|
|
Someone wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank, |
mary sue go home
I'm not sure how applicable fanfic standards are to original fiction, specifically in the case of Mary-Sue/ Gary-Stu. As far as I understand it, fan fiction is a form, or school of writing, which has evolved specific criteria in the same way magical realism, or say, impressionist painting has. It has a history and de facto standards have evolved, with some common goals and many, many ideological wars being fought over the validity, or even in some memorable cases the existence, of these goals.
The definition of fan fiction can be the easiest and hardest thing to pin down. There seem to be two main opposing positions to approach it from. The first is authorial intent--author A is a fan of this media, and therefore the fiction that she writes that is specifically inspired by that media (whatever that might be) is fan fiction. The second is audience experience--reader B is a fan of this media and the fiction she is reading is an extension of the media she is a fan of.
(And then it gets messy, because reader B doesn't see author A's inspiration, only her product, so it seems to be a meeting in the middle: fan fiction is something that can be recognised by both parties. But once you've entered fandom, fan fiction isn't just about the show any more, it's about fandom too. So Angel and Spike can be racecar drivers and it can be fan fiction, not of Angel: the series but of Angel: the fandom.)
Anyway, what are the pillars of the fanfic way of writing?
One: it must evoke a existing media, in language, philosophy, structure (monster of the week, frex) and/or environment and by environment I mean Sunnydale/ vampires/ wizards or whatever-the universe that the stories live in.
Two: it must imitate (though it is free to explore) the social order of that universe. So though Xander may be the main character of the fic, he cannot be the center of the universe (because Buffy has her name in the title); this is related to:
Three: it must be, essentially, a performance, a reproduction, an act. You must speak someone else's lines and mean it, and the no-one's given you the script, and all you have to go on is your experience as a member of the audience in the first half of the play.
It's a very specialised form of writing; it's one I can't do; it's a specialised and difficult art form. I respect it and am fascinated by it.
But it is very different to original writing and I think it is a mistake to apply the specialised standards of one form to another. Mary Sue is not welcome in fan fiction, because the point of fan fiction is recreate and expand on an extant text, not to create a text and not to warp a world around an author.
Each original piece of writing creates a world that is all about the author, whether it be a magical world or a version of the real one. It is a deeply individual and personal expression, and that's one of the things that is *good* about it. I'm trying to politely rephrase what I said on IM, but I can't think of a more accurate description of my opinion on this. So to paraphrase: levelling the accusation of Mary-Sue at heroes of original fiction is silly, and to me it sound like one is so subsumed in fandom one has forgotten that individual expression is not automatically bad and that originality is not against the law. To me, it seems like reading prose and complaining that it doesn't rhyme. It's a different discipline; it requires a different critical criteria.
That is not to say that Anne Rice's characterisation may not be inconsistent, simply that there are different reasons for this being a Bad Thing. I've not read this book; I don't intend to, so I have nothing to say about the specific content of her book. I'm just sayin', Mary-Sue? Not applicable. Overwrought, tawdry norotica that gives genre novels a bad name? Applicable.
But as for her displaying all the qualities of someone who has disappeared so far up her own arse all that come out of her mouth is shit? Wank on my friends. BNF, celebrity, Nobel prize winner: when the behaviour is the same, the critical criteria must be also.
*explodes in an orgasm of wankish glory*
I'm not sure how applicable fanfic standards are to original fiction, specifically in the case of Mary-Sue/ Gary-Stu. As far as I understand it, fan fiction is a form, or school of writing, which has evolved specific criteria in the same way magical realism, or say, impressionist painting has. It has a history and de facto standards have evolved, with some common goals and many, many ideological wars being fought over the validity, or even in some memorable cases the existence, of these goals.
The definition of fan fiction can be the easiest and hardest thing to pin down. There seem to be two main opposing positions to approach it from. The first is authorial intent--author A is a fan of this media, and therefore the fiction that she writes that is specifically inspired by that media (whatever that might be) is fan fiction. The second is audience experience--reader B is a fan of this media and the fiction she is reading is an extension of the media she is a fan of.
(And then it gets messy, because reader B doesn't see author A's inspiration, only her product, so it seems to be a meeting in the middle: fan fiction is something that can be recognised by both parties. But once you've entered fandom, fan fiction isn't just about the show any more, it's about fandom too. So Angel and Spike can be racecar drivers and it can be fan fiction, not of Angel: the series but of Angel: the fandom.)
Anyway, what are the pillars of the fanfic way of writing?
One: it must evoke a existing media, in language, philosophy, structure (monster of the week, frex) and/or environment and by environment I mean Sunnydale/ vampires/ wizards or whatever-the universe that the stories live in.
Two: it must imitate (though it is free to explore) the social order of that universe. So though Xander may be the main character of the fic, he cannot be the center of the universe (because Buffy has her name in the title); this is related to:
Three: it must be, essentially, a performance, a reproduction, an act. You must speak someone else's lines and mean it, and the no-one's given you the script, and all you have to go on is your experience as a member of the audience in the first half of the play.
It's a very specialised form of writing; it's one I can't do; it's a specialised and difficult art form. I respect it and am fascinated by it.
But it is very different to original writing and I think it is a mistake to apply the specialised standards of one form to another. Mary Sue is not welcome in fan fiction, because the point of fan fiction is recreate and expand on an extant text, not to create a text and not to warp a world around an author.
Each original piece of writing creates a world that is all about the author, whether it be a magical world or a version of the real one. It is a deeply individual and personal expression, and that's one of the things that is *good* about it. I'm trying to politely rephrase what I said on IM, but I can't think of a more accurate description of my opinion on this. So to paraphrase: levelling the accusation of Mary-Sue at heroes of original fiction is silly, and to me it sound like one is so subsumed in fandom one has forgotten that individual expression is not automatically bad and that originality is not against the law. To me, it seems like reading prose and complaining that it doesn't rhyme. It's a different discipline; it requires a different critical criteria.
That is not to say that Anne Rice's characterisation may not be inconsistent, simply that there are different reasons for this being a Bad Thing. I've not read this book; I don't intend to, so I have nothing to say about the specific content of her book. I'm just sayin', Mary-Sue? Not applicable. Overwrought, tawdry norotica that gives genre novels a bad name? Applicable.
But as for her displaying all the qualities of someone who has disappeared so far up her own arse all that come out of her mouth is shit? Wank on my friends. BNF, celebrity, Nobel prize winner: when the behaviour is the same, the critical criteria must be also.
*explodes in an orgasm of wankish glory*
Post a comment in response:
