~~putting things to rest.

[reenka]

i hate debate. i'm really not kidding, i just really dislike being put on the spot and having to defend myself because my brain frazzles and i start to sound like an idiot. not that i don't always sound like an idiot, but anyway. i like -discussion-, especially with people who are semi-sympathetic to me, or at least we shake hands at the end because it's all in the spirit of fun. or something. so anything i say here isn't meant as part of a debate, simply because i'm worn out at this point. it's meant as just organizing my thoughts, and if it inspires others to have similar thoughts or wildly different thoughts, that's perfectly fine, but i don't want to argue about it.
    if debate-- and me having what seems like an indefensible opinion-- that i can't defend and don't think is even actually what my opinion -is-, then no, i don't want any part of most any debate-- and especially if all this means that my so-called opinion will set people i respect against me and have them be upset with me. then i'd rather express no opinion at all. peace is more important than being understood, in some cases. because discussion is one thing, and argument is another, and nothing really positive ever comes from arguing. people just get more and more wound up, and toes get stepped on, and feelings get hurt...

    to the point where i'm seriously considering asking the people i feedback whether they still want my feedback or not. and whether i should feedback anyone but the 5 people or so i'm quite certain want it, at this point. which is just, this is when it's gone too far, for me anyway.
    and just to clarify, this is mostly inspired by the debate on cassie claire's journal, which one could look up if one wanted.

the necessary disclaimer being that i agree that you need to know canon to write/critique coherently. i personally never said it's my holier-than-thou stance that i personally am rejecting canon and saying i don't want it and get it far away from me. i have issues with it, but also a large amount of affection for it. no, it's not as dear to me as `the forgotten beasts of eld', but then, that's my favorite fantasy book and so what. all it is, is just a matter of making time and procrastinating. but anyway, to get the issue (far, far) away from me...
    my only quibbles are of degree and definition, really.

    i respect everyone's opinion, and i am willing to listen, but as far as actual -discussion-, that might not be the best thing for my overall mental health right now.
    and i know i said i'm semi-leaving, and okay, so i was really frazzled at the time, and i guess i don't mean it. but i'm not touching this anymore after this post.
~~



    the topic being (gahd help me) multifold, so i'll just organize it into four large subgroups:

1. do you need to read (all of) canon to write fanfic (leaving aside the desireability of this, and merely speaking about possibility)?

1a.) what sort of fanfic? in-character fanfic? detailed fanfic? or fanfic that uses just one aspect, or two aspects, or five or ten aspects of canon. is that not fanfic? if not, what is it?
    - is in-character fanfic a preference, or is it the definition of fanfic?
    - if it is the definition, what does one call fanfic that is in-character in some places but not in others?
    - what if it's accidentally in-character?
    - what if it's in-character given certain circumstances that drastically change canon?
    - who can be the objective judge of in-characterness here, if you've changed canon to such a significant degree? isn't it then using fuzzy (i.e., subjective) logic?
    - as far as detailed fanfic, can it be possible to create and appreciate detail that fits a theme, rather than repeats it?

1b.) why do you need to know -all- of canon to appreciate and be able to intelligently analyse or respond to -every- fanfic?

1c.) is it possible that some fanfics don't require it?
    - is it possible that there are degrees of knowledge and degrees of appreciation? are we saying -full- appreciation, or a -sort- of appreciation?

1d.) can you -mostly- appreciate it on an independent level, and partly appreciate it for its relationship to what -you- think of when you think of "canon"?

1e.) can different people have different overall versions of the same text in their minds, and still agree on a particular interpretation?

1f.) is the mere factual reading of canon the most important aspect, in every single case (admitting it's always -an- issue, just, is it always the greatest issue)?
    - just how much does a subjective interpretation of canon influence one's treatment and relationship with the facts?
    - are facts necessarily in the forefront of everyone's relationship with every canon, and do they need to be, even in writing fic for that canon?
    - don't books also exist on a more holistic level?
    - does one always need a full factual knowledge to access this holistic understanding? if so, on what basis?
~~

2. do you need to read (all of) canon to coherently critique fanfic in every case (leaving aside the desireability of knowing/reading all of canon)?

2a.) what sort of critique?
    - is all canon-related critique the same?
    - is all style critique the same?
    - can critique be different things to different people?
    - can there be different, but equally valid approaches to analysis?
    - can some of these approaches require more specific knowledge than others (leaving aside the desireability of these, and merely speaking about their validity)?

2b.) what sort of fanfic?
    - is all fanfic the same, and should it all be judged the same?

2c.) are there different kinds of fanfiction-writing approaches that may call for different types of critique?
    - can there be different sorts of canon-related issues, that may preclude detailed comparative analysis in some cases but nevertheless draw their insights at least partly from the source material?
    - if not, why not?

