reenka

In my 'Fantasy & Folklore' class, we were told the the main signs of Good (Academic??) Writing were a) clarity, b) economy & c) euphoniousness. Hahah, gotta love that word, especially since the professor immediately went on to define 'euphoniousness' as some form of purple prose (i.e., 'prettier sounding' means more elaborate? er? why?).

To me, clarity & economy are basically ways of saying the same thing, in a way-- writing should be no more and no less than what is enough to communicate the meaning. I would add another axis to that, though-- d) subtlety. Please, please god, let there be more subtlety in the world. It doesn't take away from clarity, either-- basically, in creative writing it means that you're allowed to form your own responses and opinions as the reader, without just being 'lectured' by the text.

This is my number one Reader's Pet Peeve, in other words: being lectured. Nothing turns me off more. Nothing. And yet I understand where it comes from-- it's a byproduct of academic writing and the analytical, or even business-type mindset behind it-- things must be 'clear'-- crystal clear-- and that's a Good Thing, right? It really appears that when the problem isn't sheer inexperience in a writer as far as technique & style (and this is actually easier to bear for me, personally), it's the confusion between creative & academic-style writing. If you're writing a paper, in other words, you'd want to construct a series of directly worded linear proofs, but such bluntness isn't necessarily desirable in a story if one wants the reader to suspend their disbelief rather than prove anything to them. And again and again, I feel that some of the most supposedly 'well written' & popular fanfics are trying to prove something to me about the characters (especially by means of repetition).

For instance, I really find I have to suspend my disbelief when it comes to fics where Harry willingly (happily) submits sexually to Draco from start to finish. I mean, it's not that I can't see it happening sometimes or even often, if the dynamic remains somewhat tense and it's a question of shifting vulnerabilities and temporary victories-- but since I definitely see submissive Harry as out of character, the scenario has to be handled subtly, focusing on the emotions involved and avoiding rationalization. Emotionally, one can play the correct keys in almost any sequence successfully, because it's not a linear, rational process-- one can believe in a character's emotions as long they seem to 'follow' on the most basic level. Describing the situation and having the characters be well-aware of this situation forces me, as the reader, to 'remember', which breaks any hold their emotions would have had over me.

The trick, I think, to reading things you don't believe in face-first, is for the writer to sneak them in. That's really at the heart of 'show don't tell'. It's not about subtlety or finesse for the -sake- of subtlety or finesse-- it's really because when I, at least, read a story, I don't want to think about what it's trying to tell me. In terms of romance fics, I really feel like starkly rational thought isn't necessarily one's best friend.

I don't want to stop and snicker knowingly about the author's motivations in making X character say or do X to another. I mean... what it comes down to, for me, is that I don't want to be a critic; I want to enjoy a piece on all levels, and have it make me feel and make me think at the same time, but neither so overwhelming that it distracts me from the sheer -presence- of the narrative which sweeps my self-conscious ego off its metaphorical feet.

I never ever want to read a story and start arguing with the -narrator- (or author) rather than the characters. I mean, arguing with the characters-- interacting with the characters-- that's what's it's about, to me, that's the emotional involvement I have showing through. But whenever one sees a bold statement that basically tells you what things are 'like'-- that baldly states, from the outside, how a character feels or who they are or what they need-- especially in a fanfic, I can easily start thinking, 'but that's not true! he's not like that at all!' And then it's just like seeing the puppeteer moving the hand-puppets-- the man under the table is now visible, and I, at least, can't help my perverse urge to watch -him- instead of the show.

To me, it all comes down to the balance between clarity and subtlety-- clarity for easy processing and subtlety to bypass the more direct analytical side of one's brain. In a way, purple prose (over-use of metaphors and adjectives/adverbs/descriptives/etc) is also more analytical than naturally flowing in that way-- if a writer states things in an overly flowery or ornate manner, I pay more attention to the framing (the words) than to the content. And one would have to be -very- good at the framing for the elaborate frame to match the picture it borders in interest. Therefore, I don't want to think about -language- either, and formal speech is just as 'unnatural' as overt judgments like "this character is like this" (vs. "this character feels/believes this") would be in 'natural' thought. That is, most people just react rather than thinking & analyzing every little thing, so a natural narrative would reflect that unless we're dealing with very analytical and self-conscious people.
I'd really like to hear the case for either Harry Potter or Draco Malfoy being such introspective thinkers.

I'm just really tired of reading OOC fics I might have enjoyed if not for them being written in a lecturing tone that makes me feel as if the writer distrusts their audience and doesn't expect them to 'get it' unless every little detail of the dynamic is verbalized and spelled out. There's 'clarity', and then there's 'the stark light of reason' which does little to benefit a wildly romantic love-story between two boys who should hate each other, to say the least.

...I'm such a bitter old fanfic queen, I swear I am. It's only been 2 and a half years, too....
~~

EDIT - After