![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI think it's not that I don't love H/D as much as always-- or don't adore brilliantly well-done things like ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lillithium's new HBP!H/D comic and cursescar's latest H/D ficlets-- but in the end, the enjoyment of these can be personal and contained within myself.
So it's fandom that's worn me to the bone. Seeing people reiterate the same (lame) points, make the same (lame) arguments, have the same (lame) wanks, write/draw mainly the same uber-self-indulgent stuff and nearly nothing else (and squee about it as if it's omg-so-new-and-brilliant-and-shockingly-amazing, gah)... having the same passionate reaction to that as I once did is just counterproductive. And no, by 'self-indulgent' I don't mean porn itself but rather the approach-- I ♥ (...well-done...) porn.
However-- however! I realize, I fully realize that it's the -nature- of fandom to be self-indulgent and not generally artistically ambitious on any grand level-- I know. It's my fault, not anyone else's, for caring, for not... fitting the dominant paradigm. Or something. And it's not even that -I'm- not self-indulgent, because anyone who's read some of my stuff-- or maybe the very fact that I'm in an online fandom for Harry Potter shows I am; it's merely that I don't want to be.
Worse, I think I'm pointlessly reiterating my own point right at this moment, saying this, because I've said this a million times before & I'm sure you're all sick of it too. Though that's what being -around- means, for me at least: caring enough to pay attention, to go 'omg, not -this- again' and telling yourself all the lame isn't worth the nuggets of amazing, I guess.
I think the problem is that I take it too seriously, because in the end I approach writing-- all writing, all art-- with the same basic desires and passions. I can't... separate fandom fully into the the 'unimportant entertainment' category because the characters had at once point set up camp in my head, so-- so I guess I wanted the best for them. I didn't want to see them continuously mangled, but neither did I want to see only my own vision, because my vision -fed- on others' in the first place, and I adore fanon for the way it feeds upon itself, ideally, creating kaleidoscopic reproductions and mutations. At best, fanon is inspiration central, in other words-- but at worst (and lately), it fries my brain. What to do :/
~~
Anyway, this particular wangst brought upon by more reheated overdone meta with people saying, more or less, that the worth of 'realism' in writing is basically dependent on whether it hits their kinks. This has got to be my Number One Pet-Peeve in fandom, so it's very difficult for me to be objective, but I'll try. Even so, I wouldn't care if it wasn't so -prevalent-, if it wasn't -everywhere-; if I didn't seriously think, for instance, that people -prefer- fanon!Draco to canon!Draco, I wouldn't begrudge fandom its ice-prince!hair-dresser!Draco or its adoring!pathetic!lump!Harry. But. It's the dominant paradigm, and my tolerance for the indulgence is overwhelmed by the wrongness of the idea as 'reality'.
(And most of my frustration is just restraining myself from trying to shake people and yell, WAKE UP! WAKE UP!! WTF PEOPLE??!)
Perhaps this also hits upon something else: much as I love fanon and canon separately (at times), there's nothing in fandom I despise quite so much as the careless willful confusing of the two (giving the people who say "Harry/Draco is canon" or "Snape/Draco is canon" some credit). Think of it as a game of telephone: the first person (canon) is clear and precise and sometimes vague or contradictory so we want to correct them or enlarge upon their point, perhaps; the second person is imaginative and funny, inserting a few jokes and footnotes into the 'canon' of the first; the third mumbles a few words and invents a few extraneous points entirely; the hundredth doesn't even remember that 'canon' existed, it seems.
I mean, without continuous reference back to the first person's 'canon', it's basically a chaotic system, discordant and so messy as to be useless. All real meaning is gone by that point, and that's where I balk.
I'm not saying situational realism in whatever sense is the only 'valid' way to write-- far from it. I'm a person who mostly reads fantasy and romances and fantasy romances, so what do you think? 'Realistic' situations only matter if they further the story you-the-writer wants to tell in the way you want to tell it, that's it. But I would go so far as to say that all great well-remembered works of Fantasy and escapism (as well as everything else) I can currently remember are, in fact, psychologically realistic-- that is, they portray humanity as it is and sometimes as it could grow to be, -not- how it should be.
