UNDER CONSTRUCTION - This text is being constructed using TiddlyWiki to allow for quick and easy editingand backup. The text is mostly still in sandbox mode and may contain inaccuracies or unverified speculation.

(outline)

(present abbreviated data sets)

The complete data sets can be viewed, searched, manipulated, and downloaded via the following links.

Full data set of dojinshi samples:
http://creator.zoho.com/nele.noppe/fanficforensics/#View:HP_dojinshi_data1

Full data set of fanfic samples:
http://creator.zoho.com/nele.noppe/fanficforensics/#View:HP_fanfic_data1

I've briefly outlined the reasons why I think the 'open work' is an appropriate framework to apply to fanwork. Now for the interesting part: in what ways does it benefit us to characterize fanfic or other forms of fanwork as expressions of 'open work'? We can identify several important benefits and challenges that this theory poses to fan studies.

!'The 'open work' in practice

There are many possible practical applications for this theoretical framework within fanwork studies. It had a profound influence on the my own method of data gathering, and on the way I'm trying to interpret these data. I'll briefly outline those influences to demonstrate what an 'open work' perspective might bring about.

If we consider fanworks as 'open works', what method of content analysis is appropriate? As has been mentioned, methodologies that are often used for English-language fanwork analysis have considerable limitations for a cross-cultural comparison of media that involve both text and images. First, methods of literary critique used in English-language fanwork research are too culturally specific to be applied to dōjinshi. Secondly, the lack of previous systematic research into the content of dōjinshi makes it impossible to select a handful of samples that could be called 'representative'. Thirdly, a methodology usable for the analysis of visual as well as textual signs is required. 

So, we need a way of gathering, presenting and analyzing data that addresses these three problems. How can a characterization of fanworks as 'open works' help in constructing this more suitable methodology?

# [[Methodology recap]]
** [[Software used]]
# [[Abbreviated data sets]] 
# [[Questions and suggestions]] from other fans/researchers here
# [[Point-by-point analysis]] of elements examined, mentioning various topics http://www.nelenoppe.net/fanficforensics/node/621
# ...

What I'm hoping to do in opening up data like this is

*gathering as many interpretations of the data as possible and from those varied interpretations
*form a hypothesis about how English-language and Japanese-language fanworks reflect the worldview of the societies in which they are produced
*and what the role of these fanworks in the cultural production system of these societies may be.

I'm in the process of constructing a database that contains information extracted from one hundred dōjinshi and one hundred English-language fanfics about this character selected through random sampling. What kind of information? Numerous elements (you can also call them signs, or tropes) that are easily and objectively verifiable and that fulfill the same function in English-language fanwork and dōjinshi

What elements?

*What genres are popular? For instance, how much slash or yaoi, how much het, and how much gen?
*Within the slash/yaoi works, how often is a given character presented as top/seme or bottom/uke?
*What are the most popular pairings?
*Which characters are the narrators? Whose viewpoint do the fan creators prefer to adopt?
*If a character has a love interest in canon, how is that love interest depicted in fanwork? If he or she is depicted at all.
*If sexual activity takes place, what sexual acts are depicted? For example, how is non-consensual sex depicted?
*How faithful are the narratives to the established canon? Do the characters seem to be 'in character', how often are plot elements from the source work used? Do characters have the same looks in fanwork as in canon, or are they prettified in some way?
*What kind of warnings or author's notes are attached to the fanfics and dojinshi? These are part of the work as well. (I get the idea that there are some very interesting differences in this area)

[[Comparative analysis of narrative elements]]
[[Comparative analysis of visual elements]]

1. Data sets
Data culled from the dojinshi and fanfic samples used in this research. Once these sets are completed, I'll be using them to describe the contents of dojinshi and speculate on those by way of a comparison with the data from the fanfics.
   [[Dojinshi data set|http://nelenoppe.net/fanficforensics/datasets/dojinshi]]
   [[Fanfics data set|http://nelenoppe.net/fanficforensics/datasets/fanfics]]

2. [[Glossary of dojinshi terminology|http://nelenoppe.net/fanficforensics/datasets/terminology]]

3. [[Visual grammar of manga dictionary|http://nelenoppe.net/fanficforensics/datasets/visualgrammar]]

Why is casting fanwork as 'open work' appropriate? I'll give a few reasons of my own and discuss several ways in which Eco's own writings supports a connection between fanwork and 'open work'.

*The idea of electronic text as open works is not a new one. Neither is casting fanwork as a politically significant 'open' system of texts. Several other proposed frameworks for examining fanwork also include 'openness' as a basic characteristic. This idea is hardly far out.
*Eco first wrote his theory in the sixties, but he later discussed the potential of hypertext for opening up closed and finite works. If new formats accompany new worldviews, one could argue that the way fanwork is created reflects these new worldviews -the new electronic formats and the particular production system of fandom (for example the "gift economy"). Now, unless I'm very much mistaken, the keynote later today will be discussing the values in the production system of fandom, so I won't delve into this any further now.
*Eco has also made an explicit connection between 'open work' and what he calls 'informal' art. 'Informal' in this case meaning that they propose a more flexible version of an established form. I think a case can be made for many kinds of fanwork as 'informal' media in this sense of the word. (OW103)
*Eco didn't actually make the jump towards locating agency for creating 'open works' with the consumers of the work, but he did acknowledge the limitations of author-ordained 'open work'. His exact words were "What in fact is made available is a range of rigidly preestablished and ordained interpretative solutions, and these never allow the reader to move outside the strict control of the author."
*Eco has said that a reason for consumers to engage in 'open work' is that they are frustrated and desire to have a more rewarding text, or the most complete experience of a text that is possible. I think you could plunk that sentiment right into any discussion on fanwork. (OW78)
*One last reason is something we've already mentioned. The format of 'open work' develops because people need a new format to express their view of the world, and in that new consciousness, people desire not to look for existing structures but to construct their own new systems to deepen and change their understanding of things. I think this emphasis on production rather than contemplation is very appropriate to fanwork.

See the website for all annotated references. Here I list only a few basic works.

Bondanella, Peter. 2005. Umberto Eco and the Open Text: Semiotics, Fiction, Popular Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bury, Rhiannon. 2005. Cyberspaces of Their Own: Female Fandoms Online. New York: Peter Lang.
Eco, Umberto. 1989. The Open Work. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hayles, N. Katherine. 2001. The Transformation of Narrative and the Materiality of Hypertext. Narrative, Vol. 9, No. 1. pp. 21-39. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Hellekson, Karen; Busse, Kristina. 2006. Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Jefferson: McFarland.
Jenkins, Henry. 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. London: Routledge.
Kinsella, Sharon. 2000. Adult manga: culture and power in contemporary Japanese society. Richmond: Curzon Press.
Nishimura, Mari. 2001. Aniparo to yaoi (アニパロとやおい. Anime parody and yaoi). Tokio: Ohta Shuppan.
Russo, Julie. 2002. Cyborg Sex in Public, Fan Fiction online, and a Fantasy of Political Consumption. In Technotopias. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Sandvoss, Cornel. 2005. Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Cambridge: Polity Press.

attitudes described in this paper are outdated

huge influence of net on new consciousness

*Content analysis of dojinshi is extremely rare. DDDvoorbeelden An estimated DDD dojinshi circulate through events in Japan every year, not to mention the DDD of online dojinshi who are never registered. The dojinshi market is thought to be worth at least DDD. A near-total lack of content discussion about such a large part of the manga market seems strange indeed.
*Content analysis may be lacking, but dojinshi do feature in research fairly often. In these cases, they are almost always discussed because of their legal significance, not as objects of literary study. DDDvoorbeelden These academic works are often published within fields unrelated to manga or comics research, such as DDD, and mention dojinshi as examples to make a broader point.

**numbers from LM
**previous research

As a consequence of this lack of research into dojinshi content, little is known about dojinshi among most manga/comics researchers beyond the fact that dojinshi exist and have a precarious legal status. This lacune makes it easy to assume that dojinshi are somehow different from commercially published manga, as little research exists to prove otherwise.

    * gender influences
    * tech
          o "the poor fit between law and technology" (Tushnet) -web, print technology
    * open culture

DDD Fans all over the world have created millions of dojinshi (fan-made manga), pieces of fanfic (), fan art (), vids (), musical pieces (), and other media explicitly based on existing works. In this paper, I focus on amateur manga and comics, e.g. dojinshi and fan comics.

In this paper, I examine the position of amateur comics and manga within manga and comics studies by focusing on several related spheres of influence that evolved more or less concurrently: copyright legislation, the concept of authorial genius, and the divide between amateur and professional work. I contend that a combination of these factors has caused researchers to fashion an artificial division between amateur and non-amateur works, with negative consequences towards research of amateur works.

Also, while contemporary copyright legislation and aesthetic ideals such as the concept of the original author are assumed to be modern and advanced, they are actually outdated and decidedly unsuited to evolving economies and cultures. Additionally, certain trends in academia encourage the use of unscientific ideas such as copyright legislation as academic concepts.

