(no subject)
Here's something about me: I like meta. I like meta about meta. In fact, the further iteration of meta you get from the real thing, the more I like it. My favorite program on NPR is "On The Media": first there are real events, and then there is media reporting on real events, and then there is media reporting on the media; that's what "On The Media" is. If there was media that reported on the media whose reporting on the media--if there was a show called "On 'On The Media'", I would like it even better than "On The Media".
You can see how this is a problem. I have trouble with the real world. First of all, I'm bad at it, but mostly it's just sort of hard to care about it if I can talk about it, especially if I can talk about talking about it, or talk about talking about talking about it; again, you see my problem.
Recently I wrote a fic called The Chuck Writes Story. It was about SPN, but not really. It was about being about SPN, about SPN fandom, but also about meta of SPN fandom, and meta about meta, and I honestly don't know what. The trouble with this fic was that someone had to be writing it, so I made![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lettered write it; she was there, she had style, she had flair--hell, I was there. I was already writing it, so I might as well, you know, write the story in the story, too.
The problem is that it's much easier to say things aslettered than it is to say, be a real person. I'm not saying that it's easier to live my life online that to live for reals; that's not what I'm saying at all; this is not a cry for help. I'm just saying it's easier for me to convey how I feel in the narrative form than it ever has been in real life.
Here's the thing: I'm not actually good at conveying my opinions in narrative form, and neither are Ayn Rand or Victor Hugo; I'm just more comfortable that way. Rand has been accused of inventing totally flimsy narratives merely to sell her political points; yes, it's true, I completely agree. I also agree with all of you gnashing your teeth and saying, She's crazy; yes, yes, I agree--I find her politics very interesting, but generally untenable, not to imagine somewhat naive and ridiculous. However, Hugo, whose philosophies--I think many of us would agree--tend to be generally opposed (charity! The human heart! Forgiveness! Love of fellow man! Right, so he wasn't a Communism, but Romanticism is pretty much diametrically opposed to Objectivism, isn't it?) also invented flimsy narratives merely to sell his ideas.
Before you say, "Wait, wait wait, those stories are great!" let me say that yes, they are great, and before you say, "Wait, wait wait, he wasn't in it for the fame/fortune/power/politics, etc" let me say, yes, and Rand was totally in it for the politics; it's true. But Hugo still totally wants you to believe in the Beauty of the Common Man and the Holiness of Charity; he does, and he stops for fifty pages at a time to tell you so, and lecture, just like Ayn Rand. Rand actually really admired Hugo, for the way his story-telling delivered his personal beliefs. Neither of them never made any bones at all about using their narratives for vehicles of idea-sharing/preaching.
That's sort of the way I am, even though I don't necessarily want to be; I sort of can't help stopping and preaching in the middle of stories I really care about. If I get a good reader to go over it, such as![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
stultiloquentia, she'll help me tone it down. But I am more comfortable sharing what I think that way than this way. For one thing, I'm already bored of this post. I'm pretty sure I'll delete it. Even in spite of that fabulous cut tag I thought up!
So anyway, I'm trying to say it's easier for me to stop and preach in the middle of a story, rather than just in a post on a journal, or especially in person. Mostly, it's easier because I feel it is more interesting. I am not interested in reading Ayn Rand's political tracts at all, but nor am I interested in Victor Hugo's; I'm still terribly interested in both of their novels. And I am reluctant to speak unless to say something to impress the whole room, so it is imperative that I am interesting. I hate not being listened to. I hate not being read. I hate not being talked to. I hate it when people don't comment (hello,chuck_writes; do we have something in common?), even though I rarely comment at all: this is what The Chuck Writes Story was about, and I could say it all there because it wasn't really me--or was it? It was, except so much more exaggerated, that I could feel better about it.
(That's the other thing about saying things in narrative form: no one can blame you! If Ayn Rand hadn't been crazy, she could wash her hands of Objectivism at any time. Even if we all might have guessed that she probably was lying, she could have still said that she didn't believe what Howard Roarke, Dagny Taggart, John Galt believed. Ann Rice can never, ever go back and say she didn't say, "You're interrogating the text from the wrong perspective", because the internets tell us so. But if she had only written fic of her saying that, we would never know the truth, even as flimsy as it all is.)
