Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public.
~ P.T. Barnum
Fanfic vs. original fic. Well, not really "versus" so much as changing the label. And me pondering.
So. Fifty Shades of Grey is the hot new ticket. Both loved and loathed (depending on whom you ask), it's no secret that it started out as Twilight fanfiction in which the names were later changed, and the book(s) published sans the benefit of a decent beta editor. The most common complaints I hear are that the book is repetitive and redundant, dull, that the American characters sound like they're British, and the author took zero time to look up where Portland, Oregon is in relation to Seattle, Washington. Deeper philosophical arguments involve the depiction of stalkerism and over-possessiveness as desirable romantic traits in a guy and how poorly the book depicts the BDSM lifestyle. Some readers say that the characters are shallow and one-dimensional. Other readers love the love story and declare the characters to be deeply and intricately developed.
I started reading the Harry Potter books because at the time, they were causing quite a controversy in some circles, and I figured I should read them in order to make an informed opinion. I really, really enjoyed the first two, and read through until the series was finished.
I feel like I should afford Twilight the same courtesy, but I'm sorry. Vampires don't sparkle. I just can't bring myself to read a series that combines sparkly vampires with teen angst. I just. can't. do. it.
And now I feel like I should at least give 50 Shades a try, so that I can diss it from a point of having actually read it. But the thing is . . . I used the "look inside" feature on Amazon and gave the first several pages a look. It was . . . painful. And not in a good way. Just. Ugh.
I've also read portions that have been posted on-line. Again, ugh. I outgrew pulp romance years--decades--ago. That's not to diss anyone who does enjoy Harlequin or Silhouette romance books, but for me, they grew formulaic to the point of being painful. (Again, not in a good way.) I've read several het fics that have been quite . . . ooh-la-la ;-) that I've enjoyed, but those were well written by authors who have a rep for writing well.
I also remember talking about writing erotica in the creative writing class I took a long time ago. The upshot was that it's a very delicate process and requires a deft hand. (Get your mind back on the sidewalk, people!) An author can't be so detailed as to draw attention to every bit of mechanics (insert Tab A into Slot B), but neither can the author be too coy, so as to describe . . . nothing. And the language needs to avoid being trite or cliched. I might have even made, iirc, a half-hearted attempt at writing something for class, using the less-is-more approach to writing that I often take, and was called out on it when I received the teacher's notes. What is not enough? What is too much? You know?
Anyway . . .
So 50Shades has now surpassed Harry Potter in paperback sales in the UK or something. And that bit of information actually made me queasy, that horrible, poorly written, poorly characterized fanfic can gain a "legitimate" (i.e., paying, recognized) readership and a place on best seller lists. Of course, this is nothing new in the history of human culture. As P.T. Barnum and H. L. Mencken observed, no one ever went broke catering to the lowest common denominator, the entertainment for the masses. Professional critics are not always the best gauge of what will actually make money, or of what people will like, or of what I will like, for that matter. It just kind of hurts when I think about how something so poorly crafted can be so financially successful, to be promoted as "good." I mean, yeah, poorly crafted stuff gains cult status all the time (look at some of really poorly made movies that gain cult followings), but for bad fanfic to gain international commercial success . . . It just irks me. I can't even explain it.
(Of course, there's also the option of looking at it as something of a satire. If it's modern America written in the style of Gothic romance, written that way purposely for the sake of humor . . . Well, that could be entertaining, I suppose. But I've not heard anything to indicate that that was the author's intent, nor the POV that anyone is reading it from.)
Why all this rambling, you might well ask?
Well.
I have two . . . maybe three . . . fics of which I'm particularly proud from a craftsmanship POV. Okay, I actually have a couple more than that, but I'll get to that in a moment. And I've been wondering if these two--maybe three--fics could be divorced from their source material to form original works. One of them is a study of a relationship. I've had people tell me it would make an excellent original fiction. The other I've been told fits really well into the Southern Gothic genre of literature. Since it's told from an OC POV and is drawn from a lot of different references, it occurred to me that it might also be workable into an original piece. The third, since it depends heavily on the reader knowing the source material character background for context would be much more difficult, but I'm still proud of it for its craftsmanship.
But here's the thing. These are not AUs, because I generally don't write AUs. I write within the context of the source material canon. Which means divorcing the story from the source material. Which . . . guh. Change the names, sure. But the question becomes: does the story make sense independent of the source material? If you don't know the background already established for these characters, does the story still make sense? And that fourth story I have in mind? The knowledge of what came in the source material in the years and episode before is what gives the story its weight.
So, limiting it to the two stories . . . Could I divorce them from the source material, not only in the story, but in my head? Could I rename the character and create a new one without telling myself, "No, Canon Charcter wouldn't do that" and countering, "But this isn't Canon Character anymore."
"But I like Canon Character!"
"Too bad. This ain't him."
"But I miss Canon Character."
"Too bad, this ain't him."
"But Original Character looks like Canon Character."
"So?"
"But--"
"Get over yourself. This is Original Character. Let him be Original Character."
"But what if I get them confused in my head?"
*sigh* *facepalm*
And supposing that I could successfully divorce the stories and polish them up into good original reads, then what? Heck, I've got an original short story that I started (10?) years ago that I've never been motivated enough to finish because I don't have an outlet by which to publish it. (I've even sent the first draft to the Copyright Office, so it's actually under copyright.) These are short stories more suitable to anthology publications. They're not novels, for cryin' out loud.
But Twilight fanfic by an author with media industry connections becomes an international sensation, becoming a household name on the talk show circuit thanks to her Twilight smut erotica.
Meh.
tl;dr: She did it! Why can't I?
