Endings Part 2: Fanfic

[shapinglight]

Okay, so following on from my post about endings yesterday - which got rather sidetracked in places, must admit, but that's what happens when an author (ie. Joss) comes back and spoils a perfectly good ending - some more about endings, fanfic etc.

There have been various posts recently about the deadness (or otherwise) of the author. I haven't commented because, frankly, I can never think of anything clever enough to say, and besides, as in most things, I change my mind all the time.



For instance, while I'm fine with the concept of the author being dead in theory, when it comes to Spike's soul quest in season 6 of BtVS, if I see someone saying that they think Spike went to Africa to get the chip out and was tricked (which is definitely one way to interpret events on screen), I'd be the first to jump in and say, "That's not what happened. Joss/Fury/Espenson says..." etc, etc. (Well, when I say I'd be the first to jump in, I probably wouldn't say anything, actually, because I hate fighting with people, but I'd be thinking it, and would probably go back to my LJ and make a grumpy post about this deluded person who still won't believe Spike wanted a soul, the b*****d!).

I admit, this is a big failing of mine. I blame Post-Traumatic Joss Syndrome, and the fact that I spent the hiatus between seasons 6&7 of BtVS basically in bits, clinging desperately to anything that made the attempted rape a little less appalling - and Spike always wanting a soul was definitely one of those things. I can remember the sheer relief I felt when David Fury, in his usual charming manner, ("I wrote the damn episode, so I should know") confirmed in some interview that this was the case.

But anyway, I digress. The author is (mostly) dead etc. I do wonder, though, if this concept works so well when it comes to fanfic. I mean, it's fine for the author to be dead when it comes to published novels, say (a lot of them actually are dead), but does it really work in the same way when you have amateurs posting fanfic on the internet for their friends/acquaintances? There's an awful lot more interaction between reader and writer, after all, which can (or could, back when the Buffyverse fandom on LJ was a lot bigger, and a lot wankier) lead to some massive kerfuffles. Someone would say they don't like something in a story, the author would respond, the commenter would respond, the author's friends would pile in to back them up, the commenter's friends likewise. Hey, presto! Kerfuffle.

That doesn't happen so much now, fortunately, but to take a very minor, personal example. When I write a fic, I try to write the ending that I think is right for it. Of course I do. However, being a lot less than perfect, I don't always succeed - or I might think I have, but others don't agree. If I were a published writer back in the dark ages before the internet, the people who don't agree might write to me by snail mail and tell me so (I did that to two authors back in the 70s/80s and got responses from both, I think because I'd sort of accused (very, very politely) one of racism and the other of homophobia and they felt they had to defend themselves), but really they're so distant from me I can ignore them if I want. The same is not true, though, of things posted on the internet - well, not on LJ anyway, maybe Ao3 is different (which reminds me, I should try to post something on there), and in fact that doesn't apply just to fanfiction. Published authors/TV writers etc are right there on Twitter.

Is the author still dead when you can actually troll them on the 'net talk to them? I'm confused.

Comments

[kikimay]

I'm with you, because as ficwriters I guess we need to interact with the author to make the characters IC. I've read too much OOC fanfics in my life and I had this tendency to just go with: "What kind of show did you watch? Don't you know that this was supposed to go like that ..."
And I also met people who told me that Spike only wanted to pull out the chip (And that he was a monster, rapist and awful character while Angel and Angelus aren't the same person and Angel never hurt Buffy) and I have to confess that I was all about: "read the fu**ing commentary at least!"

[shapinglight]

I've read too much OOC fanfics in my life and I had this tendency to just go with: "What kind of show did you watch? Don't you know that this was supposed to go like that ..."

If I may ask, do you actually say that to the authors concerned?

And I also met people who told me that Spike only wanted to pull out the chip (And that he was a monster, rapist and awful character while Angel and Angelus aren't the same person and Angel never hurt Buffy0

I think it's probably true for a lot of people that the author is less dead when it comes to their favourites.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

The soul quest is one of the first things I can think of when I wonder if I think the author is dead. Thing is, the people who think he was duped? Are going to think it no matter what. If Spike had said he went to get one (which I think he does in BY), they'd just say he was lying and for them it would still be a valid interpretation in their own mind.

