~~ 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 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.