sidebar on the tiptree award kerfluffle
May. 24th, 2006 04:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
boogieshoesthis particular essay has nothing to do with the tiptree award thing per se, but was inspired by a healthy chunk of the commentary i saw there.
at various times, in various debates, no matter what the generative concept of said debate, we almost invariably come back around to the subject of fanfic quality, and what constitutes badfic, versus (say) crack!fic, vs just plain ugly. what makes for a good story, and how important is it that the author take time to make the story good. it's this last that is my subject here-in.
invariably, when talking about author responsibility for a story, people will say that the author has a responsibility to spell and grammar check a story; check for believable storyline, plot loopholes, inanities, and most of all, get a beta to improve readability as much as possible. and i find myself nodding and agreeing, and then saying 'yes, but, this is just a hobby, guys.'
and then people will talk about re-writing and responding to commentary and criticisms, and finishing works in progress, and how all of that is important to good story building. and again, i find myself nodding and agreeing, and then saying 'yes, but, this is just a hobby, guys.'
and then people will talk about the importance of research, and attempts at getting things right, and i will most emphatically agree with that!
but - and this is the important part - this is just a hobby!
when we argue about what makes a mediocre or great or bad piece of fiction, i sometimes feel like we're losing one of the real reasons people write fiction: it's fun. fun does not require skills. fun does not require a reason to write - to please an audience, to feed adoring fans, to do anything other than to please one's self.
and you know what? that's a perfectly valid reason for writing fanfic. we're not making money, and we're each interacting with source text in our own way, and we each want to express that interaction. why then, does fandom try to impose on all authors the same literary standards that pro-fic should have? i have no idea, because we're doing this for fun.
i belong to a historical re-enactment society called the Society for Creative Anachronism. in the SCA, all that is required to be onsite at one of our camping events is 'an attempt at pre-17th century garb'. period details and accuracy, beautiful garb - all this is highly appreciated and often awarded and recognized. and some people put in an awful lot of research into what they're supposed to be wearing for the period and culture they're playing in. but silly garb (my own q-bert check tunic dress) and bad garb is also appreciated. why? because the point is to contribute to the event atmosphere, not to be letter perfect in everything. similarly, arts and sciences have a range of people practicing all sorts of things, and while quality and authentic style work is valued, so are the people who are simply learning, or doing things for fun.
what does the SCA have to do with fanfic? the reasons i see given for writing, and the level of effort authors put into a piece far more match the patterns of SCA-related activities than the patterns of professional activities of whatever stripe. and i feel this is as it should be. if it's work, it's not relaxing and fun. and yet, over and over again - and i'm as guilty of this as the next person - we in fandom appear to require a level of commitment and excellence in a finished piece that one should only expect of technical reports and nobel literature prize winners.
i propose instead that we view fanfic production through the same eyes as the SCA views garb, arts & sciences, and other contributions: iow, it's OK to be un-talented, or just downright awful, as long as you're having fun . it's absolutely awesome that we have awards for excellence. but we should welcome and encourage writers to write at whatever level they can, and be happy with it, because it contributes to the atmosphere.
what does that mean in terms of author responsibility for a piece? it means that the author is responsible only for satisfying herself. if she feels that vast amounts of research are necessary to make a piece believable, or if she dashes it off in five minutes, either should be ok, and welcomed. if she's the most talented author since the venerable bede, or a veritable terror to the web-page, those are also ok. the author is under no obligation to satisfy us as an audience, or even to have a level of readability present before she publishes her story.
because - despite my own preferences for the well-written, well-researched piece of fiction - the truth is, this is just a hobby. and we are supposed to be doing this for fun.
here endeth the rant.