After briefly outlining the current status of amateur works within comics and manga studies, I will attempt to explain the divide between amateur and non-amateur work by focusing on the "myth of the author", the concept of professionalism, and legal issues. I will examine the influence of these three aspects of the non-amateur/amateur divide in the area of comics/manga (literature in general), and in academia. I will then discuss the negative implications of this divide for comics and manga studies, and in conclusion, offer several ways in which these effects can be mitigated.

    * copyright law
          o In Japan
          o copyright law and fanwork
    * status of women's writing
    * academic culture

!In literature/art
!In academia

          o history of art theory (Woodsmansee)
          o financial motivations behind creation concepts authorship and copyright (Lessig, Woodsmansee, DDD)
          o Busse
          o birth of the author -> death of the author -> WHO'S IN CHARGE NOW?

In japan and in west

!In literature/art
!In academia

Evolutie termen, japans en engels

!In literature/art

!!Voorbeelden
*Simmons (anti-readers, pro-pro), McCarthy?
*quotes manga-papers
*FW zoeken

!In academia
*Sexism, racism
*undercommons

*basis references
*online annotated references

At the basis of this lack of research lies a 

A professional author publishes original work, for the sake of art, that is validated by legal standing. An amateur can barely be called an "author" and crafts (not "publishes") derivative work, for unimpressive reasons, whose legal position is questionable at best.

The words 'original' and 'derivative' are regularly used and have significant connotations that express value. Original works are DDD. Derivative works are DDD.

While 'derivative' is a convenient term to indicate that a work is explicitly based on another, the word 'derivative' is not quite appropriate as a means of categorization. All creative work is derivative. Some forms of derivativity are legally sanctioned, while others are not.

Dojinshi are separated from manga for academically unsound reasons

Background: #ddd7cd
Foreground: #000
PrimaryPale: #8cf
PrimaryLight: #18f
PrimaryMid: #04b
PrimaryDark: #014
SecondaryPale: #ffc
SecondaryLight: #fe8
SecondaryMid: #db4
SecondaryDark: #841
TertiaryPale: #eee
TertiaryLight: #ccc
TertiaryMid: #999
TertiaryDark: #666
Error: #f88

# [[Overview of results]]
# [[Assessment of theory]]
# [[Assessment of methodology]]
# [[Questions remaining]]

[[Table of contents]]
[[Introduction]]
[[Methodology]]
[[Description of samples]]
[[Analysis of samples]]
[[Hypothesis based on analysis]]
[[What is this good for?]]
[[Conclusion]]
[[Appendices]]
[[References]]

# [[HP and its impact in Japan]]
# HP fan communities
**[[Japanese fan community ]]
**[[English-language online fan community]]
***[[Relevant points from previous research]]
***[[Fanworks produced]]
***[[Nationalities represented]]
# Introduction to dojinshi
**[[History]]
**[[Physical aspects and use of technology in production]]
***[[Print dojinshi]]
***[[Online dojinshi]]
**[[Community]]
**[[Economy]]
# [[Sample selection process]]

*presentation under construction: [[The 'open work' as a framework for the interpretation of fan fiction|http://prezi.com/uwjwjrhvvye3/]]

Research into fan communities and the media they produce (fanwork) is no longer a rarity in European and American academia. Similar sociological and literary inquiry into the activities of Japanese fan communities has remained very limited up until now. Japanese fans' chief medium of expression, the amateur manga (Japanese comics) called dōjinshi, which feature characters from commercial titles, have enjoyed very little scholarly attention. Research into dōjinshi has focused mainly on their legal status, not their contents. For this reason dōjinshi remain a blind spot both in fan studies and manga studies, in spite of their importance for these fields as a medium of amateur manga expression online and in print.

This project unlocks dōjinshi for research by manga and fan studies scholars by constructing a theoretical framework specifically suited to the cross-cultural comparison of fanwork, comparing narrative and visual elements in dōjinshi to elements with a similar function in English-language fanwork (fan fiction and fan art), and establishing the position of dōjinshi as a medium within Japan's contemporary system of cultural production through analysis of the data within the aforementioned theoretical framework.

A solid theoretical framework is necessary in order to correctly and objectively analyse data about dōjinshi and identify the place dōjinshi can occupy in fan and manga studies. I have constructed a theoretical framework that rests upon the situation of fanworks as a practical contemporary expression of the 'open work' as described by Umberto Eco. This 'open work' is an artwork specifically designed by its creator to require active practical involvement by consumers. Eco explained the function of the 'open work' by claiming that a work in this format alone correctly reflects the vision of the world expressed by contemporary scientific thought (Eco 1962, 1989).

Eco's 'open work' remains somewhat utopian (Bondanella 2005) and has mostly been applied as decoding tool for certain forms of avant-garde art, although several attempts have been made recently to utilize the concept of 'open work' for examination of online texts (Hayles 2001) and cross-cultural analysis of literature. 'Harry Potter' and most other source texts that are used by fan authors are not intended as 'open works' by their original creators. However, recent technological developments, particularly online social software, have radically transformed media used for the dissemination of fanworks (Hellekson and Busse 2006), and this change has emancipated readers to such a degree that they do not wait for the content industry to adapt the formats of its products to reflect today's particular system of cultural relationships (Russo 2002). Through use of technology, readers now reclaim agency from authors and themselves transform closed works into 'open works'. Although the location of agency in this new incarnation of Eco's 'open work' (fanwork) has shifted, the work's function in society remains as Eco articulated it.

Copy from Wikipedia

Common Eastern animal stereotypes

* The loyal / savage dog
o While domesticated dogs were welcomed, wild dogs were dangerous to both humans and their cattle.
* The royal elephant
o Most notable in Thailand and India, elephants are symbols of royalty.
* The proud horse
* The thieving mouse
o As a mouse was a common pest, they were likened to thieves. However, in Japanese tradition, a mouse also guarantees a good harvest.
* The comical or lecherous octopus
o In Japanese culture, the octopus is sometimes used in sexual situations. One famous example is a woodcut entitled The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. A subset of Hentai makes use of octopus-like creatures in Tentacle porn.
* The stupid / rich pig
* The lucky / acquisitive cat
o Cats are said to bring luck to business ventures. Many Japanese video games feature anthropomorphic cats ("neko") in mercantile roles (e.g. Squaresoft's Secret of Mana) as well.
* The cute kitten
o Catgirls occupy a niche in Japanese otaku culture, most often as females dressed to some degree as a humanoid with cat elements like cat ears and a tail.
* The devoted / tricky rabbit
o The former is from a Buddhist story where a rabbit offered itself as a gift to Buddha by leaping into a fire. In Kojiki, a white rabbit appears as a trickster. This is also due to the mythology of the rabbit in the moon.
o In a Korean folktale, a wise rabbit rescues a man from a greedy, ungrateful tiger.
* The friendly snake[citation needed]
* The proud tiger
* The cruel tiger
o The folktales about man-devouring tigers appear frequently in Korea. At times tigers can be gullible or loyal.
* The wise and old turtle / tortoise
* The protecting wolf The wolf protected Japanese farmers crops from raiders.
* The grateful/loyal magpie
o In Korea, a magpie chirping near one's house indicates that long-anticipated guests are finally coming.
o In one Korean folktale, a magpie sacrifices herself to save the man who rescued her chicks from a serpent.
* In Japanese folklore, the kitsune and fox represent the trickster, similar to the jackal in Africa, or coyote and fox in North America.

Going on in the same vein, I believe an 'open work' perspective encourages cross-cultural research of fanworks, and that this kind of research poses a very valuable challenge to studies of English-language fandom and fanworks. I've mentioned that some great truths of fan studies don't seem to be quite so true when we consider Japanese fanworks as well as English-language fanworks. To give just one example, we often assume that a fanfic is considered better by other fans the more compliant it is with the canon. But canon compliance doesn't seem to be important at all in Japanese fanworks. One more example is the concept of the 'gift economy' as central to fan communities, which may bear some rethinking once we take into account that money does change hands very regularly in Japanese fandom. This gift economy is apparently not universal. I think we've got quite a few assumptions about fanwork and the motivations of fans that would be buckled by more cross-cultural research. I think 'open work' theory could be very helpful in this area for a variety of reasons.

While discussing the connection between open work and information theory, Eco signaled that the same cultural patterns that are best expressed by 'open works' in art are, in the field of scholarship, best expressed by methods of research that "contradict and complement each other in a dialectic opposition that will generate new perspectives and a greater quantity of information." (OW 83) I quite agree with that. Given that there's been extremely little research into the contents of dojinshi, we need large quantities of data before we can make an informed comparison with fanfic or any other kind of fanwork.

I found out about 'open work' theory while I was looking into various traditions of semiotics for a theoretical framework and a methodology I could use. So, I think it's quite appropriate to borrow tools from semiotics to gather data. First and foremost, we need to avoid culturally biased readings. We should also gather our data in a non-culturally specific way as well. Several data gathering techniques from semiotics seem to be very good at gathering objectively verifiable data from texts created in different cultural traditions. If we try to compare and contrast a large number of individual signs from sample texts, rather than attempting a literary analysis of those texts, I think we can both gather that large amount of information on content that we need, and have a very reliable dataset that we doesn't restrict our interpretation of it right from the start. In a minute, I'll show an example of these datasets of individual signs from fanfic and dojinshi samples.

