I thought his point about how one defines "flatness" was important too -- whether the tics and habits of the thinly sketched character added up to something significant about them (and, perhaps, served a larger story purpose) or whether they were done in place of character (kind of reminds me of the generic Herald in Shakespeare).
Yes, I see your point about how fanfic has the latitude to do both because the reader automatically fills in the gaps (not to mention somtimes fills them in in a way they want to see).
I wondered if he (Wood) would be able to tell the difference just based on the texts.
It would be interesting to find out, wouldn't it? Kind of goes to the question about whether there is anything distinctive about fanfic writing compared to other literary genres and if so, what is it?
Another thing that caught my attention in the article was simply the issue of authors now being able to see how actual readers react to their work. Because it seems to me that pre-Internet authors at best got very fragmented views of this -- from people they knew, or perhaps the odd book signing and such. Whereas now things like Amazon's reviews allow them to see how people actually respond to literature and what they want it for.
I think part of the negative reaction some authors have to the idea of fanfic is the same they have to those "foolish" and "feeble" readers and reviewers as well. It has less to do with appropriation and legal issues than it does with the fact that they heartily dislike discovering that people don't read their work the way they intended (and, I also think, believe they deserve a "higher class" of reader).
I find it not unlike the prestigious chef (or in more cases, the chef with pretentions of being prestigious) who is appalled to see diners adding salt, pepper or (shudder) condiments to their creations to make it more to their taste. The fact simply being that an actual customer -- of literature or food -- approaches it with their own reasons and tastes intact and is pretty indifferent in most cases to what the author wanted to do with their work. Creators of all stripes are discovering this -- including product manufacturers and software designers who are increasingly able to see how people adapt their work to their own purposes. I think the difference is that software designers and manufacturers are more clear about wanting sales as a final goal and thus any kind of market research they can get is helpful to them. By contrast I think a lot of creative producers are kind of appalled by what they're finding, whether it's on TWoP or Amazon.
This is getting kind of long but back when I was taking Lit Crit one of the few discussions I still remember is a rather fascinating one about intended audience and the multiple narrators of Wuthering Heights. And it occurs to me now that one reason for these many narrators was because the author was much clearer about the multiple audiences for the work (especially since novels weren't well regarded in those times) and deliberately inserted narrators of various classes and viewpoints to speak to the various types of readers expected.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-01-28 04:07 pm (UTC)Yes, I see your point about how fanfic has the latitude to do both because the reader automatically fills in the gaps (not to mention somtimes fills them in in a way they want to see).
I wondered if he (Wood) would be able to tell the difference just based on the texts.
It would be interesting to find out, wouldn't it? Kind of goes to the question about whether there is anything distinctive about fanfic writing compared to other literary genres and if so, what is it?
Another thing that caught my attention in the article was simply the issue of authors now being able to see how actual readers react to their work. Because it seems to me that pre-Internet authors at best got very fragmented views of this -- from people they knew, or perhaps the odd book signing and such. Whereas now things like Amazon's reviews allow them to see how people actually respond to literature and what they want it for.
I think part of the negative reaction some authors have to the idea of fanfic is the same they have to those "foolish" and "feeble" readers and reviewers as well. It has less to do with appropriation and legal issues than it does with the fact that they heartily dislike discovering that people don't read their work the way they intended (and, I also think, believe they deserve a "higher class" of reader).
I find it not unlike the prestigious chef (or in more cases, the chef with pretentions of being prestigious) who is appalled to see diners adding salt, pepper or (shudder) condiments to their creations to make it more to their taste. The fact simply being that an actual customer -- of literature or food -- approaches it with their own reasons and tastes intact and is pretty indifferent in most cases to what the author wanted to do with their work. Creators of all stripes are discovering this -- including product manufacturers and software designers who are increasingly able to see how people adapt their work to their own purposes. I think the difference is that software designers and manufacturers are more clear about wanting sales as a final goal and thus any kind of market research they can get is helpful to them. By contrast I think a lot of creative producers are kind of appalled by what they're finding, whether it's on TWoP or Amazon.
This is getting kind of long but back when I was taking Lit Crit one of the few discussions I still remember is a rather fascinating one about intended audience and the multiple narrators of Wuthering Heights. And it occurs to me now that one reason for these many narrators was because the author was much clearer about the multiple audiences for the work (especially since novels weren't well regarded in those times) and deliberately inserted narrators of various classes and viewpoints to speak to the various types of readers expected.