So, since writing The Chuck Writes Story--here's the interesting part, guys--all I've wanted to do is uselettered as a narrative device. The thing is, I could be writing The Chuck Writes Story right now and you wouldn't know it; this could be part of it. This whole journal is part of it, and here's a part of The Chuck Writes Story I took out because it was preachy: this whole journal is a story I've told you.
Sometimes I wonder if I've developed this character enough. Should I flesh her out more? (Does it make me look fat?)
Here's the thing (the real thing, that other thing was just another thing): if I was role-playing myself, or role-playing fandom, or oh! Role-playing a role-player role-playing fandom, I'd feel a lot more comfortable. I would just be telling stories upon stories upon stories. What ifwatsonian wrote posts about fandom neuroses, and lettered linked to them, and what if dean_lives did a poll about--seeing how SPN actually came true, in dean_lives's universe--whether you would want your fandom to come true; there could be a discussion on the nature of reality afterwards; I had this conversation with someone who commented on The Chuck Writes Story, but I can't just do a post about it. I need to do a story about a post about it, and--and my biggest fear is no one will read it, and everyone would just think that I've gone off the deep end.
Iflettered goes off the deep end, it's not really the same as myself doing it, but it would look like I did it. See, this post here looks like lettered has gone off the deep end, but I haven't, really.
Mostly, I feel like I have a minor meltdown whenever I post a fic, because just like Chuck, and so many people, I have fandom neurosis. The meltdown about The Chuck Writes Story, however, is lasting much longer, and that's--well, terribly amusing and ironic, really, since The Chuck Writes Story is about fandom neurosis, and I'm being neurotic over the fic itself, etc. And the truth is, I'd like to post about that, but the idea of posting about being neurotic over something that's about being neurotic is making my head spin, so instead I'm posting about being neurotic over posting something about being neurotic about something that's about being neurotic, and I feel much better.
Possibly I like meta about meta about meta, because it mostly only makes sense in my own head. I can pretend I am very clever, really, instead of admitting that most of what I think and feel doesn't make actual sense in a world that is real. That sounds so worrisome, when I put it that way, but if it was in a story, you wouldn't be worried at all.
Even Mr. Darcy couldn't match that cut tag.
You can see how this is a problem. I have trouble with the real world. First of all, I'm bad at it, but mostly it's just sort of hard to care about it if I can talk about it, especially if I can talk about talking about it, or talk about talking about talking about it; again, you see my problem.
Recently I wrote a fic called The Chuck Writes Story. It was about SPN, but not really. It was about being about SPN, about SPN fandom, but also about meta of SPN fandom, and meta about meta, and I honestly don't know what. The trouble with this fic was that someone had to be writing it, so I made
lettered write it; she was there, she had style, she had flair--hell, I was there. I was already writing it, so I might as well, you know, write the story in the story, too.The problem is that it's much easier to say things as
lettered than it is to say, be a real person. I'm not saying that it's easier to live my life online that to live for reals; that's not what I'm saying at all; this is not a cry for help. I'm just saying it's easier for me to convey how I feel in the narrative form than it ever has been in real life.Here's the thing: I'm not actually good at conveying my opinions in narrative form, and neither are Ayn Rand or Victor Hugo; I'm just more comfortable that way. Rand has been accused of inventing totally flimsy narratives merely to sell her political points; yes, it's true, I completely agree. I also agree with all of you gnashing your teeth and saying, She's crazy; yes, yes, I agree--I find her politics very interesting, but generally untenable, not to imagine somewhat naive and ridiculous. However, Hugo, whose philosophies--I think many of us would agree--tend to be generally opposed (charity! The human heart! Forgiveness! Love of fellow man! Right, so he wasn't a Communism, but Romanticism is pretty much diametrically opposed to Objectivism, isn't it?) also invented flimsy narratives merely to sell his ideas.
Before you say, "Wait, wait wait, those stories are great!" let me say that yes, they are great, and before you say, "Wait, wait wait, he wasn't in it for the fame/fortune/power/politics, etc" let me say, yes, and Rand was totally in it for the politics; it's true. But Hugo still totally wants you to believe in the Beauty of the Common Man and the Holiness of Charity; he does, and he stops for fifty pages at a time to tell you so, and lecture, just like Ayn Rand. Rand actually really admired Hugo, for the way his story-telling delivered his personal beliefs. Neither of them never made any bones at all about using their narratives for vehicles of idea-sharing/preaching.
