~~ of interest
Oct. 10th, 2005 02:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaAhhhh! I've been reading ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
limyaael's fascinating fantasy-lit rants (the ones on writing fantasy without villains, on writing same-sex friendships and on gay characters in fantasy especially recommended) and gleeing like mad, but now I've truly had my epiphany, oh yes!
The major reason I've been so hard to please with fanfic lately (and honestly, usually), the reason I'm always looking for improvements both in my own writing and that of others-- Readingslithytove's post, I've finally gotten it! The thing that drives me, my enjoyment of any fic, the major barometer of whether I'd enjoy a story-- it's so simple and obvious, of course!
The common uniting factor, just asslithytove says, is interest.
So of course, taking that further, it makes total sense that after one sees enough of a certain kind of thing (especially if that thing was never that brilliant to start with), that interest in seeing it done completely the same would pale, and annoyance and frustration would skyrocket. Since interest is my-- anyone's-- driving factor in reading, and interest (for me) depends partly on novelty & uniqueness and partly on quality, of course it would drop exponentially the more I thought I saw the same unsatifying patterns repeat again-- and again-- and again.
And it also seems reasonable to venture a guess that my area of actual 'interest' in fanfic diverges from others', since what I dislike is often so wildly popular overall. (And this, also, can't help but make one bitter.) Of course, what I like in published fantasy isn't apparently beloved by the masses either, since we see tons and tons of run-of-the-mill sword-n-sorcery novels (which I've almost been growing to hate) while most of my favorite books are currently out of print (Neil's stuff excepted).
Anyway, what I'm actually trying to say is, I've always had a sort of morbid interest in exactly what draws people to the things they read.
I mean, I know what -I- want, and I know what I'd call 'good writing' (basically, 'something that captures my interest', alaslithytove's definition, with a side order of 'complex characterization', 'subtle themes' and 'rollicking good adventure besides'), but I think it's really touch-and-go as to whether that'd generate mass interest-- and why? What is it, exactly, that most people don't like about rare things like 'villains' with shades of grey, heroes with huge issues, and any other genre trope ('that gay character must suffer' would also fit) that gets reversed and stereotype that gets challenged?
I mean, there must be a certain level of a need for familiarity, for instance, in contrast to my own need for the new & different-- that is, we happily go see the same rehashed summer action blockbuster & largely ignore more unique things like 'Serenity' because we must -want- that rehashed familiar buzz of 'this is just what I thought it was going to be' as we come out of the movie theater, say. I can only guess that for most readers/viewers, 'this makes me think/feel deeper than usual and/or makes me want to re-evaluate things' doesn't equal 'interest' if only, perhaps, that it makes entertainment seem like too much work.
I also suspect genre readers (both fanfic & fantasy fiction itself might be seen as a 'genre' in this sense) read -for- things more than the increasingly rare 'pure lit' or 'quality' discriminating reader, you might say. Their interest is very much pre-defined and focused on specific things they enter into the fic expecting, and if those things (porn, a sexy bad guy, some exciting gun-battles, what have you) are included, that is sort of... it. That pings the 'instant satisfaction' button, and creates a sort of cross-fic unity of sorts-- where one fic/movie/game is just like another and that's a Good Thing in the same sense that every Mars bar is just like another and that's also generally seen as Good (and consistently Interesting, as far as that goes).
In this sense, it naturally doesn't matter how much better the latest Mars bar (or summer blockbuster, or sword-n-sorcery epic-of-the-month) is than another unless it's much much worse and/or somehow offensive (as in, the chocolate has a bug in it or the Stallone movie has, I dunno, ugly girls).
To me... the major difference is, to me every movie, every H/D fic, everything that -can- be enjoyed for its difference (unlike that overdone Mars bar in my analogy, which you'd have a hard time enjoying for anything -but- its sameness), is. I can't help but look for the similarities and patterns in things-- I think I'm just naturally hyper-aware of them-- so I'm generally looking for the interest to be found in escaping anything I see as a boring/stifling rut. So something that could once have been tolerably appealing-- say, fanon!Draco-- eventually becomes an object of hatred and bile once I see it repeated in shoddily-constructed fic enough times. It's just not an -interesting- (ie, unique) enough idea to dwell on that much without sickening me. On the other hand, its very familiarity is probably what attracts people to it.
