A fictional post

[hazelk]

Not being much of a fic person I haven’t really weighed in on the whole FanLib thing but this response by the CEO to criticism hosted in Henry Jenkins’s blog was interesting. It does sound as if rather than hoping to become the fanfic equivalent of YouTube what FanLib are attempting to create is more the fictive counterpart to American Idol with the web site playing the role of the early ‘freak show’ rounds of the contest. Given the current popularity of all manner of talent shows it may well end up being successful on its own terms but be no more or less likely than the TV versions to discover writers/stories with real star quality.

The whole thing does seem to presuppose that fanfic writers have essentially the same motivations as Idol contestants, individual celebrity, fame and fortune. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but writers on LJ don’t give the impression of being there primarily for the competition.

We are pattern-finding and story-telling animals. It’s what we do. We take the real world and turn it into narratives and symbols so our brains can manipulate them more easily.
http://subterraneanpress.com/index.php/magazine/summer-2007/column-bears-examining-4-by-elizabeth-bear/

I don’t write stories in my head to any great extent, I find patterns and chop them into ever finer messes but for those to whom stories come naturally it makes sense that fanfic would be both a way to ‘talk’ about them or function as a form of narrative jamming, taking a storyline for a walk as it were.

Speaking of fanfic but more specifically (and based on a sample size of two) does anyone get the impression that fic!Buffy is a more womanly woman than she was on the show? Emotionally intelligent but otherwise not that bright? Joss’s Buffy can have a hard, quite abstract edge to her thinking. Her first line in the first comic has her philosophising about the world not individual inhabitants of it and she’s as capable as Giles or Wesley of understanding the big picture, that there may only be bad choices that Willow may still be evil. The main difference between her and the Watchers is where she draws the line between a necessary evil and a convenient one.

Comments

[yourlibrarian]

Emotionally intelligent but otherwise not that bright?

I always thought that SMG brought more intelligence to Buffy than had originally been intended and eventually it became part of the character. Though one thing that always bugged me in the show was her SAT scores. I thought it not only unlikely she'd do that well, but it seemed unnecessary. And I also had a bit of a problem with the notion that because she had scored so well she had her whole future open to her, as if doing less well wouldn't have still left her many possibilities. There was just something very classist about it.

[owenthurman.livejournal.com]

I agree with all that.

There was some need for Buffy to be smarter than she was in the movie just to keep up with the weekly verbal gymnastics of the teevee series.

Around 1996 the ETS added about 100 points on average to SAT scores, so if you remember scores from before then, you need to add 100 points to compare to the scores at Sunnydale High in 1998.

Nevertheless 1430 is very, very high. Maybe number two pencil oval filling is a little-known slayer power.

Even in the minutes we see at Hemery TV Buffy was a clever queen bee more than an empathetic caretaker type. I don't think that is any less "womanly;" I know a lot of women like that and a lot more who aspire to it.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I think Joss has said as much about SMG’s influence on the character but wherever the trait came from originally, it was incorporated from very early on, even in Witch it’s Buffy who figures out the body switch.

SAT scores are a bit of a mystery to me, we don’t have equivalent standardised tests in the UK. For Americans applying to us we pretty much ignore the SATs and base entry almost entirely on AP grades. However it does strike me (and from a recent conversation with shadowkat) that Buffy and Cordelia’s scores may have been intended as a gentle poke at the system. Buffy does have the kind of intelligence that might let her do freakily well at multiple choice. She‘s quick thinking and performs well under pressure, she doesn’t panic. I think one of the problems with these types of test is that they largely assess the ability to read the question accurately and recognise information when prompted (as opposed to being able to recall/analyse stuff freehand). I could imagine someone like Buffy passively soaking up a lot of the necessary information while not paying attention in class.

There was just something very classist about it.
Is it really classist to hint that a middle class person with a college degree would have opportunities that a middle class person without one (other things being equal) would not? It’s not a judgment of personal worth but implicitly a criticism of how society is organised, one the problems with a class system being that lower class people have fewer opportunities and less prestige attached to those they do have.

[yourlibrarian]

What about your A levels and O levels, how do those work? I know in Brasil they have the vestibular, a type of national test where your scores determine what schools you enter but once there tuition is free. Here getting into a school is only part of the problem.