Me, I've come to the conclusion that the author is a goner (especially on TV shows/movies where there are so many) and the text is the text when it comes to events within the story. If meta is brought into it, then that's a little different because you're talking about the story in a different way.

Same time? When it comes to fanfic, for me, the author is alive and well...and can therefore be dismissed along with their story as just having a different take on things. Maybe it's the accessibility that makes me feel that way or because it's not "official".

[shapinglight]

The soul quest is one of the first things I can think of when I wonder if I think the author is dead. Thing is, the people who think he was duped? Are going to think it no matter what. If Spike had said he went to get one (which I think he does in BY), they'd just say he was lying and for them it would still be a valid interpretation in their own mind.

Well, that's because the text can be read in such a way to back them up. In other words, authorial intent is subverted by execution. So I always feel annoyed that I have to fall back on, "Guess what, the author isn't dead after all," to controvert the opinions of people like that. I want it to be clearcut, dammit.

Still, I daresay even if it was, the people who hate Spike would still spin some fanwank to explain why he was still evil and bad and wrong. I had an argument with a Bangel 'shipper on Angel's Soul Spoiler Board once about Spike in BtVS season 2. She said she didn't feel sorry for him at all when Angelus taunted him and flirted with Dru in front of him because he was only pretending he couldn't walk and could have got out of the wheelchair any time.

With someone like that, the author can be as dead as a doornail or standing right outside their door yelling at them through the letterbox that they're wrong, they'd still believe what they want to believe.

Same time? When it comes to fanfic, for me, the author is alive and well...and can therefore be dismissed along with their story as just having a different take on things. Maybe it's the accessibility that makes me feel that way or because it's not "official".

Oh, I agree that fanfic doesn't count in that sense. If someone wants to write a story in which Spike is actually an evil vampire budgie then good luck to them. What I meant by fanfic authors being perhaps less dead is that if you read a story, don't like it for some reason and say so - which people have been wont to do- the author is right there in front of you and can tell you to your face that what you think about the story is wrong, and not what they wrote at all.

[brutti-ma-buoni.livejournal.com]

Not to mention (and I will admit I have done this twice I can think of), fanfic authors may change plans for wips due to feedback. Once I realised my clever twist was too obvious and improved it but the other I actually changed an outcome completely. I regret it, but it's very much an example of reader interaction even before the narrative is complete. (I also abandoned one fic due to one single comment which got to me. Again, not common with finished publications apart from series)

[shapinglight]

Yes, yes! That's what I was talking about.

I've never actually done anything like that myself - mainly because I rarely post WIPs. But something someone once said about one of my stories bothered me enough that I've been careful not to repeat it ever since.

Not that this person's opinion was universal. But it stung.

[rahirah]

I think that it's usually not necessary to fall back on authorial intent as the primary support for an interpretation. In the case of Spike's soul, I could argue thusly:

1. Neither Spike nor Lurky ever says that Spike wants the chip out. If Spike actually does want the chip out, there is absolutely no reason for him not to say so.

2. Lurky mentions Spike's chutzpah in demanding restoration. While in and of itself that could mean many things, the Buffyverse spell to return a soul is called the Ritual of Restoration, which makes Lurky's choice of that particular word extremely suggestive.

3. In S7, Spike says several times that he wanted the soul and got it on purpose.

4. While it may be possible to argue that Spike is lying or deluded, the First Evil also says Spike got the soul on purpose. The First has no reason to lie about this - indeed, if Spike were lying, it would be to the First's advantage to point it out and taunt him and/or Buffy with it.

5. All the other characters, including Giles and Angel, who have every reason to doubt or discredit it, accept Spike's story. If Spike is lying, then we are forced to conclude that all of them are very, very gullible and stupid.

Etc. And only then would I go to the "And besides, the writers said..." bits.

