[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Much different, very much. A review is a non-fiction statement of reaction to a work of intellectual creativity. Fan fiction is a work of FICTION based on someone else's intellectual property.

Very different things. (as are parodies)

That sounds like you think it's not fanfiction if the source material is in the public domain.

Is "Wicked" a form of commentary on The Wizard of Oz? Is it not an original work?

Originally Posted by kennyc

No it's not if it's based on someone elses intellectual property. There is a very clear distinction between criticism/review and fiction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Which side of the line does BBCSH 'Guises and Disguises' wind up on? Is that a character study review, or fiction?

Fiction-vs-nonfiction is a writing style; it doesn't define the type of message that can be carried. I've written nonfiction in the style of fiction; many authors write fiction in the style of nonfiction.

Certainly an original story(or other work of art) can be written as a reaction to another work of art. I've seen this a lot in the poetry world and often in the fiction world, but when it is not original work (i.e. using someone elses intellectual property) then not only is it not crit/review, it is not even original (whether done with permission of the copyright owner or not).

It stops being "original" when someone owns the rights to the source material? But "original" fic-shaped reviews of public domain materials, which aren't anyone's intellectual property, are possible?

Are movie adaptations of books "not original work?" Are sequels "not original work?" (Those are done with the permission of the copyright holder. Often they're written by the same person. However, they are indeed based on an existing work, rather than being a new creation that stands on its own.)

Are all the Robin Hood and King Arthur stories of the last several hundred years "not original works?"

I really am baffled by the idea that inspiration removes originality.