![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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*
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*
no subject
These were written as part of my fannish dialogue, so no, I wasn't out to write a masterpiece because I wasn't performing in that sense.
This is very...illuminating to me. I don't really write that way, so when I see fics written off the cuff as you describe--as a result of a conversation, etc--I wonder what the author thinks she's doing (er, that sounds very judgmental. It's not an "omg, what is she doing?" but more of a ...curiousity on my part. And interested, benevolent curiosity. I can't spell curiousity.) And here is my answer.
Utterly self-indulgent!
Well, my take on that is you should always be indulging yourself just a bit when you write. Even professionals. Or else it's just crowd-pleasing schlock.
I thought it was necessary to do that; it wasn't really a comment-whoring, or even dialogue-seeking, decision.
I find this really interesting, because when I decide to write a piece with a really distinctive or unique form, I never feel that what I have to say necessitates said form. Sometimes I wonder if I'm kind of forcing my thoughts into a frame in which they don't fit, just because I think the frame is so cool...but generally by the time I'm done content and form have merged and they're not so distinctive to me as when the idea was concieved. I love hearing how different ideas come to different people.
I'm not getting in to the "one shots are inherently less valuable" debate because a) I'm bored of it and b) it makes me feel ouchy.
There needs to be a newbie's guide to wank. Seriously. Or at least, a newbie's guide to Things That Are Always Debated In Fandom (slash, RPS, feminism, concrit, et al).
I just asked
If I'd've known that was an old topic of debate, like slash and con crit, I wouldn't've bothered asking!
no subject
Heh. I wouldn't worry about it! Just talk about what you're interested in. But there is the metabib here (http://community.livejournal.com/metabib/5398.html), the symposium"> and the newbie guide (http://community.livejournal.com/newbieguide/3535.html) if you're interested in mining the collective mindscape. There's also the wank_wiki (http://wiki.fandomwank.com/index.php/Main_Page) and you can search
And now I have to sit on my hands because I want to make a semantic relational database omg (http://www.visualthesaurus.com) and it will only make me sad and frustrated like a thwarted megalomaniac or similar.
I never feel that what I have to say necessitates said form.
That's completely different to the way I write. The form the words take and what the words are are inextricably linked in my mind. They are a complete, um, concept thing! :D I am trying to explain it but it is a bit like trying to explain how you think to another person. The important part gets lost in translation. Hm. I may be back.
(http://trickster.org/symposium/)
no subject
Thanks for that list and for the links...I looked over the symposium and the newbie guide a couple of times, but they have a billion different things about a billion different stuff, when I just wanted a kind of broad overview of main arguments--
And yeah, I generally go by the rule of talking about what I want. But...well, for instance, when I first got into Buffy fandom, I wanted to ask the "why people slash" question...I wasn't looking for debate, or for opinions; I was just curious. I wouldn't've minded had discussion or debates or even war had broken out on my journal (still don't care, and it wouldn't have, then, because I had a 5 person flist), but I could've been stepping into a potential landmine when all I wanted was a simple answer. Again, don't mind the landmine, but what's the point when I can just go read the same discussion archived somewhere else? When I know enough about it to form an opinion about it, that's when I'd prefer to step into the thick of it, because then I feel like I can join in the discussion. I don't worry about getting wanked, or people disagreeing with me, or me bringing up a topic that everyone else just finds annoying--but I do want to be as informed as possible when I discuss things.
Isn't the visual thesaurus so cool? I got it for Xmas. And that kind of thing for fandom would be the awesomest thing ever. If I knew the first thing about how to make one, I'd do it myself, or beat you over the head until we can do it together. Oh well! ;o)
The form the words take and what the words are are inextricably linked in my mind. They are a complete, um, concept thing! :D I am trying to explain it but it is a bit like trying to explain how you think to another person.
I feel like I do know what you mean, because for me, this seems to be how writing should be. And when you look at great literature that uses experimental form, my reaction has always been: this form is necessary to the content. They're symbiotic, can't live without eachother, one wouldn't happen without the other, two sides of the same coin. And yet, inspiration for content and form seem to spring from separate parts in my mind and spend a long time butting heads before they get churned out as one thing on the paper. I would hope that someone reading would say "this form is inextricably linked to the content", but that's not how it comes to me in my head.
no subject
Well, there's the eternal phonetic rendering vs logic and sanity (can you tell which side I fall on :D ) debate about Spike's dialogue. Some people are completely besotted with writing Spike's dialogue so he tawk loike this, luv. 'M goin' to be comin' roun' t' moun'ai' whe' Ai cummmmmmms and some people are rather into Spike, the English person, speaking English. It's a shocker, I know.
HP fandom can war about spelling like no one else (mostly British spelling vs American spelling, validity and authenticity... just search the Snitch for "Britpicking" but also rejection from restricted archives/newletters/sites due to spelling, the etiquette of pointing out typos, the list is very interdependent (and not at all comprehensive, I just got bored of typing. Am I in parentheses IN parentheses now? (This is a new low. ;) )) ).
Ummm, fans in meatspace (http://qowf.livejournal.com/328709.html). Ys.
There are no simple answers in fandom. There are usually as many answers as there are fans. And there are a lot of fans. :)
I forgot what we were meant to be talking about. Um. Words and the way we say them. Or, thoughts and experiences and the way we express them? A sad English song is slow; it maybe tumbles down a minor key; it's quiet, turned in like a person hugging themselves and biting their bottom lip. There might be a single long keening burst of grief. A more extroverted person from Europe might wail or beat their breast or curse the world with a swelling instrumental but a sad English song is muted. And so the two things are linked?
I am such a ponce. :P
no subject
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.