It's funny - I remember arguing with one Evilista who was absolutely convinced that Spike had said X, Y, and Z which proved that he was getting the chip out, and I hauled out the episode transcripts and demonstrated that he had said no such thing, and they were honestly startled, because they knew he'd said those things - but it was all something they'd made up in their own head. I sometimes think reader intent is vastly more important than authorial intent.

That said, I think that the author is just as dead (or not) in fanfic as in any other kind of fiction. I can say for certain that when I write, I usually have a particular interpretation in mind that I hope the readers will have. I'm usually aware of at least one alternate interpretation that I try to... semi-support, at least? One I want the readers to at least consider before going with my favorite. And there are probably half a dozen others I'm not even aware of putting into the story.

When I get feedback, most of it indicates the readers see it my way - but on LJ there's a huge culture of not giving critical feedback, lest someone's feelings get hurt. So I can never be sure how many readers go for other interpretations. I know some do, because a few of them are confident enough to tell me so (and I thank them unreservedly, because while I love good feedback, it's the critical stuff that makes me think and grow as a writer.) And heaven knows that I have Strong Opinions on many pieces of fanfic I've read which I'm reasonably certain the author does not share. I seldom discuss these with the author, just because I'm not certain how they'll take it.

I do remember one instance where there was a huge public debate about a fanfic in progress - it was one of Herself's, the one where Angel ends up with Buffy and Spike's daughter. It was probably uncomfortable for her, but I'm very glad she let it happen in her comments, as it was fascinating.

[shapinglight]

Your 1-4 are all perfectly sensible. I wish James Marsters had thought of 1 and 2 before he acted those scenes (or that someone had pointed 1 and 2 out to him).

It's funny - I remember arguing with one Evilista who was absolutely convinced that Spike had said X, Y, and Z which proved that he was getting the chip out, and I hauled out the episode transcripts and demonstrated that he had said no such thing, and they were honestly startled, because they knew he'd said those things - but it was all something they'd made up in their own head. I sometimes think reader intent is vastly more important than authorial intent.

That's a bit surreal. Did they admit they were wrong? If it really was reader intent I can imagine they fanwanked another way to make themselves right.

I take your point about what else you say about posted fanfic being out there to be discussed whether the author likes it or not, though I'm now fairly certain after reading what yourlibrarian and Quin have to say that I only partially understood the 'the author is dead' concept anyway.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Pavayne in AtS 5 also says that Spike went to get a soul.

And basically it makes no sense at all for either The First or Pavayne to lie because the only person hearing them say these things is Spike, and he should damn well know whether or not he went for a soul.

[yourlibrarian]

I think the author is dead concept relates to two interrelated things -- that the text is not a text until it's created by a reader reading it (or a viewer interpreting what they see), and that the text stands independent from the writer. For example, the author may be the only person who ever reads the text, but when they go back and look at it again, they may see something they didn't realize they were saying (or which, over time, seems divorced from them). I've had this experience myself, reading things I wrote years ago and had forgotten about. Joss said the same about viewers' interpretations of Faith's physical attraction to Buffy -- having denied it existed until he looked again later on and realized that the viewers were right, all the signs were there.

So that still holds just as true with fanfiction -- not only does someone's work ring differently for readers, regardless of what the author intended, but those readers can create something different out of that text. We do that quite literally in remix challenges, or when someone decides to continue someone else's work and take it in a different direction.

[shapinglight]

So that still holds just as true with fanfiction -- not only does someone's work ring differently for readers, regardless of what the author intended, but those readers can create something different out of that text. We do that quite literally in remix challenges, or when someone decides to continue someone else's work and take it in a different direction.

Yes, I now begin to think I haven't really understood the whole 'the author is dead' concept after all. Hmm.

I've had this experience myself, reading things I wrote years ago and had forgotten about.

I've had a similar experience recently with one of my own stories. I re-read it and was quite shocked by how much foreshadowing I'd put in it. I don't remember doing it at all, and was quite chuffed at my own cleverness.