<<closeAll>><<permaview>><<newTiddler>><<newJournal 'DD MMM YYYY'>><<saveChanges>><<slider chkSliderOptionsPanel OptionsPanel 'options »' 'Change TiddlyWiki advanced options'>>

# [[Results of data analysis as reflection of scientific consciousness of societies]]
# [[Hypothesis about role of fanworks in cultural production system of societies]]

Main issues:
*legality of dojinshi/fic
*gender
*connection to other 'open' philosophies

#[[Problem statement]]: lack of research into dojinshi and implications, academic and real-world
#[[Goals -academic]]
##The construction of a theoretical framework specifically suited to the cross-cultural comparison of communally created derivative literature, based on 'open work' theory
##Addressing methodological issues pertinent to a cross-cultural comparison of relatively under-researched fan media through the analysis of a database of visual and narrative elements occurring in the content of a large number of sample dōjinshi
##Interpreting these data within the theoretical framework: the research will identify differences and similarities between the ways Japanese and Western fans interpret the same source text and explain them from the viewpoint of 'open work' theory, and thereby attempt to situate dōjinshi as a medium within cultural studies (specifically manga and fan studies).
#[[Goals -practical]]
##
#[[Quick overview of methodology]]: gathering, presenting, and analyzing the data
#Definitions of key terms
**[[fanwork]]
**[[dojinshi]]
**[[fan fiction]]
**[[open work]]

*readers as creators: who is interpreting, are we analysing the intentions of the fan authors or their interpretation of the source work?

By disproving definitions of fans as 'poachers' (Russo DDD, Stasi 2006) or fanwork as 'derivative' (Noppe 2010). (I'm going to make a short side jump into copyright law now.) Several researchers have touched upon the fact that using the word 'poachers' when referring to people who create fanwork may be quite harmful, since it is actually a very negative term. I believe it's fair to say that, as a descriptor of the activities of fans who use characters and settings from a commercially published work to create their own media, the term 'poaching' is absolutely incorrect. 

This is the definition of 'poaching' given in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

//intransitive verb 
1 : to encroach upon especially for the purpose of taking something
2 : to trespass for the purpose of stealing game; also : to take game or fish illegally
transitive verb 
1 : to trespass on 
2 a : to take (game or fish) by illegal methods b : to appropriate (something) as one's own c : to attract (as an employee or customer) away from a competitor//

(from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poaching)

'Poaching' is illegally removing something from the possession of someone else. If I take this pen and leave the room, you are minus one pen, and I have engaged in theft. If you write a story and I publish another story on my LiveJournal that features characters from your story, you have not lost your story. The story, the rights to the story, and any financial benefits you get from it are still entirely yours. In legal terms, this does not equal stealing. It's not even borrowing, because at no point does the creator's work actually leave the creator' possession. The concept that re-using an idea first copyrighted by someone else is just as harmful as the theft of a physical object is an invention of copyright law, and a quite recent invention, too. Copyright law has certain useful functions, even though it's often abused and profoundly misunderstood. However, copyright law cannot be a basis for scholarly argument about which expressions of human creativity are legitimate and which are illegitimate. 

It's clear that 'open work' theory is not necessary to dispute the characterization of fanworks as illegitimate, but I believe it can be very helpful because it re-positions fans' creative activities as just as legitimate as literature with big L, perhaps even essential in the landscape of contemporary literature.

# ''Description''
# ''Advantages''
# ''Disadvantages for this project''
DDD
I believe that literary critique of a handful of samples has considerable limitations in the context of research aimed at a cross-cultural comparison of media that involve both text and images, for the following reasons.

*The lack of previous systematic research into the content of dōjinshi makes it almost impossible to select a handful of samples that could be called 'representative', or to make pronouncements about the characteristis of Japanese fanworks in general from data culled from a limited number of samples.
*Dōjinshi are created within a cultural context that is very different from the one within which fan fiction is created and researched. Methods of literary critique used in English-language fanwork research are too culturally specific to be applied to dōjinshi.
*A comparison involving dōjinshi requires a methodology usable for the analysis of visual as well as textual signs.

For these reasons, I consider it preferable to approach these media within the framework of comparative cultural studies, through a methodology involving data interpretation that combines semiotics, narratology and reception studies (Jenkins 1992, Russo 2002). In order to allow for this kind of data interpretation and thereby resolve the aforementioned three issues, I am constructing a database1 of numerous easily and objectively verifiable signs² that fulfill the same function in English-language fanwork and dōjinshi, as they appear in a large number of samples (initally, one hundred dōjinshi and one hundred pieces of English-language fanwork).

²Signs that leave no room for culturally biased readings as they are transferred into the database, meaning narrative elements such as the identity of favoured main characters, narrators, romantic couples, and so forth.

#[[Status questionis]]: research into dojinshi up to now
#[[Methodologies commonly used for fanfic and dojinshi research]]
##[[Description]]
##[[Advantages]]
##[[Disadvantages for this project]]
#[[Development of a theoretical framework and methodology for this project]]
##[[The 'open work' according to Umberto Eco]]
##[[A theory of fanwork as part of an 'open work']]
###[[Arguments for viewing fanwork as 'open work']]
###[[Advantages to viewing fanwork as 'open work']]
####[[Sign of the times: fanwork as reflecting contemporary worldview]]
####[[Legitimizes fans' participation in the cultural landscape]]
####[[Offers new perspective on role of technology in shaping of fan texts]]
####[[Encourages cross-cultural research of fanworks]]
##[[An open work-based methodology in practice]]
###[[Gathering data]]
###[[Presenting data]]
###[[Analyzing data]]
####[[Comparative analysis of narrative elements]]
####[[Comparative analysis of visual elements]]

Type the text for 'New Tiddler'

Because 'open work' theory places such great importance on the format in which works are expressed, I think it may be helpful in clarifying the role of technology in creating differences between fanworks created by different groups. I'm thinking mainly of English-language and Japanese-language fanwork here. In Japanese-language fandom, printed work plays a much larger role today than it does in English-language fandom. Looking at this from an 'open work' framework, this may not be just a historical coincidence or a consequence of social norms in Japan, but an expression of worldviews and an understanding of science that's entirely different.

!Connections between technologies, users, and tasks

!Technologies used in production of fan texts

!!Dojinshi

'traditional' tools
image editing software
printing
online publishing

influence of net on print dojinshi: wider availability, higher chance that dojinshi will be seen by those "not in the know"

!!Fanfic

<!--{{{-->
<div id='header' class='header'>

<div class='headerShadow'>
<span class='searchBar' macro='search'></span>
<span class='siteTitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteTitle'></span>&nbsp;
<span class='siteSubtitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteSubtitle'></span>
</div>
<div id='topMenu' refresh='content' tiddler='MainMenu'></div>
</div>

<div id='sidebar'>
<div id='sidebarOptions' refresh='content' tiddler='HaemoSideBarOptions'></div>
<div id='sidebarTabs' refresh='content' force='true' tiddler='SideBarTabs'></div>
</div>
<div id='displayArea'>
<div id='messageArea'></div>
<div id='tiddlerDisplay'></div>
</div>
<div id='contentFooter' refresh='content' tiddler='contentFooter'></div>
<!--}}}-->

(include reference to website)
The website uses social software tools such as a blog, microblogging, social bookmarking and an open database to present data, results and references in an accessible fashion, improve visibility of the project, and sollicit input from scholars and fanwork creators through the same channels they habitually use. (http://www.nelenoppe.net/fanficforensics.)

This is more significant than it sounds. When we were discussing the advantages of the 'open work' in a context of fanwork research, we mentioned the possibility for establishing a connection between fanwork creation and other 'open' movements, such as open access or open research. Open access publishing of papers is starting to gain traction in many academic fields. But there are many more possibilities for adapting research methodologies in cultural studies to other open philosophies, possibilities that challenge the way we conduct scholarship and help keep fan studies as close as possible to the fans themselves. I think the latter is very important.

For example, we could make technology as central to the way we work as fanwork creators do. We could try to [[use the same technology for research]] that's being used to shape the 'open work' (fanwork) we're studying. We could try to make sure that everyone concerned can actually participate in our research and access the same data we're working from so they can check our conclusions.

There is one 'open' methodology that does exactly this, called 'open notebook science'. It's a methodology originating within chemistry that takes the principles of open access and executes them in a much more radical way. If a chemist works with open notebook science, he or she makes all possible information about experiments, all the resulting data, all the conclusions drawn available on the internet where everyone who's interested can consult them. The idea here is that this improves science because it allows anybody to check the information, and because information about failed experiments is also published so people won't needlessly repeat those mistakes.

