lettered | Let's talk about authorial intent.

Current Mood: exanimate

Entry tags:

Let's talk about authorial intent.

I've got questions about authorial intent...

I write two types of fanfic, and each fulfills a need of mine. They are:

1. The fic that focuses on story, and that I write
-for fun.
-for escape.
-because it poured out of me.
-because something could've been better in canon and I wanted to fix it.
-because something was missing in canon and I wanted to fill it in.
-because canon was perfect, and I just wanted more.
-because I wanted to see what happened after the end.
-and come up with Best Souvenir, a shippy, plotty, epic, with a style that does not call attention to itself.

2. The fic that focuses on form, and that I write
-for intellectual stimulation.
-to become a better writer.
-to experiment with style and techniques through a medium in which I feel less disappointed about messing up (as opposed to original fiction).
-to express how I feel about canon.
-to express insights on theme, motivation, fractals, and interrelationships between characters in canon
-and come up with Five Ways NFA Probably Didn't End, a non-linear, technically experimental, containing dense language, and generally shorter fic.

For me, the difference between these two types of fics is very clear-cut. I do want those of type #1 to be the best they can be--I get them beta'ed by a wonderful gal who beats me over the head when I need it, and work hard to make the players interesting and in character. And I do want those of type #2 to be fun, to give me more of canon, to show things that could've happened.

But the difference is the intent. I set out writing Best Souvenir (type #1) because I wanted to see what would've happened if post "Chosen" Buffy met Angel. I set out writing Blood Types (type #2) because I wanted to see how a theme could illuminate Angel and his interrelationship with others through metaphor. I set out writing type #1 because I want a good story. I set out writing type #2 because I want good writing and thinky thoughts. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but how I approach them is different.

I've read some wonderful fics that my guess is are type #1, and the same for #2. I enjoy both equally, though they push really, really different buttons. But most of the great fic I see seems to be a combination of both: good stories, with interesting scenes that give me more of what could've happened in canon, expanding on characters I love and making me feel good having more of them, but also--finding new ways to use words, new ways to express things, tweaking the "rules" a bit and experimenting.

Then there are fics that are neither, and we call those crack!fics. Some crack!fic, I honestly don't understand why people write. But some crack!fic has shades of type #1--it's fun, entertaing, escapist, but the material extended and filled in and played with is fandom, not canon. The intent there, of course, is not to tell a good story, but to tell a good joke. And some fics we call crack have shades of type #2--Angel may be a crack!h0r and Spike may be a wealthy orphan monk--but it's technically brilliant: a unique use of second person, lyric language that needs to be published, omg, and thoughtful and insightful, wow. And while the premise is ridiculous, the intent is not a joke, but a good story.

(Which is why, I think, there's so much confusion/contention surrounding the term "crack!fic". There's a little blurring, between the latter kind of crack!fic and the former, and do you as an author think about which you're setting out to do when you start? And sometimes there's a blur between the latter and what we'd call "serious" fic--do you know when you're writing Buffy!prisongaurd/Faith!convict that it's crack, or is it not crack for you because you bring in real character traits of both Buffy and Faith to the table, and at which point did it become serious for you as opposed to crack? And how did your approach to it change?)

I'm also interested in the intent behind some of the one-shots written in only a couple hours, for requests, or on a whim, just to get the idea off their heads. A bunch of not-so-great fic authors write this as their standard fare, but I've seen splendid fic authors do it, and I'm wondering what their intent is. Or rather, I know what the intent is: to have fun, to er, shoot off, in a way, just to get the idea off their heads (or that thing off their faces. You know, that thing? Has no one else ever noticed the thing?) But what I'm wondering about is the approach; do the--as I mentioned, some of them really fantastic--authors who do this know when they sit down to write that such and such piece is just going to be a fly-by, a by-blow, a blow-off, an off-shoot (how long can I keep that up, huh?) Do they know it's not going to be a masterpiece? And if they do, do they still expect it to be good? Do they want people to enjoy it and leave them fb? Do they think about that when they're writing? And when they sit down to write something really serious and really important to them, do they actually sit down to write with a different attitude?

What I want to know, I guess, is: what's your intent when you sit down to write a fic? Do you have very different intents for different types of fics? Do you want to write a masterpiece every time you start out to write a piece? Or do you just plan on trying your very best every time? Or do you start out knowing it's just going to be a little doodle in your sketch pad you might show off a bit? At what point do you know that doodle might become a masterpiece, and then how does your attitude toward writing it change?

Also: what about your expectations of fb in respect to your intent? If you plan to try really hard, write as close as you personally can get to a masterpiece, do you expect/want more fb? If you only spend a couple hours or days on a fic that you started on a whim, and don't get a beta for it, are you disappointed when there isn't fb? Are you disappointed when the whim-doodle (that should be a word) fics get more fb than the ones you tried to make perfect as possible?

And how do you delineate the difference to your readers? Do you warn them in your A/N that hey, you didn't get this beta'ed? Or hey, I worked my ass off on this and I think it's the best thing I've ever done? And do you expect people to respond accordingly?

Anybody got an opinion on this type of thing?

*puts on tea* *gets you a cozie*

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I've read Xander slash that doesn't address the not-gay-in-canon issue which is really good and in character.

Oh yeah. And just for clarification, I wasn't saying this kind of fic can't be written. What I meant is, that even if you're going to write a fic in which he's already gay and out of the closet, even if it's not an issue you want to deal with in a fic, one should think about it, in order to be able to write Xander in character as he should be once your story opens. If you know your character and have his back story in your head, what you write about him--whether you've made him become a ballerina, a circus freak, or a wealthy contractor, or not!--will be in character.

Not professionally yet. We would like to write for television professionally but are still working on breaking in.

Cool! Good luck!

Oh! Thanks for your answer! I know what you're talking about; I've seen that done in various places to various degrees of success and failure...Do you know why it's called the fourth wall?

Anyway, if you're restraining yourself from going further into it because you're a. as lazy as I am, b. don't have time, that's perfectly ok, but if you're doing so because you don't want to leave a long comment omg don't think that way. I'm really interested in this idea, especially since I just read a really great fic that played with it and it sparked an idea for a fic I want to do that plays with it...so, if you want to discuss, I'm so here.

I saved your link and will read your story (hopefully soon). I'm interested to see what you do with it...

99% of my solo BtVS work exists in the same fannish 'verse.

This is so interesting. It reminds me of some fantasy authors--the books they write may be about different characters, different time periods, etc, but they all have a single mythology behind them.

On the rare occasions that I do write type 2 stories, they are the stories most likely NOT to be a part of the 'verse I've created.

From the way I approach both types, this makes perfect sense to me. For me, the type 1 sort of fic is playing in canon, while the second is playing on canon--that is, I can't see myself writing a type 2 "what if" AU, because then I'd have to deal with both explaining how this AU is different, AND an intricate form. I think the reason fanfic has pushed me into sometimes experimenting with form itself as opposed to story is because with fanfic, the story is there, and what you can do is use that already-established story in a new form you want to try.

But even indulgence fics have to have a point of some kind,

I think this was one of the main things I was wondering about. I feel this way too, but then the "point" takes over, and I begin to work toward writing something unique and insightful and new, and lose the indulgence part. There are others who seem to write without a point other than pure indulgence, and often those fics are...well, pointless, though sometimes they're fabulous. But some authors can spin off a fic in a couple hours that is really all about fulfilling a whim--but it still has a point and there's still something interesting about it that makes it more than something just to throw away.

Length is no predictor of quality,

I agree completely. And there's a difference, too, between how long you spend on something in proportion to the word count, and how long something is. I mentioned fics written in hours on a whim can be self-indulgent and pointless, but that doesn't mean that all short fics are bad or "lesser" in anyway.