Not quite you meant, I suppose.

[quinara]

Deb, you distract me from writing emails and preparing prompts! Curse you. :P

But anyway, you've picked up on something that is one of my bugbears when it comes to people's interpretations of 'Death of the Author' (the essay that's the route of this idea). Like yourlibrarian says, I think the important thing to take from it is that the work stands apart from the author, ie. that the created story on the page or the screen or whatever is not the same thing or object as the story that existed inside the author's head. At the same time, that doesn't mean that the author doesn't exist and that other things they say and write down don't impact how we're likely to interpret the text. Recoursing to an interview published online or in a magazine or whatever at the same time an episode aired is not arguing that in David Fury's head Spike was going to get his soul, and so the text necessarily must have that intention written into it, it's saying that there was a broad complement of material being produced in 2002 by the ME staff, including the TV episodes but also a lot of press material and pseudo-candid interaction on the internet - and so in the broader, fan-focused meta-narrative of BtVS (ie. rather than the plain TV with its casual audience) it was made explicit that Spike 'wanted' to get his soul back. And, of course, it's possible to see that undermined just as it's possible to see undermined any potentially unreliable narrator, but David Fury in an interview is not David Fury qua author, because we're not talking about the inside of his brain; he's David Fury qua a (nominally authoritative) character in another text providing a parallel narrative of Buffy-related chat for people to consume along with the TV episodes.

Eh; that may or may not make sense. But, anyway - the way I think it relates to fanfic is that, no, it's completely perverse to think you can/should ignore all the parallel material people publish on LJ around their fic or in the A/N to their fic. That's part of the reading experience, for better or worse.

[shapinglight]

I don't understa-and! :wail: You're just too clever for me.

Actually, maybe I do, but I don't understand well enough to recite it back to you. I'll just have to try and absorb it.

Er..are you saying that doesn't contradict the 'the author is dead' idea for a fanfic writer on LJ to engage with their readers, or are you not going that far but instead more saying what Barb is saying - ie. that the author should stand back even in the LJ context, and let the readers battle it out?

[ex_peasant441]

Is the author still dead when you can actually troll them on the 'net talk to them? I'm confused.

According to the theory - yes. Because the theory states that 'the author' is what happens inside the writer's head at the exact moment in time that they are writing, and nobody can ever know exactly what he was thinking at that moment in time. This includes the writer himself because he is prone to faulty memory, self-delusion etc and thus can't ever trustworthily recover what he meant to say. Even if you ask him, that is just his interpretation of what he wrote, not the real 'essence' of what actually inspired him.

In other words it is the usual load of semantic twaddle you get when people spend too much time reading philosophy.

In the real world inhabited by you and I, if you want to know why an author did something it is a jolly good idea to ask them, because nine times out of ten they will tell you why. The tenth time they will say they didn't mean to do it at all it just turned up. (The eleventh time they will tell you to stop harassing them. By the fifteenth you are either facing a law suit or have a new friend...)

With authors who really are dead the best we can do is look at their cultural background and any other information like diaries they may have left us. This may not reveal 'the truth' but it is a damn sight more interesting and useful than just saying the author is dead.

And personally I think anyone who considers that only their own interpretation of a text is 'valid', because the author is dead, is a) arrogant and b) wasting their own time.

[shapinglight]

In the real world inhabited by you and I, if you want to know why an author did something it is a jolly good idea to ask them, because nine times out of ten they will tell you why. The tenth time they will say they didn't mean to do it at all it just turned up. (The eleventh time they will tell you to stop harassing them. By the fifteenth you are either facing a law suit or have a new friend...)

:snorfle:

And I have to agree about the cultural background etc being important, despite what Barthes or Derrida or whoever might say. That's what Quin is saying too - that a work isn't just the work but the accumulation of materials around it (at least, that's what I take her to be saying).

