![[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
A lot of the time inspiration hits me abd I start writing. Whether that becomes something I'm proud of or 16 pages of snark where Eve gets hit by a semi, well, it depends on my mood
This is so interesting to me, because I'm not like that at all. First of all, I wish I could write 16 pages of snark with Eve getting hit by a semi. And I even like Eve ;o) For me, it's like I'm two completely different people. If I sit down when inspiration hits me, it's going to be a fun plotty long fic. If I toss and turn and plot and connive and stress for days, weeks, possibly month, it's going to be a Serious Endeavor OMG.
Fifty percent of it is people asking for a certain 'ship, the rest is people saying they liked most of it, but the never mention what they think I could imporve on.
Fb asking for a ship (or more of one character or another) is just plain sucky. I always try really hard to give well-rounded fb, because I too always wish for a little more than just "That was good."
I feel it's important to forwarn people
Me too. I'm rather embarrassed by some of my A/N's in the past ... In one fic I posted in another fandom way back when I actually apologized for including the "Other Woman" character from canon in the love triangle--and for treating her nicely and fairly, as canon does--because I knew most of my readers hated her. My writing didn't pander to the crowd but my A/Ns sure did and that's just sad.
The only writing technique I use that's not "normal" is the whole breaking down the fourth wall thing
I don't think type #2 necessarily includes a technique that's not "normal"--I just think it's a different approach; it's approaching the story through the form and the writing itself, as opposed to the plot. Which can often lead to experimental techniques, but not always.
And...I feel a little ignorant, here, what's the fourth wall?
no subject
Breaking down the fourth wall essentially means acknowledging that what you are writing/performing/filming is a piece of entertainment, and as such, not real. The foruth wall in theatre and film is 'removed' so the audience can see what is being performed. When you acknowledge that what the audience is seeing/reading is not real, then you are breaking down the illusion that people are watching/reading through the invisible wall. In theatre, and I believe the technical term in the theatre is 'metatheatre', it is calling attnetion to the fact that what you are seeing is a play. A character may talk directly to the audience, or make a comment like, "well, in the script it says I'm sad, so I shall cry."
In a story I wrote (To Kill a Liaison (http://paynbow.livejournal.com/47061.html)) I have an entire section where the author talks to Eve.
“Sure,” replied Angel, and, priorities finally sorted out, the three super-powered heroes of light collapsed into a vanilla-scented heap-o-love in the middle of the lobby owned by the second greatest evil ever conceived by man*.
The rest of the AI crew turned away and noticed Eve sulking right where they had…well, ignored her.
“Can we get back to me?” she asked. “After all, I AM what this rather disjointed fan fiction is about!”
The author looked suitably chastised. “Sorry, Eve,” she replied, “but…well…Spike and Angel!”
See how I answer a question AND pimp my own story in one comment? I'm a little impressed *g*
I am so restraining myself right now. As a theatre student I have tonnes of information stored away on the 4th wall, it's origins, how certain directors broke it down or didn't. But I will not fill up your comments with crap about Stanislavsky and Artaud. In short, it's a huge theatrical concept that scholars argue about constantly, and I cheepen it for comic effect *g*
no subject
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...
no subject
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."
no subject
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.
no subject
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.