and about uses of fic
Feb. 18th, 2005 01:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootWhile I'm thinking about the functions of fic, here's something I've been playing with for a while.
So, having already covered that I think of stories primarily as acts of communication, let's ramble about what other functions they can fill.
Fic does not function as a commercial product, which is why we don't all immediately get sued out of our socks, so let's set that aside.
I tend to divide fic, loosely and not exclusively, into two categories: stories that are stories, and stories that are not stories. It seems to me that a great deal of angst, drama, flames and wanking arise from people confusing the two.
Stories that are stories: these are what people mean when they talk about caring for the art and craft of writing. These are the stories presented to convey something about the characters in question, commentaries on yet another story that serves as source text. Generally some effort is made to stay congruent with the source text.
Stories that are not stories: these make no attempt to interpret the source text, rather they function purely as shibboleths. These are gestures of community, presented to convey the writer's interest in belonging. Generally, they include only enough reference to the source text to distinguish, say, Naruto from Fushigi Yuugi. At least half the fics posted at ff.net fall into this category.
This is why I never have and never will offer critique of the stories in that archive, or any other story that gives evidence of being a STANS. Since no value is placed on congruence with the source text, or with either conventional or experimental storytelling technique, there is no point in even mentioning them. Failures in those areas can't be considered actual failures, because they were never a concern in the first place. Hence, any criticism leveled against a STANS can only be read as a personal criticism of the writer, and of her wish to belong. This is, as most STANS writers will readily point out, extremely cruel. It is only reasonable that a STANS writer wishes for purely positive 'feedback'; anything else is a personal rejection. By the same token, the laudatory replies these posts recieve have no contact at all with 'the art and craft of writing'. Rather, they are gestures of welcome, as oblique as the original gesture.
Now, in their own way, STAS also function as gestures of community, but the community in which they participate is one which does place value on the techniques of storytelling, of metaphor, of interpretation, and, of course, of grammar. So the gesture required for participation must contain good evidence of these things or face exclusion.
The problems seem to arise when the two categories are confused. An author writes STAS, but, when she is criticized for some part of her technique, insists that she only writes for the fun of it and the criticizer is cruel to make such a personal attack. Another author writes STANS, gathers the usual gestures of welcome, and then, when criticized by the STAS ruler, points to the positive 'reviews' as evidence that she does, in fact, have good technique.
This is what makes me wary of offering any technical critique at all, even when requested. "Review" has very different meanings in the STAS and STANS communities. I will venture critique only at the request of an author I know well enough to have some confidence that we are occupying the same communal space, and speaking more or less the same language. Anything else simply invites explosions, particularly considering that many writers don't seem to be very sure in their own minds just what kind of writing they are attempting.
Which rather puts paid to any dream of cleanly separating the communities and letting them commune happily with their own kind. But, hey, where would be the fun in a life without uncertainty? Besides, there are far too many evangelical STAS proselytizers, who insist that any story presented in fandom should be STAS. They'd never leave the STANS writers in peace. And the STANS writers, typically being young and/or inexperienced, would wanter into STAS territory and be traumatized, and there we'd all be again with the explosions.
Once again: wank is inevitable.
So, having already covered that I think of stories primarily as acts of communication, let's ramble about what other functions they can fill.
Fic does not function as a commercial product, which is why we don't all immediately get sued out of our socks, so let's set that aside.
I tend to divide fic, loosely and not exclusively, into two categories: stories that are stories, and stories that are not stories. It seems to me that a great deal of angst, drama, flames and wanking arise from people confusing the two.
Stories that are stories: these are what people mean when they talk about caring for the art and craft of writing. These are the stories presented to convey something about the characters in question, commentaries on yet another story that serves as source text. Generally some effort is made to stay congruent with the source text.
Stories that are not stories: these make no attempt to interpret the source text, rather they function purely as shibboleths. These are gestures of community, presented to convey the writer's interest in belonging. Generally, they include only enough reference to the source text to distinguish, say, Naruto from Fushigi Yuugi. At least half the fics posted at ff.net fall into this category.
This is why I never have and never will offer critique of the stories in that archive, or any other story that gives evidence of being a STANS. Since no value is placed on congruence with the source text, or with either conventional or experimental storytelling technique, there is no point in even mentioning them. Failures in those areas can't be considered actual failures, because they were never a concern in the first place. Hence, any criticism leveled against a STANS can only be read as a personal criticism of the writer, and of her wish to belong. This is, as most STANS writers will readily point out, extremely cruel. It is only reasonable that a STANS writer wishes for purely positive 'feedback'; anything else is a personal rejection. By the same token, the laudatory replies these posts recieve have no contact at all with 'the art and craft of writing'. Rather, they are gestures of welcome, as oblique as the original gesture.
Now, in their own way, STAS also function as gestures of community, but the community in which they participate is one which does place value on the techniques of storytelling, of metaphor, of interpretation, and, of course, of grammar. So the gesture required for participation must contain good evidence of these things or face exclusion.
The problems seem to arise when the two categories are confused. An author writes STAS, but, when she is criticized for some part of her technique, insists that she only writes for the fun of it and the criticizer is cruel to make such a personal attack. Another author writes STANS, gathers the usual gestures of welcome, and then, when criticized by the STAS ruler, points to the positive 'reviews' as evidence that she does, in fact, have good technique.
This is what makes me wary of offering any technical critique at all, even when requested. "Review" has very different meanings in the STAS and STANS communities. I will venture critique only at the request of an author I know well enough to have some confidence that we are occupying the same communal space, and speaking more or less the same language. Anything else simply invites explosions, particularly considering that many writers don't seem to be very sure in their own minds just what kind of writing they are attempting.
Which rather puts paid to any dream of cleanly separating the communities and letting them commune happily with their own kind. But, hey, where would be the fun in a life without uncertainty? Besides, there are far too many evangelical STAS proselytizers, who insist that any story presented in fandom should be STAS. They'd never leave the STANS writers in peace. And the STANS writers, typically being young and/or inexperienced, would wanter into STAS territory and be traumatized, and there we'd all be again with the explosions.
Once again: wank is inevitable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 01:16 pm (UTC)Traumatized, though. I've seen a number of STANS writers who tend to flame right back whenever criticized. Some of those STANS/STAS discussions were partly interesting and partly scary. The energy of those people... ^__~
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 01:50 pm (UTC)People who take joy in jumping all over young writers who don't have the confidence to tell them where to stick it, yet, are not valid criticizers. They are predators. Or, more accurately, parasites. Personally, I think they deserve to get flamed into next week, and am rather amused when some STANS writer does so. It is kind of scary, though, watching the mob mentality of the conflagration sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 03:11 pm (UTC)Or maybe two things that everyone has in different proportions. Hmm. (I'm not being too articulate today.) Because I find that even though we're meant to want to improve our writing and to invite thoughtful criticism, nobody ever offers it. It's just Not Done. And when it is, feelings get hurt and kerfuffles start.
wank is inevitable
Death, taxes, wank, and spam, baby. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 03:38 pm (UTC)I do wonder whether STAS writers might have better luck using the writing circle model--a group of people you know don't just want to do you down whose accumen you trust. Like ... Betas Lite.
Death, taxes, wank, and spam, baby.
*laughing* Ain't that the truth.