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure entirely why, but this made me think of the novel The Fault in Our Stars whose plot has a terminally ill patient who loved a novel that had an opaque ending and desperately wanted to know what happened after the close of the novel, with the novel being a bit of a quest to meet the author to find out, since she'd never live to read any sequel should he ever get around to writing one... only for her to discover that the author was a narcissistic douchebag, self-pitying alcoholic who the more he spoke the more he destroyed her love for the novel.

Sometimes fandom is like that.

[shapinglight]

Sometimes fandom is like that.

Yep. I think we often are better off not meeting our 'heroes.'

There's many a decent enough fanfic writer whose works now seem dull/trite/downright badly written to me because I, or someone I know, was treated badly by them at some point, or because I saw them saying something that made me spit nails.

[ningloreth.livejournal.com]

I have one story that provokes lots of negative comments, and pretty much proves that I'm dead!

It's a Draco/Hermione story in which Draco cons Hermione into sleeping with him, then tells her that he's just got engaged to someone else, but wants her to be his mistress. She throws him out but, at the very end of the story, he says, "I'll be back; I'll make you change your mind." And Hermione replies, very quietly, "I know you will..."

Lots of people hate that ending because they're convinced that Hermione's agreeing to be Draco's mistress (at some future time). I respond to every comment, explaining that the ending's meant to be ambiguous: she might mean, "I know you'll be back;" she might mean, "I know you'll change my mind;" she might be fearing that he'll wear her down (hence she speaks quietly); or Draco might have misheard her; and there's always the possibility that Draco will change his mind and marry her...

But to them the ending is clear cut. And what most concerns them is the state of Hermione's 'self respect' -- if she becomes Draco's mistress {click of the fingers} she has no self respect.

Now, I simply don't see that becoming someone's mistress says anything about your self respect -- about your respect for others, yes, but not about your self respect -- so I couldn't even have meant that subconsciously!

I get really annoyed when people expect fanfic writers to change a finished story in response to their negative comments, though I often change my WIPs in response to speculation. (My excuse is that Dickens changed his plots on the fly to increase his ratings ;-)

I also get annoyed when historical context is ignored. I recently listened to a lecture on iTunes U in which the (Cambridge) lecturer analysed Marlowe's 'Passionate Shepherd', presenting it as a kind of 'rape', pointing to the words 'meat/as precious as the gods do eat' and 'wool/Which from our pretty lambs we pull' as 'alarm bells' (when it's widely known that in the 16th century 'meat' referred to food in general -- and that, in any case, the gods ate 'ambrosia' -- and a second's Googling shows that until breeds were 'improved' in the 18th century, sheep moulted, and their wool was plucked, not shorn)...

Like dwyld, I find the idea that a text simply means what a twenty-first century reader thinks/wants it to mean extremely arrogant.

[shapinglight]

But to them the ending is clear cut. And what most concerns them is the state of Hermione's 'self respect' -- if she becomes Draco's mistress {click of the fingers} she has no self respect.

It sounds like you've been trolled by some of the extreme social justice types. I've noticed that many of them seem incapable of telling fiction from reality.

Even if you meant what they think you meant, it's still a perfectly valid story to tell. It doesn't mean you agree with Hermione's choice. It just means that you can see her making that choice in the particular circumstances that arise in your story. Ah well.

I get really annoyed when people expect fanfic writers to change a finished story in response to their negative comments,

I've never had anyone demand that I change a finished story. I've sometimes thought I should but held back. It is what it is.

Like dwyld, I find the idea that a text simply means what a twenty-first century reader thinks/wants it to mean extremely arrogant.

Well, I suppose if you do that, you have to make it clear that's what you're doing. And I sorta, kinda see where that's coming from. But I do think that stripping works of their cultural/historical context lessens them, and if its being done in such a way as to point out what barbarians our ancestors were, then it is arrogant, yes.

[torrilin.livejournal.com]

Uh, while there were certainly sheep breeds that molted during the 16th C, it was not the norm... and hadn't been for at least a thousand years, more likely millennia, even in a backwater of Europe like Britain. We've got a *lot* of archeological and documentary evidence of this (tho it's rarely brought up in history books aimed at a general audience).

