[why psychopaths can love & other fictions]

[reenka]

Obviously I don't know when to give up & go to sleep, 'cause I skimmed yet -more- essays/arguments in mannazone ('The Administration' comm) & I don't want to go into specifics, but it made me think about authorial intent in a slightly different way.
    The thing is, really, that it's a double-edged sword, isn't it? What I mean is, it is both necessary to understanding (illuminating?) some basic plot-points or developments when utilized in key/minimum amounts and completely poisonous when used to explain away a reader's genuine reactions to what actually did happen. Like, you can use a known case of 'intent' to debunk what I'd call a 'transformative theory'-- one that takes canon and makes it a metaphor for something else, some external symbology. A good example of this is the things Harry/Hermione shippers found in book 3 to support canon H/Hr: those things were just contrary to the point of the given scenes, and you can call upon authorial intent as support of this argument. However, you can only use it to disprove actual conclusions from specific incidents: you can't disprove subtext or ambiguous cues (whether used for H/Hr, Sirius/Remus or even Harry/Draco subtext).

In other words, you can't say 'seeing' Sirius/Remus isn't a valid emotional response to canon cues; you -can- say it's not actually canon. Does that make sense?

Somehow this seems even more important when the author is actually there to argue with you; when they get involved and interact with fandom.
    
There's a limit there-- you can say what you intended (as the writer), but you can't dictate beyond what the writing itself shows. If, in fact, the writing didn't follow your precise outlined ideas (the meta!story in the writer's head), then it may be bad writing, or it may be the nature of writing itself, but it's not like the meta!story therefore overwrites the actual story experienced by a given reader.

A big part of this is simply a game of definitions; when it comes to talking about a character's emotions especially, we're walking on extremely shaky ground. One person's 'love' isn't another person's 'love'; what the writer may see as 'unacceptable' and 'indicative of moral failure' (or a diagnosable psychiatric disorder), the reader may see as 'tragic' and indicative of a wounded heart that needs healing. Also, what's 'obviously just a sexual thing' for the writer -and- a reader must necessarily be overridden if it's not for the characters as they perceive themselves. Is the reader wrong & the writer right? Vice versa?
    The answer has to be "neither", of course: regarding their own emotions, the character is right (and sometimes, if it's ambiguous and/or the character's confused, there is simply no answer). You cannot dictate meta-questions of a story's reality-- the sort of stuff that in actual reality, people would argue about because it's subjective. (Ie, 'did he really love her?'-- what possible consensus could there be in any situation like this? He did if he thinks he did, period; he did if he acts like he did also, to a large extent, yes, but then this is in the realm of 'reader's perception of subtext'.)

I'm especially impatient with any attempt by the author to project into a future they hadn't actually written; I won't accept 'he feels like X' or 'X is likely to happen' if this hasn't been shown yet. This is simply ridiculous-- the writer doesn't own every possible permutation of the future for the characters in their universe! I'm sure this is actually why some writers hate fanfic, because they think if they stop people from writing it, they'll actually stop them from thinking it. Uh-uh, no go. People perceive half-formed futures as soon as they have their idiosyncratic reactions to a given character's actions/emotions/etc; in terms of unstated consequences, a given reader will believe what makes sense to them based on life experience-- and this is a necessary part of reading, of bonding with fiction. It is that bit of self-projection that draws one into the world & the characters, that tugs them ever so slightly out of the author's head and into the reader's!

My issue, really, is that I'm perfectly happy with ambiguity. I love it that I can't really -know- that Brian's in love with Justin in QaF (though I think he is, in his own way) or whether Toreth 'more than just needs' Warrick (though I think he does, in his own way). Both of these are self-centered bastards with long-suffering caring boyfriends, and I admit there may be -some- wish-fulfillment in my wanting to look at the bright side as a reader-- but in both cases the romance becomes flat and utterly boring if you categorically answer 'no' (as the writers have in both instances, though the circumstances aren't the same).

What I'm trying to say is, 'Authorial Intent' is useful for understanding, but it cannot-- should not-- attempt to penetrate a reader's heart. In theory, I can accept 'this isn't love'-- objectively, things remain ambiguous. In terms of my own reaction, though, there is no ambiguity-- the bells ring, the numbers add up, my alarms go off-- bingo! I can shout it from the rooftops! I embrace subjectivity, since as a reader, it's become my story and in a very real sense these are my characters 'cause they also live in my head, so. This doesn't mean 'in my head', Draco Malfoy 'really' turns into this svelte angel who wears leather pants (or someone who's about to whisper sweet nothings anytime soon)-- y'know, because he's just... not like that. However, yes, my Draco Malfoy can be obsessed and in denial; my Toreth can be also. Yes. Oh yes. I can make this work with canon, okay.

