![[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 08:26 pm (UTC)Exactly. I wasn't saying that I don't think Ron likes Hermione because obviously he does. Within canon it's not like I'd argue that Ron really liked Lavender better. It's just that if he acts like a jerk with her because the author wants you to remember how when you were in high school kids would act like him (as was being said)...well, then in that case I'm going to that's not going to work. As you said, Ron isn't just some ordinary guy.
But the rest is all just us filling in blanks for ourselves. We don't really know whether they know each other intuitively or how Ron privately thinks about Hermione except what we see. The only thing we see with them is when they're arguing with each other or getting jealous over each other. We sometimes get Hermione's explanations of Ron's behavior (He's jealous, he's got all these older brothers and he doesn't say anything but it bothers him...). We see Hermione blush when Ron says he loves her. They like each other, is what we know. Beyond that we have to fill in for ourselves exactly why. Really I can only think of one place where I get a vibe of *why*, and that's when Hermione looks impressed with Ron tearing up Percy's letter. With Harry we're more in his head, at least, and Ginny tells him what she likes about him in sixth year, at least. But I still am very aware of what the author is saying more than feeling like caring about these two as a couple. Particularly since Ginny, to me, is too much one big conceit of the author's to begin with with her whole personality-transplant that was basically the author's way of saying Harry never saw her before blah blah blah.
So I'm not really concerned about why these couples like each other. I get them, in canon, I think. It's not that deep. I just don't see a real difference between dealing with that and dealing with fanfic where you also just go along with stuff because you like other aspects of it. HP ships are so big now it seems like there's got to be in-jokes and meta-commentary jokes on all of them. Like, the two comics you linked to...I don't quite get what you mean about them. They just seem like a joke on aspects of H/D as a ship. The other comic is obviously is more beautifully drawn, but reading it I wouldn't have guessed that that was something you would hold up as not doing it wrong. I mean, it even takes place during HBP, which you said you hated to read...? Harry apologizes for the curse and they kiss.
It just feel like there's something I'm missing so I don't really get what you're trying to say.
That's not subtext, it's just a stupid joke, y'know? With H/D, I'm just bitter 'cause people think it's so much easier and it's not, it just has different issues. </i. Well, yeah it's just a stupid joke and I'd hope it wouldn't be used as actual evidence. I can't say how people see H/D as easier now since I don't write it--it does seem to have different issues to me now. It also seems more interesting as a canon relationship (not necessarily sexual). But maybe they're just seeing it in ways that you're not. I do feel like canon at least points more towards it than it ever did before. Pointing not in terms of this being what the author really means but that it's closer to the road than it was before. I mean, I don't know if we see the same characters to begin with so we might see their slashing differently. Can't help you with people quoting the "I want to see what DM is doing inside you thing," though. I hate those animated icons of Harry kissing Ginny, and I can't stop them either! (Btw, yes, I do think it's funny that you're saying that under an icon of 12-year-old Draco saying he's Harry's gay lover.)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-04 09:39 pm (UTC)You're right in that I'm filling in the blanks, what with him 'getting' her, but it's one of those 'most reasonable explanation' things (because them -not- really being friends makes no sense), sort of the way people filled in the blanks with Draco before HBP. Well, not that I'm actually using canonical quotes or what have you, because I suck at that, but I suppose I could if I tried ^^;;; But yeah, I'm definitely extrapolating as to why, and it's not directly shown-- but it makes sense to me on a basic level the way some characters (Ron, Draco, Hermione & Snape especially) make sense to people intuitively, so that probably helps. Putting Ron & Hermione together (as friends), with the experiences they've shared, I can sort of reconstruct their relationship in a sense, y'know? Not too rationally, 'cause it's just hard for me to explain things linearly a lot of times (though I try!). Silvia Kundera's R/Hr fics, like say, `A Series of Definitions (http://www.geocities.com/wanderbymistake/definitions.html)' (which, in some ways, is more R/Hr than the books and I mean, well, that's why I get it) and this (http://www.geocities.com/wanderbymistake/welcome.html) post-Hogwarts one do a good job, though :>
With a fanfic, though, the romance is the -point- in a way that it's not in canon, so I'm okay with reading HP and 'going along' with the romance stuff based in theory and personal extrapolation, but with fanfic I feel I'm being cheated if I have to do that because that's the point of fanfic, is to focus on the why of characters, to me. I mean, genfic aside, with shippy fic I expect different things, y'know? Especially with slash, and other ships where it's not 'already' canon-- you have to build it up, to make it fit believably, and I need a different approach to the characterization (more realistic? hahah, in my sense) because that's why I read it.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 03:44 am (UTC)LOL! Yes, to Lavender! But anyway, yeah I do think this is what Ron is doing; this is talked about in canon, though. I mean, we have Ginny telling him he's a loser and right after that he goes after Lavender etc. That's what the story is about. Filling in the blanks there is using what the story's about. The blanks I'm talking about are *why* Ron likes Hermione specifically, which we don't know. He's never told Harry exactly what he loves about her, which just know they've always sort of liked each other while H/Hr haven't. It's the same with Draco. I'm making a distinction between filling in blanks using information and filling in blanks using your imagination--sometimes people flip from one to the other. There were plenty of blanks to be filled in with information on Draco pre-HBP, many of which may never be cleared up one way or the other, but you can argue it with canon facts. Other stuff is just pure imagination.