Shears (a cutting device with two blades joined by a springy linkage) or scissors were developed during the start of the Iron Age. They were a pretty early technological advance that worked due to some of the intrinsic properties of iron as opposed to bronze. Bronze breaks rather than making good springy things. We have lots of archeological finds of shears, enough to make it clear that they were a common item (tho not of course as dead common as spindle whorls or loom weights... textiles were a major, major, major industry).

We also see changes in sheep skeletons at the point where shears make an appearance. The changes that remove the molting genes have other effects on the sheep's body structure. We also see gender differences in the kinds of sheep that make it to old age and other changes in husbandry practices. Sheep are a technological product, and humans have made many changes to them in a very deliberate way.

All this evidence in Europe and the Middle East is in that grey area where yes, humans technically had written language, but writing was not a widespread habit. One of the *other* things that spread like wildfire in the Iron Age was phonetic writing and the whole concept of education...

Plus we have (once writing enters the picture) reams of documents covering the wool industry, including things like people getting paid for shearing sheep. Britain's wool industry is extremely well documented and diverse, and British woolen products have been a major export for over 1000 years. While some of the British history lecturers on iTunes are pretty good on industrial history, a lot aren't and they routinely get details so badly wrong that it's uproariously funny. (and even if the lecturer is actually good on industrial history, they may leave stuff out of the lecture and accidentally make things confusing as hell... the historical record suggests that there were at least 3 major rounds of industrial improvement in the British woolen industry between about 30BCE and 1600CE, and each round would have included changes in the sheep. depending on how you cut things off, it could be upwards of 5, with a round of improvements taking place in Marlowe's lifetime)

All that is a lot of verbiage to say Marlowe was being archaic. Whether he knew he was or not is more open to debate... I know people with sheepy backgrounds in the present day who have pulled wool off a sheep's back (from a modern breed of sheep that doesn't ordinarily molt!) and spun it. Depending on Marlowe's background, he may well have had similar experiences. Like most natural things, sheep aren't entirely uniform ;). It would be really hard to know enough about Marlowe's background to have a clear idea of what the author intended with the archaic reference.

Historical context matters, but it can be incredibly hard to see where it's biting you in the ass.

[ringthebells]

This is a funny question to run into tonight! Because:

I'm in a science fiction book club that meets once a month and discusses a book. The club's been running for maybe three years, and I've been in it for about two. Tonight, we had an exciting new experience: upon discovering that the author of this month's book lived locally, we invited her, and she came!

It was an interesting experience, discussing a book with the author right there. It was a lot of fun. My impression of certain things in the book definitely changed after hearing straight from the author's mouth what she'd been thinking when she wrote them, or what significance she meant (or didn't mean) for them to have.

[shapinglight]

First of all, wonderful to see you. How are things?

It was an interesting experience, discussing a book with the author right there. It was a lot of fun. My impression of certain things in the book definitely changed after hearing straight from the author's mouth what she'd been thinking when she wrote them, or what significance she meant (or didn't mean) for them to have.

So in this case, the author definitely wasn't dead? Actually, there's an interesting series on the radio over here where authors will discuss their work. It's very enlightening, and gives me the sense that, maybe the author is dead, but their input can enrich the story for readers.

Though it can also do the opposite. If you hadn't liked this lady, or she'd said things about the book that were wildly different to what you thought about it yourself, how do you think you would have felt then?

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

Ooooh! Everybody's so cerebral up in here!

I don't know that I have a strong opinion on this "death of the author" thing, except to say that no work of art is ever a perfect expression of the artist's intention. Sometimes it can be close, and other times the author isn't even aware of all their roiling intentions. So, in that way, yes, the work must stand on its own merits. I suppose the question about whether their supporting documents (interviews, commentaries, convention appearances, etc.) have any relevance is what you're asking about, and I'll just shrug and say that it's sometimes enlightening, and sometimes obfuscating. Sometimes, getting to know your heroes is unpleasant, sometimes it isn't. Eventually the author will really, truly, literally be dead, and all that supporting documentation will be just as finite as the work itself.