I've got a fairly snippy critical voice in the back of my skull informing me when I'm being sloppy or self-indulgent, and though I sometimes ignore it, I always know it's there.

You ignore it, but do you trust it? I'm wondering because I have trouble trusting mine. I have a tendency to be overly dense and purple and to stretch to hard for a metaphor, or alliteration, or rhyme. But when I ignore the voice telling me that I'm doing those things in a line of text, I sometimes get an extraordinary amount of fb saying, "God, I loved that line!" And it makes me look at it again and see that perhaps it was a good metaphor after all. I guess it's just a classic case of second-guessing.

Oh! I wasn't looking for a pat on the head--but thanks. I actually hadn't thought about my posts having a "tone." And I'm glad the "calculation" does generate discussion. It's fun.

And yeah, I didn't think you were one for low self esteem. I do have a habit of telling everyone "I've never tried anything like this before and I'm really nervous". It's supposed to be a "I won't mind if you tell me this doesn't work for you, because I'm not sure it even works for me", but now that I think about it, it looks a bit like an implication that I need a pat on the head.

Now I want to do a post about A/Ns and how they add to/detract from our fiction and the culture of writing on the internet.

*ponders*

romanyg gave me paid time. I've been lusting over Component forever.

I had thought you could debate over English vs. American spelling; hadn't considered the "dialect" angle.

I didn't know what "meatspace" meant, was the problem. I have a shockingly small vocabulary.

it's quiet, turned in like a person hugging themselves and biting their bottom lip.

That's lovely.

And so the two things are linked

Depends on the angle.

I am such a ponce. :P

I beg to differ. You are uniformly charming.

I'm sorry if I caused any offense; none was intended.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, and excellent point! I think I let fandom sometimes convince me that only "serious OMG" has merit. Okay. Not convince me, but see it as prevalent.

And Jossverse dialogue god-yes.

Hee. I will always try for funny. To paraphrase, uh, me: I'll always head be heading for funny, but I might get off at lame.

Making language fresh and Jossian at once is crazy hard. I've seen it done, though, and when it is...sweeetness.

Your, uh, Cordy voice comes to mind...

But it still didn't sound appealing to me; it sounded like Anne Rice. That was my fear, too!

Yam sham!!!

I hate it when people think because they don't write flowery or metaphor-fraught prose, they don't have style. Excellent point. I guess I was thinking soley on fic, which the majority of 'shipper fic takes the "scene description" form - the story form to me. Hmm. But yeah, those still have form. I'm just repeating "form" now. I'm tired.

Re: original fic - I'll show you mine...I have written since I realized I didn't color well. Those crayons had to be useful for something! I've always wanted to be a writer, I just don't seem to have ambition or follow through. I do, however, "show promise." It's been said! A lot!!

Here's an .... followed by a >>>> for you!

*blushes*

thank you :-D

even if you're going to write a fic in which he's already gay and out of the closet, even if it's not an issue you want to deal with in a fic, one should think about it, in order to be able to write Xander in character as he should be once your story opens.

Good point - and that explains why good stories with really out of canon premises work so well, because the author really knows the characters.

This discussion inspired me to really think about a fanfic I'd finished writing but hadn't edited yet. As a result, I realized there were still things missing from the story (and this is probably why I hadn't done my edit before getting it beta'ed). So, yay for this discussion helping with writing!!!! :)

I'm going to admit: I'm a little lazy *g* but here goes.

I have to warn you in advance that most of my knowledge on the 4th wall comes from theatre and a little from film, but I assume that most of the concepts can be applied to writing as well.

Anywho, the 4th wall as a term comes from Stanislavsky, I believe. He's not the first to employ the technique (Aristophanes' plays had many a joke that acknowledged the audience and Shakespeare's soliloquies can also count as breaking down the 4th wall), but I'm fairly certain the term came from him. He was big into realism, and so would rehearse his plays in a room, without telling his actors which of the four walls he was going to remove during the performance so that the audience could see. That way it would feel to the audience like they were really watching a slice of life, as the blocking would not take them into consideration. And just to spice it up, he would often change which wall of the set he removed, just to make each performance original.