And it's that it, that's it precisely: it's the should. It's the way people say they want their 'should' be reflected, somehow, by other writers, and why don't they write romance with the same precepts of 'should' in mind? Now, preference is one thing-- of course, we all like certain realities and certain fantasies and dislike others-- but in terms of discourse on the -nature- of literature in general or a particular text like Harry Potter, there's no place for 'should' unless you can make a rational, objective case for that alternative improving the text as it is, leaving authorial intent intact. Basic theory for editor's craft (though I'm unsure how this applies to lit-crit, which takes apart the text, I think saying you wanted such-and-such from a text and were -thus- disappointed is more 'I want to edit this' than crit, per se).
So yeah, I'm talking about psychological realism in dramatic fiction (i.e., not parody or satire or other pure humor-- like say, the difference betweendjinniyah's Veela!Draco comic parody and writing the same thing in earnest to any degree). Without that, I do believe fiction is just... I dunno, limp. It's... false. I don't know how to explain the level of my investment in this, but I think it has something to do with just how much I've thought about the nature and (higher) purpose of Fantasy itself. It is because I respect and adore Fantasy that I want to be so careful with it, so desperate to separate it from mere Self-Indulgence (...and no, once again, I don't mean porn/kinkfic per se).
And yes, there is a difference, a crucial, basic difference that in a lot of ways I admit I take as an axiom: because Fantasy enriches and illuminates the underpinnings of reality it's built on. Good fantasy serves as a metaphor-- a twisted mirror into who we are, who we could be; lazy, purely self-indulgent fantasy is merely what we think we want from other people and nothing else. Well, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but rather that arguing -for- it as aesthetically superior to psychological realism because 'we get enough of -that- at home'-- that's the thing that makes no sense to me.
(Meaning, I don't care what anyone reads or writes as long as the question isn't being unnecessarily excused by or grounded in lit-crit concerns.)
Not that my ideal is to have characters behave as 'just' teenagers (if they are); this is all about being true to all aspects of a character, their individual and social particulars both. Neither has intrinsically more weight than the other-- it's important to portray the character as themselves in several different contexts to achieve true realism (social/group dynamics as well as the range of behavior with specific friends & acquaintances & family, while alone and so on). Seeing people criticize the degree of -success- of a writer's particular approach is one thing, and perfectly reasonable. It's when people criticize the approach -itself- as 'too realistic' that it becomes something else entirely, and my mind sort of rebels, trying to imagine what's the use of writing about adolescents the way you'd -wish- they were (on purpose, that is, not through failure of experience or imagination, and not merely to get off from the intentional role-play aspect, almost, like with shota manga).
I think what I've gathered is that people separate 'realistic' from 'romantic' and I don't; therefore, they think realism of the sort I aspire to somehow shuts down the possibility of 'romantic love' and that emotional kick they're looking for in romances/fictional relationships. I find this sort of hilarious, because I can guarantee you there aren't many (sane) people more romantic than me-- in fact, I might be more of a romantic because I actually believe you can achieve romanticism within realism, and can write believable characterizations with intense emotional pay-off, passion, devotion, all that jazz. It's just more difficult, that is all.
Basically, I think anything is fine in writing as long as it's intentional and has a specific point, and doesn't try to justify itself with dishonest appeals to others' biases or whatever; call things by name, that's all I want. Failing that (naturally), I (hopelessly) wish that in being aware of their biases, people stopped using them as reasons to judge things-- i.e., just because you like something doesn't make it good or right or worthwhile to strive for all by itself.
Meaning, before you apply this to me, that it -might- be worthwhile. You just have to stop justifying it using your own reactions (meaning, just because you don't like Hermione's behavior in HBP, for instance, doesn't make it 1) OOC or not Hermione-like; 2) better not to have been written). And of course, of course I'm aware saying all this yet again was pointless, useless, and somewhat pathetic. But at least it's out of my head for now.
lillithium's new HBP!H/D comic and cursescar's latest H/D ficlets-- but in the end, the enjoyment of these can be personal and contained within myself. So it's fandom that's worn me to the bone. Seeing people reiterate the same (lame) points, make the same (lame) arguments, have the same (lame) wanks, write/draw mainly the same uber-self-indulgent stuff and nearly nothing else (and squee about it as if it's omg-so-new-and-brilliant-and-shockingly-amazing, gah)... having the same passionate reaction to that as I once did is just counterproductive. And no, by 'self-indulgent' I don't mean porn itself but rather the approach-- I ♥ (...well-done...) porn.
