![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Singularity - writing style, etc
I was just in a fest that had a poll where you could guess who wrote what while people were still anonymous. I was surprised that so many had guesses about who wrote what, and it really got me thinking about style. Some people certainly have a singular voice--something that is always the same no matter what they are writing. Others have certain elements or character types or details that are always likely to show up, no matter how generic the voice. Still others will always write a certain story; no matter how original and unique the plot, they are always the same tone or style of mystery, etc.
Let us proceed with the following on the premise that being recognizable or not is not a mark of quality. I feel like there are many great writers who are recognizable, and many who are not. I just wrote "are hot." I . . . really like writing, guys. Singularity is wonderful, but so is the ability to adapt different styles or diverse elements.
Per usual, I have questions. You, like RadioShack, have answers.
You can answer them in comments or in your own journal, but if in your own journal it'd be lovely if you'd drop a link, so I know it's there and discussion can happen! I think this is such an interesting topic. As a note, these questions pertain to how you feel about your writing, not your readership. You may feel that not enough people read you to recognize you, which is a totally valid point, or maybe you would never write anonymously, but I'm talking about how you feel about the nature of your writing, not the reception of it, if that makes sense. Also, there are just as many questions for readers, so if you don't write or would rather not address the writing questions, there's more! And feel free to adapt the quesitons for fanart, or vidding--let's discuss, guys!
Do you feel your writing is recognizable? Why or why not?
What do you think gives you away?
Have you written a fic that you feel best exemplifies what makes you recognizable? What was it?
What's a fic you've written that you feel is unrecognizable?
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are recognizable?
What gives those writers away?
What's a fic that you would rec that you feel best exemplifies their recognizability?
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are less recognizable?
What are some fics by those writers that you feel exemplifies difficulty in recognizing them?
For answering with ease!
Let us proceed with the following on the premise that being recognizable or not is not a mark of quality. I feel like there are many great writers who are recognizable, and many who are not. I just wrote "are hot." I . . . really like writing, guys. Singularity is wonderful, but so is the ability to adapt different styles or diverse elements.
Per usual, I have questions. You, like RadioShack, have answers.
You can answer them in comments or in your own journal, but if in your own journal it'd be lovely if you'd drop a link, so I know it's there and discussion can happen! I think this is such an interesting topic. As a note, these questions pertain to how you feel about your writing, not your readership. You may feel that not enough people read you to recognize you, which is a totally valid point, or maybe you would never write anonymously, but I'm talking about how you feel about the nature of your writing, not the reception of it, if that makes sense. Also, there are just as many questions for readers, so if you don't write or would rather not address the writing questions, there's more! And feel free to adapt the quesitons for fanart, or vidding--let's discuss, guys!
Do you feel your writing is recognizable? Why or why not?
What do you think gives you away?
Have you written a fic that you feel best exemplifies what makes you recognizable? What was it?
What's a fic you've written that you feel is unrecognizable?
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are recognizable?
What gives those writers away?
What's a fic that you would rec that you feel best exemplifies their recognizability?
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are less recognizable?
What are some fics by those writers that you feel exemplifies difficulty in recognizing them?
For answering with ease!
no subject
Otherwise, I try very hard to mix up the type of plots I produce, just because I get annoyed when reading people's stories and I realise I've already read them. :D But I have a certain love of anticlimax, which probably gets in more fics than I mean it to. Along with the dragons.
no subject
The character's style being recognizable makes a lot of sense. I think I've never really quite felt that I was that much inside of someone's voice. I've felt that I was in someone's head--and that sometimes it's hard to get out of that person's head and be in someone else's--but doing character voices always feels like something outside of myself. Perhaps because I'm rather inconveniently introspective.
I think it is possible to write different plots and yet still have recognizable ways of plotting. Having the same plots is rather tired, I agree, but having a particular style of plotting seems not better or worse than having a particular style of writing--which, again, I think is just as great as being able to change it up. It seems to me a preference for anti-climax is a style thing--unless the climax is always, you know, anti-ed in the same way.
I do hope you answer these questions, but don't feel pressured. I just really like discussing this stuff!
no subject
Do you feel your writing is recognizable? Why or why not? I suspect not? I'm bad at recognizing writerly voice, myself, so I'm not sure what is people look at to recognize writing. I certainly have an style when writing certain type of stories (someone told me I skirt around a lot instead of saying things outright. I think they may be right?) . I mean, I use m-dashes a lot. I confuse may and might a lot. I... idk. I've plenty of those kinda of... mistakes or things I do unconsciously. But I'm not sure anyone would be able to recognize my writing just for that. They are things I'm particularly aware of because my betas point them out.