Having gone through both the SAT and GRE I can assure you passive absorption and good guessing is not enough to get a score of that sort. Cordelia's scores didn't surprise me. She was very focused and driven to achieve and certainly had more time to spend on her studies than Buffy did. What annoyed me so much about that is it seemed to be Mary Sue-ing Buffy. She not only was the Slayer and skilled in ways her friends were not, but that score marked her as almost as smart as Willow school-wise. It just seemed unnecessary.

And the classist issue came from the idea that anyone who doesn't get into a top university is somehow just scraping by. Buffy could have gotten an 1100 or 1200 SAT score, or even a 1000 which is considered a minimum at most colleges, and still had many many schools open to her. So my point was that Buffy could still have gone to any of hundreds of colleges with a very average score, not that she couldn't go to college at all without it. You only need a score that high if you're shooting for the Ivy League.

And since the whole point of the episode seemed to be that Buffy had "choices" now and a possible future, there was too much emphasis put on the score. She had already been shown having a hard time getting recommendations, she had no extracurricular activities she could point to, and presumably her GPA wasn't that great. This all meant that the score really wasn't the slam dunk it was portrayed to be. Then again, by watching Veronica Mars it was obvious that a lot of TV writers seem to have no idea how higher ed actually functions.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

A levels (18+) are still called A levels. O levels/CSEs (16+) have been combined to create GCSEs. GCSE have almost no impact on University entrance as long as you pass maths and English. Students normally take 3-4 A levels, which are single subject qualifications (like APs) each with a two year syllabus assessed by a combination of coursework assignments and traditional essay/problem based exams. None that I know of rely on multiple choice tests to any great extent. If Buffy’s scores were putting her within Ivy league reach I guess the English (Scotland does it differently) equivalent would be around AAB but entrance requirements vary a lot between subjects (most degrees are single subject, we don’t have an equivalent of majors/minors).

Joss went to Winchester before going on to Weslyan? He may have picked up the public school ethos that truly brilliant people can get top exam results without doing any work (and therefore being caught working is terribly non-U). All I got from Buffy’s test score was that they were obviously much higher than expected and also high enough that not following up on the advantages they offered would mean throwing away a unique opportunity, the equivalent of a place at Oxford or Cambridge. Anything lower wouldn’t have presented anything like the same dilemma. I suppose that it didn’t come across as making Buffy out to be academically gifted as well as the Slayer reflects my basic scepticism about how good any 18+ exams are assessing ability. I was good at tests, it always felt like some kind of trick.

[yourlibrarian]

Thanks for the explanation. I've heard those terms thrown around for some time and was never clear on what their function was and what achieving one meant! And now I see why the AP classes are looked at for entrance there. At the time I was in high school taking AP courses was a nice plus on the college application but the overall GPA was more important and the AP tests (especially taking a handful of them) was rather costly. They may be considered more important in U.S. college admissions now because grade inflation has made so many transcripts meaningless.

about how good any 18+ exams are assessing ability. I was good at tests, it always felt like some kind of trick.

*g* Maybe you're secretly a Slayer and don't know it. There's truth to the fact that tests measure school abilities and are not necessarily a mark of intelligence per se. But I actually took a Psych course a few years ago with a prof who's a leading researcher on standardized exams. And in general the scores are very valid predictors of achievement in school. They do not, however, predict completion, which is another thing that's a consideration when admitting (especially at the graduate levels). And clearly that was an issue in Buffy's case as well.

[shati.livejournal.com]

Having gone through both the SAT and GRE I can assure you passive absorption and good guessing is not enough to get a score of that sort.

Well, my SAT score was almost exactly Buffy's. With grades and levels of paying-attention-in-class that were probably comparable to hers. So I found her score entirely plausible, especially given the verbal skills being a Joss protagonist gave her.

I assumed the high scores were supposed to get her scholarship money at non-Ivy schools outside California, ones where her grades would be acceptable but not scholarship-worthy. As someone who didn't have the time or inclination to get good grades, or (presumably) the money for out-of-state, I could see the scores being necessary to give her that option. This part might be total fanwanking on my part, though -- I don't doubt that the writers thought SAT scores have a bigger impact on admissions than they do.

[owenthurman.livejournal.com]

Those SAT scores with Buffy's implied grades wouldn't even qualify her for Cal or UCLA much less a good out of state school. But that is because, as you imply, in the USA the grade average is very important and the SAT not very important in university admissions.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I suppose it depends quite how low her grades are implied to be. Or that in a world run by demons SATs have become more important in determining university admission. Because they're evil?

