?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

30 days of Fandom Meme - Days 12 & 13

12 – Have you ever attempted an "adaptation" fic of a favorite book or movie but set in a different fandom?

13 – Do you prefer canon or fanon when you write? Has writing fanfic for a fandom changed the way you see some or even all of the original source material?

sorry, i got behind... only two people will probably even realize it anyway...

12...

does my story where Tompkins is like Scrooge count??? if so, yes... if not, no


13 - oh goodness... the problem here is that after ten years of writing... i think i use my own fanon and don't always catch it... it's like living with someone... you start to accept certain things because you've, well, accepted them...

i also like a pairing that i consider canon, but i've developed a 'fanon' about them... or maybe it's just the way i see them but is canon in some respect... so let's just say i'm MESSED up on this one...

but there are certain aspects the keep popping up in stories that i don't agree with... things that i consider trite or odd.. but hey, that's how folks see it... so it's all good... i just don't read it :D

Tags:

Comments

( 13 comments — Leave a comment )
severina2001
Aug. 6th, 2011 08:31 pm (UTC)
Good point, I think I use my own fanon as well. Sometimes I realize I'm doing it -- like the John McClane in my head is usually a total neatfreak, and that might pop up in more than one fic. And there were times with QaF fic standalones when *I* knew that I was revisiting the scene of a previous 'verse, but no one else did.
dianaryan
Aug. 7th, 2011 05:00 am (UTC)
hmmm you know we don't see John at home in any of the films... but i can see him as a neat freak :D
blithescribe
Aug. 6th, 2011 11:08 pm (UTC)
I'm actually reading with interest. I love "listening" when you talk about your craft...I just never know what to say. The writing I do for work is so very, well practical and completely different from what you do. I very much want to write fiction, but I don't think I have the talent for it.
dianaryan
Aug. 7th, 2011 05:01 am (UTC)
ah, but at least you get paid to do it..

i'm getting there... just little scripts right now.. but someday... and i'm sure you have tons of talent at writing... :D you just have to try it...

speaking of writing... know anything about the history of baseball???? :D
blithescribe
Aug. 7th, 2011 06:30 am (UTC)
Thanks D. :) I'm glad to hear you've got your foot in the door with scripts. Thats a _huge_ deal.

As far as the history of baseball goes, well, you've come to the right person. I'm better with some eras than others but would be happy to help with whatever you want. What would you like to know?

I don't know if you've seen my posts about it here, but I have a baseball blog on the side. In fact I took my only stab at a fanfaction outline there :):

http://blithescribe.mlblogs.com/2010/11/
dianaryan
Aug. 7th, 2011 06:41 am (UTC)
i have seen that, Seth sent me the link...

my current fun is my blog My Ethereality - http://www.raydean.net

covering the victorian era (and anything steampunk that comes along) so, do you know anything about victorian era baseball??

I know very little... although Alexander Cartwright is buried here at Oahu Cemetery... so we see 'offerings' at his tombstone all the time...
blithescribe
Aug. 8th, 2011 04:50 am (UTC)
I know a bit. The Victorian era is when baseball started to become baseball as we know it. Cartwright set down the first set of rules, but they were a short set and didn’t cover everything. Prior to Cartwright, you could get a person out by hitting them with the ball, dodge ball style. His most important change was to outlaw this practice. However, in the decades following the Civil Way, his rules evolved to include more of the touches we’re familiar with today.

Just post-Cartwright is when you got rules about balls and strikes or unfair pitches and fair pitches the batter refused to swing at. This is also when the foul ball was defined as not being in play. However, you couldn’t get a person out by catching a foul ball until after the turn of the century (I believe) and foul balls never counted as strikes until the end of the Dead Ball Era in the early 1920’s. Cartwright’s rules also allowed for a game to be played until the first team had scored 21 runs. This changed to the winning team being the team that was ahead after 9 innings as the Victorian era progressed.

It would make historic sense in your story if a local, non professional team played with a hodge podge of these rules, possibly even including a rule or two that came about later as there was still a lot of house rules stuff going on, and many of those house rules later became canon.

