~~ art, craft, crap.
Mar. 7th, 2005 03:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaThough I wind up enjoying reading (and writing!) crappy stuff often enough-- sometimes it seems like constantly-- I think my critical abilities are somewhat dissociated from that. Sure, I can find it entertaining, but the point is that I still realize it's basically worthless as far as real artistic merit goes, and I believe that's not an entirely subjective opinion, either. And I'm not even going to get into whether you can attach the term 'artistic merit' to fanfiction, one because that's a whole 'nother can of worms and two because I think that's self-evident, seeing as you can get away with attaching the term 'artistic merit' to toilet-paper commercials.
Maybe I'm just tired of almost all fic discussion always coming down to "this worked for me because..." (the 'because' being a rare bonus, mind you) or the opposite, all centering around what that particular person looks for in a fic. And yeah, I realize I get trapped in this mindset also, and most of the time I just ramble on about stuff I like the most anyway because I'm lazy and don't want to think-- but I don't mean to claim I'm being -serious-. Most of what I say about specific stories is me goofing off, really; perhaps this is a major misunderstanding people have about me, I don't know.
I don't think literary critique has to be subjective in the sense that it's entirely idiosyncratic. The merits of a piece of writing can be broken down into categories and various areas of strength and weakness, which can then be compared to other pieces that fit into those categories on a single scale. For instance, you can't judge a biography by the exact same criteria as a fantasy story, yet some markers of quality remain constant.
That said, I think it's important to add that reccing fics or their projected popularity with any one person or group of people isn't directly connected to their critical standing or supposed merit of any kind; that is to say, you couldn't honestly tell me I'll enjoy something just because a) you enjoyed it; b) you think it has great artistic merit, not unless you know me and what I like. However, I might read it and agree or disagree on some specific critical accessment that was made (for fanfic, this is both easiest and hardest to do with the question of 'is it in-character' for various reasons I won't go into).
Enjoyment is not dependent on merit and merit is not dependent on enjoyment; sometimes these two things do coincide, but they're not directly causally related. These are two separate things-- one is idiosyncratic and dependent most heavily on the reader, and the other is dependent more heavily on the writer. This is one of the most frustratingly common misunderstandings I find in fandom-- people reccing things, saying things like 'it's so good, everyone would or should like it'. That 'should' is like a red cloth to a bull, to me. It's also complete bullshit.
Enjoyment is a function of the degree of impact and connection with any one reader; a story's quality is a function of its debatable overall performance as an artwork (which includes some objective and some subjective criteria) and its use of writers' craft. Art itself cannot be objectively judged because its greatest impact and meaning is emotional-- it's the craft aspects of writing that can be and are able to be analyzed. Most importantly in this case, I think there can be no real art without craft, though there can be craft without art. Both can exist just fine without any entertainment value whatsoever (which is why so much supposed 'good stuff' is so unpopular with the masses).
I'm thinking specifically of a fantasy story I wrote about 3 years ago, `The Truth About Demons'-- I was so proud of it because it was a finished story and because I thought I said what I wanted to say. People's feedback has been good-- they sounded impressed with my writing. And yet, as pretty as it is, in retrospect I think in a lot of important ways it's a failure. People who blindly admire pretty words might coo over it, but they're basically wrong-- because you can indeed have too much of a good thing, and that story definitely demonstrates that.
Sometimes I think I'm overstating my case, but the one thing I'm almost certain of is that in everything, there should be a balance: if there's too much, if things are too obvious or crass or too subtle and incomprehensible, the storytelling suffers. On some level, it doesn't matter if a lot of people would enjoy it anyway-- not in terms of analysis and discussion; not in terms of craft. And I think that's why my own writing has changed and moved away from some stylistic extremes lately-- because even though I'm lazy and don't edit my work, overall I'm still concerned about this one word: craft. I think I've come to realize that 'craft' isn't separate from art or from entertainment-- it's an intrinsic component of both.
Alas, when I try to break it down into specific criteria, my brain gets really tired, and I'm sure I've made all sorts of obvious mistakes, but I'm just not committed enough to seriously make a guide of any sort. Ahh, well, this is what I came up with, though it's pretty incomplete.
