Entry tags:
While catching up with bimo's LJ:
This started as an innocent reply to this post in a discussion starting with this post, but it sort of grew into proper meta and got a bit long, so I'm posting it here:
Just a remark about this question of yours:
>But I wonder if fanfic writers do not treat the products of the cultural indusrty more serious than they deserve?
There's something highly problematic, IMO, in trying to decide categorically how much serious attention any cultural product 'deserves', *especially* in the context of fandom. Fandom, i.e. any individual's decision to become a fan, is rarely based on recognition of the cultural, political, intellectual or aesthetic merit of a source text. In many cases, we become fans *in spite of* (and in full awareness of) blatant flaws of all those categories in the source material. A lot of fannish source materials are, quite simply put, *really poor*. But quality is really not what fandom is about.
Clearly, I cannot speak for everyone (everyfan? *g*), but I suspect I'm not the only one whose involvement in fandom is mainly fueled by very idiosyncratic psychological... hangups? Traits? Kinks? Hm. I become a fan when I find something in a source that *resonates*, and resonates *deeply*. In my case this thing that resonates and causes me to become fannish about a source is usually a strong sense of alienation; but other people have their own 'hot buttons' that a source only needs to push for them them to get fannish about it. The thing that those psychological 'hot buttons' have in common is that they're usually archetypal, almost abstract -- universal. The alienation I connect with when 'fanning' Life on Mars, Farscape or Methos of Highlander is Alienation with a capital A.
So, if you get down to it, you find the same universal themes behind fannish engagement and fannish cultural production (fanfic, vids etc.) as you find in commonly acknowledged Legitimate Art etc. It's those themes/archetypes/universals - that we (fandom) are all about, and yes, I think that they're pretty damn valid and worthy of our serious attention, culturally speaking - no matter where they crop up. ;-)
As for *why* I am apparently more deeply moved by fannish source texts than by more generally recognised Cultural Products of Worth (or at least more deeply moved in relation to my Big Theme)? That is an interesting question I do not yet have a proper answer to; just some tentative ones (or maybe a combination of those?)
Answer no. 1.) is, I'm not (i.e. not moved more deeply by TV Show X than by Great Novel X). But when I find, in a fannish source text like a TV show, that one idea that resonates - a *seed*, in a way - I know it will lead to a certain kind of... discourse in fandom, and that *discourse* - in the shape of fic, of discussions, of vids, of art - is the place where the real insight and beauty and heartbreak and whatnot happens. And that's what I'm here for. Oh, I cherish the moments of the source text that bring the seed to the fore, too, of course - but the source text can never beat fan-produced material, nor my own imagination.
Answer no. 2.) is, while Great Works of Art and Literature may express alienation just as well or even (though this is arguable!) better than the best fan writers (and certainly better than nearly all fannish source texts that I can think of), they are also... closed. Of course they aren't, really. Any work of art is theoretically open to interrogation and interaction; any work of art is an offer of dialogue. But these days, it feels very strange to interact in an *emotional* way with anything that is recognised as 'great'; the adequate response is intellectual, not emotional - and it is usually a lonely thing, between just you and the work of art. Maybe if we still lived in the age of the romantics, the kind of discourse that we see in fandom would happen around Serious Art, too (the romantics were total fanboys/fangirls, weren't they?) For some reason it doesn't.
Answer no. 3.) is, while other texts may express our themes/archetypes/universals very well, there is one crucial difference between most 'legitimate' art and fan-created art, namely: fan-created art is unashamedly fetishistic, i.e. it circles around the central themes we attach to in a way that most other cultural products don't. Because for many of us, our 'interest' in one or several great themes/etc. is not 'just' intellectual, or even intellectual in the main - it is quite often also sexual in nature. This is most obvious for those fen who fixate on themes like Love (or one of the many sub-categories thereof - Reluctant Love Between Antagonists, Love Between Buddies, Soulmates, whatever), but it's also true for many, perhaps even most of us whose 'interests' are less obviously sex-related. In one way or another, a great many of us *are here for the porn*. It's often a highly intellectualised and sublimated kind of porn, granted - sometimes to the point of being unrecognisable as such to anyone but people who happen to have the same intellectual-fetishistic kink. But the fact remains that fan-produced work contains/produces a charge that most 'legitimate' art doesn't, because most legitimate art isn't focused on that.
Just a remark about this question of yours:
>But I wonder if fanfic writers do not treat the products of the cultural indusrty more serious than they deserve?
There's something highly problematic, IMO, in trying to decide categorically how much serious attention any cultural product 'deserves', *especially* in the context of fandom. Fandom, i.e. any individual's decision to become a fan, is rarely based on recognition of the cultural, political, intellectual or aesthetic merit of a source text. In many cases, we become fans *in spite of* (and in full awareness of) blatant flaws of all those categories in the source material. A lot of fannish source materials are, quite simply put, *really poor*. But quality is really not what fandom is about.
Clearly, I cannot speak for everyone (everyfan? *g*), but I suspect I'm not the only one whose involvement in fandom is mainly fueled by very idiosyncratic psychological... hangups? Traits? Kinks? Hm. I become a fan when I find something in a source that *resonates*, and resonates *deeply*. In my case this thing that resonates and causes me to become fannish about a source is usually a strong sense of alienation; but other people have their own 'hot buttons' that a source only needs to push for them them to get fannish about it. The thing that those psychological 'hot buttons' have in common is that they're usually archetypal, almost abstract -- universal. The alienation I connect with when 'fanning' Life on Mars, Farscape or Methos of Highlander is Alienation with a capital A.