Such an approach isn't suitable or doable for every research project in cultural studies, of course. But there's a lot more possibilities there than many suspect. This room is full of people interested in online texts, so I suspect all of this is not new to many of us. When I'm at a Japanese Studies or manga studies conference, most of the time I'm still the only person with a laptop in the whole room.

There's a wide range of tools to gather, present and analyze information that can make researchers more accountable and invite participation by anyone interested, whether that person is a scholar or not. We could use websites created using open source software, we could post notes and progress updates using social software tools such as blogs, microblogging, we could gather and annotate references using social bookmarking, we could gather and present data using open online database applications. We could go one step further and a la 'open work' make input from others a central requirement of the research. In my case, for instance, I'm using many of the tools just mentioned to allow other scholars and particularly the creators of the fanworks I'm using to access the research while it's in progress and give feedback through the same channels they habitually use. My research has just moved out of the theoretical phase and I haven't made a lot of noise about it yet in online fan communities, but already I've gotten a lot of LiveJournal comments and messages and mails from completely random people with remarks and suggestions.

Research into fan communities and the media they produce is no longer a rarity in European and American academia. Similar sociological and literary inquiry into the activities of Japanese fan communities has remained very limited up until now. Fan studies is only barely starting to emerge as a concept in Japan. Japanese fans create fanwork that is as varied as anything you can find online on the English-language part of the internet. There's fan fiction, fan art, there's amateur games, videos, you name it. The chief medium of expression used by Japanese fans are fan comics, amateur manga, called dōjinshi.

Dojinshi are printed comics or online comics created by amateurs, most of the time by fans who are using characters or settings from commercial media. Printed dojinshi are sold for money on a very large scale. They're distributed primarily through dedicated conventions which take place all over Japan through the year. The most famous of these conventions is a twice-yearly event called 'Comiket', and it's actually the largest regular public gathering in Japan. Every time over half a million people gather at a convention site in Tokyo to buy and sell dojinshi. The sale of dojinshi is illegal under Japanese law, so the fact that this system is allowed to thrive is very interesting in itself. But I won't be going into that today.

In spite of this, dojinshi have enjoyed very little scholarly attention inside or outside Japan. Research into dōjinshi has focused mainly on their legal status, not their contents. For this reason dōjinshi remain a blind spot both in fan studies and manga studies.

* first constructing a theoretical framework specifically suited to the cross-cultural comparison of fanwork
* then creating a database of visual and narrative elements occurring in the content of a large number of sample dōjinshi and fanfics based on the same source text
* and finally,identifying differences and similarities between the ways Japanese and Western fans interpret the same source text and explain these within the theoretical framework.

The reason why I decided to examine dojinshi by comparing them to English-language fanfic is that there's a lot more research available on English-language work, so I can use that as a starting point rather than having to rely on fanwork research from Japan, which is still quite embryonic at this point. Also, I've been creating fanwork in English-language fandom myself for quite some time, so involving my own hobby in my Japanese Studies research makes things a bit more interesting for me.

I had two problems when looking for a theoretical framework to compare dojinshi and fanfic.

1. There aren't many examples of content analysis of fanfic that I could base myself on immediately. There's been a lot of inquiry into fan communities or individual fans, but comparatively little analysis of the works these fans create. None of you needs to be told that, of course, that's why we're here.
2. A second problem I had was a bit more specific. To compare the contents of Japanese and English-language fanwork, I needed a theoretical framework and methodology that's not culturally biased. That rules out a lot of frameworks that are generally used in so-called "Western" universities to analyze literature or media in general. When I read scholarly work on fanfic, I see a lot of arguments and conclusions about fans and fanwork that don't correlate at all with my experience of Japanese-language fanworks at al.

Both of these problems, particularly the latter one, led me to examine semiotics as a possible source for a usable theoretical framework. I ended up constructing a theoretical framework that relies on the situation of fanworks as an expression of the 'open work', a relatively old theoretical concept developed by Umberto Eco, who is a semiotician as well as a novelist (and a lot of other things).

I've come to believe situating fanworks in general as these 'open works' described by Eco offers some very useful benefits and challenges to the study of fanworks.

DDD

#[[Basic references]]
#Extended and annotated references are available online at DDD

Here I describe the criteria used to select the sample dojinshi and fanfics described in the data sets. All center on the character of Severus Snape.

Final list of dojinshi samples:
http://creator.zoho.com/nele.noppe/fanficforensics/#View:HP_dojinshi_data1

Final list of fanfic samples:
http://creator.zoho.com/nele.noppe/fanficforensics/#View:HP_fanfic_data1

!Dojinshi

Choosing dojinshi samples has been quite straightforward. There are far less dojinshi available than fanfics, and funds are needed to buy and transport them, so there was much less choice to begin with. Limiting samples by character and by publication date helped narrow the list down to the necessary 100 samples.

About ten forays into various dojinshi stores in Tokyo and Osaka in 2008 and 2009, plus several gifts of dojinshi, netted me between 250 and 300 stories that featured Severus Snape in some significant role. I tried to purchase every dojinshi I came across that seemed to feature the character, but since most dojinshi stores keep the books in sealed plastic bags, I had to go on covers alone.

I narrowed down this number considerably by eliminating all dojinshi written before the Japanese edition of 'Order of the Phoenix' went into print on September 1, 2004. (See http://creator.zoho.com/nele.noppe/fanficforensics/#View:Book_film_release_dates_View for the release dates for HP books and films in Japanese and English) Compared to the previous four books, this installment of the Harry Potter series contained a substantial amount of back story on Severus Snape's canon relationships towards various other characters, most significantly his erstwhile schoolmates. This means dojinshika and fanfic writers who have read the fifth book have much more ready-made 'canon' material to work with, meaning that differences and similarities in the way they deal with this material will be all the more apparent.)

This left me with a little over 50 dojinshi. Since one dojinshi often contains several separate stories, and several of the 50 dojinshi selected are anthologies featuring stories by numerous different authors, I was left with virtually exactly 100 sample stories in January 2010.

(note: multiple dj by one author issue -discuss later)

!Fanfics

Choosing fanfic samples was much more complicated, given the immense number of fanfics readily available online. In order to choose 100 more or less representative fanfics to compare with the 100 dojinshi, I needed to first determine which pairings were the most popular among HP fan creators. I did this by counting the number of LiveJournal users and communities who listed a certain pairing as an 'interest', and calculating relative percentages based on that. While LiveJournal-based HP fandom certainly cannot be said to be representative of all HP fan creators, I could not find a sensible way to compare pairing popularity across multiple fannish online communities and personal sites hosting HP fanwork. For this reason, I chose to focus on LiveJournal exclusively. Any conclusions drawn from the data should take this into account.

One important problem with the method of comparing 'interest' numbers is that there is no widely used 'interest' keyword for gen fanfics, meaning fanfics that do not feature any pairings between two characters. I ended up roughly estimating that 15 percent of fanfics featuring Snape in a main role were gen (see below).

I will detail the process of determining relative pairings popularity based on LiveJournal 'interests' below. Caveat: these numbers are a snapshot of the situation on January 3, 2010. The popularity of any given pairing changes over time, and communities and users may or may not alter their listed 'interests' as their tastes evolve. Also, communities and users often list their preferred pairings using several different keywords. For these reasons, these numbers can give only a rough approximation of the relative popularity of pairings over the past several years. Given that the fanfic and dojinshi samples used in the project have been written over a period of several years as well, I believe comparing listed interests in this manner is an appropriate way to gouge the relative popularity of fanfic pairings. Suggestions as to a more effective methodology are very welcome.

!!The process of determining relative pairings popularity in detail:

1. searched communities and users by interest via http://www.livejournal.com/interests.bml
2. keywords used: snarry, snupin, snaco, sshg, snape/harry, severus/harry, snape/lupin, severus/lupin, snape/hermione, snape/draco, and others (see data set for all keywords)
3. noted number of communities and number of users listing each keyword as an interest, in the dataset http://creator.zoho.com/nele.noppe/fanficforensics/#View:LiveJournal_interests_View
4. for each pairing, noted the keyword which was used by the most communities and users
5. using this most popular keyword per pairing as a touchstone, the pairings can be ranked as follows (most popular first):

1. Severus Snape and Harry Potter. Keyword: snarry. Communities: 145 Users: 458
2. Severus Snape and Remus Lupin. Keyword: snupin. Communities: 65 Users:436
3. Severus Snape and Hermione Granger. Keyword: snape/hermione. Communities: 59 Users: 423
4. Severus Snape and Lily Evans. Keyword: snape/lily. Communities: 49 Users: 268
5. Severus Snape and Draco Malfoy. Keyword: snape/draco. Communities: 29 Users: 138
6. Severus Snape and Lucius Malfoy. Keyword: snape/lucius. Communities: 27 Users: 107
7. Severus Snape and Sirius Black. Keyword: sirius/snape. Communities: 24 Users: 48

Harry Potter is clearly the character who enjoys the post popularity among Snape shippers. He is followed at a great distance by Remus Lupin, with Hermione Granger being a close third. Lily Evans follows at a short distance. Pairings including Draco Malfoy, Lucius Malfoy, or Sirius Black enjoy some measurable popularity, although these are often included in Snape 'rarepairs'. The popularity of other pairings seems limited enough to be statistically insignificant.

