![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I do think that, in the final analysis, all a writer really has to give is the stuff that only she or he can give the world and no-one else can. That the sooner you sound like you and tell the stories only you can tell, for good or for ill, the better. And from that point of view, I suppose I think of fan-fiction as training wheels. Sooner or later you have to take them off the bike and start wobbling down the street on your own.
--Neil Gaiman, from his online journal
During my past two years as a slash writer, I've had a number of friends and family try to tell me this same thing, and after putting quite a bit of thought into it I have to say that I reject the entire premise. The slash stories that I write are stories that only I can tell; the characters may be universal--at least to the audience for whom I'm writing--but my interpretation of the characters and the situations I place them in are purely mine. Are coauthors of a novel or, to consider a greater extreme, scriptwriters for TV programs stifling their vision because their works are collaborative? For that matter, are Shakespeare's historical plays any less the "stuff that only...he can give the world" than his comedies? Should we consider King Lear primarily as a derivative work, based on an oft-told fairy tale, or do we instead value it as one of the most brilliant and masterful works of English literature?
Yes, fanfiction can be a crutch. It can be far easier to write stories that resonate with readers when they already feel an emotional connection to the characters you're using. I'm grateful for this--I think it's one of the reasons that the proportion of good to bad slash is often higher than that of good to bad published fiction, and I know it's one of the reasons that I can write slash stories of which I'm proud. But where is it stated that struggle is a necessary part of the process of writing good fiction?
Judging each author and each story on its own merits, I think most slashers would feel as I do: in addition to all the merely competent and good and even excellent slash writers, there are some who are surpassingly brilliant and on par with the most celebrated of published authors. And as for the rest of us...we may not be the Michael Ondaatjes or the Zadie Smiths of the slash world, but that doesn't make our contributions meaningless. We're still sharing our unique perspectives with the world and telling the stories that only we can tell. The only difference I can see between slash and original fiction is that when I write slash, the world will actually choose to read it.
During my past two years as a slash writer, I've had a number of friends and family try to tell me this same thing, and after putting quite a bit of thought into it I have to say that I reject the entire premise. The slash stories that I write are stories that only I can tell; the characters may be universal--at least to the audience for whom I'm writing--but my interpretation of the characters and the situations I place them in are purely mine. Are coauthors of a novel or, to consider a greater extreme, scriptwriters for TV programs stifling their vision because their works are collaborative? For that matter, are Shakespeare's historical plays any less the "stuff that only...he can give the world" than his comedies? Should we consider King Lear primarily as a derivative work, based on an oft-told fairy tale, or do we instead value it as one of the most brilliant and masterful works of English literature?
Yes, fanfiction can be a crutch. It can be far easier to write stories that resonate with readers when they already feel an emotional connection to the characters you're using. I'm grateful for this--I think it's one of the reasons that the proportion of good to bad slash is often higher than that of good to bad published fiction, and I know it's one of the reasons that I can write slash stories of which I'm proud. But where is it stated that struggle is a necessary part of the process of writing good fiction?
Judging each author and each story on its own merits, I think most slashers would feel as I do: in addition to all the merely competent and good and even excellent slash writers, there are some who are surpassingly brilliant and on par with the most celebrated of published authors. And as for the rest of us...we may not be the Michael Ondaatjes or the Zadie Smiths of the slash world, but that doesn't make our contributions meaningless. We're still sharing our unique perspectives with the world and telling the stories that only we can tell. The only difference I can see between slash and original fiction is that when I write slash, the world will actually choose to read it.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Regardless of authorial intent or the relative difficulty of the writing process, though, I think that because fanfiction draws on already developed characters, it can be easier for the reader to find them sympathetic. In original fiction, the author has to not only describe a character and its actions, but to facilitate an emotional bond between the reader and the character. In fanfiction, by contrast, all an author has to do is suggest a certain character strongly enough to connect it with the image of that charecter that the reader already has.
For good writers, this distinction merely results in, as you said, differing writing techniques. For less competent writers, though, it means that lapses in characterization aren't as damning because the reader sees the character not as incomplete or contradictory, but rather as a variation of some uber-character in the reader's mind.
From:
no subject
I'm not sure this is always the case. There's clearly some line in the sand (which is probably different for every reader) as to what's acceptable unexplained variation and what isn't. When you get into explained variation- say Wax's story where Justin is totally different from the "fanon" Justin as a result of his kidnapping ordeal- I think for at least some percentage of the readership, facilitating that emotional bond between the reader and your new version of the character is actually more difficult than if you'd just created a character from scratch, because of the way readers feel protective of characters. (Particularly the case, I suspect, with readers who've read a lot in the fandom and are thus a bit jaded and less patient than someone newer might be.)
There's also the whole process of assimilating those existing characters into your vocabulary, if you will, so that you *can* write with them. That's a skill which isn't really needed when you're a solo original fiction writer. I suppose many original fiction writers would therefore devalue it, but I know I'm impressed by writers who manage to get it bang on target. :) (I can't write fictional people slash, with a handful of exceptions, because I never feel like my grip on the characters is strong enough to do them justice. So people who can do it confidently and well impress me. :)
Excuse me if I'm not being clear enough with my points, btw. It's 7am and I'm long out of the habit of structuring written arguements neatly. I think I need to go back to university.
From:
no subject
That's a really good point. I'd never considered that before, and it makes a lot of sense.
I suppose I might just be a really undiscriminating reader; most fanfic characterizations work for me on some level because they somehow reference the primary characters as I see them, even if that reference is drawn incompletely or incompentently. It's a similar situation to truly execrable episodes of a TV program; I can view the writing objectively as bad and out-of-character, but I still feel for the characters because of the associations they produce in me--despite the fact that they might be acting nothing like themselves for the duration of that episode.
There's also the whole process of assimilating those existing characters into your vocabulary, if you will, so that you *can* write with them...(I can't write fictional people slash, with a handful of exceptions, because I never feel like my grip on the characters is strong enough to do them justice. So people who can do it confidently and well impress me. :)
I agree that really good fanfic characterization is a talent and an art. But even less talented writers can suggest the characters to a reader's mind. The sketched outline of each character in their stories might be sufficient for the barest of frameworks in original fic, but because of the associations with more developed representations of the character in other stories in that fandom, the reader's sympathies can be evoked. It's part of what makes the whole phenomenon of short-shorts and drabbles work so well in fanfiction--or, to cite a really extreme example, the fourteen and five word fanfics. The groundwork of characterization has already been set in fanfiction; so long as an author doesn't drop the ball too badly, her rendition of the characters is likely to be met with some level of acceptance and assimilated into the reader's view of those characters.
Excuse me if I'm not being clear enough with my points, btw. It's 7am and I'm long out of the habit of structuring written arguements neatly. I think I need to go back to university.
Not at all. I was thinking the same thing about myself, actually--as witness the fact that it took me a couple of days to formulate this response, and I'm not entirely sure how coherent it's ended up being.