Homeruns were almost unheard of in this era for a couple of reasons (in fact, baseball audiences often picnicked in the outfield just beyond the fielders):

1) Teams would use the same ball for the whole game and possibly some of the next game because balls were expensive, the equivalent of $50 or so in today’s dollars. Such lengthy use rendered the ball misshapen and too soft to hit well after only an inning or two.

2) The cut ball (different from a cut fastball which does not involve literally slicing of the leather) was never legal but in this era the spit ball was not only legal, but spit ball pitchers were held in such high regard that when the spit ball was finally banned in the early 1920’s, each team was allowed to grandfather in one legal spitball pitcher until that player retired and took his spit ball with him. Spit balls made pitches very difficult to hit and further abused the baseball increasing the effect described in item 1 as well as dying it so dark with tobacco juice that by the end of the game it was nearly impossible to see.

3) Homeruns simply weren’t valued. The strategy of the day centered around what we refer to as small ball today – lots of base hits, stolen bases, hit and run plays etc., so when someone did hit a homerun, it was considered kind of boring, thus taking away all incentive to try. It was Babe Ruth who popularized the homerun in the 20’s by smacking a few in front of a new generation who demanded more obvious feats of strength in their game. Ty Cobb went to his grave certain that the popularization of homeruns had forever cheapened the game and many players of his generation agreed with him (harkening back to the Victorian era view). The first year the Babe was the homerun leader, he hit less than 15 that season, which should give you some perspective...

dianaryan
Aug. 8th, 2011 07:42 am (UTC)
Would you mind if i posted at on my blog with Credit to you and a link to your blog?

i think it would be fun :D
blithescribe
Aug. 8th, 2011 01:32 pm (UTC)
Absolutely. If you would like to, post away.
blithescribe
Aug. 9th, 2011 04:18 am (UTC)
I replied after the morning ride and it was a little confuzzeled. Yes, please, feel free to use it in your blog as you suggest. In fact, I am flattered.

By the way, I checked out your blog today and, wow! you have a quite a project for yourself there and are doing it really well.
dianaryan
Aug. 9th, 2011 04:43 am (UTC)
oh... sweet.. thanks.. i'll have it posted tomorrow...

i added a link to your blog for folks to go there...

:D

thanks for all the great information.. i learned a TON of stuff...

glad you enjoyed the blog... it's stuff that i love to learn about myself... so it's fun to share...

anything you'd like me to write about on my blog?
blithescribe
Aug. 8th, 2011 04:51 am (UTC)
Continued...
Offense and defense were equally prized in the Victorian era with defense actually playing somewhat of a larger role, whereas today it’s more homeruns and pitching, specific aspects of both, but not the whole strategy. Therefore Victorian era games were fairly low scoring (once the rule became 9 innings, not 21 runs, of course).

None of the teams in existence now existed before 1876 and the only two teams that go back that far are the Cubs (who were the Chicago White Stockings at that time, no joke, and this happened at lot) and the Atlanta Braves (who were the Boston Red Stockings at the time, also no joke. Then they became the Boston Braves (and may have been the Boston Bean Eaters before that, I can’t remember), the Milwaukee Braves and eventually the Atlanta Braves. It’s a very convoluted history this baseball) If you want something a little more mind blowing, the New York Yankees were originally the Baltimore Orioles in the 1890’s before they moved to New York and became the New York Highlanders and then the NY Yankees…also known as the MFY to many of us today. ;)

Interestingly enough, there was no formal ban on players of color in the early Victorian era and there were a few professional African American baseball players on teams from more liberal parts of the country in the early days of pro ball. This might be fun to play with in a steam punk story.

Does this help or were you looking for something else?
dianaryan
Aug. 8th, 2011 07:43 am (UTC)
Re: Continued...
very true... a ball time with mixed-race players... hmmm what fun we could have... maybe playing against autom. players like gilligan and the globe trotters against the robots :D
( 13 comments — Leave a comment )