The full list of keywords searched and numbers of communities and users listing the keywords as an interest can be found at http://creator.zoho.com/nele.noppe/fanficforensics/#View:LiveJournal_interests_View

!!The process of choosing fanfic samples based on the abovementioned numbers:

# Problem: no good way to find out what percentage of Snape-centric fics is gen (no easily searchable keywords, as with the pairing names)
# On recs site Know-It-Alls (explain why this site), 15 percent of fics recommended is gen (on 30/01/2010, 352 gen fics recommended, 1067 slash, 1240 het). This is probably the best approximation we have, so 15 out of the 100 fics will be gen fics.
# How to choose the 85 slash and het fics? Adding up the numbers of interested communities for each pairing mentioned above (using only the most popular keyword), we have 145+65+59+49+29+27+24=398. 398 is 85 percent of 468. 468-398=70. So, we may enter an estimate number of 70 communities for gen fics to the total of 398, and we can calculate the percentage each slash and het pairing occupies by calculating what percentage of 468 the pairing occupies.
# Using the abovementioned method of calculation, we know the 100 samples should consist of:
## Severus Snape and Harry Potter fics: 31
## Severus Snape and Remus Lupin fics: 14
## Severus Snape and Hermione Granger fics: 13
## Severus Snape and Lily Evans fics: 10
## Severus Snape and Draco Malfoy fics: 6
## Severus Snape and Lucius Malfoy fics: 6
## Severus Snape and Sirius Black fics: 5
## Snape-centric gen fics: 15

As with dojinshi, I choose only fanfics published after the publication of OotP (June 21, 2003 in the case of the English-language edition -see http://creator.zoho.com/nele.noppe/fanficforensics/#View:Book_film_release_dates_View). I attempted to divide the period between the publication of OotP and the present in three parts -between OotP and HBP, between HBP and DH, and post-DH- and choose as many fics from each period as there were dojinshi (adjusting for the fact that these periods are different for English-and Japanese-language fandom due to the lag in publication of the Japanese-language edition). Since there are approximately the same number of dojinshi for each of the three periods, it would be reasonable to choose about 33 fanfics for each period.

(With English-language fanfics, it's fairly easy to say when a fic is post-OotP, post-HBP, or post-DH. Since Japanese dojinshika may have heard of the new canon elements from each book before the Japanese edition came out, it's impossible to say with any amount of certainty if a dojinshi is post-OotP, post-HBP, or post-DH. For this reason, trying to calculate a precise number would not be very useful; since the numbers appear to point towards a roughly equal number of dojinshi from each period, we may as well go with that estimate.)

Limiting fanfic samples to fics centering on the character of Snape, published after OotP, on LiveJournal, still left me with an immensely large amount of relatively scattered potential samples. In order to further limit the number of samples and prevent my personal interests from influencing sample selection, I chose the required number of fics for each pairing, as well as the required number of gen fics, from recommended fanfics listed on the large HP fanfic recommendations site Know-It-Alls (http://mujaji.net/kia). Fanfics listed on a recs site may be said to be considered of fairly high 'quality'. I believe it is appropriate to select samples from these recs, as the dojinshi who end up being made and sold in stores are said to be on the higher end of the 'quality' spectrum as well.

I started at the oldest Know-It-Alls page for each pairing and worked my way up chronologically, choosing only publicly available fics hosted on LiveJournal, except in a few cases where the number of recs provided did not allow me to be so selective. In these cases, I selected fics not based on LiveJournal. I selected only fics that were not password-protected in any way and where a date of posting was clearly marked. After the 100 fics were selected, 2 turned out to be behind password protection after all, and I ended up replacing these with 2 other samples from the same time period and featuring the same pairing.

(note- is this complete enough?)

Through 'open work', we could characterize fanwork not as a specific legal category of media or as a mere response to "specific historical conditions" (Jenkins 1992), but as a 'sign of the times'. This would make fanwork a very timely and DDD medium. 'Open work' theory makes it easy for us to examine the location and function of fanwork in contemporary cultural production. It also provides one answer to the question of whether fanwork creators are first and foremost readers or first and foremost writers.

Another very interesting possibility this opens is that it encourages us to situate fanwork among other 'open' movements with similar requirements for collaboration and collective efforts, pluralism of ideas, and lack of central authority or planning. For example:
# open source
# open access
# open data
# open (notebook) research
# (feminist methodologies)
# ...

This text is being constructed using [[TiddlyWiki|http://www.tiddlywiki.com]] to allow for quick and easy editing
and backup. The text is mostly still in sandbox mode and may contain 
inaccuracies or unverified speculation.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

*Zoho Creator
*Corpus?
*SEASR?

/*{{{*/
/*Haemoglobin Theme for TiddlyWiki*/
/*Design and CSS by Saq Imtiaz*/
/*Version 1.0*/
/*}}}*/
/*{{{*/

#sidebarTabs {font-family:arial,helvetica;}

body
{background:#fefefe;}

#contentWrapper {
	font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Sans-Serif;
	color: #555555;
margin:1.9em auto 1em ; width:800px;}

#header {background:#fefefe;}

.headerShadow {	padding: 1.4em 0em 0.5em 1em; }

.siteTitle {
			font-family: 'Trebuchet MS' sans-serif;
			font-weight: bold;
			font-size: 36px;
			color: #BF2323;
			background-color: #FFF;
}

.siteSubtitle {
	font-size: 1.0em;
        display: block;
        margin: .5em 3em; color: #999;
}

.clearAll {clear:both;}
.tagClear {clear:none;}
#sidebar {position:relative; float:right; display:inline; right:0;}

a{
color:#BF2323;
text-decoration: none; font-weight:normal;
}

a:hover{
color:#BF2323;
background-color: #fefefe;
border-bottom:1px solid #BF2323;
}

.viewer .button, .editorFooter .button{
color: #555;
border: 1px solid #BF2323;
}

.viewer .button:hover,
.editorFooter .button:hover{
color: #fff;
background: #BF2323;
border-color: #BF2323;
}

.viewer .button:active, .viewer .highlight,.editorFooter .button:active, .editorFooter .highlight{color:#fff; background:#9F1313;border-color:#9F1313;}

#topMenu br {display:none;}

#topMenu {padding:0.45em 1em; background:#BF2323;}

#topMenu a, #topMenu .tiddlyLink, #topMenu .button {color:#f1f1f1; padding:0.3em 0.45em; margin:0 4px;font-size:120%;font-weight:normal;font-variant: small-caps; border:none; background:#BF2323; text-decoration:none; }

#topMenu a:hover, #topMenu .tiddlyLink:hover, #topMenu .button:hover, #topMenu .button:active, #topMenu .highlight {color:#fff;text-decoration:none; background:#9F1313; }



#displayArea{margin:0 17em 2em 0.5em;}

.tiddler {padding-left:0;}

.title {color:#BF2323; border-bottom:1px solid#BF2323; }
.subtitle, .subtitle a { color: #999999; font-size: 1.0em;margin:0.2em;}
.shadow .title{color:#999;}

.toolbar {font-size:85%;}
.selected .toolbar a {color:#999999;}
.selected .toolbar a:hover {color:#333; background:transparent;border:1px solid #fff;}

.toolbar .button:hover, .toolbar .highlight, .toolbar .marked, .toolbar a.button:active{color:#333; background:transparent;border:1px solid #fff;}

    *  html .viewer pre {

margin-left: 0em;
}

    * html .editor textarea, * html .editor input {

width: 98%;
}

/***
!Sidebar
***/
#sidebar {position:relative;float:right; line-height: 1.4em; border-left:0px solid#000; display:inline; background:#fefefe; right:0; margin-bottom:2em !important; margin-bottom:1em;
width: 16em;}

/***
!SidebarOptions
***/
#sidebarOptions {padding-left:0.5em; padding-top:2em;}

#sidebarOptions a {
			color:#999;
			text-decoration: none;}

#sidebarOptions	a:hover, #sidebarOptions a:active {
			color:#CC0000;
			background-color:#f5f5f5;border:1px solid #f5f5f5;
		}

#sidebarOptions input {border:1px solid #999; }



 .listTitle {color:#888;}

#sidebarTabs .tabContents {background:#fefefe;}
#sidebarTabs .tabContents .tiddlyLink, #sidebarTabs .tabContents .button{color:#999;}
#sidebarTabs .tabContents .tiddlyLink:hover,#sidebarTabs .tabContents .button:hover{color:#CC0000;background:#fefefe; text-decoration:none;border:none;}

#sidebarTabs .tabContents .button:hover, #sidebarTabs .tabContents .highlight, #sidebarTabs .tabContents .marked, #sidebarTabs .tabContents a.button:active{color:#CC0000;background:#fefefe}