Stanislavsky's deciple Meyerhold began to wonder what the point of completely real theatre was, and decided to look more towards what was theatrical about theatre, and so he would highlight the elements of theatre that were less realistic (such as acrobatics, etc). From Meyerhold came a slew of "deconstructionists", who liked to remind the audience that they were watching a play. The one I just heard a lecture about (*g*) is Artaud, who was certifiable (and spent many years in a nut house), but since he was French he was a 'genius'. He believed in getting rid of ALL the walls, not just the fourth, and would stage plays amid the audience. The tradition of breaking the fourth wall is a great 20th century theatre staple. Stanislavsky put up the wall, and every subsequent director feels the need to tear it down. Right now Robert LePage and Peter Brooke are the theatre gurus. I've seen some LePage. It's...different.

For a great use of comedic 4th wall breaking, Aristophanes' The Frogs is awesome. Even today it's still funny. The entire play satirizes the works of tragedy by many a greek playwrite (especially Euripides...I don't think Aristophanes liked him very much). I prefer it to Lysistrada. At any rate, The Frogs has tonnes of moments where the characters talk to the audience, and a great joke with the Deus ex Machina that Euripides was so fond of. /theatre geekery

Anywho, as metatheatre applies to writing, well, I think one of the best in the field (and this is such an opinion, becuase so many would disagree with me) is Terry Pratchett. While you read one of his books it's like listening to a running commentary at the same time. He's not the only one who does it, but he's the one who does it well. He takes you out of the story and puts you back in at will, without disruption. On the same tolken, e e cummings is another example, as he draws attention to the mechanics of writing by disregaurding them.

The best pop culture example of breaking down the 4th wall is in Fresh Price of Bell Air (I spent my highschool carrer watching this show *g*). At the beginning of the 2nd or 3rd season, they re-cast Vivian, Will's aunt. The new actress looked NOTHING like the old one, and so to introduce her they had a small joke where Will mentions she looks different, and then turns to the camera and makes a goofy face. It was a moment of, "yes, we know, she looks different, we acknowledge that, and now back to suspending your disbelief."

form form form!

I'm afraid when I discovered I didn't color well I kept at coloring until I colored decently...same with writing, though. I wrote a couple things in third grade and realized they weren't as good as the published novels I read. I was exceedingly frustrated by this and have kept at it since...

Sometime when you have time, I'd love to see your original stuff! If you're interested, I'd love to show you some of mine as well. But. Only when you're feeling relaxed and unpressured and unstressed. Or feel like saying "fuck it I'm in the mood for Joy stuff!", heh. :o)

Oh, excellent post. I salute you, if I did that kind of thing. I shall raise my left eyebrow in appreciation instead.

Now, lets talk about me (haha)! Erm, I'm kind of stradling the divide between being a reader and a writer and by golly am I glad that I decided to wear pants. This was the first time that I picked up a keyboard and tried my hand at writing, and by golly do I suck. Of that I don't care too much, I know that there's room for improvement, I know that there's bits I'm getting the hang off even if there's still bits that are out of my slippery grasp, I know that if I really want to write something that's good that it's going to take a lot more practice, time, and effort on my part that I'm putting in. You have to do the work to get the rewards. Damn it, I'll never be a writer.

So I'm firmly in category 2, mainly because I just haven't built up enough writing skills yet, even though I think I've got a pretty good grasp of the source material and I definitely warn people before the story, not as a 'Oh my god, I'm so modest though completely wonderful' because I'm not 12 and I know what I'm good at and what I'm not. Most writers are going to be the average schmucks because otherwise how would you be able to differentiate between them and the fantabulous ones. Plus I'm a lazy bastard. But at least I know that I'm a category 2/crack!fic writer, because correct categories are important. Excuse me while I go and put my newspapers dating back to 1983 in order. Haha!

