Canonicity and the Nature of Fic
Nov. 22nd, 2003 02:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootYou know, I’m right alongside the critics who bemoan all the fic in which the sole and single resemblance between the fic character and canon character is name and possibly coloring. Or, at least, I’m right alongside the idea that this kind of fic should be clearly labled so I can avoid it. But I also see the same people pushing for total canonicity, which I really think is missing the point of fanfic itself.
My observation is that fic proliferates most vigorously in stories with lots of holes to be filled in and lots of contradictions to be reconciled. Rationalizing the disjunctures is practically the job description of a fan. Who but a fan could have come up with an explanation for “photon torpedos” (what’s it going to do, overexpose the enemy?), or the infamous “twelve parsecs”. It’s the slippages that make stories ficcable. The more incongruencies, the more fic possibilities in order to explain them (eg Harry Potter). Stories that are whole in themselves are infinitely harder to write more about (eg Cowboy Bebop).
When there are a lot of holes and inconsistencies, there are also a lot of different ways to reconcile them. The premise that a fic author choses to use in explaining why seemingly senseless things could, in fact, work in a plausible way are usually pretty individual to the author in question. I rather think this is why so many older ficcers lean toward the “Slytherin apologia” even though Rowling herself has somewhat rebuked that tendency. A little kid generally accepts that the bad guys are the bad guys and doesn’t need epistemological maps drawn for why they’re there; they’re there to be the bad guys. Older readers find themselves wondering why the hell Hogwarts would have tolerated the presence of the house if everyone in it really is evil and all the dark wizards come out of it. They need to explain what’s really going on. And you can’t do that canonically. Because if you could, then the hole wouldn’t be there to be filled in.
So, while I’m all about accurate meta-data, I’m also inclined not to throw stones at other people’s character interpretations, even when I think they’re so full of it they need a laxative. I’m happy to throw stones at bad writing, but “bad fic”…
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” –Inigo Montoya
My observation is that fic proliferates most vigorously in stories with lots of holes to be filled in and lots of contradictions to be reconciled. Rationalizing the disjunctures is practically the job description of a fan. Who but a fan could have come up with an explanation for “photon torpedos” (what’s it going to do, overexpose the enemy?), or the infamous “twelve parsecs”. It’s the slippages that make stories ficcable. The more incongruencies, the more fic possibilities in order to explain them (eg Harry Potter). Stories that are whole in themselves are infinitely harder to write more about (eg Cowboy Bebop).
When there are a lot of holes and inconsistencies, there are also a lot of different ways to reconcile them. The premise that a fic author choses to use in explaining why seemingly senseless things could, in fact, work in a plausible way are usually pretty individual to the author in question. I rather think this is why so many older ficcers lean toward the “Slytherin apologia” even though Rowling herself has somewhat rebuked that tendency. A little kid generally accepts that the bad guys are the bad guys and doesn’t need epistemological maps drawn for why they’re there; they’re there to be the bad guys. Older readers find themselves wondering why the hell Hogwarts would have tolerated the presence of the house if everyone in it really is evil and all the dark wizards come out of it. They need to explain what’s really going on. And you can’t do that canonically. Because if you could, then the hole wouldn’t be there to be filled in.
So, while I’m all about accurate meta-data, I’m also inclined not to throw stones at other people’s character interpretations, even when I think they’re so full of it they need a laxative. I’m happy to throw stones at bad writing, but “bad fic”…
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means” –Inigo Montoya
