![[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
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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!