--
Criteria of Style:
- rhetoric & poetics: subtlety and economy of language; judicious use of description so that it doesn't overpower other elements; focus on flow and musicality while retaining transparency and readability of prose; uniqueness of expression -
- the three pillars: balance and interaction of exposition, character introspection and dialogue, with none dominating the narrative unnecessarily or having an unlikely meta-influence on the other two outside surrealist fiction; the use of dialogue to showcase things outside the pov perspective -
- internal consistency: with inconsistency used to pinpoint irregularities crucial to the plot; all with a focus towards structural tightness, so that the most effect is achieved within the least possible usage of narrative space unless that space is being consciously used, most crucial in mysteries -
- layering: use of pacing, voice, foreshadowing, tense; underlying connections between thematic and symbolic elements within the plot creating a layering effect -
- pov: use of the narrative voice to both obscure and illuminate; use of an unreliable narrator to allude to a story within and outside the story; use of concurrent and overlapping narratives -
- tonal: separate criteria for drama/angst and comedy, and the use of elements of both to achieve contrast and a more vivid narrative, as well as create a sense of originality -
Criteria of Originality & World-creation:
- genre: balance of reflection and distinction within the work's genre; use of genre conventions to propel and inform the narrative's development while limiting the distraction caused by such metafictional elements -
- derivative (fanfiction, retelling, parody, etc): faithfulness to the original and both the borrowing and the transformation of specific source points to create an informed commentary or an expansion of the work, including everything from structure to genre to characterization; ultimately, transcendence of source material and creation of a functional alternate universe -
- sociological significance: possible commentary on current societal issues, the original or other works through the use of allegory, thematic evolution, cultural references and satire -
- thematic elements: in romance, mystery and adventure alike, there's a difference between the narrative using and being overtaken by various plot conventions and plot-devices; ideally a compromise is achieved between structural predictability (i.e., the good-looking guy always gets the girl, bad guys finish last, you reap what you sow, etc) and the demands of the original premise -
Criteria of Characterization:
- psychological realism: while the partial use of some personality stereotypes is unavoidable, ideally there is sufficient trait hybridization that major and minor characters can seem alive; some avoidance of cliche through utilizing the full range of emotion; generating some level of insight into a character's familial ties, friendships, self-image, sexuality, life philosophy, speech patterns and daily habits and so on; use of mundane detail and secondary emotions (embarrassment, awkwardness, minor irritation, boredom) or the frank depiction of casual situations to give a sense of immediacy -
- inner/outer conflict: use of conflict to create a driving force behind the narrative and bring it to a satisfactory resolution; with open-ended stories, the posing of a question that gives the characters' actions a deeper significance and a resonance in a larger context outside the confines of the narrative itself -
- relationships: often acting as the barometer of many narratives and the main or underlying source of conflict even when it's not the focus of the action, this is where the overall meaning is concentrated and all the narrative threads unite; if it's intended as a fantasy or fairy-tale scenario, the use of various traditional devices (jealousy, love confession, fated separation of lovers, death, sex) in a symbolic way to create a second layer of meaning, generally used as a meta-commentary; balance of dramatic revelation, physicality, humor and understatement in transmitting emotion -
- character development: unless genre boundaries prevent it as with fables and traditional folktales, the use of gradual change especially in the main pov marks the narrative progression; the discovery of change within the main pov character and others through evolving interaction between characters and changing behavior, with the climax reaching back to illuminate the beginning of the narrative and hint at the future -
- emotional integrity: follow-through and repercussion of trauma, use of plot progression, character relationship-based tension and moral dilemmas to create and resolve inner conflict; depiction of personality through direct actions and delayed or protracted reactions to a range of obstacles and emotional cues; a pattern of constantly emerging linkages to prior events to create a history. -
Maybe I'm just tired of almost all fic discussion always coming down to "this worked for me because..." (the 'because' being a rare bonus, mind you) or the opposite, all centering around what that particular person looks for in a fic. And yeah, I realize I get trapped in this mindset also, and most of the time I just ramble on about stuff I like the most anyway because I'm lazy and don't want to think-- but I don't mean to claim I'm being -serious-. Most of what I say about specific stories is me goofing off, really; perhaps this is a major misunderstanding people have about me, I don't know.
