‘it is only in such a system—where storytelling has been industrialized to the point that our shared culture is owned by others—that a category like “fanfiction” makes sense’
I really like this framing. Something that gets pulled out a lot in "defence" of fanfiction-- as if it needs defence!-- is the "look at all of these great works of the past that were fanfiction!" argument. And... of course I see where that's coming from, but I don't think it's actually a particularly substantial argument? Fanfiction isn't defined just by being a work that transforms or builds on another work. That's one part of it, of course, but it's disingenuous to say that Homer or the Bible or whatever is "fanfiction," because a significant part of what fanfiction is is a very specific community with its own norms and traditions, and that's actually important in defining the genre.
The right environment to breed a lot of fic seems to be a canon with engaging qualities that draw you in, numerous characters with inconsistent or incomplete character development, handwavey worldbuilding, and niggling details of the plot (not to say holes) that fans want to see addressed.
It's funny, I think I used to agree with this more than I do? I don't know if it was just a natural process of choosing media or if Hannibal fandom actually changed my mind on a lot of things, but... I don't think I'm in this fandom because of the ways in which the canon is bad. Every canon has flaws, of course, because that's the nature of stories, but I really think I'm in this fandom because of all of the ways in which it's great. And... I actually think that's been the case for my previous fandoms, too. There are plenty of things wrong with Sherlock, but by and large the fandom actually chooses to ignore the inconsistencies and holes, instead of working with them or filling them in. And even watching lovetincture get into SPN, which is the quintessential "this fucking sucks but we're here anyway" fandom, it seems, from my outsider's perspective, that... the fandom really does exist despite the shallowness and incompleteness, not because of it.
IDK, maybe this is just a shift in my perspective on what I want from media and how I want to frame my love of things, but I'm tired of being okay with looking for scraps in things I don't fundamentally respect as stories or worldviews. And I think fandoms can thrive in environments where the canon is thoughtful and accomplished and not "incomplete" in any way besides ways that the author decided that they would be-- because you have to make choices about what to exclude somewhere, and you have to end the thing at some point, and sometimes restraint actually makes for a better story than absolute hedonism. My most recent fannish foray has also been into the Locked Tomb series, which I think helped me clarify for myself what it is that makes a canon ripe for fandom, if it's not the quality of having holes to fill in. And maybe this is an inconsequential or pedantic difference, but I think for me it's the quality of having enough id to draw you in, and then enough well-placed restraint to keep the story on your mind even after you've put it away for the day. I think sometimes that can happen accidentally, where a plot hole or inconsistency can accidentally almost appear as restraint or have the same effect, but... I don't think it's actually all that common (most things that are incomplete or full of holes are just boring, and consigned to the scrap heap of entertainment to be forgotten) and I don't think that's the primary way that properties achieve the kind of wiggle-in-your-brain-and-stay-there quality that breeds fannish activity.
And I think this argument, which kind of breaks down to "we like things because of the ways they're good, actually," can be uncomfortable when we have evidence or knowledge of the ways the things we love are also bad? Like, that Harry Potter thread-- she says,
HARRY POTTER is very bad. Like gay porn plot bad. Even its edited installments were, effectively, kids' TV screenplays converted to prose, which managed to be sufficiently quintessentially British that Americans couldn't tell the difference between that and intelligent literature
I... would like to believe this. It's comforting to be able to look at a book written by someone that is being vitriolic in public spaces and say "nah, I never liked this anyway, it sucks and I had the correct opinion on it from the very beginning. I only ever liked it because other people did, I was practically forced to!" But I just don't. I think that Harry Potter is a decent childrens' series, that a lot of people genuinely found value in even without the community aspect of everyone reading it at the same time, and I think it does a disservice to our attempts to come to nuanced understandings of literature to claim that it's simply "bad." It's a bit painful to admit to liking Harry Potter because of the aspects of it that are great, because that might also force to you say "damn, and I totally glossed over or didn't notice the aspects of it that were bigoted or limited." But that feels a lot more honest, at least to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2020-10-07 03:39 pm (UTC)I really like this framing. Something that gets pulled out a lot in "defence" of fanfiction-- as if it needs defence!-- is the "look at all of these great works of the past that were fanfiction!" argument. And... of course I see where that's coming from, but I don't think it's actually a particularly substantial argument? Fanfiction isn't defined just by being a work that transforms or builds on another work. That's one part of it, of course, but it's disingenuous to say that Homer or the Bible or whatever is "fanfiction," because a significant part of what fanfiction is is a very specific community with its own norms and traditions, and that's actually important in defining the genre.
The right environment to breed a lot of fic seems to be a canon with engaging qualities that draw you in, numerous characters with inconsistent or incomplete character development, handwavey worldbuilding, and niggling details of the plot (not to say holes) that fans want to see addressed.
It's funny, I think I used to agree with this more than I do? I don't know if it was just a natural process of choosing media or if Hannibal fandom actually changed my mind on a lot of things, but... I don't think I'm in this fandom because of the ways in which the canon is bad. Every canon has flaws, of course, because that's the nature of stories, but I really think I'm in this fandom because of all of the ways in which it's great. And... I actually think that's been the case for my previous fandoms, too. There are plenty of things wrong with Sherlock, but by and large the fandom actually chooses to ignore the inconsistencies and holes, instead of working with them or filling them in. And even watching
IDK, maybe this is just a shift in my perspective on what I want from media and how I want to frame my love of things, but I'm tired of being okay with looking for scraps in things I don't fundamentally respect as stories or worldviews. And I think fandoms can thrive in environments where the canon is thoughtful and accomplished and not "incomplete" in any way besides ways that the author decided that they would be-- because you have to make choices about what to exclude somewhere, and you have to end the thing at some point, and sometimes restraint actually makes for a better story than absolute hedonism. My most recent fannish foray has also been into the Locked Tomb series, which I think helped me clarify for myself what it is that makes a canon ripe for fandom, if it's not the quality of having holes to fill in. And maybe this is an inconsequential or pedantic difference, but I think for me it's the quality of having enough id to draw you in, and then enough well-placed restraint to keep the story on your mind even after you've put it away for the day. I think sometimes that can happen accidentally, where a plot hole or inconsistency can accidentally almost appear as restraint or have the same effect, but... I don't think it's actually all that common (most things that are incomplete or full of holes are just boring, and consigned to the scrap heap of entertainment to be forgotten) and I don't think that's the primary way that properties achieve the kind of wiggle-in-your-brain-and-stay-there quality that breeds fannish activity.
And I think this argument, which kind of breaks down to "we like things because of the ways they're good, actually," can be uncomfortable when we have evidence or knowledge of the ways the things we love are also bad? Like, that Harry Potter thread-- she says,
HARRY POTTER is very bad. Like gay porn plot bad. Even its edited installments were, effectively, kids' TV screenplays converted to prose, which managed to be sufficiently quintessentially British that Americans couldn't tell the difference between that and intelligent literature
I... would like to believe this. It's comforting to be able to look at a book written by someone that is being vitriolic in public spaces and say "nah, I never liked this anyway, it sucks and I had the correct opinion on it from the very beginning. I only ever liked it because other people did, I was practically forced to!" But I just don't. I think that Harry Potter is a decent childrens' series, that a lot of people genuinely found value in even without the community aspect of everyone reading it at the same time, and I think it does a disservice to our attempts to come to nuanced understandings of literature to claim that it's simply "bad." It's a bit painful to admit to liking Harry Potter because of the aspects of it that are great, because that might also force to you say "damn, and I totally glossed over or didn't notice the aspects of it that were bigoted or limited." But that feels a lot more honest, at least to me.