What do you think gives you away? Er, idk?
Have you written a fic that you feel best exemplifies what makes you recognizable? What was it? Again, I really don't know.
What's a fic you've written that you feel is unrecognizable? If only because of its rating & particular argument, my only 28 Days Later story. I was purposefully attempting to imitate a particular character's voice, too. I'm not sure either thing is enough to not make me recognizable if anyone does recognize my writing.
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are recognizable? Uhm. This is hard! I'm so very bad at it, that I'm not sure I'm a good judge. But, say, Faulkner is a good bet, probably. After reading The Sound and the Fury with my sister, we spent days and days in which we only messaged each other in Forster style. /ETA: I'm not sure how I missed the 'fanfic' here, tbh!
What gives those writers away? Well, I suppose any stream of consciousness would make me think Faulkner (I think it was the first novel I read which was so extremely in that style), but at the moment of reading it I remember that the writing had a certain cadence that was very very recognizable. I couldn't tell you how, because I didn't analyse it then, just imitated it in those messages, but it was very noticeable.
What's a fic that you would rec that you feel best exemplifies their recognizability? Oh! I suddenly realized you meant fic. Uhm. You know, I can't think of anyone.
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are less recognizable? Most of the people whose writing I admire! I only don't say 'all' because I'm not entirely sure none of them have recognizable writing.
What are some fics by those writers that you feel exemplifies difficulty in recognizing them? No clue. I mean, take Peradan/Anghraine. I think she varies phrase structure and pov and voice a lot, depending on the fandom. I think taking any of her SW fic, and comparing it to her JA fic, or her HP fic, would be a good example. (But then again, maybe her writing is recognizable for someone else? idk)
no subject
After reading The Sound and the Fury with my sister, we spent days and days in which we only messaged each other in Forster style.
. . . I imagine this is a typo, as Forster is pretty different than Faulkner. Though now that you say that, it's interesting, because I never thought of Forster as having a style, despite really like his stories. They seem to say similar things, though. Faulkner, on the other hand, is very recognizable--from what I understand, anyway. I've actually never read him, which I know is a shame.
The reason I asked about fanfic in particular is that I feel the field of published writing is much different. People get famous for being able to write particular things in particular ways. They almost always are recognizable. It seemed to me that fandom was a place where it was a lot more likely that a lot of people would like a certain author without there being anything singular about that author other than that they are skilled. Because I definitely think that it's possible to be a skillful chameleon, and just as valid as being skillfully one of a kind, but there's less room for the former in the published world.
Also, I'm interested in how characterizations play into it. Do we like fanfic authors who always write the character in a certain kind of way because that's how we interpret that character? I dunno.
Anyway, thanks for taking a shot at this.
In other news . . . I totally fell down on beta'ing. I'm so sorry. I think a bunch of things were happening and it just fell off the bottom of my to-do. Did you find someone new? If not, do you still need someone? I hate being flaky even though that appears to be my natural state; I don't want to leave you in the lurch. It was such a brilliant story!
no subject
I'm not sure the published world is that way -- I mean, many of the authors I love haven't, I think, such a recognizable writing voice. Meh, idk. Like, would you say Ursula K Le Guin has one? Or Kazuo Ichiguro? Or Borges? Or García Marquez? Austen herself? Gaskell? (Purposefully grabbing people from different places and times...)
I think it's probably the same as in ff, except that mimicry itself is probably more valued in fandom. Though most people don't even try for it in my experience.
On your other words: no problem! I mean, I'm flaky as hell myself and have been distracted with stuff. I think I sent you a chapter corrected last? (If not, I'll go see!) If you still want to beta, I would be most grateful, seriously.
no subject
That would teach me to proofread before posting and not after. Maybe.
no subject
except that mimicry itself is probably more valued in fandom.
I think so too! I wonder if it has to do with wanting to mimic the canon?
If you still want to beta, I would be most grateful, seriously.
I still have it, I'd still like to; yay!
PS reaction to above
I like Defoe, but then, he tells good stories. Moll Flanders, yes? I think you can only tell style in the cultural/genre context. Like Wemyss and Tiger Silver -- totally like some other writers' style at turn of the century, but fresh and therefore welcome in Harry Potter verse.Not just the language, but the values. I mean the 19th century, of course.