This is not to say that I don't have my own kinks and consistent preferences in characterization or theme-- of course I do. It's just that my kink appreciation doesn't overwhelm my need for quality/uniqueness/interest longterm, once the surface feeding rush has passed. For more longterm interest, I need more in-depth story-telling, probably because (I'm guessing) I just plain pay more attention to these things-- to the nature of stories. My main -interest- is more... heavily serious? Not as surface? Er... 'discriminating' sort of sums it up, because I only discriminate to the degree that I care about a subject.
In other words, while I do read fanfic and watch fantasy movies, say, for pleasure and entertainment, most definitely, it just so happens my pleasure is more... demanding of its source. I'm finicky where most consumers are omnivorous and rather easily satisfied. I'm just... divergent in what I consider to be 'interesting' because my interests themselves are rarer. Something like that, I guess.
Though I can't quite stop wondering why is it that people actively don't appreciate or feel interested in movies or books that still attempt to give them what they want, only in a new or more roundabout or challenging/deeper or more ultimately truthful & thusly more meaningful way....
limyaael's fascinating fantasy-lit rants (the ones on writing fantasy without villains, on writing same-sex friendships and on gay characters in fantasy especially recommended) and gleeing like mad, but now I've truly had my epiphany, oh yes! The major reason I've been so hard to please with fanfic lately (and honestly, usually), the reason I'm always looking for improvements both in my own writing and that of others-- Reading
slithytove's post, I've finally gotten it! The thing that drives me, my enjoyment of any fic, the major barometer of whether I'd enjoy a story-- it's so simple and obvious, of course!The common uniting factor, just as
slithytove says, is interest. So of course, taking that further, it makes total sense that after one sees enough of a certain kind of thing (especially if that thing was never that brilliant to start with), that interest in seeing it done completely the same would pale, and annoyance and frustration would skyrocket. Since interest is my-- anyone's-- driving factor in reading, and interest (for me) depends partly on novelty & uniqueness and partly on quality, of course it would drop exponentially the more I thought I saw the same unsatifying patterns repeat again-- and again-- and again.
And it also seems reasonable to venture a guess that my area of actual 'interest' in fanfic diverges from others', since what I dislike is often so wildly popular overall. (And this, also, can't help but make one bitter.) Of course, what I like in published fantasy isn't apparently beloved by the masses either, since we see tons and tons of run-of-the-mill sword-n-sorcery novels (which I've almost been growing to hate) while most of my favorite books are currently out of print (Neil's stuff excepted).
Anyway, what I'm actually trying to say is, I've always had a sort of morbid interest in exactly what draws people to the things they read.
I mean, I know what -I- want, and I know what I'd call 'good writing' (basically, 'something that captures my interest', ala
slithytove's definition, with a side order of 'complex characterization', 'subtle themes' and 'rollicking good adventure besides'), but I think it's really touch-and-go as to whether that'd generate mass interest-- and why? What is it, exactly, that most people don't like about rare things like 'villains' with shades of grey, heroes with huge issues, and any other genre trope ('that gay character must suffer' would also fit) that gets reversed and stereotype that gets challenged?I mean, there must be a certain level of a need for familiarity, for instance, in contrast to my own need for the new & different-- that is, we happily go see the same rehashed summer action blockbuster & largely ignore more unique things like 'Serenity' because we must -want- that rehashed familiar buzz of 'this is just what I thought it was going to be' as we come out of the movie theater, say. I can only guess that for most readers/viewers, 'this makes me think/feel deeper than usual and/or makes me want to re-evaluate things' doesn't equal 'interest' if only, perhaps, that it makes entertainment seem like too much work.
