This interests me. Do you mean the particular canon doesn't lend itself to a literary style, readers don't seem interested in it, or fanfic itself doesn't lend itself?
It interests me as regards the first, because literary style seems to be the basic modus operendi in BtVS fandom. Is this because the canon is in some way more poetic? And if so, what is it? The writing is poetic, but the themes lend themselves to poetry; I feel that that is the case in HP too though, depending on which themes you're drawing from.
I've written some fairly literary things in HP and felt that they were out of place, and written some fairly literary things in BtVS and felt that they fit precisely, but I could never figure out whether that was due to the canon, or due to what everyone else was writing, how different it was from mine, and how people responded to the fics.
I think Maya is incredibly recognizable also, but not just for style and characterizations. Her themes, it seems to me, always ask this question, "What makes us human?" or more correctly, "What makes us worthy of being treated as humans?" or "What makes us worthy of being treated as equal?" It's not something I've seen many other authors address without hitting us over the head with it or tackling it more directly. I feel her original stuff does this too, which is why I love it, even though I think she's still growing as an original writer.
Still, it's so very "period" pure that I can't read a lot at once without needing to read some transparent stylists just to clear my brain.
This is so interesting! I've taken to reading 19th c novels with contemporary sci fi, fantasy, or YA in between. I used to be able to gobble up Jane Eyre after Portrait of a Lady after Vanity Fair in my teens, and yet now I find that I always need a rest. It would be interesting to write an HP fic in a more Victorian style, because Victorian seems to be the mindset of wizarding world. Huh.
their style is so opaque that it's interchangeable among them and their characters are suffering, and a sense of humour doesn't manifest itself much, in either character or author.
This so interesting; I know exactly what you mean. I felt that way about Madam Bovary. God, the writing is good. Important things are being said, and said well. But it's all been said before and said very well a thousand times, and I just get so tired. I can see feeling that way about Wharton, though the Wharton I've read stands out and is a bit more sparkly in my mind (possibly because I've only read The Age of Innocence).
But I actually feel this way more about contemporary writers, which is interesting because contemporary authors use far, far much more humor than the Modernists (it was Modernists we were speaking of, correct?) And yet--oh, say, Johnathan Franzen, that crowd, it is always the same detail-packed commentary on the people who are all dysfunctional in the same way. It is all very complex and "look how clever I am" and incredibly deftly witty yet also poignant and crass, because, "WE ARE CONTEMPORARY AND WE ARE NOT AFRAID TO HANDLE THESE SUBJECTS."
It makes me want to go to sleep. Unless it's Pynchon, who I believe is the father of this mess and better at it than all the rest.
Re: Maya, you mean If You've A Ready Mind. Imo her quintessential way-she-writes-now thing is Quality of Mercy, which I think stands for her original stuff, too.
Oh, saras girl finished Turn? I should go read it! I had to stop because I couldn't hack just reading pieces at a time. Even though I have to do that with some WIPs because they're so good I just can't wait.
I feel like our perceptions of the characters and our tastes must be different, because some things you mention weren't really buyable to me; I wonder if that plays into recognition of an author at all.
Re: A Little about Recognisability
This interests me. Do you mean the particular canon doesn't lend itself to a literary style, readers don't seem interested in it, or fanfic itself doesn't lend itself?
It interests me as regards the first, because literary style seems to be the basic modus operendi in BtVS fandom. Is this because the canon is in some way more poetic? And if so, what is it? The writing is poetic, but the themes lend themselves to poetry; I feel that that is the case in HP too though, depending on which themes you're drawing from.
I've written some fairly literary things in HP and felt that they were out of place, and written some fairly literary things in BtVS and felt that they fit precisely, but I could never figure out whether that was due to the canon, or due to what everyone else was writing, how different it was from mine, and how people responded to the fics.
I think Maya is incredibly recognizable also, but not just for style and characterizations. Her themes, it seems to me, always ask this question, "What makes us human?" or more correctly, "What makes us worthy of being treated as humans?" or "What makes us worthy of being treated as equal?" It's not something I've seen many other authors address without hitting us over the head with it or tackling it more directly. I feel her original stuff does this too, which is why I love it, even though I think she's still growing as an original writer.
Still, it's so very "period" pure that I can't read a lot at once without needing to read some transparent stylists just to clear my brain.
This is so interesting! I've taken to reading 19th c novels with contemporary sci fi, fantasy, or YA in between. I used to be able to gobble up Jane Eyre after Portrait of a Lady after Vanity Fair in my teens, and yet now I find that I always need a rest. It would be interesting to write an HP fic in a more Victorian style, because Victorian seems to be the mindset of wizarding world. Huh.
their style is so opaque that it's interchangeable among them and
their characters are suffering, and a sense of humour doesn't manifest itself much, in either character or author.
This so interesting; I know exactly what you mean. I felt that way about Madam Bovary. God, the writing is good. Important things are being said, and said well. But it's all been said before and said very well a thousand times, and I just get so tired. I can see feeling that way about Wharton, though the Wharton I've read stands out and is a bit more sparkly in my mind (possibly because I've only read The Age of Innocence).
But I actually feel this way more about contemporary writers, which is interesting because contemporary authors use far, far much more humor than the Modernists (it was Modernists we were speaking of, correct?) And yet--oh, say, Johnathan Franzen, that crowd, it is always the same detail-packed commentary on the people who are all dysfunctional in the same way. It is all very complex and "look how clever I am" and incredibly deftly witty yet also poignant and crass, because, "WE ARE CONTEMPORARY AND WE ARE NOT AFRAID TO HANDLE THESE SUBJECTS."
It makes me want to go to sleep. Unless it's Pynchon, who I believe is the father of this mess and better at it than all the rest.
Re: Maya, you mean If You've A Ready Mind. Imo her quintessential way-she-writes-now thing is Quality of Mercy, which I think stands for her original stuff, too.
Oh, saras girl finished Turn? I should go read it! I had to stop because I couldn't hack just reading pieces at a time. Even though I have to do that with some WIPs because they're so good I just can't wait.
I feel like our perceptions of the characters and our tastes must be different, because some things you mention weren't really buyable to me; I wonder if that plays into recognition of an author at all.