That's sort of the way I am, even though I don't necessarily want to be; I sort of can't help stopping and preaching in the middle of stories I really care about. If I get a good reader to go over it, such as
stultiloquentia, she'll help me tone it down. But I am more comfortable sharing what I think that way than this way. For one thing, I'm already bored of this post. I'm pretty sure I'll delete it. Even in spite of that fabulous cut tag I thought up!So anyway, I'm trying to say it's easier for me to stop and preach in the middle of a story, rather than just in a post on a journal, or especially in person. Mostly, it's easier because I feel it is more interesting. I am not interested in reading Ayn Rand's political tracts at all, but nor am I interested in Victor Hugo's; I'm still terribly interested in both of their novels. And I am reluctant to speak unless to say something to impress the whole room, so it is imperative that I am interesting. I hate not being listened to. I hate not being read. I hate not being talked to. I hate it when people don't comment (hello,
chuck_writes; do we have something in common?), even though I rarely comment at all: this is what The Chuck Writes Story was about, and I could say it all there because it wasn't really me--or was it? It was, except so much more exaggerated, that I could feel better about it.(That's the other thing about saying things in narrative form: no one can blame you! If Ayn Rand hadn't been crazy, she could wash her hands of Objectivism at any time. Even if we all might have guessed that she probably was lying, she could have still said that she didn't believe what Howard Roarke, Dagny Taggart, John Galt believed. Ann Rice can never, ever go back and say she didn't say, "You're interrogating the text from the wrong perspective", because the internets tell us so. But if she had only written fic of her saying that, we would never know the truth, even as flimsy as it all is.)
So, since writing The Chuck Writes Story--here's the interesting part, guys--all I've wanted to do is use
lettered as a narrative device. The thing is, I could be writing The Chuck Writes Story right now and you wouldn't know it; this could be part of it. This whole journal is part of it, and here's a part of The Chuck Writes Story I took out because it was preachy: this whole journal is a story I've told you.Sometimes I wonder if I've developed this character enough. Should I flesh her out more? (Does it make me look fat?)
Here's the thing (the real thing, that other thing was just another thing): if I was role-playing myself, or role-playing fandom, or oh! Role-playing a role-player role-playing fandom, I'd feel a lot more comfortable. I would just be telling stories upon stories upon stories. What if
watsonian wrote posts about fandom neuroses, and lettered linked to them, and what if dean_lives did a poll about--seeing how SPN actually came true, in dean_lives's universe--whether you would want your fandom to come true; there could be a discussion on the nature of reality afterwards; I had this conversation with someone who commented on The Chuck Writes Story, but I can't just do a post about it. I need to do a story about a post about it, and--and my biggest fear is no one will read it, and everyone would just think that I've gone off the deep end.If
lettered goes off the deep end, it's not really the same as myself doing it, but it would look like I did it. See, this post here looks like lettered has gone off the deep end, but I haven't, really. Mostly, I feel like I have a minor meltdown whenever I post a fic, because just like Chuck, and so many people, I have fandom neurosis. The meltdown about The Chuck Writes Story, however, is lasting much longer, and that's--well, terribly amusing and ironic, really, since The Chuck Writes Story is about fandom neurosis, and I'm being neurotic over the fic itself, etc. And the truth is, I'd like to post about that, but the idea of posting about being neurotic over something that's about being neurotic is making my head spin, so instead I'm posting about being neurotic over posting something about being neurotic about something that's about being neurotic, and I feel much better.
Possibly I like meta about meta about meta, because it mostly only makes sense in my own head. I can pretend I am very clever, really, instead of admitting that most of what I think and feel doesn't make actual sense in a world that is real. That sounds so worrisome, when I put it that way, but if it was in a story, you wouldn't be worried at all.
Even Mr. Darcy couldn't match that cut tag.
no subject
I just wanted to point out that pseudonymity =/= anonymity.