.tabSelected{color:#fefefe; background:#999;}



 .tabSelected, .tabSelected:hover {
 color: #555;
 background: #fefefe;
 border: solid 1px #ccc;

}

#sidebarTabs .tabUnselected:hover { border-bottom: none;padding-bottom:3px;color:#999;}

 .tabUnselected {
 color: #999;
 background: #eee;
 border: solid 1px #ccc;

}

.tabUnselected:hover {text-decoration:none; border:1px solid #ccc;}

#sidebarTabs .tabUnselected { border-bottom: none;padding-bottom:3px;}
#sidebarTabs .tabSelected{padding-bottom:3px;}

#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel {
	background: #eee; border:1px solid#ccc;
	font-size: .9em;
}

#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel input {border:1px solid #999;}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel .txtOptionInput {border:1px solid #999;width:9em;}

#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel a {font-weight:normal; color:#555;background-color: #eee; border-bottom:1px dotted #333;}


#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel a:hover {
color:#111;
background-color: #eee;
border:none;
border-bottom:1px dotted #111;
}

.tabContents {background:#fefefe;}




.tagging, .tagged {
border: 1px solid #eee;
background-color: #F7F7F7;
}

.selected .tagging, .selected .tagged {
background-color: #f7f7f7;
border: 1px solid #ccc;
}

.tagging .listTitle, .tagged .listTitle {
color: #bbb;
}

.selected .tagging .listTitle, .selected .tagged .listTitle {
color: #666;
}

.tagging .button, .tagged .button {
color:#ccc;
}
.selected .tagging .button, .selected .tagged .button {
color:#aaa;
}

.highlight, .marked {background:transparent; color:#111; border:none; text-decoration:underline;}

.tagging .button:hover, .tagged .button:hover, .tagging .button:active, .tagged .button:active {
border: none; background:transparent; text-decoration:underline; color:#333;
}

.popup {
background: #BF2323;
border: 1px solid #BF2323;
}

.popup li.disabled {
color: #000;
}

.popup li a, .popup li a:visited {
color: #eee;
border: none;
}

.popup li a:hover {
background: #bf1717;
color: #fff;
border: none;
}



   #messageArea {

border: 4px solid #BF2323;
background: #fefefe;
color: #555;
font-size:90%;
}

   #messageArea a:hover { background:#f5f5f5; border:none;}


   #messageArea .button{
color: #666;
border: 1px solid #BF2323;
}

   #messageArea .button:hover {
color: #fff;
background: #BF2323;
border-color: #BF2323;
}

   #contentFooter {background:#BF2323; color:#DF7D7D; clear: both; padding: 0.5em 1em; }


#contentFooter a {
color: #DF7D7D;
border-bottom: 1px dotted #DF7D7D; font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;
}



#contentFooter a:hover {
color: #FFFFFF;
background-color:transparent;
border-bottom: 1px dotted #fff; text-decoration:none;
}




.searchBar {float:right;font-size: 1.0em;position:relative; margin-top:1.3em;}
.searchBar .button {color:#999;display:block;}
.searchBar .button:hover {border:1px solid #fefefe;color:#4F4B45;}
.searchBar input {			
                        background-color: #fefefe;
			color: #999999;
			border: 1px solid #CCC;		margin-right:3px;
}

.tiddler {padding-bottom:10px;}

.viewer blockquote {
border-left: 5px solid #BF2323;
}

.viewer table, .viewer td {
border: 1px solid #BF2323;
}

.viewer th, thead td {
background: #BF2323;
border: 1px solid #BF2323;
color: #fff;
}
.viewer pre {
	border: 1px solid #ccc;
	background: #f5f5f5;
}

.viewer code {
color: #111; background:#f5f5f5;
}

.viewer hr {
border-top: dashed 1px #555;
}

.editor input {
border: 1px solid #888; margin-top:5px;
}

.editor textarea {
border: 1px solid #888;
}

h1,h2,h3,h4,h5 { color: #BF2323; background: transparent; padding-bottom:2px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; }
h1 {font-size:18px;}
h2 {font-size:16px;}
h3 {font-size: 14px;}
/*}}}*/

# [[Introduction]]
# [[Methodology]]
# [[Description of samples]]
# [[Analysis of samples]]
# [[Hypothesis based on analysis]]
# [[What is this good for?]]
# [[Conclusion]]
# [[Appendices]]
# [[References]]

20min

EW: ff is appropriative/derivative (though it's certainly not unique in that)
curious: literary criticism and ff are using similar skills to comment on original texts

Jenkins "re-writing": condescending?

name of the rose fanfic
you expect the fan writers to know the source text fairly well -> japan nooo
pleasure lies in making connections between source text and own text, no matter how far it's removed from source text



goed in OW: not qualitative analysis, not saying it's the best thing since sliced bread, it's just a sign of the times

mention/show use of twitter (mild disagreement)


tux stealing

lolcat avatar


svensson: ask for numbers

polish fans > problem with my use of slash het gen
polish fans don't see copyright problems -> do talk about this!

Do dojinshi seem further removed from HP canon because it's not the same medium as the original (text)??

clean up "to review" page

Christina Olin-Scheller mentions OOC lord voldemort fic that got a lot of (negative) comments

Paris/Kim Fan Fiction from Star Trek: Voyager: people try all sorts of gymnastics to make their stories fit canon
there's one piece of canon that is used in almost every fic

liked piotr because quantitative analysis is good for cross-cultural

particular community: LiveJournal


Mattson: there's transformation to other animals besides kittens/cats, but it's most often into small/helpless animals
woledge: zoomorphism in K/S fic: they sometimes change into powerful animals, which the other has to tame
HP: animagus characters turn into powerful animals


is repetition in fanfic foreclosing openness of texts? !!!!!!!!


COPYRIGHT
woodmansee
peter boyle
jaszi


gustaf Skarskard



KRISTINA
-check otw bibliography
-link to diigo
-check out zotero
-check out alexis paper (theft)
-check vids
-

!!Eco's concept of the 'open work'

Very simply put, Umberto Eco' concept of the 'open work' is a way of decoding avant-garde artworks that are deliberately designated as 'open' by artists and that need active participation by the work's consumers. For instance, in case of a musical piece, those who play the music might be required to arrange sequences of music before they can execute it. Let's pull this concept apart by looking at how Eco defines its format, its site of agency, and function.

!!!Format
*An 'open work' may be created in any medium (literature, music, visual arts, sculpture, ...)
*The format is extremely important according to Eco. He says formal innovation in art occurs whenever artists feel that the formats they've been using are no longer adequate for expressing the world they inhabit. (We'll get back to this in a second.) In this sense, the format of a work is a kind of content in itself. (OW142)
*If the above is true, we could say that formal innovation is a kind of rebellion against "established conventions of expression", and several scholars have said that this is indeed the case for 'open work' a la Eco. (Robey 1989)
*The format of the 'open work' is decentralized, and the source work is no more than a starting point. Consumers' interpretations are essential to the work: without these, there is no work and the source work is only of academic interest

!!!Agency
*The 'original' author controls the purpose of the work and deliberately designates it as open. If the author hasn't decreed that his or her work is to be interpreted as an open work, then it's not a real 'open work' as Eco described it, because he believes that artists are better than non-artists at detecting shifts in consciousness in a society that require new formats to express.

!!!Function:
#Here lies the critical difference between Eco's 'open work' concept and the more general openness/potentiality inherent in any given text. The reason why open work comes into existence, why people would want to make open works, is that this kind of work is the only kind of work that adequately reflects modern consciousness. From Eco's perspective, science drives our worldview, the way we view reality, our system of values, and art adapts to that. Open work, according to Eco's system, is the only sort of artwork that acknowledges what he calls the "new vision of both the physical and psychological universes proposed by contemporary science" because it deliberately adopts new formal terms in order to express our changed worldview. Open work is a way to explain difference between traditional and modern art, and the only artwork that is "appropriate" to modern consciousness. (Robey 1989)
#What's the most important characteristic of this "new vision of the world" or "modern consciousness" that requires a whole new format to express? According to Eco, the basis of this new consciousness is on "the new man's inventive role. He is no longer to see the work of art as an object which draws on given links with experience and which demands to be enjoyed; now he sees it as a potential mystery to be solved, a role to fulfill, a stimulus to quicken his imagination." He argues somewhere else that artists used to be trying to find the patterns or the truth in things that already exist, but that people today are much more interested in producing new things. We'll get back to this. (By the way, his use of gendered pronouns here is very annoying, and he writes like this a lot of the time. I think he was very wrong to make his default creator of 'open works' male. But let's go on.)
#An 'open work' also has an essentially political function, since its rejection of conventional forms implies the rejection of a social model. (FASC140)
#Another function of the open work could be called pedagogical. Eco thinks that works in this format could teach consumers to conceive of their world not as something with one definite order or structure but something that can be explained by a variety of models or systems that lead to "mutually complementary results". In other words, work in an 'open work' format could teach people to think more like the scientists whose work defines their worldview. (FASC150)

Eco proposed this concept almost half a century ago, but 'open works' have not manifested in considerable quantities. In the art world, 'open work' has remained largely theoretical, some art critics even use the word utopian (Bondanella 2005, Robey 1989). Now, my thesis is that 'open work' with all its properties and its functions is actually developing in today's cultural landscape, as Eco predicted it would. The theory just needs a slight upgrade, especially in the sense that the initiative for the development of open work has not come from where Eco thought it would come from.