Being in this fandom, I tend to wonder about the longevity of the Buffyverse. I have a feeling that it will still be around in some form in hundreds of years, as text, as myth, as, um, historical documents (thank you, Galaxy Quest). What will people make of it when it's become "Beowulf"? Will the fanfic versions be part of the 'verse/mythology? I've got to think so, as there are nearly as many interpretations as there are viewers, and each interpreter seems pretty damn sure that they've got the right one.

Case in point: In the story you recently beta'ed for me (and thanks a gagillion, once more!) I had an AU S5 Buffy meet Spike and never suspect he was a vampire. I thought I'd set it up sufficiently (he was walking around in the daylight when they met because he had the Gem of Ammara) and neither you nor I thought any more of it. After several comments saying it was incorrect that Buffy's "slaydar" wasn't pinged by him, I realized that this fanon concept (Buffy senses vampires, rather than picking them out by their "carbon-dated" outfits, etc.) of is pretty entrenched. That's cool. It just means an author's note explaining my interpretation if I don't want to answer the same question over and over. Hey, presto! The author isn't dead if they update their notes, right? I've got to assume that there are many things like that that will pop up.

I believe that posted fanfic might reasonably be seen as a draft by the author. They might never touch it again, they could be workshopping it, they may want to file off the serial numbers and do something else with it, they may want feedback in order to spur them to finish the next part, they may redact some or all of it. They can do anything! Each iteration is just another part of a conversation between them and the reader. The reader may not participate openly with the author or the work, but the very act of reading it means that they are receiving whatever message they are capable of receiving from the author. I personally like it when the reader feels moved to participate, and questions and needed clarifications often lead to new fic, because: ideas!

I love it when the reader isn't dead. Reading might be a spectator sport, but it doesn't have to be.

[shapinglight]

Ooooh! Everybody's so cerebral up in here!

Yeah, too cerebral for me. I'm struggling.

This is a great comment, btw. Re: what you say about supporting documentation being finite as the work itself, I guess you could argue, as Quin is (if I understand her right) that it's part of the work anyway.

I also agree with what you say about posted fanfic. I certainly regard all my stories as drafts that could be improved on if only I had the time. And I do enjoy (for the most part) the to and fro with readers.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

I read this post and all the comments, with interest. The author is dead is a new phrase to me (and I wish I had time, now, to read more about it). I was getting ready for work and found myself pondering it in the shower. As a result I am back (and will therefore probably be late for work, but never mind that *g*) and have some questions. Not arguments, or opinions, just questions.

I read Knut Hamsun's books as a teenager and really enjoyed them as fairytales. Then I found out he was a Nazi sympathiser during the war and all my memories of the stories tasted sour. I resented that. It's not that I was sorry to know the fact, but I resented the loss of innocent enjoyment of the stories.

I am not into comics, so I have never read them. I have only seen people complain about them. Does the fact that my canon (are the comics canon?) knowledge stops at the end of seasons 7 & 5 mean that my interpretation of the characters is incomplete?

Most of the stories I have written have had a jump-off point mid-series. By ignoring later canon and taking a character, at an early point in their development, elsewhere, is that somehow wrong? Because a writer in an interview said that at some point later Spike had a different intention?

I love evil Spike. I love souled Spike, too, but I love evil Spike. If I explore that character and develop aspects of him in more depth that the show did, am I breaking the rules, somehow?

I am not interested in the actors. I don't want to read about them. Nor am I interested in articles about the series I watch on TV. I enjoy the TV series. Am I supposed to go looking for background material to inform myself better? I have never read any interviews with any of the writers. Does this invalidate my interpretation of the characters, because it is based totally on what I saw on the screen?

Got to run. I am *so* late now. I probably haven't phrased this well, but I am really out of time. Bye. *waves*

[shapinglight]

Hi, Maz. Nice to see you.

