passive consumer vs. passionate participant: reader, writer, reader.

[reenka]

All right, so I've been reading some of the discussion about the new SGA lit-crit/discussion community, and I understand that people get their feelings hurt easily by criticism and we're a fandom community rather than a bunch of mercenary professionals, and we're all swimming in the same fishbowl and a lot of writers just write fic only for fun-- all right, I understand that and I fully agree that we should be kind and considerate to one another and to others' emotional attachments to their fics. But.

What most writers who say 'but can't you be nice?' don't understand fully is that almost any opinion, however it's worded, that's not actual praise could be construed as 'mean' or unfriendly or... not sweetly encouraging. And that's where I pretty much balk.

I read, therefore I write. It even goes in the opposite direction-- I write, therefore I read. It's that simple for me. Fiction bleeds into nonfiction for me, nonfiction into poetry, poetry into fiction. I react.


I've seen it said that writers and critics don't go together-- they're like 'tomcats in the same burlap sack'-- and I suppose that does seem to be true. And perhaps it's not surprising, actually, that I see myself as a writer and a critical reader (and I couldn't pick one-- writer and reader, to me they're nearly the same thing, flipsides of the same coin)-- because I've always been 'conflicted', heh.

It's funny, because I don't feel as inspired to crit with canon-- with sources that exist outside fandom, written by people who're not part of the community. I feel like -discussing- but not really critiquing professional work in depth because my response is largely that of a consumer. I consume-- I approve what I do and discard what I don't. In some cases, I really bond with a work on a very personal level, and then I have lots of affection and a fair amount of addiction to it and for its creator, but even then I don't often take the critical approach because yeah, that's recreational reading and entertainment, and it's 'just for fun'.
    If I critique anything, it's going to be genre-wide things and issues of trend and recurring tropes in many different (fantasy) books or comics-- something that keeps cropping up and annoying me. I'm not going to bother with things that are very particular to a specific work unless I really love it otherwise and that one bit just throws me out of the story completely.

I may have some huge issues with a canon source, true. It's just that then I leave it alone-- or I watch it out of morbid curiosity, with the sense of 'okay, 2 hours later, the torture is over'. Like, wtf was that with the writing in Hunter: The Age of Magic, anyway?? That SUCKED ASS-- and likewise with the Star Wars prequels. But I don't really think about the nitty gritty outside of being able to name what bothers me, because I'm still a passive consumer. I'm not a participant in the overall process, as with fanon-- it's not a shared world scenario. I just pass judgment. With a fanfic-- yep, it's a shared world. I have a stake in it, as a reader/writer. I'm inspired or disgusted by some element that I might or might not use; I'm startled by a pairing I might also suddenly want to write; I am disturbed by a characterization that seems wrong in a way that sets me to thinking about many related issues or a plot-device that ignores some major area of interest or obsession to me in canon.

Fanon-- amateur writing-- that's where I'm a passionate participant, not just a consumer. I feel involved-- I feel some personal stake, even, in others' work, as if it reflects upon me, just because it's my pairing, my fandom, my favorite character. And I'm not deluded to think that way, not the way I would be if I railed against JKR for writing her own characters 'wrong' (unlike railing at her for just writing it badly-- that's perfectly possible).
~~

    Yes, I'm a writer as well as a critic, and I am quite sensitive enough to being told my writing sucks, really, even though I've grown a thick skin. The only thing is-- the main difference between me and the people who have issues with public crit-- is that I take my writing seriously because it's 'just for fun', because I love doing it, because it is what I do even though I don't have to. So on some level I feel left out by that whole concept of fannish writing/reading being less important or worthy of polite yet honest critique/discussion than some more professional work which is less personal to us. To me, fun is what's important, and therefore I want to pick it apart and put it back together and mess around with it. I'm willing to be hurt, because I love it. Because I don't have to-- it's just for fun. I chose this.

Or perhaps I just mean different things by taking my writing 'seriously'. After all, if you get upset at critique, you are, in fact, taking your writing seriously in a sense. Well, you're taking your ego seriously, and you're taking your own investment and work seriously, and you're taking your authorship seriously. That... I don't know if I myself take that seriously, and this is not just a crucial difference between critics and writers, but between different kinds of writers. I do have an ego, and it can easily enough be hurt by certain things said intelligently, but I don't prize my authorship, really, or the quantity of my work when compared to the quality. I love the fics I'd worked most on the best, of course, and I wibble about their reception, but I don't expect (demand?) people to understand and value them as I do. I know they won't.

My writing is important to me, and my readers are important to me, but I learned early on that this isn't really connected-- that most of my readers don't have any special insight into my brain or my stories' intent, but their feedback still makes me happy. I'm glad they enjoyed it. I'm interested why they haven't. But I don't need them to enjoy it, because... well, maybe I'm just too weird for most people and I accepted that very early on.

Mostly, all I wanted to say is that critique and story analysis is as natural to me as writing is. It's not that I choose to gossip or badmouth stories because I get off on hurting people or tearing things down-- I don't, not at all. I just enjoy talking about and comparing/contrasting my reactions to stories with others. I don't do this much in fandom, and don't expect fandom to provide an outlet for this hobby, exactly, I'm just saying that it can be a natural expression of one's approach to fiction. Actually, writing fiction (fanfic and original) itself is a natural expression of my approach to fiction.

And I realize that what I write has an impact on my readers, especially if it involves critiquing the writer, which is why I always go meta and generalize when talking about fanfic. I don't want to upset anyone, but-- critique is a creative act too. Everyone reacts, yes, but there are some of us who react in words, who take 'feedback' one step further and would flourish in a community of fannish discussion.

