(no subject)

[devinwolfi]

Hi all! I wrote a meta regarding characterization and voice in fic, using the series Ted Lasso as my primary example. By no means is it a fandom specific meta, I think it applies to loads of other fandoms and all sorts of characters. I've posted it here on my personal journal, but I'll include the sort of internal abstract and another snippet down below-

What I want to talk about here is my feelings on, as you can see from the title, characterization and voice. Characterization is fairly obvious. How these characters are written, both in the source material and by fans, and how these two compare. Voice pulls back a little bit, it refers to the voice of the character, which is part of the characterization, but also the voice of the writer, and the balance between the two. I have opinions about it that I recognize are not shared by everyone. There is plenty of good fic out there that treats voice differently than I would, or than I would prefer to read. This does not make them incorrect, or poorly written, it is just a matter of taste, style, and training.

Two things often happen to our friend Jamie. First, they underwrite him. Homogenize him, making him just vaguely English enough to pass, I guess. Though I see this most often in conjunction with other characters, who have their own distinctive speech patterns. All of them rendered down into a pile of identical and vaguely British-sounding pieces of wood. The second, they overwrite him. They use slang excessively. Which isn’t wrong per se, but the key point is you must know what it means, and the context in which to use it.

Comments

[zenigotchas]

So I did read it twice, just to make sure I was seeing what I thought I was seeing, you picked a good topic that can generate a lot of discussion about writing techniques, hell I remembered one technique in particular when I read the abstract.

Still I... I really don't even know how to word this without risking coming off as a jackass and my comment isn't meant to be some sort of criticism of your writing or character. I don't really know how to explain, other than that I think it's important that when using other people's work as examples of something done poorly, especially without their permission, tact is important. Because I have to be honest, if someone reposted some of my own writing or art and described their reaction to it as something that:

makes [you] physically recoil every time [you] think about it.

I would be really embarrassed, hurt and more hesitant to post stuff publicly.

In general, certain parts of the writing felt.... Condescending and alienating, speaking for myself. Like just the way certain advice was explained. But most of all, was something said at the start:

Fandom used to be dominated by White, professional, educated, middle-class women. Thanks to the advent of social media and globalization, fandom is more diverse and accessible than ever. This means that many of the people who are creating and engaging with fan content are not necessarily trained in writing, fiction or otherwise.

I'm not middle class and have been dirt poor my entire life. I do not like the idea that if a fanfic is badly written that we can assume it was because of the author being lower class or otherwise not fitting into those other categories as well. I also don't like the "educated" part of your description. It's definitely fucking hard to get an education if certain things are barring you like class status, but not impossible. I feel the opposite, if anything, the internet has given a lot to people who are otherwise very talented and skilled but may not have the cash or connections to share their work or get any sort of education to improve it.

I believe we have to be comfortable making certain allowances for the sake of reading about the blorbos from our shows.

I agree we should be kind to people who are still finding their footing with creative work! Art is hard because it takes a lot of practicing, balancing taking criticism while still standing by your ideas, and research. But it's never hard because you aren't a "White, professional, educated, middle-class woman." I'd feel sad if someone said they wanted to give me some leeway just because I'm poor, as if it means I'm just inherently not good at creative stuff and never will be.

I really really want to emphasize that I'm not trying to assume anything awful about you. I can tell you mean well since a. you posted this to spark discussion and b. reiterate many times it's just your opinion and people should write what makes them happy.

I just couldn't NOT say something about it, because the truth is, those parts in particular did offend me.

[devinwolfi]

Hi! I appreciate that you took the time to read my piece and share your response. I'm always happy to discuss fandom and fanwork and I think you make a lot of interesting points here. And the thing is that I agree with the sentiment of all of them- so I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I don't want to come across as though I'm trying to defend myself, because I don't really think I have anything that needs defending. I used about three words total, all completely free of context, from two other writers, and only referred to a third one. I kept things intentionally vague as to avoid the exact issue of making anyone feel singled out. Plus if it helps, I was corrected by a Mancunian regarding "well mint" almost immediately on another site.