I also suspect genre readers (both fanfic & fantasy fiction itself might be seen as a 'genre' in this sense) read -for- things more than the increasingly rare 'pure lit' or 'quality' discriminating reader, you might say. Their interest is very much pre-defined and focused on specific things they enter into the fic expecting, and if those things (porn, a sexy bad guy, some exciting gun-battles, what have you) are included, that is sort of... it. That pings the 'instant satisfaction' button, and creates a sort of cross-fic unity of sorts-- where one fic/movie/game is just like another and that's a Good Thing in the same sense that every Mars bar is just like another and that's also generally seen as Good (and consistently Interesting, as far as that goes).
In this sense, it naturally doesn't matter how much better the latest Mars bar (or summer blockbuster, or sword-n-sorcery epic-of-the-month) is than another unless it's much much worse and/or somehow offensive (as in, the chocolate has a bug in it or the Stallone movie has, I dunno, ugly girls).
To me... the major difference is, to me every movie, every H/D fic, everything that -can- be enjoyed for its difference (unlike that overdone Mars bar in my analogy, which you'd have a hard time enjoying for anything -but- its sameness), is. I can't help but look for the similarities and patterns in things-- I think I'm just naturally hyper-aware of them-- so I'm generally looking for the interest to be found in escaping anything I see as a boring/stifling rut. So something that could once have been tolerably appealing-- say, fanon!Draco-- eventually becomes an object of hatred and bile once I see it repeated in shoddily-constructed fic enough times. It's just not an -interesting- (ie, unique) enough idea to dwell on that much without sickening me. On the other hand, its very familiarity is probably what attracts people to it.
This is not to say that I don't have my own kinks and consistent preferences in characterization or theme-- of course I do. It's just that my kink appreciation doesn't overwhelm my need for quality/uniqueness/interest longterm, once the surface feeding rush has passed. For more longterm interest, I need more in-depth story-telling, probably because (I'm guessing) I just plain pay more attention to these things-- to the nature of stories. My main -interest- is more... heavily serious? Not as surface? Er... 'discriminating' sort of sums it up, because I only discriminate to the degree that I care about a subject.
In other words, while I do read fanfic and watch fantasy movies, say, for pleasure and entertainment, most definitely, it just so happens my pleasure is more... demanding of its source. I'm finicky where most consumers are omnivorous and rather easily satisfied. I'm just... divergent in what I consider to be 'interesting' because my interests themselves are rarer. Something like that, I guess.
Though I can't quite stop wondering why is it that people actively don't appreciate or feel interested in movies or books that still attempt to give them what they want, only in a new or more roundabout or challenging/deeper or more ultimately truthful & thusly more meaningful way....
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 09:57 am (UTC)Reality check: "Pure lit" is a genre. There's as many expectations or plot/characters/story/quality of writing etc in those books as there are in fantasy, science fiction, crime, romance, whatever. One form of expectation is no better than the other, especially when the supposed "seriousness" of so much "pure lit" is nothing but the same window dressing as the formulas of genres. "The nature of a story" is as shallow as "characterisation" or "plot" or whatever. It's not more or less serious just because you care about it more than other aspects. If "something that catches your interest" is "good writing" then genre interests can define "good writing" as easily as the next aspect, whether that genre is fantasy or "pure lit".
People these days are very discriminating across an extremely civerse range of genres that were previously unavailable because of lack of technology. This is applicable in any form of media: books, TV, movies, music, magazines, whatever. Most consumers these days aren't "easily satisfied" but are able to consumer a more diverse range of products that previously they couldn't because of limited genre horizons.
So people aren't interested in forms of media that don't contain truths for them. Simple as that. It does often rely on the packaging, since things like Serenity can suffer from a poor publicity campaign (I swear, with the exception of the Casabian Club Foot one at the beginning, the trailers for the film weren't that great) but often it's just "I see no truth in this for me". Doesn't matter if one person thinks it's really deep, if another person doesn't, then they're not interested. Your lack of interest in fanon!Draco, for example. You see a certain thing where other people don't, so you don't like it. And really, if you wanted "uniqueness" you wouldn't be reading HP in the first place, or be in fandom. We're a subversive genre, based on a very formulaic and currently stagnant one. Stop kidding yourself.
