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!"

[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]

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.

[kikimay]

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

Sometimes and later. When I first jumped into a fanfic I didn't even know what it was and I read a lot of stuff before even watch all BtVS seven seasons. Now I'm much more honest but I guess that I also cleared my mind and I know all BtVS episodes so I can be much more secure of my opinions.


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

Yeah. But also because I think that you basically always need to draw a line. I mean, it's okay that you think that Spike is selfish and he wants to just pull out the chip but you also have to recognize that many people don't think the same and that the author didn't mean that. I'm fine if you tell me that you don't like Spike, I'm less fine if you want to go with your interpretation like it's the only truth. I guess that the author's intent helps in definying what is true and what is simply fanon. I don't know if I explained myself ...

[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]

I'm fine if you tell me that you don't like Spike, I'm less fine if you want to go with your interpretation like it's the only truth. I guess that the author's intent helps in definying what is true and what is simply fanon. I don't know if I explained myself ...

Yes, I think so. It's a case of my dead author is different to your dead author. ;)

[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.

[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.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

authorial intent is subverted by execution

Yeah, but it's clarified later on. Still, like you say, if someone dislikes Spike, they're going to think it no matter what. I always took the 'Angel should have warned me...' stuff as confirmation. It goes both ways, of course.

It never occurred to me about the chip until I got online because I just don't think it made any sense. Why would he need the chip out; he can already fight her? That's not to say I guessed it was the soul he was getting. Still, if Fury had said he went to get the chip out, the same people saying the author is dead referring to that would probably be using it as proof.

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.

But these days, unless the author really is dead, you can do the same thing.

[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.

[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.

[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]

Still, if Fury had said he went to get the chip out, the same people saying the author is dead referring to that would probably be using it as proof.

No doubt.

But these days, unless the author really is dead, you can do the same thing.

Yes, hence the kerfuffles. Maybe, as rahirah says below, it's LJ culture more than anything. Because people post fic in their own LJs, it sort of makes it more personal, and if people come along and comment in a negative way, or with an interpretation the author didn't intend, the author has to step back and let the commenters battle it out.

I did once get defriended by someone just after a left a comment on a fic she'd beta'ed that she didn't agree with. It's possible that's not why she defriended me, but it was a bit of a coincidence. :shrug: Maybe me leaving that comment just reminded this person that she'd been meaning to defriend me for ages. Who knows?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[ex_peasant441]

Wikipedia: Death of the Author

Personally I have come to the conclusion the idea is unhelpful. Or at least it is unhelpful in the form it is currently touted in fandom. I don't know enough about lit-crit to have a clue if it is helpful to them in its original form. Presumably yes or they wouldn't keep pushing it.

ETA: And on reflection I suspect one of the reasons they find it useful is because it excuses them from doing any actual research so they can just sit and gaze at their navels and then write a paper on it ;)

[yourlibrarian]

Ha, no that is in part what I meant. I've had that same sense sometimes with my own writing, the whole point being that you have become far enough away from it that you are now looking at it as a reader and not the author and see things that you, as the author, weren't even conscious of.

[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.

[quinara]

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?

I don't know really; I think the author can do what they like and the readers can do what they like... I just don't think it's possible for the readers to say 'the author is dead' and actually really ignore everything else they've seen written down attached to the author's name; they can only consciously disassociate the two things.

[rahirah]

I should say I don't necessarily think an author should stand back - I LOVE the sound of my own voice discussing my own work, and am more than happy to do so if people ask. I just think that it's impossible for an author to control every aspect of how readers react to their work, and it's futile to try. I can say that I meant X till I'm blue in the face, but that's not going to stop a reader from thinking, "Well it still reads like Y to me!"

[rahirah]

They admitted grudgingly that they were wrong about what they'd thought Spike said in those scene, but I doubt I converted them to the Spike side of the Force. *g*

[shapinglight]

I don't suppose you can remember what they thought Spike had said. I'm just interested to see how accurate sounding this obvious delusion was.

[shapinglight]

the whole point being that you have become far enough away from it that you are now looking at it as a reader and not the author and see things that you, as the author, weren't even conscious of.

Luckily for me, me as a reader is quite often suprised in a nice way by things me as an author has written (though conversely, there are times these days when me as a reader thinks, I wrote that? What was I thinking?

[shapinglight]

Well, if there's any truth in that Wikipedia article (and I assume there is some), it does seem like an excuse for academics to throw brickbats at each other.

Not that they seem to need any excuses.

I can see some things about it that could be helpful, and I don't much care for Camille Paglia so I hate to agree with her, but I would imagine that, as is the way of these things, people got carried away and now there's a backlash.