In terms of the discussion this summer, newsflash! Pseudonymous groups have highly developed codes of etiquette! In terms of this post, uh, I totally get why it's so much easier to put opinions in fic form, in a voice once-removed from one's own. It's a safety screen (if a flimsy, untrusty one at times) between the opinion and Stulti's reputation.
Very much relatedly, I currently have a lot of terrible, terrible schmoop floating around in my head. I am embarrassed to post it, because Stulti, you know, is an INTELLECTUAL. So I think of going anon for a while, just to see what would happen to the wordflow, the writer's block, the angel in the house. On the other hand, I want to own what I write!! I don't want to be ashamed of having a mushy side! Jeez, what does it say about me, anyway, if I'll cheerfully admit, "Hey, I spent last night pootling around on the internet, reading terrible, horrible badfic," if I'm to arrogant to write it myself?
Especially since mine would at least be grammatical.So, yeah, owning words: complicated. One of the reasons I like you and am interested in you as a writer, actually, is that you push yourself, and your readers, and the list of things we, as individuals and as a community, are willing to own, so hard, so inquisitively, so lovingly.
no subject
I just wanted to point out that pseudonymity =/= anonymity.
No. But it does depend on how you use a pseud. You can give it an identity, or you can use it to be anonymous. I have, in fact, a sock journal I use in order to be anonymous, because well. I suppose I push the things we are willing to "own", as you put it, but even the porn I post to lettered has questions within the text about, "is it alright to own it? Yes! Do it!" But I have occasionally written things that are so dirty and mindless even I couldn't own them. I can't figure out whether it's because my brother and a couple others I know irl know the name of my journal, or not.
But no, I agree that pseuds and anonymity are not equivalent; as you say, anonymity can only ever be, well, anonymity, whereas a pseud can be part of your identity. I think part of my problem is that lettered is enough of my identity now that it no longer feels removed enough; I would rather be writing with someone twice removed. Three times removed!
I currently have a lot of terrible, terrible schmoop floating around in my head. I am embarrassed to post it, because Stulti, you know, is an INTELLECTUAL. So I think of going anon for a while, just to see what would happen to the wordflow, the writer's block, the angel in the house.
This is interesting, because again, when I find myself writing things I'm embarrassed about, questioning that embarrassment will out in the text--e.g. Sex, Lies, and Veritaserum, or Girls Are Great. And those pieces, I didn't quite purposely put the questioning meta elements in there. When I wrote Girls Are Great anonymously, I was fine with it just being porn, but when I decided I wanted to post it to my journal the meta elements just happened. I had to work on them, but I knew what I wanted them to be, and even though it wasn't a perfect fic in the end I was fairly happy with it. I don't know, maybe that's not something that would happen with everyone, but I feel if you're having those issues, if you let yourself go it will out in the text.
...except with me and the porn? Because to me the dirty, dirty stuff I have to post under another name is . . . it's not just another genre, it's like another medium or something. It's as different from writing fic as writing a meta post is from writing fic, and considering my meta posts vs fic, writing straight-up porn is even more different than both of them. It's totally mindless in a way most things I write--even lots of porn I write!--can never be. I have no idea if that makes any sense at all.
I hope you do write your fluff, whether it's anonymous or not. It sounds like you're saying this, but maybe if you try being anonymous, you'll be able to get some of it out, and then find that you're fine owning up to it after all.
no subject
An actual sock, not just an anonymeme and a logout button? Hah. See, I don't think I could work that, because I would start to care about the sock's reputation and body of work. And I would get jealous, because my sock's readers wouldn't know how brilliant and witty I was being over on stulti's journal, and stulti's readers would never stand amazed and admiring of all my mad panty incineration skillz.
Exactly! I wonder if that hasn't happened to many of us on LJ, over the last decade. I've noticed that, in my neck of the woods, anyway, there's less silly, unedited, guiltless squee than there used to be. Explanations abound: (a) the squeekers are not on my flist, (b) my old friends are still squeeing as much as ever, I just notice less, because I'm not clicking on the Vampire Diaries cut tags, (c) there IS less squee, because somewhere in there we all got collectively exhausted by Hollywood's misogyny/racism/$fail, so we still watch, and make our fic, but the squee comes less easily, (d) we've grown embarrassed to squee, because we're aware of the $fail, and feel like squeeing about the good parts will be seen as being insufficiently stern about the bad, (e) we still have a cultural discomfort with excessive displays of emotion and/or enthusiasm, which was one of the points of being pseudonymous in the first place.