Oh, and I get why more feedback than my stuff deserves. But I pay complete strangers to leave comments, so it's all good.

Did I even get close to answering your question?? Where am I?

Oh, I'm so glad! That's why I love discussion; it always makes my brain all bendy and gives me new way to think and be a better writer. So...do what you need to do, and I'm eager to see your fic when it's finished!

Well, I started out as a science fiction and fantasy fan, and that's where my creative roots lie to this day. The writers that formed my literary sensibilities, and whom I first tried to emulate, were Tolkien and C. S. Lewis and Andre Norton. And the first fandom I became seriously involved in was one where the creators encouraged fanfic, but encouraged the writers thereof to create their own characters rather than using the canon characters (which is, I think, a distinguishing characteristic of much literary SF/Fantasy fan fiction, where the universe is as much the star of the show as the characters.) Using canon characters in EQ fandom in the 80's was looked down upon as much as creating Mary Sues is looked down upon in today's media fandoms. So even in my fannish endeavors, I was doing worldbuilding stuff, and that's always been one of the things I love most about writing.

re: indulgence vs. point, I've noticed that for me, the stories which are pure indulgence--what I think of as "Isn't my character so cool? Look how cool my character is!" stories--are the ones I'm most likely to bog down on and never finish, because there's no real character growth involved to pull the story to completion once the indulgence factor wears out. (Of course this is less of a problem in ficlets, but ficlets/vignettes have a whole different set of creative rules anyway, IMO.)

It's not like my critical voice is unerring, and I hope that it's still learning and improving along with the rest of the writerly me. But yeah, on the whole I trust it. I've been writing for twenty-plus years, and if nothing else, I've got a large weight of sheer practical experience to go by in judging what works and what doesn't.

Not offended. Just rambling about how the term 'crack!fic' isn't as innocuous as some people make it seem, especially since its primary usage seems to be devaluing the fics it's representing. Your post was interesting and insightful. No offense taken.

I'm going to admit: I'm a little lazy *g* but here goes.

I really care much less about invading people's journals than I do lolling about and making with a bunch of squee, and that's the real reason I rarely leave long comments. Thanks so much for taking the time to do so; I really appreciate it because this is fascinating.

without telling his actors which of the four walls he was going to remove during the performance so that the audience could see.

To me that just sounds awful. I would hate not to know where the audience was!

who was certifiable (and spent many years in a nut house),

Most deconstructionists are, imo. Deconstruction is fascinating to me, and what you're saying really adds a whole new demension that I saw before but think I didn't know how to word. As I said, I read a fabulous fic a bit back that addressed the reader, addressed the fact that a fic was being written, and yet made use of that in a way that seemed so integral to the story that I didn't even know it could be done that way and didn't even know how to express it.

Anyway, I think both of these concepts--deconstruction and the fourth wall--are more easily applied to theatre because of, of course, the audience. Shakespeare liked to self-referentiate--even though he rarely got outside the play entirely--with that whole play within a play aspect, or play within a play within a play. It called all sorts of attention to itself which you can't quite manage in the form of published fiction, because...I don't know, you always remain outside of a novel. In a play within a play, the audience of the play within the play merges with the real audience, and the play itself is watching the play. Which is why I'm finding this "play among the audience" of the French guy fascinating.

I'm probably being incredibly simplistic or else just plain indredibly incoherent. I'm not a theatre student and know little of this, only what I learned in my Shakespeare classes (and I did read some Aristophenes, but we didn't really get into the meta aspect--from this angle--too much). Nevertheless, I find the whole thing fascinating as regards fanfiction--because there is more audience participation in fanfiction than there is in published fiction, but less than there is on the stage. I think it bears thinking about.

I see what you mean about Pratchett. And it's funny you mention e e cummings, because I've just been talking about experimentation and spaciality and the visual aspects of text elsewhere with others.