With a fanfic, though, the romance is the -point- in a way that it's not in canon, so I'm okay with reading HP and 'going along' with the romance stuff based in theory and personal extrapolation, but with fanfic I feel I'm being cheated if I have to do that because that's the point of fanfic, is to focus on the why of characters, to me.
Yeah, fanfic is usually based on that, though people have lots of different things that they want to do that way. I mean, for some people the story that pops into their head is about something else. I might not want to read it as much as another story, but really, why should it be anything? And then, of course, sometimes there's a story that's about the "why" of the characters and I just think it's wrong.:-)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 04:44 am (UTC)I think, um... what I'm trying to say is, the way Ron & Hermione interact-- depending on the reader, we don't need to hear -why- he likes Hermione in words because it's just that their dynamic is... um, familiar? (Like, the bits where he teases her about being a nightmare or argues about Pettigrew or whatever-- it either clicks as 'oh, that's how it is with them' or it doesn't, but I think it's -meant- to click, or something). Like, it fits into a slot, personality-dynamic-wise if you know what I mean. To people of a certain mindset, it makes perfect sense why they'd like each other without having to have it be explained, because the, um, overall axioms they're drawing upon (much like James & Lily or Sirius & Remus... or, uh, Harry & Draco-- different stencils, similar idea). So it's more intuition/group-think(??) than imagination (or pure irrationality), per se, if that makes sense.
I wouldn't really begrudge people writing fanfics about whatever popped into their heads-- I mean, sure, why not, who cares-- if only I didn't feel there was such a severe lack of shippy stories (at least within H/D) that satisfied me as addressing the 'why' of the two characters, and felt were 'wrong' (yeah!), I guess--? Everything is generally white-washed and idealized and just... y'know, full of short-cuts, and what's amusing and cute for the first 1,000 fics really starts to get to me after the 10,000th fic, y'know? If I wasn't in such the huge minority in terms of what I wanted from H/D development and characterization, I wouldn't be so frustrated with silly fluff like those comics-- but this is the dominant paradigm, as I'd said, and that just makes me want to chew through things, especially 'cause fanfic is my source of inspiration. Ahh, I should just give up & leave already.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-04 09:41 pm (UTC)Er, I do think we're closer to the goal of them understanding each other, with Harry&Draco, of course we are-- it's just not necessarily romantic or whatever, gah. I think we see the characters pretty similarly (or at least, I tend to agree with you, ahahah, whereas I don't always state things clearly/sincerely enough to be agreed with, I suspect), but the slashing... my feelings on their slashing have been weird and conflicted since HBP (as in, sometimes I don't want to slash them at all in frustration and just-- burn-out). :> I think I'm just responding to fandom enthusiasm negatively, 'cause I'm bitter about the negativity about OoTP, and I liked their OoTP dynamic more, and yeah, this -does- have different difficulties and no one's acknowledging that enough for my tastes :>
Well, the icon's meant to be a fandom_wank reference, so it was meant to be ironic :> :>