( So I've been thinking, today, about fanfic and its particular strengths and weaknesses and weirdnesses, in literary terms. )The distinguished and lovely
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
x_los has argued that, although fanfiction tends to be referred to as a
genre, it's really better understood as a
literary mode, like camp or satire. And I think this is really true. Because, like, people who look at, say, a pastoral poem and say, "But this doesn't accurately reflect the experience of hardscrabble rural life!" or at an allegorical novel and say, "But this is all just a thinly veiled metaphor preaching religious values!" are kind of missing the point. And so, in the same way, are anti-fanficcers who go, "But you haven't created anything new! You're just borrowing someone else's world and characters without permission!"
You can absolutely dislike a particular literary mode because it clashes with your own aesthetic or personal values or just doesn't do anything for you. But criticizing it for its main distinguishing feature is just sort of fatheaded.
And I think there are some things that fanfic does much better than most canons, and some things it doesn't. For example: emotional continuity, and associated issues. A lot of fic is largely inspired by a fan going, "...But why the hell would that character
do that given their past experiences? And how are they even going to cope with all the trauma they've experienced in this episode? They are going to need SO MUCH THERAPY and possibly healing sex to get over this," and being frustrated when things are never mentioned again in canon.
On the other hand, relatively few fic writers can really be said to be all that strong on plot, in the way a writer of, say, a TV show has to be. Some are, no question! And are accordingly admired for it by readers. But in general, IMHO, cranking out a plot-heavy story that would, if filmed, fit into certain time and budget constraints without changing too much about the characters or edging above a certain rating is not at all something fic writers are interested in doing. And I'm sure it's tough to do, and do well, regularly enough to turn out a season of TV. But I don't think it's something that's more
important than other considerations in an absolute scale of creativity, if such a thing could exist: it's just required by some kinds of writing more than others, and calls upon different writing skills.
Other things I'd say good fic in general does better than most canons can manage:
emo-porn, experimental writing styles (mostly because of the lack of constraints of producing a predictable product) and plot construction, AUs, crossovers, more and different kinds of romantic relationships, and, obviously, erotica.
There's probably a comparison to be made between the collaborative nature of producing most media canons - the cooperation of writers, directors, actors, camera techs, etc. coming together to make a whole - and the big collective consciousness of fandom, where most work is individual but part of a larger, and more insightful and complex conversation than can be had in one work. But that's another post, and anyway I can't quite figure out what I'd say about it.
Anyway. tl;dr. But do you guys have any thoughts? What does fic tend to do better, or worse, than canon, and why do you think that might be?
