The Transformation of the Canon, the Struggle With the Canon, the Re-creation of the Canon as the Basis of Fanfiction Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand the transformation of canons and the struggle with them, we may productively explore fanfiction, a particular reader's, viewer's, and author's practice, within non-professional and non-commercial texts based on the plots and heroes of other people's works. Fanfiction is a paradoxical phenomenon: it is wholly based on a specific canon — collectively selected film and literary texts, moves by worship, emotional attachment, and attention, while initially working as a criticism of the canons and changing the canons. Canon is not only a research concept but also an intra-cultural designation of the original work as the basis of a fan text. Fans also create their canon — “fanon”, a set of characteristic plot solutions and ways to change characters established in fanfiction. The article examines the intersections of the cultural canon of high and popular culture, the national literary canon, and the canon and the fanon in the understanding of fans with different types of attitudes to the canons — disintegration, transformation, struggle, re-creation. The argument is based on a critical analysis of the research literature with a focus on metaphors that help authors describe the relationship of fiction writers with the canons and on the experience of empirical research about fanfiction devoted to samples of popular culture (“Harry Potter” franchise, “Doctor Who” series, “Sherlock” series, and others), fanfiction and sequels to novels by Jane Austen, the British writer of the 19th century, and fanfiction devoted to Russian classical literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".