![[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
What I want to know, I guess, is: what's your intent when you sit down to write a fic?
Gosh, I have so many modes.
For me, poetry is the fastest way to an intellectual high. I can pick a form and a theme and slam it out in two nights, like solving one of the diabolical 3-D wooden puzzles my grandpa used to carve. What a rush. Stories take me waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer.
For stories, I like unsettling myself with strange challenges: I wrote "The Still Point" because I'd never done romance; "Illyria Writes a Poem" because I'd never finished a sestina; I'm writing the Bangelpron because I've never done smut. I also write to see how skillfully I can patch up canonical problem spots such as Cirdan the immortal Elf's grey hair and the Slayer's origin story. I wrote Arwen because I needed to know who she was. I wrote post-NFA Spuffy because I needed to know if it was possible. (Still not sure.) (The Bangel is taking so long because I don't think it's possible, but damned if I can't sell it to my readers!)
As for style, at present I'm figuring out what I want out of my signature "voice", and aiming to hone it.
At what point do you know that doodle might become a masterpiece, and then how does your attitude toward writing it change?
I have pages and pages of "self-indulgent" writing on my hd—lots of Spuffy scenes, but a whole lot of other post-NFA stuff, too, mending Scoobie relationships, making up OCs, sneezing out (hi Jane!:)) odd little character studies. When I prepare something for posting, it has to have a hook. As soon as a hook dawns on me, the file gets shuttled from the Scraps folder to the Stories folder.
Also: what about your expectations of fb in respect to your intent?
Fb, to a large extent, is based on subject matter, not quality. I have few expectations when I post a piece. Otoh, there are stories I've read and failed to feed because they're too good, or rather, they provoked too complex a reaction. I feel like I should take time with fb for those, give a gift to the author, show them that I was paying attention, understood and appreciated what they were trying to say, instead of delivering a one line attagirl. And then time passes and it falls by the wayside, because I'm a terribly busy person. I *must* change this -- get in the habit of giving that attagirl right away, and bookmarking for a longer review if time allows.
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?
Ha. None of my Jverse stuff has been betaed. Flipping through, I see that most of it gets posted with an, "Oh dear, this is so sloppy, don't read it!" disclaimer and one hand over my face. Following which some people come along and say, "I like this," and then I go back and reread it and say, "Huh. All right, it's not that bad." The disclaiming is annoying; I should stop.
no subject
Yeah, exactly. As someone who's kinda shy about talking about herself unless she gets at least a little invitation...well, I wanna give a lotta invitation!
For me, poetry is the fastest way to an intellectual high.
This is so bizarre to me. I take weeks to write a single poem. And can hammer out a 80,000 word fic I'm pretty pleased with in the same amount of time.
For stories, I like unsettling myself with strange challenges
This is such a cool approach. All my shorter stories have been the same way, me saying: hey, wonder if I can do this. The long shippy fics I used to write and fics like Best Souvenir don't have that aspect to them at all.
I wrote post-NFA Spuffy because I needed to know if it was possible. (Still not sure.) (The Bangel is taking so long because I don't think it's possible, but damned if I can't sell it to my readers!)
Heh. One day I'm going to write post NFA Spuffy to see if it's possible. And I don't care if you don't think the B/A is possible; sell it to meeee! ;o)
As for style, at present I'm figuring out what I want out of my signature "voice", and aiming to hone it. macha3 said recently, "stulti's writing style in both pieces careens along with poorly-suppressed glee,"
I saw that somewhere and I completely agree. There's a sense of fun in your writing, a cleverness and a sharpness and a...it reminds me of someone(thing), but I can't quite think what.
I wish I had a "signature voice." I really don't. I can work in different styles (or try to) but the only voice that naturally comes out would be what you got if you took Best Souvenir and removed all the parts where it slips into free indirect Buffy voice: kind of dull.
Otoh, there are stories I've read and failed to feed because they're too good, or rather, they provoked too complex a reaction. I feel like I should take time with fb for those, give a gift to the author,
I take time with those, but not as a gift to the author. If I enjoyed the story and was impressed by it, I consider my fb like a "gift". But if I'm blown away by it, overwhelmed by it, truly touched by it, I use my fb as a vehicle to figure out how the story worked, why it worked on me, how it fits together, what it's doing. I do that with everything I read that really affects me in some way; I figure, why not let the author take a peek? And I truly believe that kind of analysis has helped me to become a better writer.
The disclaiming is annoying; I should stop.
I'd have to agree. Not because it's annoying (I don't find it so) so much as because I've noticed when you've done it that it's untrue or unnecessary. As you say. So it makes you seem either disingenuous or possessed of a low self-esteem, and while I suppose it's possible you might be both, from what I know of you you're neither.
no subject
Vehement disagreement, here. Your everyday journaling voice is anything but dull. It's wry but revealing, perfectly calculated to engage without intimidating, with frequent flashes of laugh-out-loud wit.
[The disclaiming] makes you seem either disingenuous or possessed of a low self-esteem, and while I suppose it's possible you might be both, from what I know of you you're neither.
No, not low self-esteem! Astronomical standards. As if I have to apologize for being lazy and releasing something that's less than what I can do. But I always hate it when other writers tell you what to expect or how to respond ("Concrit welcome/unwelcome!" excepted) or imply that they need a pat on the head. My only excuse is that I usually post when I'm dead tired, and forget to edit those parts of the monologue that need to stay internal. :P
no subject
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*