2d.) can you know -some- canon and have that tide you over until you know more, or is this always a case where you need to know everything in order to know anything?
    - is it possible (leaving aside the desireability of this) to intuitively fill in gaps, in some cases?
    - what about people who write and discuss fanfic written after only several episodes or one/two books are -out- (i.e., the case with the `firefly' fandom)?

2e.) can there be characteristics that are general tones, rather than exact details? are exact details always equally important?
    - what about the people who don't remember the exact details after time has passed?
    - are they not qualified to write/review and secondarily, how does this impact their fan status?
    - can you possibly extrapolate the specific correctly from a knowledge of the general, partly buffered with specifics? [lasair & penelope pinpoint this idea rather well, here.]

[regarding the question of the general significance of exactness, i found this thread on penelope's post made sense to me. it probably does have to do with the reader's level of attachment to the canon-- and naturally, there are degrees and differences in this attachment and thus in the response to degrees of exact accuracy.]
~~

3. do you need to -love- (all of) canon to appreciate fanfic?

3a.) if you don't love all of canon, or if you love merely aspects of canon you pick at leisure, can you be said to love canon?
    - again, who gets to decide how you feel, other than you, as the fan in question?
    - why is this judgment necessary, beyond the self-evident fact of one's enjoyment of -something-, if someone is in a fandom to start with?

3b.) is it possible to love mostly your own or other fans' versions of canon?
    - [this isn't to say fanon, because fanon is often contradictory and consists of the personal visions and whimsies of many different fans. while canon is a singular entity encompassed within the text of a book or the episodes of a show, fanon runs the gamut of meta-discussion, canon discussion, all the differing genres and factions and pairings and allegiances within fanfic writers (to be obvious, the difference between slash fanon and het fanon), roleplay, media tie-ins and their own discussion, and so on.]
~~

4. when one says, "canon is important", does that mean all of canon, for all applications?

4a.) if you're saying "canon" is indispensible for characterization critique in particular, does this imply a method or simply a result?
    - can there be some differences in method in terms of getting a similar result (i.e., a correct understanding)?

4b.) does that mean it has to be important to everyone in the same way?
    - does that mean it has to be -equally- important?
    - does that mean "important" means merely complete, in-depth, exhaustive knowledge, or merely an appreciation, or respect, or love, or does it mean both?
    - does your relationship with canon have to be something you share with other fans, and if so, does it have to be all-inclusive at the same time?

[as an aside, i suppose "fandom" implies you share a certain relationship with the source material-- one of fannishness, fanaticism-- the source of the word "fan" in the first place. the only question here is, does "source material" have the same significance and meaning to every fan?
    what i mean is, does a positive response imply an -identical- response, and does it even prove everyone has to be responding to the same stimuli? i suppose this is sort of like that idea of every holy man touching a different part of the elephant. except not really. heh.]

4c.) if it's just attention/respect, how much respect do you need to have?
    - do you need to respect every aspect of canon? why can't you pick and choose?
    - is it an insult to the author to disregard or ignore certain things, or is it an insult to the readers, who are assumed to be uniformly enamoured with the original, as well as uniformly informed?
    - how exactly does this impact the concept of a "casual fan"?
    - what role does heavy identification with other fans play in the need to have the same relationship with canon?
    - is this level of identification necessary to have the united entity called a "fandom"?

4d.) is being a fanfic writer something or critiquer or anything to do with fandom something defined by the other fans, or by yourself?
    - can you simply be a fan in the way you want, just because you say so, or do you have to be recognized as performing different functions in the fandom?
    - similarly, is it some group of fans outside of your circle that has to be the one to call you a plebe, or conversely, an "intelligent", "real" fan? or can only the intelligent, more meta-conscious fans decide on inter-fandom definitions?
    - who gets to decide who is a "real" fan (or fanfic writer or critiquer or anything else), and why is it important to decide this? in other words, what is at stake here, in this definition of fans by fans?

4e.) where is the line between the status given you in fandom, and the status you possess merely -doing- what you're doing, regardless of others' opinion of it?
~~

and now, to get all personal about this.


i started off with a strong antipathy towards jk rowling's first book, merely reading a few pages. first of all, i had the disdain of a fantasy old-timer towards something so hugely popular, something that drove in all these plebes to the safe retreat that is my beloved genre. no big deal, just a small amount of distaste, similar to most popular things within the fantasy book genre (well, i haven't even read most of them, but i just have a knee-jerk reaction, not uncommon).
    i'm not so much an elitist as much as i dislike the pollution of the pool of fantasy fiction by all this mass-market stamped-out sameness. there is less diversity and more dreck with every passing year. oh well. who cares, blah blah.