Re: PS reaction to above
And oh god yes, on the people denying sf when they're writing sf. Also people denying they're reading sf. I have no idea what Cormac McCarthy's stance on it is, but how many people have told me The Road is not sf because it's good? OY A LOT OF THEM. ack.
no subject
I maybe would give you García Marquez (though I would have to both re-read and read some of the authors I used to read when I read him, to see if the similarities are still there or were in my imagination) but Borges must be the most mechanical writer ever, I think. He has themes or images he repeats, of course (labyrinths! Libraries!
Libraries which are labyrinths!Tigers! Mirrors!) but I'm not sure I would count that, though lin says I must. Though maybe I'm too used to him; I read and re-read his complete works during a good part of childhood.A Little about Recognisability
Interesting question -- if you mean fanfic writing, no, because I try to be inventive in different ways and few ever guess I wrote a story, and I work for a "transparent" style because there just doesn't seem a call for literary style, and the main characters I use for POV don't seem the sort to have a really identifiable style. If that makes sense. However, if lit crits WANTED to, I believe they could find my "tells;" I'm uncomfortably aware of them.
What do you think gives you away?
Some things just put me in certain categories: sf writer, doesn't like writing anyone as The Enemy, things work out in the end -- and in fanfic, plot as important as character to me. Characterisation is pretty recognisable too. I also tend to find the world funny, and words funnier, so there tends to be double meanings in most commentary. I also like to write dialogue as though I were an eavesdropper on a college campus where fairly smart people go. That's how I learned to write dialogue, after all. I don't think I can write dim characters credibly, or judgmental characters sympathetically, so those come out as if an elitist were making fun of them, alas.
Have you written a fic that you feel best exemplifies what makes you recognizable? What was it?
Gates, which is my rl magnum opus if I ever finish revising. In it, there are no completely bad guys, although there's a war and the audience will identify with one side (as I do;) character takes precedent over plot, so it gets quite longish with events that don't further plot at all -- with my original characters, one hangs out with them and they're procrastinators. There are lyrical passages, which is how I tend to write climactic scenes, because I have a lot of training in poetry and that's how I learned to write emotional action. These things, except the lyricism, are all present in my fanfic as well, but working with existing characters mean I can't spread myself as much creatively. I also note that in my H/D fiction I not only have recurrent themes, but recurring plot interests -- for example, somehow theatre keeps cropping up. PTSD has been referred to obliquely in all of them, but I think that's out of my system with Alohomora, so hopefully that won't give me away if/when I participate in future fests.
What's a fic you've written that you feel is unrecognizable?
If people read teh LOTR fics I wrote as Lost Owl, I think they wouldn't recognize the writer as the same person, just because I really am character driven and the characters are so different. for example, "Betters" is a Frodo/Sam fic and I don't think it resembles in plot OR character Harry/Draco, especially not Squib, which is my favourite H/D. But if you've "got" my sense of humour and my political interests, there would be resemblances to pursue.
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are recognizable?
Oh, Maya for certain! She stands out, really, because her style is language timed for humour, and she has her own "voice." She brought so many things to fandom which are recognisably her characterisations: Harry as a kind of socially incompetent loser, Draco as a coffee addict, Hermione and Ron as not suited, Pansy as a delightful snarky person who would be well-suited to Ron (don't get me started on that one!) and so forth. I love her work, rl too, but frankly I think her characters were predictably similar. Again, that's fanfic for you. Recognizable styles? Tigersilver and Wemyss have really distinctive styles I think of as kinda "early Peter Wimsey," very before-the-Great-War language. Again, I love the work. 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. Sarasgirl is another who's recognisable, though in her case her plots and to some extent her characters vary significantly, and her writing style is fairly transparent. I mostly recognise her because she's simply that good, and then I notice certain ... quirks? Standards? Her characters are good people in general, and the bad ones aren't "Darkly" bad but just human bad; there's always lots of unexpected sorts of magics, and she more than anyone else I've read gives me the sense of H/D as normal people living relatively normal lives. and Pir-8fancier like Maya has ordinary people slightly larger-than-life lives credibly, with enormous humour, but her characters strike me as somewhat more sophisticated than Maya's. Pir-8 is about the only writer I know who can write Snape well and still make me like him, consistently. I haven't figured out the rest of what makes her recognisable, unless you will accept the highly non-literary description of a quality I call "I'm in good hands." From the first sentence, you know this is going to be interesting, fun, and challenge your stereotypes of character.