However-- however! I realize, I fully realize that it's the -nature- of fandom to be self-indulgent and not generally artistically ambitious on any grand level-- I know. It's my fault, not anyone else's, for caring, for not... fitting the dominant paradigm. Or something. And it's not even that -I'm- not self-indulgent, because anyone who's read some of my stuff-- or maybe the very fact that I'm in an online fandom for Harry Potter shows I am; it's merely that I don't want to be.
Worse, I think I'm pointlessly reiterating my own point right at this moment, saying this, because I've said this a million times before & I'm sure you're all sick of it too. Though that's what being -around- means, for me at least: caring enough to pay attention, to go 'omg, not -this- again' and telling yourself all the lame isn't worth the nuggets of amazing, I guess.
I think the problem is that I take it too seriously, because in the end I approach writing-- all writing, all art-- with the same basic desires and passions. I can't... separate fandom fully into the the 'unimportant entertainment' category because the characters had at once point set up camp in my head, so-- so I guess I wanted the best for them. I didn't want to see them continuously mangled, but neither did I want to see only my own vision, because my vision -fed- on others' in the first place, and I adore fanon for the way it feeds upon itself, ideally, creating kaleidoscopic reproductions and mutations. At best, fanon is inspiration central, in other words-- but at worst (and lately), it fries my brain. What to do :/
~~
Anyway, this particular wangst brought upon by more reheated overdone meta with people saying, more or less, that the worth of 'realism' in writing is basically dependent on whether it hits their kinks. This has got to be my Number One Pet-Peeve in fandom, so it's very difficult for me to be objective, but I'll try. Even so, I wouldn't care if it wasn't so -prevalent-, if it wasn't -everywhere-; if I didn't seriously think, for instance, that people -prefer- fanon!Draco to canon!Draco, I wouldn't begrudge fandom its ice-prince!hair-dresser!Draco or its adoring!pathetic!lump!Harry. But. It's the dominant paradigm, and my tolerance for the indulgence is overwhelmed by the wrongness of the idea as 'reality'.
(And most of my frustration is just restraining myself from trying to shake people and yell, WAKE UP! WAKE UP!! WTF PEOPLE??!)
Perhaps this also hits upon something else: much as I love fanon and canon separately (at times), there's nothing in fandom I despise quite so much as the careless willful confusing of the two (giving the people who say "Harry/Draco is canon" or "Snape/Draco is canon" some credit). Think of it as a game of telephone: the first person (canon) is clear and precise and sometimes vague or contradictory so we want to correct them or enlarge upon their point, perhaps; the second person is imaginative and funny, inserting a few jokes and footnotes into the 'canon' of the first; the third mumbles a few words and invents a few extraneous points entirely; the hundredth doesn't even remember that 'canon' existed, it seems.
I mean, without continuous reference back to the first person's 'canon', it's basically a chaotic system, discordant and so messy as to be useless. All real meaning is gone by that point, and that's where I balk.
I'm not saying situational realism in whatever sense is the only 'valid' way to write-- far from it. I'm a person who mostly reads fantasy and romances and fantasy romances, so what do you think? 'Realistic' situations only matter if they further the story you-the-writer wants to tell in the way you want to tell it, that's it. But I would go so far as to say that all great well-remembered works of Fantasy and escapism (as well as everything else) I can currently remember are, in fact, psychologically realistic-- that is, they portray humanity as it is and sometimes as it could grow to be, -not- how it should be.
And it's that it, that's it precisely: it's the should. It's the way people say they want their 'should' be reflected, somehow, by other writers, and why don't they write romance with the same precepts of 'should' in mind? Now, preference is one thing-- of course, we all like certain realities and certain fantasies and dislike others-- but in terms of discourse on the -nature- of literature in general or a particular text like Harry Potter, there's no place for 'should' unless you can make a rational, objective case for that alternative improving the text as it is, leaving authorial intent intact. Basic theory for editor's craft (though I'm unsure how this applies to lit-crit, which takes apart the text, I think saying you wanted such-and-such from a text and were -thus- disappointed is more 'I want to edit this' than crit, per se).