this is to say, i have a "canon" of my own, of sorts. a fantasy canon. i have certain broad allegiances in terms of fantasy literature in general. i am very picky and somewhat jaded and i've always kept my opinions to myself, since really, who cares what you like or don't like unless they're either fanatically aligned or opposed, neither of which matters to me that much (though if you say you like a favorite author, i -am- likely to think more highly of you). i've read a lot of fantasy, since i began reading-- i started with fairytales and i never stopped. so i'm rather harsh and demanding in my desires, in this particular field. i've always said that if can be said to know any subject at all, the only one i'd be certain of is fantasy literature. i've just spent that much time on it.

but really, all i want is a good story, but this is often secondary to it being brilliantly told. i'm a style whore, and unapologetically so. it's just who i am. on the other hand, i am easily wowed by adventure and the right sort of story-- we all have our buttons. i have plenty of favorite writers who i wouldn't call stylistically brilliant, but just something about their stories gets to me, and i can't let go. usually, these are personal, emotionally-centric stories, about a character i can identify with. i very rarely go for large scopes and epicness and good and evil doing battle, unless it's also centered on the life of one highly fascinating character. in the case where i do read epics, i tend to almost ignore the epic battle aspect, and just take it as background.

so what i'm saying is, i have a heavy bias for stories that have lots of readily apparent richness in characterisation, and hopefully a very engaging style. adventure stories are an old love, and i do adore them-- but this is again dependent on style, whether i find it engaging and fun and humorous, personally. this is why i could never get into jrr tolkien-- story isn't enough. the style, in that particular work of his (though not his short stories) rather kills me.

given this heavy bias, i still did warm towards hp when i saw the movie. i adore almost every fantasy movie i've ever seen (there are rather few, and i'm not picky there), and that one in particular was just adorable. i loved it. i enjoyed a great deal of the fanfic i accidentally found surfing in a different fandom, and my love affair with hp fanon began. mostly, i have to admit, h/d, even now.

over time, i began to get more and more affectionate towards the canon-- i read most of the first book and a quarter of the second, and i rather enjoyed them, though i've stalled, getting distracted. i think i have fandom to thank for this-- everyone's love has certainly heavily inspired my own, even if i still haven't matched the ardor of many others, nor probably ever will. i call it -affection-, not blinding love. and i hope that's okay and doesn't offend anybody.

in terms of why do -i- write fanfic when i could just keep writing original fic (i won't talk about why do i review, and why do i review the way i do, and why/how can i possibly talk about meta, because i just -do-, that's who i am and how i think, end of story). the answer here is rather simple: because i'm inspired to. there is no heavy-duty reason. does there need to be?
    i am inspired by everything-- canon and fanon discussion, lj posts, others' fanfic, my own ideas about the characters, my burning desire to see those people i think of as "harry" and "draco" snog, etc. i don't write fanfic, as a rule, not for any canon, no matter how i love it-- it doesn't come naturally to me. but i was inspired in this fandom unlike any others-- i felt like it, and i had something to say. so i did.

if anything, i like the constraints-- not so much that i need them because i'm lazy, but because they challenge me and inspire me to write around them. it sets boundaries within which to play it, and that helps me decide on a direction. in my mind, the possibilities are endless, so my discipline in terms of setting my own boundaries in terms of characterization was always on the low side, and my characters would up being reflections of me, to some degree. if i -know- for certain who a character -isn't- (ie, isn't me), it seems to help. also, the sort of foundation for plot fanfic provides you-- i mean, if you read canon you would probably have even -more- of a foundation, but even knowing only some things, you get ideas. at least, i do. and this helps me write.

i don't see how calling me lazy is different from calling any fanfic writer lazy. i think it's the same issue of being inspired vs. not being inspired-- and also simply using this already partly-defined space to practice in. i'm not saying it's "just practice", but in a way all writing, to me, is equally practice and serious at the same time. i experiment, i invent, i try to improve on my previous attempts and try again. i am not ungrateful to jkr and to the fanfic writers she inspired who've inspired me in turn-- in fact, i love the whole communal nature of it, the way we all inspire and help each other. a community of writers and readers, in a sort of symbiotic feedback loop. i can't help but love it.

and now, i can finally shut up -.-

EDIT - oh hell, comment away if you want. sigh.

Comments

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

*notes that Dee has, indeed, very good points*
Is mostly just posting to say ack, still feel guilty about getting you all that flak for the UL review that I agreed with. wah. Really, I don't have to be treated like eggshells mostly, promise.
Canon Whores. Should be a group. ;)

[deche.livejournal.com]

It's ok, Maya. The reason I wanted to expressedly say I wasn't talking about UL to avoid any confusion. Because I wasn't talking about it, but I was replying to a post regarding it. But I couldn't talk about UL because I read (the first chapters) a very long time ago (several months or more) and I could not fairly talk about characterization when my memory is crap.