So bite it. HE'S IN LOVE. :P

Comments

[frayach-nicuill.livejournal.com]

Everything you say here is why I really try to avoid reading a writer's discussion of her own work. I also try to avoid (for the most part) engaging writers in conversations about their work. And I also avoid discussing mine. It's almost never a satisfying conversation, I find, and sometimes it's even rather traumatizing. Nothing honks me off like having a sublime obsessive overpowering reaction to a piece of writing and then stumbling across the author totally dismissing or dissing something that had seemed vitally important to me. Or when the author tries to explain why character Y did what he did, and I think to myself: huh?! are we even talking about the same character here? And even though it's stupid, I always find myself conceding to the writer's interpretation of her own work, even though I fuck well know that that's not what she wrote. It's silly, because I've been writing long enough to know just how ridiculously (and wonderously) tenuous my "control" over my readers is. I really don't want to control them beyond what I've already done. Until they invent a mind-meld system (or a Pensieve) through which people can directly experience my thoughts as I experience them (whatever that means), then I'm just going to have to make due with the gloriously inaccurate mode of communication called writing. (I've often thought that music and the visual arts are a much much more direct and "accurate" means of communicating, but since I suck at them both, they're not options.)

So a plea to all writers everywhere. Just shut up already and write. LOL

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Haha, yes, it's definitely about the sublime! And trauma, yes :> It's awful to have this intense emotional bonding experience and then find out you were like, 'overreacting' or something. Arg. Though I like talking about their writing with my friends and stuff, generally their fics-- or those particular fics-- aren't the ones I'm really into. I -have- become friends with writers of my favorite fics in fandom, and they -have- talked to me about them, but generally not in a deconstructive way. It seems satisfying to probe past the edges of the story if the telling is also in the 'mode' (ie, more of the story, not more analysis).

It's like, I want to know more, but I don't want to know stuff that'll interfere with the vibe. It's like, maybe I sort of wanna see 'the little man behind the curtain' if I really care about a piece of fiction-- inspirations, outtakes, thought processes-- but at the same time I want that mystique. It's an odd balance, really :>

[frayach-nicuill.livejournal.com]

It's true. It really is all about the balance. And if given the opportunity I always fuck it up. LOL. I tend to fall in love with a fic and then think I'm in love with the writer, too. But meeting the writer behind your favorite fic isn't always a good idea. Disillusionment central. That said, my best friend is a writer who I fangirled shamelessly for months. In many ways, she's very very different from her fics and that took me awhile to get used to. But she was also the only writer that I've had consistently illuminating and inspiring conversations with about her work. She very much appreciates the collaborative relationship between a writer and her reader, and she's less interested in closing down possibilities than being curious about th possibilities you've discovered through her writing, which she may not have considered or even imagined. But she's a rare bird - in more ways than one :)

I just recently had an intense emotional bonding with a fic and fireboomed the writer with my lurve. But I have to remember that balance thing you mentioned. After all, my experience in reading it may be just that - my experience. And even though you think you can/should be able to share that experience with the writer, that's not always the case.

And then when it comes to my own fic, I really like to send them off into the world like adult children. I want them to stand on their own, independent of (and hopefully transcending) my flaws. In many ways they are so much better than me, than I'll ever be, because they capture the lovingly crafted essence of something deeply felt. Me. Well, I'm just me. With my job and my bills and sweaty gym clothes hanging off doorknobs. I wouldn't want anyone conflating my beautiful little fic-children with such mundanity. And I guess I don't want to associate my favorite fics by other writers with their mundanities (and sometime noxious opinions), either. If any of that makes sense. LOL.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I fall in love (...platonically, most of the time) with my favorite writers too, though not always-- sometimes I'll really like a fic but not feel 'kinship' with the writing because it's not personal the way some writing feels. Sometimes I feel a bond to the writer after reading a number of their works and seeing the thread/voice running through them. I sort of feel like I get to know them more after I read a wide range of their works. Once I do, I'm less surprised at whatever their personality is, generally.

Anyway, it definitely takes a less 'logical' and more open & intuitive writer to have a productive in-depth communication about their work. I really hate it when the writer tries to make me into a beta if I'm not one-- like, forces me to analyze/think logically about the story's issues. I'd much rather sort of... share? They could share too. It really depends on the person :> Some people are less with the sharing and more with the 'telling it like it is', which may become a problem if you're talking about emotions especially. -.-