Eco thought the initiative would have to come from professional creators. But recent technological developments, particularly online social software, have radically transformed media used for the dissemination of fanworks (Hellekson and Busse 2006), and this change has emancipated readers to such a degree that they do not wait for the content industry or original creators to adapt the formats of their products to reflect a modern consciousness (Russo 2002). Through use of technology, readers now reclaim agency from authors and themselves transform closed works into 'open works'. The openness of the text itself is now less important than the new ways of consuming it that readers have developed. And I believe that one site where we can observe this development of 'open work' today is fanwork. And although the location of agency in this new incarnation of Eco's 'open work' (fanwork) has shifted, the work's function in society remains as he articulated it. I think that if we cast fanwork as having the properties and functions of 'open work', we'll be faced with a variety of new and challenging perspectives on fanwork.

NOTE: this is the original version of my speech text for Textual Echoes, written to accompany a prezi (http://prezi.com/uwjwjrhvvye3/open-work). The final version was much shortened, but I didn't write it out.

!Introduction

My name is Nele Noppe, and I hail from the Japanese Studies department of the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium. I just started the second year of research for a PhD in Japanese Studies. I ended up studying fan fiction via a bit of a roundabout way; I did my Master's thesis on yaoi and boys' love manga within the framework of Japanese Studies, not media studies or literature studies or sociology. At this moment, I have one leg in manga studies and one in fan studies. Today I want to talk about a theoretical framework I'm using to compare narrative and visual elements in Japanese- and English-language fanworks. That actually means not just fanfic but also fanart and fan comics (in the case of Japan, especially fan comics). I'm going to talk very briefly about my PhD research before I get to the theoretical part, just so you can understand where I'm coming from.

!Research project

I have no idea how many people in this room have heard of dojinshi. Could everyone who has at least a pretty good idea of what dojinshi are please raise their hand for a second?

Dojinshi are printed comics or online comics created by amateurs, most of the time by fans who are using characters or settings from commercial media. (show a few) Printed dojinshi are sold for money on a very large scale. They're distributed primarily through dedicated conventions which take place all over Japan through the year. The most famous of these conventions is a twice-yearly event called 'Comiket', and it's actually the largest regular public gathering in Japan. Every time over half a million people gather at a convention site in Tokyo to buy and sell dojinshi. The sale of dojinshi is illegal under Japanese law, so the fact that this system is allowed to thrive is very interesting in itself. But I won't be going into that today.

The aim of my research is to situate dōjinshi as a medium within Japan's contemporary system of cultural production, and to open dojinshi up to further research by manga and fan studies scholars, by comparing the contents of dojinshi to the contents of English-language fanwork. In practice, I attempt to do this by
*first constructing a theoretical framework specifically suited to the cross-cultural comparison of fanwork
*then creating a database of visual and narrative elements occurring in the content of a large number of sample dōjinshi and fanfics based on the same source text
*and finally,identifying differences and similarities between the ways Japanese and Western fans interpret the same source text and explain these within the theoretical framework.

I had two problems when looking for a theoretical framework to compare dojinshi and fanfic.
# There aren't many examples of content analysis of fanfic that I could base myself on immediately. There's been a lot of inquiry into fan communities or individual fans, but comparatively little analysis of the works these fans create. None of you needs to be told that, of course, that's why we're here.
# A second problem I had was a bit more specific. To compare the contents of Japanese and English-language fanwork, I needed a theoretical framework and methodology that's not culturally biased. That rules out a lot of frameworks that are generally used in so-called "Western" universities to analyze literature or media in general. When I read scholarly work on fanfic, I see a lot of arguments and conclusions about fans and fanwork that don't correlate at all with my experience of Japanese-language fanworks at al.

I've come to believe situating fanworks in general as these 'open works' described by Eco offers some very useful benefits and challenges to the study of fanworks. Let's look at this theory in a bit more detail.

!The 'open work' in theory

'Openness' is probably not a new concept for anybody in this room. The idea that all texts contain fields of meaning and are open to multiple interpretations by consumers is present in many theories of aesthetics, or literature, or media. The 'open work' I want to discuss today is one very specific theoretical concept that was first proposed in the 1960's by Umberto Eco for use in art studies.

!!Eco's concept of the 'open work'

!!Fanwork as 'open work'

Why is casting fanwork as 'open work' appropriate? I'll give a few reasons of my own and discuss several ways in which Eco's own writings supports a connection between fanwork and 'open work'.

!!Advantages

I've briefly outlined the reasons why I think the 'open work' is an appropriate framework to apply to fanwork. Now for the interesting part: in what ways does it benefit us to characterize fanfic or other forms of fanwork as expressions of 'open work'? We can identify several important benefits and challenges that this theory poses to fan studies.

;sign of the times: fanwork as reflecting contemporary worldview
Through 'open work', we could characterize fanwork not as a specific legal category of media or as a mere response to "specific historical conditions" (Jenkins 1992), but as a 'sign of the times'. This would make fanwork a very timely and DDD medium. 'Open work' theory makes it easy for us to examine the location and function of fanwork in contemporary cultural production. It also provides one answer to the question of whether fanwork creators are first and foremost readers or first and foremost writers.

Another very interesting possibility this opens is that it encourages us to situate fanwork among other 'open' movements with similar requirements for collaboration and collective efforts, pluralism of ideas, and lack of central authority or planning. For example:
# open source
# open access
# open data
# open (notebook) research
# (feminist methodologies)
# ...

;Legitimizes fans' participation in the cultural landscape
By disproving definitions of fans as 'poachers' (Russo DDD, Stasi 2006) or fanwork as 'derivative' (Noppe 2010). (I'm going to make a short side jump into copyright law now.) Several researchers have touched upon the fact that using the word 'poachers' when referring to people who create fanwork may be quite harmful, since it is actually a very negative term. I believe it's fair to say that, as a descriptor of the activities of fans who use characters and settings from a commercially published work to create their own media, the term 'poaching' is absolutely incorrect.

This is the definition of 'poaching' given in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

//intransitive verb
1 : to encroach upon especially for the purpose of taking something
2 : to trespass for the purpose of stealing game; also : to take game or fish illegally
transitive verb
1 : to trespass on
2 a : to take (game or fish) by illegal methods b : to appropriate (something) as one's own c : to attract (as an employee or customer) away from a competitor//

(from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poaching)

'Poaching' is illegally removing something from the possession of someone else. If I take this pen and leave the room, you are minus one pen, and I have engaged in theft. If you write a story and I publish another story on my LiveJournal that features characters from your story, you have not lost your story. The story, the rights to the story, and any financial benefits you get from it are still entirely yours. In legal terms, this does not equal stealing. It's not even borrowing, because at no point does the creator's work actually leave the creator' possession. The concept that re-using an idea first copyrighted by someone else is just as harmful as the theft of a physical object is an invention of copyright law, and a quite recent invention, too. Copyright law has certain useful functions, even though it's often abused and profoundly misunderstood. However, copyright law cannot be a basis for scholarly argument about which expressions of human creativity are legitimate and which are illegitimate.

It's clear that 'open work' theory is not necessary to dispute the characterization of fanworks as illegitimate, but I believe it can be very helpful because it re-positions fans' creative activities as just as legitimate as literature with big L, perhaps even essential in the landscape of contemporary literature.

;Offers new perspective on role of technology in shaping of fan texts
Because 'open work' theory places such great importance on the format in which works are expressed, I think it may be helpful in clarifying the role of technology in creating differences between fanworks created by different groups. I'm thinking mainly of English-language and Japanese-language fanwork here. In Japanese-language fandom, printed work plays a much larger role today than it does in English-language fandom. Looking at this from an 'open work' framework, this may not be just a historical coincidence or a consequence of social norms in Japan, but an expression of worldviews and an understanding of science that's entirely different.

;Encourages cross-cultural research of fanworks
Going on in the same vein, I believe an 'open work' perspective encourages cross-cultural research of fanworks, and that this kind of research poses a very valuable challenge to studies of English-language fandom and fanworks. I've mentioned that some great truths of fan studies don't seem to be quite so true when we consider Japanese fanworks as well as English-language fanworks. To give just one example, we often assume that a fanfic is considered better by other fans the more compliant it is with the canon. But canon compliance doesn't seem to be important at all in Japanese fanworks. One more example is the concept of the 'gift economy' as central to fan communities, which may bear some rethinking once we take into account that money does change hands very regularly in Japanese fandom. This gift economy is apparently not universal. I think we've got quite a few assumptions about fanwork and the motivations of fans that would be buckled by more cross-cultural research. I think 'open work' theory could be very helpful in this area for a variety of reasons.