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

more womanly woman = emotionally intelligent but otherwise not that bright ??? *raises eyebrow*

I do think that TV!Buffy is a lot more intelligent than she's often given credit for... she's not as academically gifted as Willow or Giles, but few people are. She's extremely quick-thinking, though - it's a survival trait, when you're fighting for your life and need to spot some feature of your environment that can make the difference. She's also good at seeing the big picture as you say.

On the other hand, I think she underestimates her own intelligence sometimes, and acts like a ditzy blonde as a defence mechanism, or because she doesn't want to think hard about something.

The classic Buffy scene for me would involve her comic mispronunciation of some important word, her getting all pouty about something irrelevent - and then her demonstrating a clear grasp of the strategic situation and coming up with an extremely well-thought out plan that all her friends immediately realise is the best possible solution.

I think a lot of people unfamiliar with the show probably think of it as "a dumb blonde cheerleader who kills vampires"; I'd be surprised if many fans have that misconception. But I suppose Buffy's intelligence isn't as obvious as her other character traits - as compared to Willow where it's probably the most important - so in a fic where she's not the primary character, it's easy to ignore.

[owenthurman.livejournal.com]

her comic mispronunciation of some important word

Of course the mispronunciation will more likely than not reveal extreme verbal fluency. But only if you are paying close attention.

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

True. And if you think about it her other related trait - digressions to ask what a particular word means ("What's a stevedore?") have similar significance. Yes, it shows that her vocabulary doesn't include that particular word - but it also shows that she has the intellectual curiosity to want to expand her vocabulary.

[owenthurman.livejournal.com]

I love it that I made an aside (further above) about Buffy as portrayed by Kristy Swanson and you responded to my comment here with Buffy as portrayed by Eliza Dushku.

My favorite, of course, is our Smidge.

And I agree.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

I should have put scare quotes around “womanly woman,” I meant it in the sense Dorothy Sayers uses it in Gaudy Night.

A “womanly woman” is one who embodies the traits deemed appropriate to her sex by teh patriarchy, which analytical intelligence/hardheadedness are not. The fics I was thinking of are both S/B but not simple romances, they’re ‘good’ fics with themes and subtext and interesting things to say. Buffy is a main POV character in both and although her characterisation in the two differs in many respects in both she is written in a way that readers clearly find sympathetic. It’s an interesting corollary to the idea that much of the criticism of her portrayal in the latter seasons is in response to behaviour (appearing cold and closed off) that in a male hero would be seen as at worst neutral.

On the other hand, I think she underestimates her own intelligence sometimes.
Yes, she certainly doesn't like to think of herself as intellectually gifted, so much of "intelligence" is about confidence.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Interesting bit on Fanlib. The first positive thing I've read online since it popped up. Not being a fanfiction writer - haven't been following that closely.

I'd agree with your assessment. I don't think writers like to compete in the same way singers do. We really don't want to have a spotlight shined on *us* so much as we want a spotlight shined on our *creation*. Otherwise we wouldn't hide behind pseudonymes and alias's now would we?
Or veer away from posting our pictures online. Writing unlike singing, is done alone in front of one's lap-top and is rarely a group activity. Our audience shows up after we've posted the work, not while we are in the act of doing it. It's a *different* process.

I remember reading about a Barry Manilow - who stated that he just liked to write songs and despised performing in public. He didn't want the fame and fortune and spotlight. He wanted his work to be heard and more or less fell into the performing of it.

I think if asked that's how most writers feel. We want the *respect* but not necessarily the idol status. We want our work to be loved. For it to move someone. In American Idol - no one is creating anything. It's performance based. Totally different process.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

That’s interesting to hear a writer’s perspective about feeling separate from the work. I have a baseline assumption I suppose that writing is an incredibly personal thing (which is part of why the idea of it scares me). As a reader I often feel as if what I get most from reading is the ability to see things through the writer’s eyes. I used to read on the bus into work a lot and so often had this feeling of looking up as my stop approached and momentarily having someone else’s voice provide running commentary on what I saw.

I suppose with performance art although it looks as though you’re laying yourself on the line it’s possible to think of singing as a physical ability that people are judging rather than something integral to your personality. Even though the best singers are the ones who can convey much more than technical vocal prowess.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

[I deleted because upon re-reading, wasn't sure I was being clear.]

How to explain this?

