~~ crackfic vs. AU: taste the rainbow

[reenka]

I feel my quest to be a total mindless squeeing fangirl keeps getting derailed. But only some of the time-- which I think can be narrowed down to whenever I'm not reading manga. You know, those people who say 'it rots your brain' as if that's a bad thing are just kind of uptight, aren't they :>

Anyway. Not least because I'm writing a couple myself will I or nill I (mostly nill I, but what're'ya gonna do), I've been thinking about AUs and their definitions.
    This got sparked by winsome1's post about a negative review to her fanfic, which basically has Harry run away from home after 5th year and stay in a whorehouse, after which he became a stereotypical gay boi, called people 'sweetheart' & couldn't resist Draco's manly charms.

    Now, the reviewer and the author seemed to actually agree that this set-up is implausible-- the difference being that the author said she never intended to write a 'plausible extension of canon', and wondered whether she should've warned for that. Of course, all the comments to the entry reassure her that no, warnings are for uptight losers (though not in so many words). And in a sense they are, 'cause people should really be clever enough to figure out when something is a crackfic.
    Heavy mention of rentboys, Veelas, soul-bonds, most Medieval torture devices, and possibly sparkly green hair and purple eyes should all be dead giveaways. Most Harry/Draco fluff should probably also fall into that category (then again, definitions of fluff will differ: mine involves most PWP non-hatesex smut, fic with free usage of given names, weeping!Draco and possibly kittens). ^^;; But honestly I see 'crackfic' as using any trope, scenario or genre (like fluff or hurt/comfort) and taking it far beyond the realm of canon plausibility (unless someone out there really wants to argue something like, 'but why couldn't have Draco been sexually abused and then become Harry's soulmate-of-DESTINY').


My issue isn't really with the question of warnings, but with the implied definition of what makes an 'standard' AU (truly a wholly different universe) as opposed to something set in the same universe but with a shifted canon timeline, as compared to crackfic (where anything goes). Basically, I object to the concept that AU = anything goes. No, my friends, that is what we call crackfic. Saying fanfic itself basically implies that 'anything goes' is true in a sense (I guess), but at a certain point I do wonder what's the point of actually calling Joe and Bill Harry & Draco, anyway. Ahem. Unless it's a crackfic, where generally the point is cracked-out amusement and/or porn (and lo, but porn has been mentioned & all is forgiven).

    And naturally, it's a pet peeve of mine when people predictably say, 'but all slash is AU'. It's a neat little dead horse argument, I'm sure, right up there with Hitler mentions in terms of online fannish arguments (that is, slash = AU = end of debate). Even so, I feel like stating for the record that if nothing else, this entirely destroys any reasonable scope for an AU definition (by making the label apply to all fanfic by that measure).
    There really seem to be two distinct types of AU: stuff written as canon-plausible but with an alternate or truncated (pre-Jossed) timeline & stuff written with the canon characters in an original setting. Everything else is OOC, not AU, and in fact, even new-universe AUs don't -have- to be OOC; I've seen them be IC (though not in HP, and admittedly it's pretty difficult).

All in all, I really wish people who wrote crackfic admitted it and/or said they don't give a damn without having to somehow imply all fanfic swims in the same pool & is necessarily crackfic just because it's not actual canon. Alas, I suspect this is a lost cause.

Comments

here from Metafandom

[pinkpolarity.livejournal.com]

After reading the post *and* all the comments, I still don't understand what your definition of "crackfic" is. (Also, unless I'm vastly mistaken, it's a fairly new term. I've only heard it in the last year, and never in my primary fandom.) Are you saying that crackfic is silly, intentionally funny fanfic (which is how I have always seen the term used) or anything you think is implausible? And what if something is written seriously and is plausible to the writer and not to the reader?

Re: here from Metafandom

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

As I told frogslayr,
I can't think of a better term than 'crackfic' for fics written to be intentionally OOC and/or implausible
...So yes, basically. It's a new term, but I suppose it makes intuitive sense to me, from the expression 'on crack' to refer to something/someone that's acting wacked-out or ridiculous. It -can- be silly & 'haha' funny, but I usually don't see that as much as 'messed up premise' type of funny, which isn't really intented to make people laugh. Sometimes people write 'badfic' without any unusual intentions, but the premise is so outrageous I'd still call it crackfic. As long as the writer doesn't seem to take care to have things dovetail/deal with canon characterization/universe in some way and in fact some really incongruous scenario/element is intentionally used, rather than trying and failing, I'd say it's crackfic.

If something is fully plausible to the writer but not the reader, it's badfic, not crackfic. The two things often blur. Some, depending on what they look for in fanfic, would say crackfic -is- badfic. The distinction usually comes through in the obvious usage of insane but common fanon plot-devices and popular-yet-obviously-wrong characterizations (like making someone have wings or be a sex-god). It's also valid when the writer (like the one I linked to) is clearly not caring about canon plausibility.