I've never seen the Fresh Prince of Bel Air. There was something wrong with my childhood.

Again, thanks so much for teaching me a little here! I'm sorry if I'm all ramblely, I'm just bouncing ideas around.

I'm kind of stradling the divide between being a reader and a writer and by golly am I glad that I decided to wear pants.

Ok, what I want to know is does it hurt, or if you wiggle a little, does it turn you on?

I think we're a bit...at odds about what I've defined as "type 2", at least in this post. The first approach to writing I was talking about is a focus on story; the second is a focus on form; both derive from canon. By "form" I don't mean necessarily parody or mock!fics or crack!fic, though all three can exist in this category--for instance,

germaine_pet's Porn In Iambic Pentameter has a lot of elements of the second category, and I do feel it's also a crack!fic due to the premise. But most crack!fic I've read doesn't fall into either category I've outline--it might be a rolicking good story, and thus have shades of the first, or it might be written to exploit one form or another--2--but it draws as much of its inspiration from fandom as it does from canon.

But anyway, what I'm talking about as far as the "type 2" moniker goes is less about content and more about the approach. My longer fics I approach as stories, e.g., what would've happened if Whistler never existed?. My shorter, more thematic and experimental fics, I've approaches as forms, e.g. Can a Dru be written in first person? OR, Can I create five different endings for NFA, not as five separate ficlets, but as one fic that says the same thing in five ways? etc.

Anyway, the points you bring up are interesting, because they go back to the definitions of crack!fic and the difficulties thereof I mentioned above. I might call a fic "crack" because it has Angel as a poor painter and Spike as an exotic stripper, but it might also be an incredible story that in fact draws so much on the canon characters that I would also call it type 1. But I also call pieces that don't take canon into consideration and are neither intensely interested in story or form crack too.

But I pay complete strangers to leave comments, so it's all good.

Duuuude. How much do they get? Makes me want to defriend you and pretend I don't know you anymore :o) :o)

OMG, no Fresh Prince!? *horror* *g* And I've just thought of an even better example: Ferris Buller. You want breaking the fourth wall? Just think Ferris *g*

I love that we're discussing this! It's making me giddy that someone finds this as interesting as I do *g* Just tell me when you're bored.

It is easiest to apply 4th wall principles to theatre, but in literature I always look at it like this: most books tell a story like the events happened. Even if the story features fairies and dragons, most books act like the events they are relating are real. Authors that talk to the audience as the author or comment on the story in a way that reminds you it is just that are breaking the wall. You're right, it's totally easier in fanfic, because you know your audience will be familliar with the material, and will therefore get it when you step out of the world of the story.

And more about the crazy French director, Artaud, cause he's fun to talk about *g* He felt that Aristotle was both right and wrong about theatre. Aristotle believed theatre was a means of purging fear and anxiety from the populace. When an audience left a play they should feel happy and calm, satisfied with the story they have witnessed. Artuad believed theatre should purge, but he thought it should purge society. He felt that society was broken, and so his Theatre of Cruelty would bring down society show the audience what was broken. The crux of what Artuad viewed as the problem was language, and so his plays had no dialogue, and very few words. He attempted to make a new language out of 'heiroglyphs', which had nothing do do with Egypt. Instead he would come up with an emotion and have his actors portray it. The results were very different. At any rate, having actors scream, growl, laugh insanely, and make strange shapes within the audience caused a lot of alarm, which Artaud loved. Unfortunately, people didn't, and alarm translated into only two shows before Artaud was shipped off. I liked to call him a kinder Dadaist, because at least he didn't physically harm the audience. A lot of more recent directors like to try and include the audience in the performance. There's a school of thought, not dissimilar to Artuad, that believes theatre is a mechanism to bring about social change, but it can't be used properly if the audience is passive.

The play within a play in Shakespeare is great! It's something that makes theatre scholars wet themselves *g* The symbolism alone is fantastic.