What gives those writers away?
Oops. See above.
I will add one other kind of writer: those with a literary bent who use angst as character development. This will sound awful -- and I certainly won't name them -- but their style is so opaque that it's interchangeable among them, kind of like the novels I was required to read in high school -- Edith Wharton, The Mill on the Floss, and so forth. The really fine ones among those can write fic which would win a book prize. Nonetheless, I could never say, "This story is X's, and this is Y's because they sound too much alike, their characters are suffering, and a sense of humour doesn't manifest itself much, in either character or author. The style draws attention to itself by being ... again, I haven't a word, but I used to write like that because I thought I was supposed to: " The diamond panes' wood frames were so old that the rain was seeping through. The dust she ran her finger through turned to a small line of mud. It was so easy to remember then that glass was a liquid too, and in this old abbey had flowed for 600 years and thickened the lower window, while leaving the diamond tips vulnerable to shattering and to rain."
Well, that's an awful first draft, but I don't feel like editing it, so just believe me: the subject, the image, the sadness are all examples of the literary genre.
What's a fic that you would rec that you feel best exemplifies their recognizability?
Oh, I think one needs to rec at least two so they can be compared. But this is way too long anyway. So: if people HAVE any of Maya's fiction, probably the quintessential later work is ... oh blast my brain; an AU where Draco is a Ravenclaw. If you compare that to her first long fic, "Underwater Light," you can see that the characters and the themes and above all the tongue-in-cheek style (when she's not committing angst) are pretty much the same, though obviously she grew a heckuva lot as a write during that time. Pir-8s "Snape the home Fries Nazi" to me is perfect example: you believe the unbelievable (Snape as a cranky cook, Harry as a lost soul, both as lovers) willingly. My personal favourite is "Lettered" and its sequel, "Lush Life" (wrote it as "lust" the first time!) where you believe Draco in all his snarky, self centered, complicated wholeness and just... well, you're in good hands. Sarasgirl's recently finished "Turn" and her earlier, beautiful "Foundations" series exemplify her magical world building and the ordinary human beings who are struggling in it -- and also includes (in 'turn') the only Lucius I've both liked, laughed at hysterically, and believed in.
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are less recognizable?
Resonant? Though that's cheating, because I haven't read much. But her writing shows literary discipline, in the sense that it's following various writing rules and knows how to do that well. I would expect if she wrote another major story that it would follow those rules, and would therefore look completely different in some ways. I never know what's up with a Stray-the-Grey story because they're profoundly original in plot, and the style's not recognisable because English isn't her first language so the betaing makes a difference to how things are said. I think she's 'way undervalued and should become Hungary's premium sf writer, but then, I'm a bit biased.
What are some fics by those writers that you feel exemplifies difficulty in recognizing them?
Try Stray's HDHols 10 fic on broomstick racing at Disneyland (Disneyworld?) . If you haven't read "Transfigurations" by Resonant, you probably aren't a member of H/D fandom anyway.But if you haven't, you HAVE to. I'm sorry about not-linking. I don't have the links and they always take up two or three lines because I can never remember how to code LJ links.
Sorry -- a lot -- for the length. Interesting questions; I look forward to reading other people's answers.
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.
Re: A Little about Recognisability
We may have to take this offline eventually just for length -- we both like to write looong. I did mean "If You've a Ready Mind." I didn't care for "Quality of Mercy" at all because the ending belied the rest (you probably read my comments on that. For Maya, the most significant difference between her fanfic (most of it) and her original fic that I could find is that she is a guaranteed stitch in fanfic, with the possible exception of Underwater Light; can't quite remember that one in detail. "Drop Dead Gorgeous" is my absolute favourite work of hers; it combines angst and humour I think seamlessly, which is always nicer than either separately to me.
Yes, it's finished -- I think even the epilogue. v. long, and it doesn't let one down -- which I considered a MAJOR possibility, because I saw no way it could end happily, or even... contentedly? Well worth it. As to Victorian, I totally agree -- I'd also like to see Draco as Sherlock and HP as Watson, only magical. Stray did a great story based on that, but more modern.... and with the casting reversed. Well, it's more CSI with magic, I guess. Loved it any way.
"Some things you mention don't resonate..." do you mean for all the writers, or just Maya or Sarasgirl? I definitely assume everyone's taste varies (hence my justification for researching one fandom for my scholarly work) and it's why it varies which is fascinating. I mean, both of us probably avoid ffnet like the plague, except for certain reliably rec'd works. So we're both choosing among a raft of usually better-written fics, and get to be pickier on taste.