So, if you get down to it, you find the same universal themes behind fannish engagement and fannish cultural production (fanfic, vids etc.) as you find in commonly acknowledged Legitimate Art etc. It's those themes/archetypes/universals - that we (fandom) are all about, and yes, I think that they're pretty damn valid and worthy of our serious attention, culturally speaking - no matter where they crop up. ;-)
As for *why* I am apparently more deeply moved by fannish source texts than by more generally recognised Cultural Products of Worth (or at least more deeply moved in relation to my Big Theme)? That is an interesting question I do not yet have a proper answer to; just some tentative ones (or maybe a combination of those?)
Answer no. 1.) is, I'm not (i.e. not moved more deeply by TV Show X than by Great Novel X). But when I find, in a fannish source text like a TV show, that one idea that resonates - a *seed*, in a way - I know it will lead to a certain kind of... discourse in fandom, and that *discourse* - in the shape of fic, of discussions, of vids, of art - is the place where the real insight and beauty and heartbreak and whatnot happens. And that's what I'm here for. Oh, I cherish the moments of the source text that bring the seed to the fore, too, of course - but the source text can never beat fan-produced material, nor my own imagination.
Answer no. 2.) is, while Great Works of Art and Literature may express alienation just as well or even (though this is arguable!) better than the best fan writers (and certainly better than nearly all fannish source texts that I can think of), they are also... closed. Of course they aren't, really. Any work of art is theoretically open to interrogation and interaction; any work of art is an offer of dialogue. But these days, it feels very strange to interact in an *emotional* way with anything that is recognised as 'great'; the adequate response is intellectual, not emotional - and it is usually a lonely thing, between just you and the work of art. Maybe if we still lived in the age of the romantics, the kind of discourse that we see in fandom would happen around Serious Art, too (the romantics were total fanboys/fangirls, weren't they?) For some reason it doesn't.
Answer no. 3.) is, while other texts may express our themes/archetypes/universals very well, there is one crucial difference between most 'legitimate' art and fan-created art, namely: fan-created art is unashamedly fetishistic, i.e. it circles around the central themes we attach to in a way that most other cultural products don't. Because for many of us, our 'interest' in one or several great themes/etc. is not 'just' intellectual, or even intellectual in the main - it is quite often also sexual in nature. This is most obvious for those fen who fixate on themes like Love (or one of the many sub-categories thereof - Reluctant Love Between Antagonists, Love Between Buddies, Soulmates, whatever), but it's also true for many, perhaps even most of us whose 'interests' are less obviously sex-related. In one way or another, a great many of us *are here for the porn*. It's often a highly intellectualised and sublimated kind of porn, granted - sometimes to the point of being unrecognisable as such to anyone but people who happen to have the same intellectual-fetishistic kink. But the fact remains that fan-produced work contains/produces a charge that most 'legitimate' art doesn't, because most legitimate art isn't focused on that.
no subject
I become a fan when I find something in a source that *resonates*, and resonates *deeply*.
Exactly. And often the source texts that resonate the deepest - enough for me to want to write fanfic - are the more flawed of all the texts I admire.
Which might go back to your discussion of the recognized "great" texts and how they're closed. Maybe they're closed because they feel complete to us - I feel this way about "Firefly" - I love it to pieces but despite its truncated life it feels like a complete world, and somehow I don't feel the need to add to it.
Whereas with Highlander and Miami Vice, there can be major issues in the text, major flaws, but I have endless ideas and impulses to add to the world. Maybe to try to "complete" it in my own way.
Closed vs. open
>That might be because I'm not as eloquent as you!
I don't believe you.
Maybe you didn't make your case for your lack of eloquence... eloquently enough? ;-D)
I don't know, this openness/closedness issue is tricky. Dexter, for example, is about as 'closed' a show (as in 'artistically complete') as there is. I don't feel a need to add anything to Dexter -- yet I totally wouldn't mind *reading* fanfic about it (as of today I'm totally buddy-shipping Doakes/Dexter... it's sick, I know! *g*) No flaws to fix, no holes to fill - but I'd simply like to see some alternative avenues explored. Same with other TV on the upper end of the quality scale: technically no need to 'fix' things, yet fanfic can still be nice, and doesn't feel out of place. And one of my guilty pleasures is reading Lord of the Rings (book, not film) fanfic, and LotR is a pretty 'closed', complete text; it doesn't really *need* adding to.
So, I don't really think it has much to do with actual, narrative/artistic/... completeness so much. Rather, the closedness of High Art seems to me due mostly to the expectations and conventions regarding adequate interaction with it that surround it. There are some strong cultural taboos there; they're slighly weaker in the realm of television and film (and, by extension, the more 'low-brow' forms of literature), I feel, though that is mostly due to the fact that fandom has been shifting the boundaries there slowly but inexorably for decades.
The idea that the issue here is cultural boundaries rather than actual artistic closedness of a text is supported by the fact that LotR (book!) fanfic only really got huge on the net after the movies. Now, one could assume that most people writing LotR book fic simply didn't know the books before they watched the movies - but Tolkien has been hyper-popular for decades now, so it's unlikely that the influx of book fanfic is due entirely or even mostly to new readers. Rather, it's my impression that the translation of the story to the screen blurred the boundaries in the writers' minds - movies have less of the aura of 'closedness' about them, so it was okay to write fic about them; and from there, it was only a small step towards writing fic about the books. (The fact that one of the main fandoms on the web at the time was book-based, too - I'm talking about Harry Potter, of course - also helped to erode that particular boundary. I think Harry Potter managed to acquire an active fic writing fandom not just due to its popularity but also due to the fact that it's children's literature, which does not have as strict a set of rules and prohibitions around it as 'serious' literature.)