|
Please share your thoughts on the matter at on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the . ---- : & A fanwank is either an attempt by fans of a work of fiction to explain or justify plot holes or continuity errors, often through convoluted contrivances, or a word to describe a piece of TV or film tie-in fiction, either professional or fan-written, which contains an excessive number of references to the history of the franchise. The term is used both as a verb and a noun; the practice is sometimes known as fanwankery. It is disparaging, equating the activity with the solitary pleasure of masturbation ("wanking" in British slang). A great deal of fanwanking is based on the supposed premise that the original author of the work knew of the apparent plot hole and chose not to clarify or explain it. The fanwank is then a supposed "uncovering" of the hidden reasoning of the author. Less obsessive fans, aware that mistakes happen in writing, often acknowledge that these are simply unintentional errors. Nonetheless, many people enjoy interacting with the fictional universes to devise ways to explain such errors. Many fans observe that very interesting writing can be developed from trying to explain away errors and inconsistencies. 'Fanwankery' can also be used to more broadly describe other activities seen as exceptionally geeky, such as comparisons of the power of Superman and Thor.
Related activities Fanwanks are distinct from retcons in that they are not created by the original authors of the work, but rather by their audience. They are an example of fanon, but typically address themselves only to explaining apparent errors in a single work or shared universe, rather than more generally adding fan-created ideas to a fictional universe. However, when fans of a shared universe themselves come to write for it, they may include fanwanky or fanon explanations in their own contributions, thus making them canon: one notable example is the explanation provided in the fourth season of Star Trek: Enterprise for the difference in appearance between Klingons in the original ''Star Trek'' and subsequent spin-offs. Fanwanks do not generally try to deny that disliked events in canon ever occurred; on the contrary, fanwanks are often intended to reconcile all canonical elements in a work, despite their apparent incompatibility. Origin of fanwanking The term has been attributed to writer Craig Hinton, the author of several Doctor Who novels and a reviewer for Doctor Who Magazine. According to Hinton, he began using the term in Autumn 1993 to describe series genre fiction that contained excessive references to past continuity. This sense is also known as "continuity porn". This is still the definition by which the term is most widely understood in Doctor Who fandom. One of the earliest examples is the various attempts by fans to explain the numerous inconsistencies in Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories (actually caused by carelessness). Fanwanking came to prominence in the mid-twentieth century with the advent of large fandoms of productions such as Star Trek, Doctor Who, and various comic books. Marvel Comics at one point issued "No-Prizes" (literally, no prize) to readers who wrote in detailing art or contiuity errors in their comics, and then proposed explanations. Fanwanking has become especially prevalent in the age of the Internet. Newsgroups, web-based message boards, and other such forums have allowed for much greater communication among fans, often turning the previously solitary activity into a collaborative one, a "circle fanwank". See also | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
| |