So yeah, I'm talking about psychological realism in dramatic fiction (i.e., not parody or satire or other pure humor-- like say, the difference between
djinniyah's Veela!Draco comic parody and writing the same thing in earnest to any degree). Without that, I do believe fiction is just... I dunno, limp. It's... false. I don't know how to explain the level of my investment in this, but I think it has something to do with just how much I've thought about the nature and (higher) purpose of Fantasy itself. It is because I respect and adore Fantasy that I want to be so careful with it, so desperate to separate it from mere Self-Indulgence (...and no, once again, I don't mean porn/kinkfic per se). And yes, there is a difference, a crucial, basic difference that in a lot of ways I admit I take as an axiom: because Fantasy enriches and illuminates the underpinnings of reality it's built on. Good fantasy serves as a metaphor-- a twisted mirror into who we are, who we could be; lazy, purely self-indulgent fantasy is merely what we think we want from other people and nothing else. Well, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but rather that arguing -for- it as aesthetically superior to psychological realism because 'we get enough of -that- at home'-- that's the thing that makes no sense to me.
(Meaning, I don't care what anyone reads or writes as long as the question isn't being unnecessarily excused by or grounded in lit-crit concerns.)
Not that my ideal is to have characters behave as 'just' teenagers (if they are); this is all about being true to all aspects of a character, their individual and social particulars both. Neither has intrinsically more weight than the other-- it's important to portray the character as themselves in several different contexts to achieve true realism (social/group dynamics as well as the range of behavior with specific friends & acquaintances & family, while alone and so on). Seeing people criticize the degree of -success- of a writer's particular approach is one thing, and perfectly reasonable. It's when people criticize the approach -itself- as 'too realistic' that it becomes something else entirely, and my mind sort of rebels, trying to imagine what's the use of writing about adolescents the way you'd -wish- they were (on purpose, that is, not through failure of experience or imagination, and not merely to get off from the intentional role-play aspect, almost, like with shota manga).
I think what I've gathered is that people separate 'realistic' from 'romantic' and I don't; therefore, they think realism of the sort I aspire to somehow shuts down the possibility of 'romantic love' and that emotional kick they're looking for in romances/fictional relationships. I find this sort of hilarious, because I can guarantee you there aren't many (sane) people more romantic than me-- in fact, I might be more of a romantic because I actually believe you can achieve romanticism within realism, and can write believable characterizations with intense emotional pay-off, passion, devotion, all that jazz. It's just more difficult, that is all.
Basically, I think anything is fine in writing as long as it's intentional and has a specific point, and doesn't try to justify itself with dishonest appeals to others' biases or whatever; call things by name, that's all I want. Failing that (naturally), I (hopelessly) wish that in being aware of their biases, people stopped using them as reasons to judge things-- i.e., just because you like something doesn't make it good or right or worthwhile to strive for all by itself.
Meaning, before you apply this to me, that it -might- be worthwhile. You just have to stop justifying it using your own reactions (meaning, just because you don't like Hermione's behavior in HBP, for instance, doesn't make it 1) OOC or not Hermione-like; 2) better not to have been written). And of course, of course I'm aware saying all this yet again was pointless, useless, and somewhat pathetic. But at least it's out of my head for now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-04 06:12 pm (UTC)Is there some story or picture or idea everyone likes at the moment that you think sucks? It's hard to know what people are doing wrong without a specific thing.
I think the problem is that I take it too seriously, because in the end I approach writing-- all writing, all art-- with the same basic desires and passions. I can't... separate fandom fully into the the 'unimportant entertainment' category because the characters had at once point set up camp in my head, so-- so I guess I wanted the best for them.
