[TokuKnight89]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

The same. And about Swamp Thing too. Marvel is a little more complicated due to the specifics of their method. The fact that many later works are significantly better than the original comics does not make them not fan fiction.
It seemed to me that in the above passage Moore was talking specifically about the original characterization of the characters. Either way, he's not the one who should be upset about this.

I'm not sure I agree.

It seems as though your interpretation is that a character made years ago had their truest stories by the original creator.

A couple of years ago, I read an article on Marvel's Miles Morales and a commenter called Miles fan fiction cause Miles isn't Peter and it felt needlessly judgmental.

Each person has a different take and different interpretation of a character. Some interpretations are good and some are bad. It's up to a reader to determine what is and isn't good. I know people who loath Frank Miller Batman, but who have little problem with Live-Action Adam West Batman and Animated Kevin Conroy Batman.

This also feels like it could apply to other franchises. Is any Optimus Prime made after 1984 a fan-fiction Optimus Prime? Is any Ultraman made after UltraSeven without Eiji Tsuburaya Not Ultraman? Is any Kamen Rider made without Shotaro Ishinomori Not Kamen Rider? Is Star Trek without Gene Roddenberry Not Star Trek?

In the World of Fiction, there is fan-fiction as well as fan-canon. What is and is not acceptable depends greatly on one's own interpretation. I myself know that there are many stories not made by the original creators that I like, and many stories not made by the original creators that I don't like and partly because I think the people behind them take too many liberties and made them too complicated by oversimplifying things. Fan-canon 'allows' me the right to accept or reject a story, whether it's crafted by the original creators or someone else.

The Multiverse concept exists to the point of oversaturation in the World of Fiction to account for such things. Batman and Superman have multiple origin stories. The bare bones elements exist amongst many of them, but in many instances the details change from time to time. Many different versions of Clarks adoption by the Kents, many different versions of how Lois and Clark met each other, and many different versions of Bruce's childhood trauma. It took years to reach what some might call a consensus on these events and what constitutes the bare bones elements. Granted, years of disparate elements which seems to contradict each other can get confusing at times even in a Multiversal setting. That's why Crisis on Infinite Earths even exists.

The original creators of many timeless characters have passed on. Should their characters exist solely on the weight of their original stories or can they have multiple versions with similar and dissimilar qualities and attributes? If a character has a new story with a non-original writer at the helm, is this new writer beholden to the characterization of the original or can they turn things on their head?

I believe they have that right, cause fans always try to craft their own versions of things, so why can't hired writers who started as fans do it on a professional level? Don't we all wish we could do the same?

All of that being said, I do believe that the original stories and the authorial intent of the original creators cannot be ignored or forgotten. It was their character, after all.

If the idea is to not conflate new iterations with the original interpretation, then it's a valid argument. If the idea is to maintain the 'original vision' over and over again, then it becomes not only repetitive but monotonous. What's the point of making anything new?

To quote John De Lancie, who played Q on Star Trek: TNG (and DS9, and Voyager, and Picard): "Are we trying to create, or recreate?"