What is it, exactly, that most people don't like about rare things like 'villains' with shades of grey, heroes with huge issues, and any other genre trope ('that gay character must suffer' would also fit) that gets reversed and stereotype that gets challenged?
They do. The Status Quo doesn't, however, and works against people finding out about forms of media that are like this. Ohhh, no, horses in space, we'd better axe it quick (seriously, this is one of the reasons Fox had "issues" with Firefly)! Can't have that. It suggests a lack of progress and bad publicity for people the corporation most identitfies with (the Alliance & Blue Sun).
no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 10:28 am (UTC)Like... I'm aware HP isn't v. original and neither do I admire it as a piece of fantasy or writing but rather I enjoy it as 'that book about what Harry does-- and oh, other things too'. With fanfic, I read it for a return to certain characters & themes, yeah, but -within- those repetitions, there are still tropes that are particularly unimaginative or dull or largely not well-done or complex enough to transcend their predictability. It's an odd sort of balance that happens, when fanfic 'works' well for me-- a sort of innovativeness within repetition, a new twist on an old thing, that I really enjoy.
Most importantly, though, just because I said 'I like it this way' is in no way meant to imply 'that's the right & superior way'; I -never- mean that, and it's a constant misunderstanding that's hard to avoid. I wasn't claiming some sort of subjective superiority but rather comparing my tastes to what I perceive of others', which do often frustrate and confuse me but I don't consider objectively 'wrong' (I do know better, in other words). I suppose the pitfall I tend to fall into is that I do bring things back to my own pov to compare things to, and so people assume I'm using it as a standard merely because I keep falling back on it-- but you have to realize that the reason I talk about my own tastes is that I'm generally navel-gazing & trying to figure myself out, not inflict my opinion on others (that would actually be too dominant/pro-active/extroverted for my comfort).
I meant things like AS Byatt or Dickens or something as 'non-pure genre'-- I mean, if that too is a genre then everything is a genre and the term becomes meaningless 'cause it doesn't distinguish genre from non-genre anymore. By Nature of Story I meant something that is by definition not shallow-- that is, a way of viewing a story that is literally more in-depth-- how can it also be shallow? By this you'd be saying -every- way of looking at a story is therefore shallow, and thus the very term loses all meaning as being in comparison to anything else. There -are- surface and under-the-surface readings-- obvious and less-than-obvious things, hidden motivations, subtext, over-arching themes not clear at first glance, anything you'd need to think about to get. That's all I meant.
It's not more serious -because- I care about it and I don't think I said that; neither did I care about it -because- it's 'serious' rather than 'shallow'-- it is merely an observation that I care -more- in the longterm about things that often support and allow deeper analysis or more multi-faceted enjoyment. Again, I wasn't claiming superiority, that is a projection.
I wasn't trying to compare different forms of media or implying one is better than another; people may very well find truths in any and all-- I was making (probably sloppy) generalizations -across- different media, not trying to separate them into more or less 'true'; Truth transcends media. My point was unrelated, more about feeling (with admitted subjectivity) like my truth isn't usually in the same vein as other people's, being frustrated & offering random hypotheses as to why that might be.
I also was thinking that if people didn't like rehashed dreck, it wouldn't sell so well, or be read so widely in fandom, where money's irrelevant (meaning crack!fic and straight-out porn and mindless fluff being so much more in demand than anything the intellislashers had written, any day).
no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 11:01 am (UTC)Not necessarily. Genres exist because people make them exist and don't see the specifics. Mostly genres exist because of certain recurring themes that are not necessarily story formulas. Ie- Lit's themes are focusing on human relationships and complexity of interactions in various cultures/lives. Or stuff "not being based on earth but still in this universe" = SF. It can be innovative on the genre or non-innovative, but that theme marks it as SF. Dickens is classic Victorian pulp drama. It's a genre, and one that recurs in other texts marking them as such (eg - the Australian story Picnic at Hanging Rock), but a lot of people don't recognise it as such because of literature wankery. It's a very pure genre, if you analyse it, with some definite recurring themes. *shrugs*
By this you'd be saying -every- way of looking at a story is therefore shallow, and thus the very term loses all meaning as being in comparison to anything else.
Well yeah. That was my point. If it brings you pleasure, it's shallow. Full stop. Doesn't mean if it's long-term meta wankery pleasure or shot-term pornographic wankery pleasure. It's shallow.
anything you'd need to think about to get.
And depending on the context, some thought is needed and some isn't. Some readers will find certain readings shallow and others will find them deep, depending on their age, culture, life experience, race, whatever. This is why films have certain national cuts and international cuts to cater for the different contexts in the market. Doesn't happen as often with books, which is probably why they're such a far less economically viable medium.
it is merely an observation that I care -more- in the longterm about things that often support and allow deeper analysis or more multi-faceted enjoyment.
In other words, you care more about that which is "serious" to you.
I wasn't trying to compare different forms of media or implying one is better than another
And neither was I. I was talking about your professed "ultimately truthful & thusly more meaningful way..." as applied to perceived truths.
And I think certain meidiums do work better at speaking mroe relevant truths to more people than others. Depending on the culture and technology and context, that medium will change. But this is the reason you have different patterns of media consumption in different countries. If truth transcended medium there wouldn't be fandom in the first place. We'd all see whatever we wanted to see in truths and would be unsatisfied in some way enough to create fandom. But the fact is, the male-dominated production of most media texts means that a good deal of females are unsatisfied and thus, fandom exist.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-10 11:36 am (UTC)It might be that I seemed too focused on 'readings', whereas my real issue was rooted in those writing essays I linked to. It all starts with writing more true-to-life, with less dependence on tropes and conventions and more... exploration, juxtaposition, experimentation, etc. This sort of writing then in turn invites a deeper/more detailed reading, and it's not because of some mythical 'seriousness' (which sounds as if I'd want stories to be -somber- or not too funny or something whereas I actually don't like it when I feel an author/protagonist takes themselves too seriously). Some ways of writing about people are just more... rewarding, I guess you could say; the way writing about/growing to understand a contradictory, odd, hard-to-peg character is more 'interesting' because it involves the element of suspense and surprise more heavily than a stock character going through the motions of a standard mystery plot would, for instance.
I see your point about Dickens also having a genre behind him, though I think the way that term is currently used is more of wide, sweeping thing. I mean, the Victorian pulp drama sounds like a sub-genre, I guess. I dunno. I think you could always classify any work according to its themes/tropes, but a typical 'genre'-type work would be more dependent on its tropes to be fully understood, I feel like. It's a fine point; overall I would say stuff like Mercedes Lackey is part of a genre in a different way than Dickens was, if only because there's that all-important 'crossover appeal' factor-- I'm not sure. Anyway, I do feel certain genre isn't merely theme/style alone, but also intended audience, marketing & degree of dependence on the theme elements to present the story.
The 'ultimately truthful' thing was me being self-consciously peevish, not serious, just kind of stubborn in a way 'cause I can fall into a me vs. them mentality sometimes that I -know- very well is false/biased. Still, I make my whiny little aside :> But 'tis true, in that how's anyone to know that unless they know me well, I guess. ^^;;
I suppose it would've been more correct to say that truth -can- transcend medium depending on the instance, not that it always does, of course-- anymore than all slash/fanfic is always subversive or any better done/new-and-different than its source. And, y'know, it's -possible- for some people's truth to be that they're in fandom 'cause they -like- the source, not because they're dissatisfied :>
no subject
Date: 2005-10-14 12:01 pm (UTC)Anyway, I do feel certain genre isn't merely theme/style alone, but also intended audience, marketing & degree of dependence on the theme elements to present the story.
And Dickens's works were/are all marketed in these ways, within certain conventions, and with a reliance on the theme elements for story presentation. As much as Mercedes Lackey, Anne Rice or Michael Chrichton. You can't escape genre. It's always there. It may not be a large genre or a genre that people want to acknowledge, but it's there.