Sue's points about the relationship between authors, characters, and fans are
provocative.  Yes, a character in some real ways become part of the
intellectual/emotional baggage of the fan.  Where to go from this is what I
find problematic.  Surely one cannot preclude fans from their fantasies.  At
the same time the object of these fantasies does not belong to the fan.
They belong to the creator.  Not simply because the Supreme Court has said so
(it has) but also in the purest of terms; a character is the product of an
author's loins.  Creating a character is gut-wrenching; it is somewhat
presumptuous to take possession of this creation.
 
As I write this, the analog of giving a child in marriage passes through my
mind.  But in human relations this is a conscious act; or at least an act that
one is conscious of (one may not approve of the child's choice of mate).
 
Another analogy that comes to mind is becoming enchanted with another person's
mate.  We've all had the experience.  How we handle the experience is relevant
to the discussion fandom and characters.  Some of us accept the fact and
reserve our enchantment for our fantasies.  Others act upon the enchantment and
attempt to sunder the relationship in one way or another.
 
Where do these musings lead?
 
For me they lead to a conservative position that says something like this:  As
an exercise in fantasy for oneself or a close circle of friends the exercise of
imagining characters in other circumstances is innocent enough.  Beyond that
people are taking what doesn't belong to them.
 
A final vagrant thought that just intruded: at one time it was possible (and
may still be, for all I know) to purchase under-the-counter comic books using
characters such as Popeye and Blondie as the basis for representing
pornographic activities.  This was far from an innocent activity, but seems in
some ways not that far from what I've heard about fanzine creations using
established characters.
 
On Wed, 11 Mar 1992 11:01:00 EDT <CLERC@GENESEO> said:
 
>        Not that I advocate copyright infringement, but I think it's
>ridiculous of the originator of a series to complain that people
>are so captivated by his creation that they've taken it into
>their hearts and minds.
>
>        Admittedly, my point-of-view is biased since I'm a fan
>and not the originator of a series, but it seems to me that
>once the universe and characters are on the screen they become
>a sort of public property, a part of the common culture.
>
>        The term I keep coming across in the literature is
>"poaching." Fans poach the characters and use them for their
>own ends, defying on occasion the creator's intent. I think
>that fans have every right to play with and alter the characters,
>and write their own versions. The versions already exist in their
>minds, why shouldn't they be permitted to share them with others
>who love the same series? They've committed themselves to the
>characters and the universe; it must in some way be theirs.
>
>        Comments?
>
>                        Sue
 
Cal Pryluck                               <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film             <[log in to unmask]>
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122