was no Beorn or Arkenstone story. Sometimes just cutting something out is a good thing for fanfiction writing. I just didn't get it, The Rankin/Bass Hobbit left me with more questions than it should have because of a poor conclusion. Like for some reason we are told 8 dwarves died, but besides Thorin and Bombur we don't know who died and who survived, because Bilbo never says bye. Gandalf just says Thorin and Bombur died, ok time to go home. I feel like they could have just cut down the number of dwarves in the Company, because apparently the rest aren't important enough to know what happened to them. At least tell us which ones didn't make it!

I am not that familiar with the animated adaptations so have to just take your descriptions at face value, but I would argue that at least part of the "bad change" example might not be so much a reflection of the fictional changes as a reflection of bad storytelling. It's bad storytelling to not give a proper conclusion to your story, whatever "proper" may be in that context (whether closure or cliffhanger, answer or eternal question - it all depends on the story, but there has to be a conclusion, and TH begs more certainty). The fictional change was perhaps in the number and identity of the Dwarves that died. Is there some internal justification for killing off Bombur and the nameless others? Perhaps Bombur is one of the most memorable Dwarves (dunno if that's so in the adaptations too, but he does stand out), so that might have played into it. Doesn't explain the other extra Dwarves though. But I'm not sure here, this question requires actual knowledge of the adaptation which I am lacking. But I suppose my question, if we were to dissect this scenario and split a couple hairs, is: was the "badness" a result of changing the cannon, poor storytelling (ie it would still have been a dissatisfying conclusion even if Dwarves died canonically), or a combination of both?

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps another bone to add to the cauldron of story.

Fanfic is written by lay readers. Adaptations are written by professional writers. Each could have different purposes.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I am not that familiar with the animated adaptations so have to just take your descriptions at face value, but I would argue that at least part of the "bad change" example might not be so much a reflection of the fictional changes as a reflection of bad storytelling. It's bad storytelling to not give a proper conclusion to your story, whatever "proper" may be in that context (whether closure or cliffhanger, answer or eternal question - it all depends on the story, but there has to be a conclusion, and TH begs more certainty). The fictional change was perhaps in the number and identity of the Dwarves that died. Is there some internal justification for killing off Bombur and the nameless others? Perhaps Bombur is one of the most memorable Dwarves (dunno if that's so in the adaptations too, but he does stand out), so that might have played into it. Doesn't explain the other extra Dwarves though. But I'm not sure here, this question requires actual knowledge of the adaptation which I am lacking. But I suppose my question, if we were to dissect this scenario and split a couple hairs, is: was the "badness" a result of changing the cannon, poor storytelling (ie it would still have been a dissatisfying conclusion even if Dwarves died canonically), or a combination of both?

To fill in the gaps (so to say...and sorry, **Spoilers** ). In the Rankin/Bass Hobbit, all 13 dwarves are introduced. They get introduced all at once, instead of arriving in groups spaced apart. That change is fine, I get it for costs and time, I don't need an explanation of why they changed that part. But I think, you hit the nail on the head. What bothered me about changing how many dwarves died at the Battle of Five Armies, was simply bad storytelling. First, they didn't bother telling us who died aside from Thorin and Bombur. Secondly, my thought is you introduced all 13 dwarves in the first place, so why change how many of them died in the battle? And if you are going to change that number, why not show us (or at least have Gandalf tell us, since he said Thorin and Bombur died) who survived by being at the end with Bilbo?

So, your thread got me thinking why that change bothered me, but I was able to accept a waffly-Aragorn and softer (plus strawberry-blonde wigged!) Boromir in Jackson's movies? After reading Huey's theories, it makes sense to me. If you're going to change something, then you have to be clear in what you're changing. I think consistency and an explanation of your reasons for making a change are important too. Waffly-Aragorn and softer-Boromir probably wouldn't have worked in Tolkien's story. But with they worked in Jackson's movies, because it was consistent within the story he was telling. In my opinion, I expect others will probably disagree.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I've tried for three days now to get my thoughts coherent on this one, and I think I've finally pinned it down to two Principles of Fanfic:

1. You can make anything work, but
2. you have to be clear what you're changing - and know the rest well enough to know what you're not.

Interestingly, those would also be the rules for good science fiction (at least of the harder variety, as opposed to space fantasy). Change the rules of physics as needed to permit FTL travel or kinetic shields, but know what you're changing and how your fictional physics plug into real physics.