Fan to fan, reader to reader: we have questions. We want answers. Why do we like what we like? Why do we dislike certain elements of fanfic, certain tropes, and can accept others in one context but not another? How does this character work in a number of fics of a certain theme, like hurt/comfort, and what does this say about his canon relationship with that other character? What drives us to reading fics that do this one thing to a character, and why doesn't it work in that particular fic? How do we relate to this characteristic of that character in this story? How does it clash or reflect on canon? And so on and on and on.
~~

The whole idea of writing the author directly to give one's con-crit misses the point entirely, because there's a large difference between positive/negative/mixed feedback (intended for the author) and a positive/negative/mixed review (intended for other readers). The assumption that all discussion on a story has to basically double as direct feedback sort of... bothers me. A lot.

Not that this is an excuse to be rude, nasty and inconsiderate, not at all-- nothing is an excuse for being an arse. It's just... writers have to understand that readers want their space too, their own shop-talk that isn't about the writers. It's like-- a lot of women like to talk about some things with other women, things that just feel more comfortable or understood in that venue, things they couldn't quite express correctly or be understood in mixed company. Readers want to talk with readers. Readers don't exist for the sake of writers' egos or to fulfill their needs, even in fandom. Fannish readers could easily have something to say that's meant only for other readers of like mind-- that's all.

Comments

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

The other funny thing about this is it gets right into that...hypocrisy zone?...in fandom. Because as much as we get annoyed and mock when authors like Robin Hobb tell us they feel this way, we're obviously taking some liberties whenever we decide to do things with canon. Not that I think we're overstepping our bounds or anything. But I am aware that maybe the author wouldn't be interested in reading my ten pounds of meta on her work, and maybe she'd disagree with me on it, to which my response would be that I was still right.;-) (Unless she could objectively convince me otherwise like any other reader--not just by saying she was the author.)

But you're absolutely right when you say that the thing is anything can be considered mean, even if it's phrased politely. Some things just can't be phrased as politely as people want, because they need it to be so polite it's actually not a criticism. Or they need to be told that criticism doesn't matter, like in a recent conversation where somebody pointed out some glaring anachronisms in a historical piece and the author said she didn't care, despite the fact that not only was the source material all about its historical context but she'd just been accepting praise for it's being canonical. I think that's what gets people more antsy in fanon, I think, not just the fact that people do stuff that pings them as wrong but that there's always a crowd of people ready to say that's just how it is in fanon. I know even as a meta person I get irritated by certain versions of things that canon-whores cling to as canon to the point of looking down on anything else, when I think they're flat-out wrong and contradicted by canon.

That was a total tangent. But anyway, uh, yeah. I guess canon, for most of us, is a fixed thing that can't be changed, nor would we really want to be able to change it, for all we claim we would. That is, we'd probably all love to talk to the author about things we see and think s/he might see it the same way, but if we forced him/her to write what we wanted then it wouldn't be "real." Fanfic, by contrast, is not real. We're very aware that it's being twisted to hit certain buttons. If that makes sense.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's not like JKR needs to approve of meta or anything o_0 That sort of boggles the mind. But I see how it's a reflection of the focus on author's permission and author's calling dibs on discussion/interpretation of fanfic, also. I think most people just see a lot more separation between reader/writer/text as three separate entities than I do, or perhaps it's like writer/text is one whole perfect shining thing and the reader... the reader is ----------------->somewhere over there :D

Oh my god, yeah, the people who say a criticism of a basic factual canon inaccuracy 'doesn't matter' because it's 'just fanfic'... oh my god, it... hurts my brain to even think about. Like, I don't even understand, because if that's "just how it is", then... I don't know, that level of subjectivity sort of scares me, like nothing has any value outside of one's enjoyment. Like it's literally all about the wank (and/or entertainment). I suppose this is the 'fanfic is just like soap-operas and talk-shows' model of fannish writing.... I think those people literally don't get why one would want to analyze/discuss seriously for fun, 'cause if you analyse soap-operas seriously, the whole premise falls apart entirely. So maybe underneath it all they really think all fanfics sucks or something :D


Man, but what makes me woeful is that there are actually people who say things like 'canon read like a fanfic to me' with complete seriousness, it seems like, as if they can no longer differentiate between the two-- 'real' and 'unreal'. Or maybe after awhile spent in fanonland, 'real' doesn't matter so much as 'what I want to see'. I'd like to think I'm just being paranoid, but I suspect I'm not exaggerating too much. I really don't know, those H/Hr wankers really -would- have liked canon to be the way -they- saw it, I'm pretty sure. That's kinda what broke my brain, but yeah... there's a certain kind of fan, y'know... a certain kind of fan.... Tinhat, I guess you'd say :>

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Actually, I find it easier to deal with the people who say "it doesn't matter because I like it this way," because on some level that's at least admitting it wouldn't work as canon. What drives me crazy are people who instead of confusing canon for fanon do the opposite, and have to elevate whatever they like in fanon to canon. So stuff they do that's totally against canon is suddenly supposed to be really in character or like canon.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think with the 'doesn't matter' people it's not the stance alone that bothers me, but the way they get defensive and like 'who are you to critique it, it's perfectly fine', usually with an all-fanfic-is-created-equal mentality behind it, I guess. So it's not that they say 'oooh, crackfic, yeay!' but more that they don't balance it with non-crackfic... like fanfic is by nature crackfic-- or at least that's what I sometmes get from the 'doesn't matter', y'know?

As for the elevating-fanon projecting people... they're more deluded rather than just annoying :D