But isn't this what maybe what those other people want too? Only maybe what you think is what's best for them isn't what they think is best for them? It sounds like you're saying that you approach fanfic and art from a higher standard than everyone else but then say that you don't. Fanart *is* fanart in that it's unique in some ways. You can respond to a sonnet as a sonnet without not also responding to it as poetry. Why is that recent H/D comic okay but other stuff not?
Anyway, this particular wangst brought upon by more reheated overdone meta with people saying, more or less, that the worth of 'realism' in writing is basically dependent on whether it hits their kinks.
But that's not what they're saying in that thread if you take it in context. They're responding to the idea that stuff they didn't enjoy reading in HBP they should have enjoyed because it's "realistic" and just lightly saying, "Well, I prefer to read the unrealistic then because I didn't like that." The word "realistic" is being mis-used to begin with, though. I mean, HP is not some gritty story of the sexual politics of modern teens. You're associating realism with with having the characters seem real because the author put care into it. The Gryffindor Creek stuff in HBP is being called "realistic" because people are supposed to recognize types and generic teen behavior--teens are jerks, therefore Ron/Lav is realistic, therefore you should like it. It's a totally different thing, imo.
Also-tangent-they're talking about how "fluff" is considered unrealistic, which always bothers me because sometimes people can point to the most bizarre stuff and as long as someone is being ass-raped it's realistic. I got into this discussion once a few years ago, but I think it's weird the way sometimes people act like anything positive can't be realistic. In LOTR-fandom this came down to stories about Frodo picking mushrooms were fluff and so not realism/pointless (even though this is something we know that canonically Frodo would do and enjoy) while a story where the entire Shire including Bilbo rapes him as a child (with this eventually leading up to LOTR canon) is realism.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-04 07:02 pm (UTC)I don't think it's that what I think 'best' is so different as my desired method to achieve it (ie, the hardest way and/or most true way possible) is different. It's not that I care what people want (ie, Harry&Draco to get married, or Harry to die, or Draco to become a Death Eater or a spy or who cares), but that I want the process to make sense all the way because otherwise I feel like it's cheating, like it's saying one couldn't do it the hard way-- like one -needs- the adoring, soft Harry, or the I-don't-hate-you-anymore Draco or whatever short-cut. The comic by
It wasn't just that I was responding to that thread only-- other people further on were saying things like 'who wants real life, I've got enough of that at home'-- and hits my whole issue with people who think stories aren't or shouldn't be 'real' on a deeper level, as real or realer (potentially more significant/meaningful) than, uh, real life.... I mean, some people did deviate from merely talking about HBP, I thought, at least at points. I wasn't really defending HBP so much as taking it to a more abstract level that some others were taking it to, where they were saying they don't -want- realistic in whatever form, regardless of whether it might fit or not.
I mean, you can definitely say HBP-romance wasn't well-done (it wasn't, really), but talking about the theoretical underpinnings of 'realism' and 'romance' itself to justify the points is different than talking about how well-done the thing the author was doing was. It seemed like they were saying what the author was doing was misguided, too, not just that it wasn't done well. I mean, Ron-with-Lavender as a concept doesn't startle me that much, taking Ron's personality into account-- I mean, if you wanted to disprove that, you'd need to talk about Ron and Lavender's personalities in specific, not the generalities of how they're written. No one needs to like it-- I was never saying they did-- just that disliking it on a theoretical basis of some sort seems disingenuous.
I totally want positive-realism (that's where the romanticism comes in), myself-- I just want it to be... um, backed up, I guess? I think using realism as 'dark' or 'pathetic' or 'hopeless' fiction is what bothers me in the first place, too-- I was saying yeah, I'm more romantic than those people 'cause they accept the usage of 'realism' or 'real-life' to mean hopelessness and I don't; not in that thread, but lower down, people were definitely connecting meaninglessness & realism, and that's a -huge- pet-peeve. Actually, neither ass-rape -nor- fluff-yeah-happy-bunnies is necessarily 'realistic' at all-- everything depends on approach and context and the writer's ability to build a background and to characterize thoroughly. Realism isn't a mood thing like 'angst' or 'fluff', mushroom-picking vs. cold mornings where you're alone and there's a discarded condom on the floor-- to me, realism is -describing- what happens in a way that makes a reader suspend their disbelief and 'see' it happening.