!'The 'open work' in practice

There are many possible practical applications for this theoretical framework within fanwork studies. It had a profound influence on the my own method of data gathering, and on the way I'm trying to interpret these data. I'll briefly outline those influences to demonstrate what an 'open work' perspective might bring about.

If we consider fanworks as 'open works', what method of content analysis is appropriate? As has been mentioned, methodologies that are often used for English-language fanwork analysis have considerable limitations for a cross-cultural comparison of media that involve both text and images. First, methods of literary critique used in English-language fanwork research are too culturally specific to be applied to dōjinshi. Secondly, the lack of previous systematic research into the content of dōjinshi makes it impossible to select a handful of samples that could be called 'representative'. Thirdly, a methodology usable for the analysis of visual as well as textual signs is required.

So, we need a way of gathering, presenting and analyzing data that addresses these three problems. How can a characterization of fanworks as 'open works' help in constructing this more suitable methodology?

!!Gathering data
While discussing the connection between open work and information theory, Eco signaled that the same cultural patterns that are best expressed by 'open works' in art are, in the field of scholarship, best expressed by methods of research that "contradict and complement each other in a dialectic opposition that will generate new perspectives and a greater quantity of information." (OW 83) I quite agree with that. Given that there's been extremely little research into the contents of dojinshi, we need large quantities of data before we can make an informed comparison with fanfic or any other kind of fanwork.

!!Presenting data
This is more significant than it sounds. When we were discussing the advantages of the 'open work' in a context of fanwork research, we mentioned the possibility for establishing a connection between fanwork creation and other 'open' movements, such as open access or open research. Open access publishing of papers is starting to gain traction in many academic fields. But there are many more possibilities for adapting research methodologies in cultural studies to other open philosophies, possibilities that challenge the way we conduct scholarship and help keep fan studies as close as possible to the fans themselves. I think the latter is very important.

For example, we could make technology as central to the way we work as fanwork creators do. We could try to use the same technology for research that's being used to shape the 'open work' (fanwork) we're studying. We could try to make sure that everyone concerned can actually participate in our research and access the same data we're working from so they can check our conclusions.

!!Analyzing data

Now we're already talking about analyzing rather than presenting data. What I'm hoping to do in opening up data like this is
*gathering as many interpretations of the data as possible and from those varied interpretations
*form a hypothesis about how English-language and Japanese-language fanworks reflect the worldview of the societies in which they are produced
*and what the role of these fanworks in the cultural production system of these societies may be.

What elements?

The datasets is under construction right now. So far I've entered data about the genre of the samples, which pairings are popular, and which characters are top/seme or bottom/uke. (show images of datasets)

We can't stare at these for a long time right now, so I'm just going to highlight a few interesting numbers that emerge from these datasets.

''Genres (slash, gen, het)''
*Fanfic: 16 gen, 61 slash, 24 het
*Dojinshi: 5 gen, 95 slash, 2 het
''Populair pairings (two most popular)''
*Fanfic: Snape/Harry 24, Snape/James 0
*Dojinshi: Snape/Harry 10, Snape/James 61
'''Division of labor' in slash pairings''
*Fanfic: Snape bottom/uke 11, Snape top/seme 35 (plus 'undetermined')
*Dojinshi: Snape bottom/uke 94, Snape top/seme 1

(convergence of closures)

*[[CWWC: Intro and problem statement]]
*CWWC: In-depth anaysis
**[[CWWC: Dojinshi's current status within comics/manga studies?]]
**[[CWWC: Why this lack of research? Pro-amateur divide in literature/art and in academia]]
***[[CWWC: Myth of the author/originality]]
***[[CWWC: Professionalism]]
***[[CWWC: Legality]]
*[[CWWC: Implications for comics/manga studies]]
*[[CWWC: Conclusion]]

Practical uses and interesting implications
*legal
*economic
*gender

!Introduction

Vermelden: Gon, Jungle Taitei, Ranma (inleiding voorbeelden: classics), 
I have used samples from newer PERIOD for reasons of

Gijinka popularity: hetalia, calendar boys, aohara tetsudo, todofuken (plus BL versie), eten, fast food

FIAW: "It’s easy to assume that literature and visual arts are clues to historical eras, but no evidence stands alone: putting the visual and textual evidence in the context of archaeological, ecological and other data is critical to making good use of it."

PURPOSE how are animal characteristics constructed as %%% in contemporary manga?

!Central concerns
!!Animal symbolism in Japan and elsewhere

"Animals were mentioned by less than 10% of respondents to the International Bioethics Survey in Japan in 1993 as part of an image of nature, with only a few more mentioning animals in images of life (Macer, 1994). However, 80% agreed with a statement that animals have rights that people should not violate."
Pet owners consider pets individuals,cute,pretty -> HOW MANY PET OWNERS?? Virtual pet owners?
http://www.eubios.info/EJ95/ej95d.htm

Japanese appreciation for nature was found to be very narrow and idealized, primarily focusing on single species and lacking an ecological and ethical perspective. The Japanese and American publics were both found to possess strong affection for particularly favored species and enjoyed direct experiential contact with individual aspects of the environment. Both cultures were similarly pragmatic toward nature, and somewhat indifferent regarding the environment when it possessed little emotional value. The Japanese public placed far greater value on satisfactions derived from control and mastery over nature. Additionally, the Japanese expressed far less ethical or ecological concern for nature and wildlife than citizens of the United States. Americans also had significantly greater knowledge of wildlife.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2385899
EMOTIONAL VALUE
FAVORED SPECIES
CONTROL/MASTERY

!!!Different animals in Japan
Mainly dogs, then cats?

FIAW: In contrast to the conventional image of Japanese, especially Japanese poets, as attentive to nature, Tullis pointed out that there was only one substantive reference in the Manyoshu to the cuckoo’s parasitic ways.
The niche in which the cuckoo appears narrows over time, and this is true of almost all the birds, flowers and other phenomena of Japanese poetry: each term occupies narrower niches as the poetic tradition ossifies
[[Eastern animal symbolism]]

!!!Different animals in different places
Western, Japanese, African, Native American, Asian
http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/animals.htm

!!The readers
fan studies, Azuma
Japanese fans, other fans
!!!moe
!!!furries
!!!cosplay
!!!animals in fic
Mattson: there's transformation to other animals besides kittens/cats, but it's most often into small/helpless animals
woledge: zoomorphism in K/S fic: they sometimes change into powerful animals, which the other has to tame
HP: animagus characters turn into powerful animals


otaku culture, moe, kawaii, western animals, yokai, differences in meaning signs in different genres (BL?), cosplay, furries, digital pets, wild and tame animals, tentacle porn, 
TAME NATURE: pets, digital pets, moe, kawaii

!Data
!!Samples
!!!Random
*Alice 19th
*One Piece
*Fruits Basket
*Konjaku Monogatari
*Otogizoshi
*Nausicaa?
*Alita?
DOJINSHI
*HP
*Death Note
*Pirates?
*LotR?
*Hetalia?

!!!Harry Potter
zoomorphic elements besides marauder characters

!!Elements

!Analysis
*different effects for male and female readers?
*why are ANIMAL features used to create these effects?
*artificial nature, with genuine affect?
*any ecological connotations?
*connection with yokai/past animal symbols, or entirely new sign set?
*influence of technology?
*what does this mean for our understanding of non-animal nature elements?

!What next? What's this good for?
*reality of nature/FUNCTION of nature in these circumstances
*reader response

Copyright [[Osmosoft|http://www.tiddlywiki.com]]

* ...
* Legal status (see paper: [[The place of derivative works within comics studies]])

(originally a comment on http://kbusse.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/digital-participationacademic-gatekeeping , rewrite and elaborate)

Part of academia’s reluctance to just use the tools and media under discussion instead of merely rhapsodizing about their democratizing possibilities is just fear, I think -fear of who’s going to walk into academic space if doors to that space are created in the middle of busy thoroughfares like these much-researched and much-lauded social sites (the places where non-academics are actually likely to come across the doors).

Over a couple of years, I’ve heard many arguments against opening up various kinds of “academic” content that boiled down to fear of all sorts of horrors that could come to pass if non-academic outsiders got access to the content and were allowed to interact with it. “People” could “steal” the content, or misunderstand it, or disrupt academic discussions with subjective and off-topic comments, or abuse the Twitter backchannel to be rude, or discourage inexperienced young scholars by burying them under truckloads of harsh critique. And they would do all of it under *pseudonyms*! (I’m not saying that all of these concerns are total nonsense. They become nonsense only when used to justify closing down all content instead of crafting solutions that would open the content but keep the environment productive for everyone, like plain old modding.)

And then there’s a big difference between just opening your doors and actually inviting people to come in. Suppose you start a conference by saying, on the website and inside the conference room, “Here’s how you get onto the network here, here’s the page where things are streamed, and let’s use this hashtag”. That’s something entirely different than streaming and having a wireless network available, but not pointing out well beforehand to non-attendees how they might find and interact with the content, and requiring people in the live audience to individually harass a busy-looking tech person to get a login and password so they can tweet.