I caught myself thinking the other day, "I need a platform on which I can be completely ridiculous." And then I remembered how grateful everybody was in any classroom I've ever been in when somebody stuck up their hand and asked a "dumb" question. And I thought, these things are not unconnected. I mean to say, I think people like it when I post squee.
Hehehe. There is a time for getting off, and there is a time for analyzing it.
This is a fabulous observation. I strongly suspect you're right -- it would happen to my texts, too. I'm an extremely Dear Readerish narrator to begin with; I almost always write either 3rd omniscient or 3rd limited from the POV of someone very self-aware, just so I can do stuff like that. Huh. Stulti, trust your brain. It's way ahead of you.
It makes sense, I think. I just can't relate at all! I mean, I fantasize; I can daydream a fantasy that's way more interesting, creative, erotic, idiosyncratic than anything I've ever written down (again, huh) -- but the kind of no-holds-barred yarn you're talking about, I have no idea if I could. Not incapable-due-to-embarrassment, but rather I have no idea whether I'm capable of sitting at a keyboard and keeping my, I dunno, "literary brain"? turned off to that extent. NOW I'M REALLY CURIOUS.
First I gotta write something. Then I can start worrying about how I'm going to post it. (There is, alas, a certain order to these things. ;)
no subject
It is an actual sock. And if there's anyone whose panties have been incinerated, I'm more than happy for them not to know it was me. Actually, I've only posted to it a couple times, since the drive to write that particular sort of filth only moves me every once in a while.
a) b) c) d) e)
I think it's probably some combination of all of these! Although I have noticed in particular b), and am particularly interested in c) and d). One of the reasons I love fandom (and living with
And then there's d). There are some things I really, really enjoy, but feel like I can only talk about how much I liked them by first qualifying it with all the things I didn't like about them. Which in some ways, I do feel is kind of important, because it does raise awareness about the fail and that's important. But as you point out, it can also be detrimental to expressing the way you feel about something.
What I don't like is how if I point out what's wrong with something, they don't believe me when I say that I enjoyed it, or, when I say I enjoyed something, people translate that into thinking I mean it's good. I recently had the experience of saying I enjoyed something (even after I qualified it) and someone else essentially saying, "but that movie is bad." And yes, I agree. In fact, my disapproval of the movie in question (The Dark Knight) is probably even more violent and visceral than theirs--precisely because I do enjoy it.
I don't know. I guess if I think a thing is bad I should enjoy it or if I enjoy it that means it's good. Or something. But I don't think so.
I mean to say, I think people like it when I post squee.
I like squee a lot.
Stulti, trust your brain. It's way ahead of you.
Heeeeeeeeeee. Cool.
NOW I'M REALLY CURIOUS.
Maybe you should try it. See what happens. Ever since I was quite young, I've always felt very strong divisions between, well, "higher" brain things vs "lower" brain things, which means intellect vs emotion but also, say, emotion vs sexual desire. That is, emotion isn't usually thought of as cerebral, but it can certainly be more intricate and complex than a libido. Gah I don't know if I'm making sense again.
First I gotta write something.
*\o/* <--cheerleader.
no subject
no subject
Exactly! You know what, this is so interesting, because I'm a regular writer for the Hooded Utilitarian now, and . . . I find I can't really write articles. Sometimes I do write fannish meta essays, but . . . in the end, if I really want to say something, I generally write fic about it, because I find stories memorable and also . . . well, sort of inarguable in a way that an essay is not. It's not that I don't want people to debate with me. Maybe it's that it's easy to read a story as someone's opinion, or someone's POV; it doesn't tell you how things are, but rather how things could be, or how we could see them. And that's what I hated about academia, too; when you wrote essays about literature you were supposed to say, "this is what it is" rather than "this is what I thought". When I read a genderswap fic by you, I can see not, "You're doing it wrong!" but rather, "I do it this way" and . . . it's such a gentler and easier way for me to respond and self-analyze.
I want to write about girls in reboots for HU, and I was thinking about doing that thing about BBC's Sherlock as a girl, but I just don't know how to make it work. Oy.