I don't think literary critique has to be subjective in the sense that it's entirely idiosyncratic. The merits of a piece of writing can be broken down into categories and various areas of strength and weakness, which can then be compared to other pieces that fit into those categories on a single scale. For instance, you can't judge a biography by the exact same criteria as a fantasy story, yet some markers of quality remain constant.
That said, I think it's important to add that reccing fics or their projected popularity with any one person or group of people isn't directly connected to their critical standing or supposed merit of any kind; that is to say, you couldn't honestly tell me I'll enjoy something just because a) you enjoyed it; b) you think it has great artistic merit, not unless you know me and what I like. However, I might read it and agree or disagree on some specific critical accessment that was made (for fanfic, this is both easiest and hardest to do with the question of 'is it in-character' for various reasons I won't go into).
Enjoyment is not dependent on merit and merit is not dependent on enjoyment; sometimes these two things do coincide, but they're not directly causally related. These are two separate things-- one is idiosyncratic and dependent most heavily on the reader, and the other is dependent more heavily on the writer. This is one of the most frustratingly common misunderstandings I find in fandom-- people reccing things, saying things like 'it's so good, everyone would or should like it'. That 'should' is like a red cloth to a bull, to me. It's also complete bullshit.
Enjoyment is a function of the degree of impact and connection with any one reader; a story's quality is a function of its debatable overall performance as an artwork (which includes some objective and some subjective criteria) and its use of writers' craft. Art itself cannot be objectively judged because its greatest impact and meaning is emotional-- it's the craft aspects of writing that can be and are able to be analyzed. Most importantly in this case, I think there can be no real art without craft, though there can be craft without art. Both can exist just fine without any entertainment value whatsoever (which is why so much supposed 'good stuff' is so unpopular with the masses).
I'm thinking specifically of a fantasy story I wrote about 3 years ago, `The Truth About Demons'-- I was so proud of it because it was a finished story and because I thought I said what I wanted to say. People's feedback has been good-- they sounded impressed with my writing. And yet, as pretty as it is, in retrospect I think in a lot of important ways it's a failure. People who blindly admire pretty words might coo over it, but they're basically wrong-- because you can indeed have too much of a good thing, and that story definitely demonstrates that.
Sometimes I think I'm overstating my case, but the one thing I'm almost certain of is that in everything, there should be a balance: if there's too much, if things are too obvious or crass or too subtle and incomprehensible, the storytelling suffers. On some level, it doesn't matter if a lot of people would enjoy it anyway-- not in terms of analysis and discussion; not in terms of craft. And I think that's why my own writing has changed and moved away from some stylistic extremes lately-- because even though I'm lazy and don't edit my work, overall I'm still concerned about this one word: craft. I think I've come to realize that 'craft' isn't separate from art or from entertainment-- it's an intrinsic component of both.
Alas, when I try to break it down into specific criteria, my brain gets really tired, and I'm sure I've made all sorts of obvious mistakes, but I'm just not committed enough to seriously make a guide of any sort. Ahh, well, this is what I came up with, though it's pretty incomplete.