I think there is a difference between *performance* art and *non-performance* art. One is not better than the other. They are just different.
And there is equally a difference between someone who likes to *perform* in front of an audience and one who prefers not to see or meet their audience directly. It's in a way the difference between an extrovert and an introvert, although I don't want to use those categorizations since I find them limiting and know there are exceptions.

I've performed my writing in front of others - in that I've read poetry and stories in front of them and it is *very* different than having read my work away from my presence - which as a writer is more likely to happen and I prefer. Not necessarily because I see the work as separate from myself, I know it is an intergral part of me - particularly since I tend to write best when I write about things I *know* and have not had to go research in a library.

In college, I read my own poetry at a coffee house. Did it a lot.
At one of these readings, someone came up to me, asked to read the poem. I showed it to them. Their response was and I'll never forget it: "So odd. The poem isn't very good at all. Sort of silly really. But your performance of it made it seem amazing." (This may be why I identified so much with Bloody William aka Spike - because I had the same exact experience he did reading that Cecily poem in two different venues - it was *how* the poem read. Not the poem that was appreciated.)

When I post something online or send a story - I'm not present at the reading of it. I do not see the response. They are not evaluating my voice, body language, facial features, or what I look like. I am not *performing* the piece. They are merely looking at my words on the page and hearing their own voice or what they may imagine mine to be reading them. It's not the same.

A singer, on the other hand, unlike a writer is not really being evaluated on the words they've created. When we hear a song, we rarely think - oh great lyrics, we think oh great singer. Some songs when printed look silly and we think "how odd, that's horrible" but we loved the song. Something as simple as a line: "I Will Always Love You.." can be quite different depending on whether it is Whitney Houston or Dolly Parton singing it.

Writing is more cereberal, more private, while singing is more physical, less private. You don't need to be pretty or in great shape to be a popular novelist - look at Stephen King. But to be a singer, it helps if you are those things. You don't need any charisma as a writer. You speak through words. Most of your audience has no clue what you look like. But singers must perform in front of audiences, they are seen.

Take television as another example. The TV writer we seldom see. We don't know what they look like. We rarely know their name. But the actor playing role, we see on the magazine covers, we know their names, we know what they look like and we evaluate based on that information not necessarily just their performance. Songwriting - same deal - have you ever wondered why American Idol isn't about the next best songwriter? Because songwriters aren't seen. We don't often know their names unless they are also singers and performers.

I think that's the difference. It's not that one is more intergral to a personality, or that put more on the line in one than the other, just that they are different processes that require different personality types and different skills. The personality type that wants to be a singer or an actor, loves the performance and loves to be the center or in the spotlight, the personality type who prefers to sit alone in a room and write - because writing is mostly a solitary art and live in their head, would rather be anywhere but the spotlight.

Regarding Buffy

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think everyone saw the show through their own lense. And picked up on or focused on the aspects that resonated with them.

For me - Buffy as a character did not really resonate until the later seasons. And I always saw her as intelligent, more so than most of the people writing fanfic seem to. One of my problems with some of the fanfic I'd read and I've admittedly not read that much of it - was a sense that the writers were making Buffy the damsel, the one who needed to be saved and protected and coached by the *male* heroes, and she was a mother figure who should get married, have a baby and wander off happily ever after.

I prefered Whedon's ending. Where she is a *street smart* fighter, who is feminine, but also able to kick ass. Someone struggling with her powers and struggling to make the right choices. Her choices were often better informed than her male counterparts, and unlike Giles and the patriarchial Watcher Counsel - Buffy had the ability to think outside the box.

My Dad used to tell me there are folks with street smarts and book smarts, and some with both. If he had to choose between street and book, he'd pick street. The problem with book smarts is people don't outside the box. It's like learning to knit or cook - oh, I can't do that - because the *book* said this is the way it has to be done. But what if you forgot the parsely for a dish? If you stick to the book - do you not eat? Or do you figure out another way? The ability to be flexible, to be resourceful, to not be dependent on a book or pre-set pattern - is street smarts.

What is interesting about the show is how Whedon underlined that reliance on just books or just street smarts gets one in trouble. And how intelligence is not something you can determine via a test or casual obeservation or by how someone spoke. People were constantly underestimating Buffy's intelligence, including Willow, yet Buffy came up with solutions that blew Willow away and saved the world. Whedon seemed to be saying people aren't all one thing or another...they aren't easily pigeon-holed. The blond ex-cheerleader with the valley girl speak - may actually be a hero with superstrength and highly resourceful. The geek may turn out to be a suave architect. It all depends on your perspective.