Using canon characters in EQ fandom in the 80's was looked down upon as much as creating Mary Sues is looked down upon in today's media fandoms

Whoa. Cool. I didn't know there were fandoms like that. But I can definitely see that, because yeah, as you say, the universe is a star of the show in many books of those genres.

because there's no real character growth involved to pull the story to completion once the indulgence factor wears out.

Boy, do I hear you loud and clear on that. I've written lots of long fic that just peters out into non-existence because I started writing it just to get it off my head, not because I had a real point.

But yeah, on the whole I trust it. I've been writing for twenty-plus years, and if nothing else, I've got a large weight of sheer practical experience to go by in judging what works and what doesn't.

It's definitely important to be able to trust your experience. I don't think I have enough of that to actually trust, but hopefully I'll get there ;o) Thanks for your thoughts!

I'm so behind in LJ. *despairs*

I've written both types. I'm an overly organic writer, I'm afraid, and let fic stew and boil in my brain for quite some time before ever tapping at the keyboard. For instance, I could say that I wrote His Body a Boat in one night, but that wouldn't account for the *five months* that I spent going over almost every single line in my head, weighing and savoring, distilling. And then the drabble format forced me to distill even more.

Even with that care and attention, I made mistakes that I've corrected as much as I could, but I'm still hyper-aware of the blemishes.

Every night I go over fic in my head before I fall asleep, rewrite and edit. 95% of this never makes it to the computer.

I'm weird. *sigh*

Thanks for this. Once again, you give good meta.

I'm so behind in LJ. *despairs*

Gah, me too!

*five months* that I spent going over almost every single line in my head, weighing and savoring, distilling.

It shows.

And then the drabble format forced me to distill even more.

Which is why I think the drabble is such an excellent tool. I don't write them myself; I'm way too verbose, but I HAVE taken up the idea of setting a word limit for certain things in fic, and I think it's helped me a lot. One day I'll attempt drabbles, but I think I need to work my way down first!

Every night I go over fic in my head before I fall asleep, rewrite and edit. 95% of this never makes it to the computer.

This is interesting, because I'm kind of the opposite. I concieve at night in bed. I edit during the daylight hours sitting on my computer. I usually can't edit in my head (though sometimes I do) because I have to be looking at it. Even if I've been over it so many times I can write it from memory, I need to see it to work on it almost always. But yeah, I spend a lot of time trying to get to sleep coming up with the next scene, the next chapter, the next line.

We're both weird.

And thanks for answering!

Which is why I think the drabble is such an excellent tool. I don't write them myself; I'm way too verbose, but I HAVE taken up the idea of setting a word limit for certain things in fic, and I think it's helped me a lot.

I've learned this tool for OF too. A gazillion years ago when I took a creative writing course, one of our assignments was to write a 500 word short story. And then the next assignment was to take that same story and edit it down to 200 words. Gah! That was hard. In fandom, we can cheat a little because there's this whole shared backdrop of canon. One sentence can reverberate, cause the reader to nod her head in understanding. In OF, even if the writer makes literary allusions, she has to assume that the reader might not get it. The story has to stand on it's own wobbly feet.

Sometimes I wonder if fic can do that. In some cases, yes. I've read outside of fandoms that I know, don't have that canon knowledge or canon assumption, and some fics do stand on their own. Some don't though.

Eek! Tangent! Run away! *g*

And this is why I find it so much easier to experiment within the realm of fanfic than OF. I feel like I can play with things like form because I have so much more . . . room. I don't have to take the time introducing Angel or explaining his history, so I can start with a flash and bam! without the reader getting lost. And those fics, where I'm experimenting with form and reader expectation and stuff like rhythm and fractals and heaven knows what else, those fics are short. Whereas if I just want to tell a story about the characters, it tends to be longer. And when I'm reading fanfic in fandoms I don't know, I find the short fic harder to grasp than the long.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 4 of 5

Let's talk about authorial intent.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject