er....

[reenka]

It's funny how the perceptions & definitions of quite separate concepts get mixed up so often. Like: 'fluff'.

Like. Okay, what with most people mean by 'fluff', I guess I'd have to say don't like it, y'know (even though that's not true)? I feel like a liar when I say 'okay, fine, I'm an angst-whore' because I'm not, but it's like in the binary world of that definition, I would have to be, or something, because by a rather prevalent (implied) definition, fluff = OOC, careless, overly-saccharine & largely humorless. Like crackfic except more staid and less out there & imaginative (as opposed to my definition, where fluff is basically 'feel-good fic where it's more slice-of-life warmth than serious drama' or perhaps just 'optimistic!fic' should cover it-- and WHY oh WHY should optimistic = implausible/saccharine/over-the-top??).
    It's as if the usual, widespread usage of 'liking fluff' (not to mention 'liking smutty romantic fluff') implies consciously turning away from realism. As if you cannot have... I dunno... fluff-smutty realism (which... you can, it's just, y'know, harder to write, esp. with a canonically rivalslash/angsty pairing). You can so totally have perfectly IC fluff-smutty fic, cute & sexy & IC... well, mostly with friendslash, but also as lighter episodes late in a long-running rivalslash. I've seen it! I've loved it! IT EXISTS. You don't have to be like 'well, I like an angsty pairing but I can't take angst all the time so let's just throw plausibility & common sense out the window 'cause it feels good & it's easy'. You could be-- no one's stopping you; you just don't -have- to.
    In other words, optimism & denial? NOT THE SAME THING.

Also, when people make these strident, eloquent posts about how no sexual kink or fantasy expressed in fanfic is morally questionable-- yeay, sexual freedom, right? So far, so good. And then 'sexual fantasy' becomes writing, which... is a craft, unlike sexual fantasizing, so. Um.
   
    Somehow, this 'moral' definition easily migrates into aesthetics, so that suddenly not being 'morally questionable' becomes equivalent to not being 'aesthetically questionable'. So then you could write or read or fantasize about whatever-- and of course that's your right, but it's not the same as talking about your 'right' to write shameless OOC fluff/kinkfic/etc where absolutely anything goes in any direction.

Perhaps I should say (defensively) 'but I like good fluff! I've written quite a bit of it-- questionable quality-- myself!', but that does sound too defensive-- I still feel I mean something else if I say 'I like fluff' than if your average fangirl says she likes feeling warm-and-fuzzy about her OTP or whatever. I mean, I like to feel warm-and-fuzzy too... only I like it if it's good. Y'know, halfway believable. And it just so happens most inexperienced writers go much further overboard with questionable characterization for the purpose of sweetness-- like, if you're writing a short fic, it somehow doesn't seem to take as much subtle backstory and a carefully balanced character dynamic to write things pessimistically. Though I've mostly seen this with H/D, 'cause if you're reading an 'easier', friend-slash pairing, imagining a cozy future isn't so difficult.

What I mean is, it's not like one can claim 'guilty pleasure' type writing or reading as some sort of moral cause; it's not even an aesthetic cause. There's that line between not having to be embarrassed about what you like & realizing that what you like may very well be... well, bad as a story. That doesn't make it bad to like it-- it's just... still... kind of... not so good. Y'know, the way Danielle Steel, Harlequins, Piers Anthony & I dunno, Mercedes Lackey are 'not so good'; in terms of ideas/cliches, we have mpreg & rentboy fic, say. Perfectly fine to like-- there's even some good stuff out there sometimes, but this doesn't make most of this stuff good stories or good ideas just because they -are- liked. Gah. Like, yeah, there have been good mpregs, for instance-- I've enjoyed some-- and Piers Anthony sometimes doesn't suck. But. The exception proves the rule. And also? When you stand back a bit, you remember, OH WAIT, DRACO IS PREGNANT FOR NO GOOD REASON. Which... just kind of severely limits the aesthetic heights we're talkin' about, no matter how I myself may even enjoy it. >.>

...I'm mostly thinking of people talking about rape-without-consequence fics, how they're not only morally okay to like (obviously), but also therefore aesthetically okay as fiction (...not-so-much, outside crackfic/kinkfic). No one's convening the Fic Police or anything... it's just so obvious to me that when you reach a certain level of WTFuckery in what I'd consider plausible human behavior-- forget ICness-- that's when goodfic goes out the window. People get all mixed up & bring up general subjects [like incest-fic] that some folks get unduly uptight about in writing, and then equate them to specific treatments of said specific subjects and make sweeping generalizations to justify all possible permutations just to cover their asses whatever they feel like doing.
    Like, well, clearly there's a place in the world for fluffy-oblivious incestfic, sure. But that's not the same thing as setting out to write a 'serious' incestfic & then dropping the ball midway afterwards just 'cause you don't wanna deal with the repercussions anymore. No, that would be sucky writing, right there. There's a limited number of ways human beings will act under certain (traumatic) circumstances; people aren't infinitely unpredictable, especially established characters you don't actually own/create. This does curtail one's artistic freedom, but, y'know, uhhh... if that's a problem, why not write original fic? About say, iguana-men? *facepalm*

Comments

[frayach-nicuill.livejournal.com]

What I mean is, it's not like one can claim 'guilty pleasure' type writing or reading as some sort of moral cause; it's not even an aesthetic cause. There's that line between not having to be embarrassed about what you like & realizing that what you like may very well be... well, bad as a story.

hee hee. Thanks for this. Not sure if you meant it to be as hilarious as I found it (No one's convening the Fic Police or anything... it's just so obvious to me that when you reach a certain level of WTFuckery in what I'd consider plausible human behavior-- forget ICness-- that's when goodfic goes out the window.) But I really needed the laugh this morning. Workers are tearing up and re-laying the wood floors in my house, so I've woken up to nail guns at seven every morning this week and gone to sleep in wafting fumes from the stain and the polish. So, really needed the ha ha :)

That first bit I quoted pretty much says it all. Just because you have the "right" to do something doesn't mean it has any kind of innate value. (Of course, what does and doesn't have "value" is such a subjective call, blah blah blah, but setting aside that point for a moment . . .). A perfect example from my field: lawsuits. Politically/morally/ideologically I will defend to the death a citizen's right to bring his/her claim to a court of law. The principle of open courts trumps everything, imo. However. If that claim is subsequently found to be groundless or frivolous or untimely or what-have-you, then out it goes. Bye bye. In other words, you may have a right to file a claim in a court, but that right says nothing at all about the value of your particular claim, which may suck heartily. So, saying you have a right to write/read what you want does not at all, in any way shape or form, say anything meaningful about the quality/worth/value of what you want to write/read.

The interesting/annoying thing about fanfic (as opposed to lawsuits, for instance), is the ability of a democratic majority (or vocal minority) to label something worthwhile. If enough people like it, then it's got to be good, right? In a world without the equivalent of the New York Times Book Review, majorities can dictate tastes. Not that this is always a bad thing. But it is what it is. If the majority can't be arsed to care about believable/well-crafted characterization, then fics with poor/no characterization are going to be popular and their popularity will cement their worthiness. And then others will follow step, and viola! you have a Frodo/Sam "Shire-smut" story. LOL. Sorry, former fandom snarkiness slipping out there ;)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heheh, that's a great point about the vocal majority declaring & cementing value in fanfic-- like, the 'classics' tend to just be the fics that either came early enough to be read widely or utilize some uber-cliche lowest-common-denominator cliche like 'have to fuck or the world will end'. The really good (well-written, etc) fics can be popular too, but generally they'd have a secondary appeal-- like, they tend to be plausible & well-written but also approachable & have smut and action. I find what people in general like to be pretty predictable :>

The 'subjective value' thing... is true, but I wasn't going into specifics that far. Like, not in terms of specific execution but more the principle of 'in this kind of story, ie, serious character-study, you do not get to pretend rape has no consequences'. For instance. It's funny the things that I find common sense that other people find their 'right' to ignore. Which. I guess it is. But it's my right to then call their fics stupid badfics :D :D :D :D

And I -was- a bit punchy & tongue-in-cheek, so glad to amuse! :D

[frayach-nicuill.livejournal.com]

The rape-fic example is particularly illustrative (albeit extreme): you can get a sizable number of people to agree that bad characterization and/or no examination of consequences in a rape-fic is arguably not only bad writing (i.e. aesthetically bad), but morally suspect as well (i.e. in a world where rape *does* happen, is fantasizing away consequences a "good" thing?) It's one of the few "genres" in which aesthetics and morality (for lack of a better term) more or less mirror one another (or, at the very least, editorialize one another).

Something like fluff-fic is rarely going to blur the line between bad writing and moral dubiousness. But sometimes I'm so offended by bad writing that it's difficult to distinguish whether I'm experiencing aesthetic offense or something . . . deeper. Although, when I care about something enough to devote hard-won hours to writing and reading it (in this case H/D), my offense at bad characterization (or what-have-you) isn't so much a passing elitist knicker-twist, but real frustration and annoyance and disappointment. I find myself (unrealistically and perhaps unfairly) expecting people to care as much as I do - not only about the characters, but about the craft of writing as well. If these distinctions make any sense . . .

Well, I'm just offended by half-assedness, in general. If you're going to do something, do it well. Otherwise you're just mocking the medium. Thumbing one's nose at basic writerly conventions may not be on the same plain as, say, advocating genocide, but it can still deeply annoy and depress a person.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heh, I do think it's true that the anything-goes porn-first people underestimate how one -can- get depressed/frustrated at half-assedness & people not caring as much in a totally valid manner, speaking emotionally. The caring is definitely a 'thing' for me too-- the thing that may be hardest to take, anyway. I've been lucky enough to mostly surround myself with fandom friends who also care, though, so it's been pretty good :D

...I wasn't mixing the fluff into the 'moral validity' issue, in case that was unclear, btw. Just into the 'definitional drift' thing :>