-bs
at various times, in various debates, no matter what the generative concept of said debate, we almost invariably come back around to the subject of fanfic quality, and what constitutes badfic, versus (say) crack!fic, vs just plain ugly. what makes for a good story, and how important is it that the author take time to make the story good. it's this last that is my subject here-in.
invariably, when talking about author responsibility for a story, people will say that the author has a responsibility to spell and grammar check a story; check for believable storyline, plot loopholes, inanities, and most of all, get a beta to improve readability as much as possible. and i find myself nodding and agreeing, and then saying 'yes, but, this is just a hobby, guys.'
and then people will talk about re-writing and responding to commentary and criticisms, and finishing works in progress, and how all of that is important to good story building. and again, i find myself nodding and agreeing, and then saying 'yes, but, this is just a hobby, guys.'
and then people will talk about the importance of research, and attempts at getting things right, and i will most emphatically agree with that!
but - and this is the important part - this is just a hobby!
when we argue about what makes a mediocre or great or bad piece of fiction, i sometimes feel like we're losing one of the real reasons people write fiction: it's fun. fun does not require skills. fun does not require a reason to write - to please an audience, to feed adoring fans, to do anything other than to please one's self.
and you know what? that's a perfectly valid reason for writing fanfic. we're not making money, and we're each interacting with source text in our own way, and we each want to express that interaction. why then, does fandom try to impose on all authors the same literary standards that pro-fic should have? i have no idea, because we're doing this for fun.
i belong to a historical re-enactment society called the Society for Creative Anachronism. in the SCA, all that is required to be onsite at one of our camping events is 'an attempt at pre-17th century garb'. period details and accuracy, beautiful garb - all this is highly appreciated and often awarded and recognized. and some people put in an awful lot of research into what they're supposed to be wearing for the period and culture they're playing in. but silly garb (my own q-bert check tunic dress) and bad garb is also appreciated. why? because the point is to contribute to the event atmosphere, not to be letter perfect in everything. similarly, arts and sciences have a range of people practicing all sorts of things, and while quality and authentic style work is valued, so are the people who are simply learning, or doing things for fun.
what does the SCA have to do with fanfic? the reasons i see given for writing, and the level of effort authors put into a piece far more match the patterns of SCA-related activities than the patterns of professional activities of whatever stripe. and i feel this is as it should be. if it's work, it's not relaxing and fun. and yet, over and over again - and i'm as guilty of this as the next person - we in fandom appear to require a level of commitment and excellence in a finished piece that one should only expect of technical reports and nobel literature prize winners.
i propose instead that we view fanfic production through the same eyes as the SCA views garb, arts & sciences, and other contributions: iow, it's OK to be un-talented, or just downright awful, as long as you're having fun . it's absolutely awesome that we have awards for excellence. but we should welcome and encourage writers to write at whatever level they can, and be happy with it, because it contributes to the atmosphere.
what does that mean in terms of author responsibility for a piece? it means that the author is responsible only for satisfying herself. if she feels that vast amounts of research are necessary to make a piece believable, or if she dashes it off in five minutes, either should be ok, and welcomed. if she's the most talented author since the venerable bede, or a veritable terror to the web-page, those are also ok. the author is under no obligation to satisfy us as an audience, or even to have a level of readability present before she publishes her story.
because - despite my own preferences for the well-written, well-researched piece of fiction - the truth is, this is just a hobby. and we are supposed to be doing this for fun.
here endeth the rant.
-bs
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-24 10:33 pm (UTC)Part of the thing with fanfic is that the person COULD possibly go on to write their own stuff professionally. You say it's a hobby, and it is: it is also a developmental stage.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-24 11:46 pm (UTC)i think we in fandom tend to forget that, and want to act like all fanfic is exampler of someone's development from 'ameteur' to 'pro-writer'. it's never going to be that for all people, even if everyone wanted it to be that way. truthfully, some people just don't have the talent to produce top-quality product (i'm probably one of those that don't). but that doesn't detract from the fact that the author is having fun, and should be commended simply for helping contribute to the overal joyfulness of fandom in general.
-bs
no subject
Date: 2006-05-25 01:01 am (UTC)People writing good stuff is, of course, good. People writing bad stuff that gets mixed in with the good stuff meaning that a newbie is more likely to come across crap and be deterred from the scene... is good how?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-26 02:09 am (UTC)i'm not saying we shouldn't *critique* stories, if the author wants that. i'm saying we should recognize that stories are written to contribute someone's viewpoint on the sourcetext. in effect, by squashing things that even the author agrees are grossly inept, we also squash their voice. i'm also not saying we're required to *like* everything that comes along. but that doesn't mean we should actively discourage them, either.
-bs
(1) your icon, however, *is* noisy - eek!