I read Knut Hamsun's books as a teenager and really enjoyed them as fairytales. Then I found out he was a Nazi sympathiser during the war and all my memories of the stories tasted sour. I resented that. It's not that I was sorry to know the fact, but I resented the loss of innocent enjoyment of the stories.

Yeah, I'm not sure what proponents of the author is dead theory would make of that. They would probably say Hamsun's sympathies don't matter as they're nothing to do with his works now that those are out of Hamsun's brain. However, I'm not sure I can agree this is the case. Also, you can't unknow what you know.

Does the fact that my canon (are the comics canon?) knowledge stops at the end of seasons 7 & 5 mean that my interpretation of the characters is incomplete?

The answer you get to that question would probably depend on who you ask. I would say they might be sorta kinda canon because Joss said so, but the different medium makes it perfectly legitimate to ignore them if you want and say you don't count them as canon. Besides, they're shit. ;)

Most of the stories I have written have had a jump-off point mid-series. By ignoring later canon and taking a character, at an early point in their development, elsewhere, is that somehow wrong? Because a writer in an interview said that at some point later Spike had a different intention?

Of course it's not wrong. You can do whatever you like. Though, as I now remember we've discussed this before, I would like to point you in the direction of rahirah's comment above, especially her points 1-5, and shipperx's addendum further down the page about Pavayne. Spike having a different intention isn't just something a writer said in an interview. It's in the text in multiple places.

If I explore that character and develop aspects of him in more depth that the show did, am I breaking the rules, somehow?

Nah! What rules?

Am I supposed to go looking for background material to inform myself better? I have never read any interviews with any of the writers. Does this invalidate my interpretation of the characters, because it is based totally on what I saw on the screen?

Yes, and no. No, you're not supposed to do anything you don't want to do. Reading background materials isn't necessary. Also, your interpretation of the characters is as valid as anyone's as long as you accept that to arrive at that interpretation you're ignoring material that contradicts it. :)

I haven't phrased my answers that well either, I don't think, but looking back, it does seem to me that the discussion we had about the soul quest is a good illustration of the author intent/reader intent thing.

[spikesjojo.livejournal.com]

I calmly argued with an Evilista on a board that is still functional. When I decided to check on it the next day every single thing I said had been erased, my membership had been cancelled, and both my name and my email address were banned from registration. It seemed rather an over reaction to me - kinda burn the village and salt the earth!


I just sort of stay away from anyone who seems to have a strong feeling that the characters and universe are things I can't stand. OTH - I do well with things that are out of my universe but pleasant - or even incredible. I have a lot of flexibility there - I can see those stories as reboots like the new ST series.


However, I have been known to rant in my journal at authors who have left fandom, when a plot twist drives me insane. Not as often really - I used to be very protective of my characters, went Mama Bear at the drop of a comma. Still am but not as much energy to care.

[shapinglight]

I calmly argued with an Evilista on a board that is still functional. When I decided to check on it the next day every single thing I said had been erased, my membership had been cancelled, and both my name and my email address were banned from registration. It seemed rather an over reaction to me - kinda burn the village and salt the earth!

Wow! That's pretty extreme. Which board was this?

[yosso15.livejournal.com]

I think the author is always dead. Once the text is written the text parts company with the author and the more 'important' aspect which has more weighting is the opinion and thoughts of the reader.

The opposite of death of the author is birth of the author, which implies that the biography of the author has a huge influence on the text. In a TV show which is written by a team of writers the birth of the author theory is highly problematic and very difficult to apply. This makes me believe in the death of the author theory even more.

Fans love alternate universes, alternate ships which are one of the ways that the fandom is kept alive. Right now, fandom and fan opinion is primary aspect of the Buffyverse. Personally, I think the fact that fanfiction and general differing fan views have such influence (arguably more than the opinions and statements of the writers themselves) is what makes me think that the author is 'dead'. Or at least comatose.

[shapinglight]

Once the text is written the text parts company with the author and the more 'important' aspect which has more weighting is the opinion and thoughts of the reader.

Well, that's the theory anyway. I still think it's a little different when the author is actually there and you can 'talk' to them.