When I say "fandom used to be predominated," nowhere in that do I disallow for anyone who doesn't fit that profile in historical or modern fandom. I was making a statistical observation based on my own research into fandom and internet history. I was not drawing class distinctions relative to quality of fanwork but rather referring to the historical use of internet and computers in the home and at work. In the early days of fandom many people didn't have personal computers in their homes, access to internet, nor the means to go to conventions. Not many people were tech savvy enough to use computers as a type of downtime activity. To afford a computer, know how to use it, and have enough free time to engage with both media and online fan spaces required incredible privilege. Privilege that was held often by professional, educated, White women. This doesn't mean that people who weren't one or more of those things couldn't engage in fandom, or couldn't create and distribute high quality fanwork. I never said that. Nor did I say that people can't write well "just because [they're] poor." I admit I'm having trouble figuring out how what I said sounded like that. If you're still curious about some of the constraints of 80s and 90s fandom participation, a very good paper can be found for free on ResearchGate here.

I was being genuine when I said "thanks to social media..." I believe in the accessibility of fandom. I don't want to hear stories by a small group of people who mostly share similar backgrounds and lifestyles. Echo chambers are how all communal spaces, fan or otherwise, die. That's boring. I love that online spaces are accessible. I agree that the modern internet has given space to so many incredible talents who may not have been creating or sharing work without it. I agree that education is hard to access. The only reason I have it is because my parents and myself are all so far below the poverty line that I qualify for financial aid. I shouldn't have to share that online but I fear you think I'm looking down from some tower of incredible class and/or financial privilege, but I'm not, at least not in that way. I was making a statistical observation. The internet is incredibly accessible these days, which is great. So the range of people who are able to use it is a lot greater, not just those who are training in writing/technical communication for a job or higher education. As a result, many people online haven't developed the technical skills of writing, regardless of class. Plenty of people, such as those who are naturalized netizens, raised on app-based social media and short form content from having the newest model smartphone every year since before they hit puberty, are equally likely to fit in this group. This is not a bad thing. I never meant to imply that I thought this was a bad thing.

Feel free to reach out again if you'd like to talk more! ^^

(and i'm sorry to the owner of this comm if you see this comment twice)

[china_shop]

When I say "fandom used to be predominated," nowhere in that do I disallow for anyone who doesn't fit that profile in historical or modern fandom. I was making a statistical observation based on my own research into fandom and internet history. I was not drawing class distinctions relative to quality of fanwork but rather referring to the historical use of internet and computers in the home and at work.

Except that you immediately went on to say that since the demographics of online fandom have changed, now we have to "mak[e] certain allowances", which sounds a lot like you're drawing a line between diversity/inclusion and a perceived dip in quality.

So yeah, I agree with zenigotchas about that paragraph of your essay. It really doesn't come across great.

[devinwolfi]

I see where you're coming from, I think- I group diversity and accessibility in the same sentence and immediately present a hypothetical down-side to the accessibility (as in the general ease with which people access the internet), which I grouped with diversity. So I get where the trip-up is happening. I can admit that grouping of words is a fumble on my part that dilutes the meaning of the statement. What I meant was, due to the accessibility of fandom, in the modern world of rapid turnover content creation, quantity over quality, people who have not taken the time to invest personally, academically, or professionally in writing as a technical skill are all out there writing and posting fic. Kids are writing fic. People who haven't otherwise read or written much are writing fic. Those are the allowances I am talking about. Allowances for investment of time.

So, yes. It's a fair criticism that happens to give further evidence in support of the post's thesis. My presentation was faulty, a technical misstep, and my argument suffered as a whole for it. The same can be said of fic or other writing that isn't technically, tonally, or thematically sound; the writer's ability to engage and convince a reader is lost. This is as true for character writing as it is for argumentative writing. Did I goof it a little? Yeah. Oops, my bad. Can I use this to become more aware of how I use and connect words in the future? Sure. Which is the core of the meta- figure out what you mean to say and learn to say it effectively, and be aware of and critical of when you don't. The rest ought to be gravy.

However, if the issue is that I'm insinuating that some fics can be Bad, which yeah. I am. Because anything can be bad. Books, fic, movies, songs, poems, paintings, jokes can all be bad. It's fine. It doesn't matter in all actuality. They still have value. There is value, always, in the act of making. Learning to make well, and the missteps that happen along the way is something of value, something to be celebrated and enjoyed and appreciated.

I appreciate your reply, it allowed me to engage more critically with my own work. Thank you!

[zenigotchas]

I can tell you put a lot of effort into researching these topics, but I still feel the way I did before. I don't feel like continuing this though since I wasn't trying to cause a fight or convince you of anything, I just wanted to say what I thought and I'm happy leaving it there (you CAN respond to this but after this response I'm not gonna reply).