The genre stuff is someday going to be a chapter in my book, if I ever can focus on it -- the cultural studies theory one, not my novel, which gets first priority! I think I posted some in a really rough form on lj a year or so ago. I'd love if we could talk more about it; I have a horrible time writing theory when no one I know really wants to read critical theory, or any other kind, and grad school was a constant barrage of argument and synthesis.
At any rate, the short version is to answer the question "what is genre," I look at the genres in HP fanfic and conclude that in fact there's more than one audience for the same body of fic -- or to be more precise, the multiple audiences lead to a shifting definition of what a "good story" is and should contain. (The underresearched part is my not interacting sufficiently with ffnet readers to find out why in the world they recommend "good fics" which fits NONE of my standards, nor any English teacher's. clearly, they've developed their concept of the genre themselves, which fits my specialty -- audience theory -- and is therefore quite exciting, since most of us in the f-lists I know have more or less applied the concept of what makes good reading from English classes and such.
In the process of pondering this and other things, and going to Wiscon the scandalous year a slash fanfic was on the longlist of nominations and everyone was yelling at everyone about it, I started trying to develop a definition of genre which actually represents how I see genre functioning in real life. Basically, since I'm a crit theorist, it's based on economics: genre depends on marketing niche. (And why couldn't I think of that lovely soundbite when I was writing my presentation for wiscon?)!!! So among genres, the literary genre, which is of course generally seen as a non-genre by literary-trained people, is the "real" term for what the literary world -- academy and traditional -- defines as "good."
Does that make sense? It's really hard to summarise what I hope will end up a chapter in a critical analysis and ethnography of fandom as a site of struggle.
your point on themes is well-taken, btw. I'm biased here, because I always interpret themes from my own bias and tend to miss the writers' intention of what the theme is. I think Sarasgirl also has that, and some of the others as well (like Resonance). I prefer stories where people are complicated and no one's perfect, but some try to be good more than others -- so I guess that's the connecting theme for me.
Gads, and I still haven't commented on your literary comments! I have opinions, but will save them for a time when I've already committed less verbiage. Suffice it to say, we studied Ethan Frome and Silas Marner, neither of them inspiring. I loved thackeray since I was 13, and read him without knowing it was literature, which helped -- teachers of the literary genre ask the wrong questions, generally, imnsho. You understand, I was a maverick English major all the way to my MFA-poetry, at which point I saw the light and switched fields to Rhetoric, where I fit nicely. So I do tend to think of my writing as Art, and the workshops at UW helped me along there. The Iowa workshop as far as I can tell seem to think of Fiction as something a little more... well, like a craft, I suppose. No arete. I am absolutely convinced that the "look how clever I am" phenomenon you describe -- and I totally agree with -- comes from the Iowa workshop primarily. Remind me sometime to tell you about me watching "The World According to Garp" with a less cynical poet. Workshops are extremely useful, but dangerous places: shove-tail-in-mouth-and-swallow sort of places, demanding ever more inventive style and ever less real people.
I'll talk about Seattle in the other post! Love to hear your comments on this. What is your profession?
Re: A Little about Recognisability
no subject
Do you feel your writing is recognizable? Why or why not?
Once somebody commented on a story of mine with, "I read [witty line] in the second paragraph and smiled, because I knew then that I was reading a Stulti story." I loved hearing it, but I don't think my style is that reliable in general. It's not like you can count iambs and assonances and figure out it's me. Maybe bigger things give me away, though, like what I find funny, or hot? I do have a narrator I use over and over, who hops fandoms with me, but all I know is that I know when she has the floor. God knows whether other people notice her.
Have you written a fic that you feel best exemplifies what makes you recognizable? What was it?
Take Five, Everybody, I think. That's my panfandom narrative voice at its most...concentrated? pungent?
What's a fic you've written that you feel is unrecognizable?
Maybe Someday Coming Down. It's first person POV of an OC for a Yuletide fandom, and a bit rushed and uneven on top of that. It was challenging to write, probably because I only had a month to make up a character and know her well enough to be her on the page.
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are recognizable?
Oh, gosh.
What's a fic that you would rec that you feel best exemplifies their recognizability?
Here's a recent installment of rm's saga. Here's some paian porn. Except there's no porn in this one. Oops.
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are less recognizable?
