Plot v Character, next verse
Sep. 12th, 2011 04:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootI think I've put my finger on what makes the kind of AU I like to read and write versus the kind I don't. To whit, I don't like the kind that keep the same events while changing the circumstances (eg, the majority of high school AUs). That's just a retread, and while the trappings of the events change, neither the events themselves nor the characters that arise from them do.
I find that boring.
I much prefer the kind of AU that changes the canon events to see how that will make the characters different. While it's possible to write the changed-setting type of AU and still do good characterization, it is not a form that encourages any such thing; far too many fan-authors wind up writing very shallow characterization when they write those AUs. An AU that changes the events, whether or not the setting changes, demands that the author put more work into defining just what they identify as a character's core traits. Not everyone does the work, and when they don't it's a hot mess, but the form encourages it a lot more. There's less leeway, in this type of AU, to let familiar plot stand in for actual characterization.
It's a basic plot-driven versus character-driven divide, I think. I will always be on the character-driven side, and I find most plot-driven writing boring and shallow. (No doubt, plot-driven writers/readers find character-driven writing far too meandering.) And, above and beyond that, I've already seen the canon plot once; I really don't need to see it again. It's more interesting to do something the canon didn't do.
I find that boring.
I much prefer the kind of AU that changes the canon events to see how that will make the characters different. While it's possible to write the changed-setting type of AU and still do good characterization, it is not a form that encourages any such thing; far too many fan-authors wind up writing very shallow characterization when they write those AUs. An AU that changes the events, whether or not the setting changes, demands that the author put more work into defining just what they identify as a character's core traits. Not everyone does the work, and when they don't it's a hot mess, but the form encourages it a lot more. There's less leeway, in this type of AU, to let familiar plot stand in for actual characterization.
It's a basic plot-driven versus character-driven divide, I think. I will always be on the character-driven side, and I find most plot-driven writing boring and shallow. (No doubt, plot-driven writers/readers find character-driven writing far too meandering.) And, above and beyond that, I've already seen the canon plot once; I really don't need to see it again. It's more interesting to do something the canon didn't do.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-13 12:54 am (UTC)Oh goodness yes, and it drives me /nuts/. The worst part is that a lot of fan-artists are complicit with it, because it seems to offer a sort of acceptance by the "professional" writers, and they don't see how offensively patronizing and just plain wrong the whole concept usually is. I've written several journal-essays on how different the skill-set is, between writing origi-fic and fanfic. Neither is "training wheels" for the other, and an origi-author trying to write fic will be right back at square one (as has been demonstrated on many lamentable occasions).
no subject
Date: 2011-09-13 03:26 am (UTC)And thank you (some people in my circle did that to me lately is why I came to you...). I probably bought into that more when I was younger. I do think if I did origi-fic the fanfic would help in terms of both craft and inspiration, but casting work that matters to me as just "training wheels" implies debility on my part and means-to-an-end on the art's part, and that's a whole different kettle of fish, insinuating that my work isn't worthy of respect until/unless it's normative or salable.