--
Criteria of Style:
- rhetoric & poetics: subtlety and economy of language; judicious use of description so that it doesn't overpower other elements; focus on flow and musicality while retaining transparency and readability of prose; uniqueness of expression -
- the three pillars: balance and interaction of exposition, character introspection and dialogue, with none dominating the narrative unnecessarily or having an unlikely meta-influence on the other two outside surrealist fiction; the use of dialogue to showcase things outside the pov perspective -
- internal consistency: with inconsistency used to pinpoint irregularities crucial to the plot; all with a focus towards structural tightness, so that the most effect is achieved within the least possible usage of narrative space unless that space is being consciously used, most crucial in mysteries -
- layering: use of pacing, voice, foreshadowing, tense; underlying connections between thematic and symbolic elements within the plot creating a layering effect -
- pov: use of the narrative voice to both obscure and illuminate; use of an unreliable narrator to allude to a story within and outside the story; use of concurrent and overlapping narratives -
- tonal: separate criteria for drama/angst and comedy, and the use of elements of both to achieve contrast and a more vivid narrative, as well as create a sense of originality -
Criteria of Originality & World-creation:
- genre: balance of reflection and distinction within the work's genre; use of genre conventions to propel and inform the narrative's development while limiting the distraction caused by such metafictional elements -
- derivative (fanfiction, retelling, parody, etc): faithfulness to the original and both the borrowing and the transformation of specific source points to create an informed commentary or an expansion of the work, including everything from structure to genre to characterization; ultimately, transcendence of source material and creation of a functional alternate universe -
- sociological significance: possible commentary on current societal issues, the original or other works through the use of allegory, thematic evolution, cultural references and satire -
- thematic elements: in romance, mystery and adventure alike, there's a difference between the narrative using and being overtaken by various plot conventions and plot-devices; ideally a compromise is achieved between structural predictability (i.e., the good-looking guy always gets the girl, bad guys finish last, you reap what you sow, etc) and the demands of the original premise -
Criteria of Characterization:
- psychological realism: while the partial use of some personality stereotypes is unavoidable, ideally there is sufficient trait hybridization that major and minor characters can seem alive; some avoidance of cliche through utilizing the full range of emotion; generating some level of insight into a character's familial ties, friendships, self-image, sexuality, life philosophy, speech patterns and daily habits and so on; use of mundane detail and secondary emotions (embarrassment, awkwardness, minor irritation, boredom) or the frank depiction of casual situations to give a sense of immediacy -
- inner/outer conflict: use of conflict to create a driving force behind the narrative and bring it to a satisfactory resolution; with open-ended stories, the posing of a question that gives the characters' actions a deeper significance and a resonance in a larger context outside the confines of the narrative itself -
- relationships: often acting as the barometer of many narratives and the main or underlying source of conflict even when it's not the focus of the action, this is where the overall meaning is concentrated and all the narrative threads unite; if it's intended as a fantasy or fairy-tale scenario, the use of various traditional devices (jealousy, love confession, fated separation of lovers, death, sex) in a symbolic way to create a second layer of meaning, generally used as a meta-commentary; balance of dramatic revelation, physicality, humor and understatement in transmitting emotion -
- character development: unless genre boundaries prevent it as with fables and traditional folktales, the use of gradual change especially in the main pov marks the narrative progression; the discovery of change within the main pov character and others through evolving interaction between characters and changing behavior, with the climax reaching back to illuminate the beginning of the narrative and hint at the future -
- emotional integrity: follow-through and repercussion of trauma, use of plot progression, character relationship-based tension and moral dilemmas to create and resolve inner conflict; depiction of personality through direct actions and delayed or protracted reactions to a range of obstacles and emotional cues; a pattern of constantly emerging linkages to prior events to create a history. -
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 10:35 pm (UTC)That's why I don't think I could come up with a solution; I just get really frustrated 'cause this sort of pimping starts to define the sort of fics which get widely read and encouraged and emulated in fandom, especially for a popular pairing, thusly you have more of the same and so on. And if I cared so much, why don't I write a post slamming a particular fic? But... yeah, I'm not crazy, ahahah.
Though the 'it's just fanfic' argument seems kind of pointless and semi-offensive to me. If anything, I don't find most 'profic' that stellar either, especially these days; things get published 'cause they would sell, not 'cause of quality per se. Authors like Anne Rice (and even JK Rowling) are cases in point: I don't think I would publish either of them based on some sort of high score of quality. So I'm not starry-eyed over the publishing industry (in America, at least) to give so much priviledge to profic. The only difference between a serious amateur with a beta & a published author is the current state of the market and the luck of said writer, it seems like.
But there is a serious divide-- in profic and fanfic-- between kinkfic and more 'serious' literary fic. And it's only when things get recced as 'serious', good stories that I get bothered by some huge gaping issue the fic has. Depends what you claim it is, y'know? If you say, 'this is the best fic this pairing has to offer', you should at least mention it has a seriously OOC characterization at the center. Maybe? I don't think I mean this as an instruction but a wish :>