It's almost dinner time, so I'm not going to trawl my rec list for names, but I'll mention one of my favourite fannish terms: "LJ house style". I think
no subject
I do think your writing is rather distinct. I wouldn't say necessarily that out of a hundred anonymous things, I would know who was you, but I would be able to narrow it down to two or three. What I mean is I've read a couple other stories that remind me of your voice, and they weren't written by you, but they still really popped and felt different than many things I read. One of the biggest is vocabulary--you use words that are fun a lot of the time, and then everyone once in a while you will pop something quite sesquipedalian in, but it doesn't usually feel abstruse or pretentious. It does, however, sometimes send me toddling to the dictionary.
The "fun" tone is something that's true for not just the vocab, but the prose. It always feels light and easy to read, but not in the light and easy to read way of the LJ house style--which is an absolutely fascinating concept, btw. Anyway, it's not quite as sparse as that and makes itself much more known, but there's something about it that is usually a little ironic, a little delighted, and a little detached. I really like it; it's brilliant.
Re: lj house style, I started noticing that more and more over the past year. Some people are quite good at it and have really mastered it, but it also explains why even some really really good things . . . well, start to sound like other things. Also, I wonder if this is what has made me so impatient with prose that is . . . lingering, recently. As you have pointed out, I am guilty of prolonged prose, and have therefore always been partial to it, but more and more in the past years I find myself growing a bit impatient--or needing a break in between books that are really long-winded.
(Which begs the question of whether styles we prefer are a result of the force of habit. Perhaps the answer is obvious.)
Anywho, thanks for answering these. You always have such interesting things to say!
no subject
You're right, that's true. I missed a bunch of things you wrote this year, but every time I check in I find you've evolved. Also, I think I expressed myself wrong anyway. Your writing used to be over-generous, sure. But it still often contains...hm. Your honesty. You have a way of slicing right to the center of things everybody thinks about (some of them porny, many of them entirely quotidian), summarizing and presenting them for discussion with -- gob-smacking pith. You do it over and over again, and it's amazing. That's what I meant by generous: the way you have of offering up the things you think about.
This is my favourite part of my own editing process. :) The game of "Where can I cut a word?" and deciding which parts do need to be laid out in full.
Heeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I like the way you describe my writing. Thanks. :)
Hummus, right.
no subject
Interesting post--the tumblr post she's referring to is awesome too. The thing is, even the hate-sex, messy-sex, didn't-go-quite-right sex, awkward sex starts to sound the same when you read a lot of it. Not that people write enough awkward sex to really get tired of it. But sometimes I feel like a large majority of fandom 1) inserts sex scenes because they think they have to, and 2) sits back and has a knuckle crack and a shot, gearing up to the, "Okay, now it's time to write sex," and it feels like a pause in the fic, or like slightly other characters are doing it. I feel like if you plotted scenes of most fics, most dots would be on this conflict-resolution arc, and even many great sex scenes are just slightly . . . off of that line. The sex isn't an exploration of who the characters are or what concerns them.
Oy, now I'm ranting and it's not even quite what you were talking about. But I think the root of both matters is a desire for writers to think about actual real people--even if they're characters--having sex, and how and why they do it. I dunno.
no subject
That's not a bad habit!
It is an awesome post. You have a point about all sex starting to sound the same, but I guess I'd have to expand that to all fic in general. Same plots, same sources of conflict, same assumptions about the way lives go (or should go), over and over. Our grooves, they are comfy. The effort to comment count ratio is satisfying. Most people actually aren't in fandom to bust their own asses, and you know, that's fine, I can't judge, even when it's annoying when there are no new works of staggering genius to read on a Saturday night.
I do hope people's private fantasy and/or sex lives are a bit more exciting, though, for their own sakes. :P
Glee has a whole damned meme, bless 'em. A kink meme, an angst meme, and an awkward meme, I kid you not.
This, exactly this, is my single most frequent comment in ten years of beta reading. Most recent incident was mere weeks ago, actually:
Lis: Wah, Stulti, I can't figure out how to make this sex scene work.
Stulti: *reads* You don't need that sex scene at all, but did you know you've got thirty thousand words of science fiction plot lurking under the rug?
Lis: YOU'RE RIGHT. FUCK YOU.
Ayup. And also to not be afraid of messiness and conflict and postponed resolution! Like, how many scenes have you read where brand new lovers are perfectly in sync and know exactly how to touch each other? Isn't it sexier, more real, and narratively more interesting if there's a learning curve? Meh. YMMV.