Fanfic vs. original fic. Well, not really "versus" so much as changing the label. And me pondering.
So. Fifty Shades of Grey is the hot new ticket. Both loved and loathed (depending on whom you ask), it's no secret that it started out as Twilight fanfiction in which the names were later changed, and the book(s) published sans the benefit of a decent beta editor. The most common complaints I hear are that the book is repetitive and redundant, dull, that the American characters sound like they're British, and the author took zero time to look up where Portland, Oregon is in relation to Seattle, Washington. Deeper philosophical arguments involve the depiction of stalkerism and over-possessiveness as desirable romantic traits in a guy and how poorly the book depicts the BDSM lifestyle. Some readers say that the characters are shallow and one-dimensional. Other readers love the love story and declare the characters to be deeply and intricately developed.
I started reading the Harry Potter books because at the time, they were causing quite a controversy in some circles, and I figured I should read them in order to make an informed opinion. I really, really enjoyed the first two, and read through until the series was finished.
I feel like I should afford Twilight the same courtesy, but I'm sorry. Vampires don't sparkle. I just can't bring myself to read a series that combines sparkly vampires with teen angst. I just. can't. do. it.
And now I feel like I should at least give 50 Shades a try, so that I can diss it from a point of having actually read it. But the thing is . . . I used the "look inside" feature on Amazon and gave the first several pages a look. It was . . . painful. And not in a good way. Just. Ugh.
I've also read portions that have been posted on-line. Again, ugh. I outgrew pulp romance years--decades--ago. That's not to diss anyone who does enjoy Harlequin or Silhouette romance books, but for me, they grew formulaic to the point of being painful. (Again, not in a good way.) I've read several het fics that have been quite . . . ooh-la-la ;-) that I've enjoyed, but those were well written by authors who have a rep for writing well.
I also remember talking about writing erotica in the creative writing class I took a long time ago. The upshot was that it's a very delicate process and requires a deft hand. (Get your mind back on the sidewalk, people!) An author can't be so detailed as to draw attention to every bit of mechanics (insert Tab A into Slot B), but neither can the author be too coy, so as to describe . . . nothing. And the language needs to avoid being trite or cliched. I might have even made, iirc, a half-hearted attempt at writing something for class, using the less-is-more approach to writing that I often take, and was called out on it when I received the teacher's notes. What is not enough? What is too much? You know?
Anyway . . .
So 50Shades has now surpassed Harry Potter in paperback sales in the UK or something. And that bit of information actually made me queasy, that horrible, poorly written, poorly characterized fanfic can gain a "legitimate" (i.e., paying, recognized) readership and a place on best seller lists. Of course, this is nothing new in the history of human culture. As P.T. Barnum and H. L. Mencken observed, no one ever went broke catering to the lowest common denominator, the entertainment for the masses. Professional critics are not always the best gauge of what will actually make money, or of what people will like, or of what I will like, for that matter. It just kind of hurts when I think about how something so poorly crafted can be so financially successful, to be promoted as "good." I mean, yeah, poorly crafted stuff gains cult status all the time (look at some of really poorly made movies that gain cult followings), but for bad fanfic to gain international commercial success . . . It just irks me. I can't even explain it.
(Of course, there's also the option of looking at it as something of a satire. If it's modern America written in the style of Gothic romance, written that way purposely for the sake of humor . . . Well, that could be entertaining, I suppose. But I've not heard anything to indicate that that was the author's intent, nor the POV that anyone is reading it from.)
Why all this rambling, you might well ask?
Well.
I have two . . . maybe three . . . fics of which I'm particularly proud from a craftsmanship POV. Okay, I actually have a couple more than that, but I'll get to that in a moment. And I've been wondering if these two--maybe three--fics could be divorced from their source material to form original works. One of them is a study of a relationship. I've had people tell me it would make an excellent original fiction. The other I've been told fits really well into the Southern Gothic genre of literature. Since it's told from an OC POV and is drawn from a lot of different references, it occurred to me that it might also be workable into an original piece. The third, since it depends heavily on the reader knowing the source material character background for context would be much more difficult, but I'm still proud of it for its craftsmanship.
But here's the thing. These are not AUs, because I generally don't write AUs. I write within the context of the source material canon. Which means divorcing the story from the source material. Which . . . guh. Change the names, sure. But the question becomes: does the story make sense independent of the source material? If you don't know the background already established for these characters, does the story still make sense? And that fourth story I have in mind? The knowledge of what came in the source material in the years and episode before is what gives the story its weight.
So, limiting it to the two stories . . . Could I divorce them from the source material, not only in the story, but in my head? Could I rename the character and create a new one without telling myself, "No, Canon Charcter wouldn't do that" and countering, "But this isn't Canon Character anymore."
"But I like Canon Character!"
"Too bad. This ain't him."
"But I miss Canon Character."
"Too bad, this ain't him."
"But Original Character looks like Canon Character."
"So?"
"But--"
"Get over yourself. This is Original Character. Let him be Original Character."
"But what if I get them confused in my head?"
*sigh* *facepalm*
And supposing that I could successfully divorce the stories and polish them up into good original reads, then what? Heck, I've got an original short story that I started (10?) years ago that I've never been motivated enough to finish because I don't have an outlet by which to publish it. (I've even sent the first draft to the Copyright Office, so it's actually under copyright.) These are short stories more suitable to anthology publications. They're not novels, for cryin' out loud.
But Twilight fanfic by an author with media industry connections becomes an international sensation, becoming a household name on the talk show circuit thanks to her Twilight smut erotica.
Meh.
tl;dr: She did it! Why can't I?