Great vs. grating
I’ve been reading two *very long* and *very well recommended* Stargate slash series.
I won’t mention which ones, as this is not to embarrass anyone. Only to share a moment of enlightenment. (Without putting anyone’s back up, I hope.) And while these two stories are both slash and fic - I think that the aspect of good writing I’m discussing here would apply as strongly to mainstream fiction. Now that I think about it? Make that more strongly. Slash-fan-fic is a small and hemogenious corner of the universe. Publication is for the real world - and that is a far more diverse and divided place.
But be that as it may - back to the two fics.
Both are equal in the things that make a ‘good fic’.
Grammar.
Style.
Grasp of the source universe.
Well devised adventures.
Well drawn OC’s.
So what makes one great and the other just *grate*? (And I do mean that last. It reads like fingernails on chalk.)
Answer: The attitude the writer. Specifically the maturity with which she ( or he or it) handles ‘opposing’ views and opinions. Opinions which the author clearly does not share, but which ( for plot purposes ) some characters must.
Case in point. We shall call this ‘Characters A & B come out, and C gets nervous.
In series #1, both Weir and Sheppard some (polite) shock and surprise at the news, and wonder how the relationship will affect the structure of Atlantis.
In series #2, the President and several Generals have the same question about A & B.
In series #1, the question is discussed, ( not around a big table or anything dull like that - there are just a lot of little conversations ) where there could be conflicts they are recognized ( even by the slashed characters), and where valid questions exist reassurances are given ( and not JUST by the slashed characters). Sheppard is nervous for about a chapter, until observation and discussion ( not just of or with slashed characters) reassures him that, although slightly changed, the work relationships of Atlantis still work.
In series #2, the combined powers-that-be are told to “get over it - or get left behind”.
And we are not just talking sex here.
In series #1 there is a situation where Weir is called on to resolve a difference of opinion between two characters - each of whom has a very strong opinion as to the proper use of / authority over an Ancient artifact. Most of the characters ( including slash couple) strongly support character D. Weir listens to all sides, the decides in favor of character E. Many characters are disappointed, but they ALL ( including D ) go along without sulking. They will respect Weir’s decision, because it *is* her decision. And when the decision proves... less then ideal... they request a change without once suggesting that Weir - or the previous ‘winning’ side - were other than honest or /and competent.
In series #2 there are several not-quite-identical situations where the President ( or in one case the Pope) wishes to meet the lead characters ( and presumedly make an argument in favor of their particular preferred course of action). In all cases these ( clearly not respected) people are told to ‘shut up’ because it is ‘none of their business’. (Even though - if one thought about it rationally, diplomacy and defense policy clearly *is* the business of a head of state.)
I could go on - but you get the drift.
It’s not that ‘our hero’ isn’t always and eventually *right*. I mean - author, plot bunny, who do you THINK is going to win? Its just that author #1 manages to make the characters she loves *right* without having to make every other character oh-so-stupid-and-wrong.
It's not that both authors don’t HAVE clear personal opinions. It’s not that the opinions are not clear in the fic. It’s just that one author is using the opinions to reveal the characters. In the other, she ( he, it) is using the characters to give her opinions a cheap wank.
The difference is... as I said... that gulf between great and grate.
I won’t mention which ones, as this is not to embarrass anyone. Only to share a moment of enlightenment. (Without putting anyone’s back up, I hope.) And while these two stories are both slash and fic - I think that the aspect of good writing I’m discussing here would apply as strongly to mainstream fiction. Now that I think about it? Make that more strongly. Slash-fan-fic is a small and hemogenious corner of the universe. Publication is for the real world - and that is a far more diverse and divided place.
But be that as it may - back to the two fics.
Both are equal in the things that make a ‘good fic’.
Grammar.
Style.
Grasp of the source universe.
Well devised adventures.
Well drawn OC’s.
So what makes one great and the other just *grate*? (And I do mean that last. It reads like fingernails on chalk.)
Answer: The attitude the writer. Specifically the maturity with which she ( or he or it) handles ‘opposing’ views and opinions. Opinions which the author clearly does not share, but which ( for plot purposes ) some characters must.
Case in point. We shall call this ‘Characters A & B come out, and C gets nervous.
In series #1, both Weir and Sheppard some (polite) shock and surprise at the news, and wonder how the relationship will affect the structure of Atlantis.
In series #2, the President and several Generals have the same question about A & B.
In series #1, the question is discussed, ( not around a big table or anything dull like that - there are just a lot of little conversations ) where there could be conflicts they are recognized ( even by the slashed characters), and where valid questions exist reassurances are given ( and not JUST by the slashed characters). Sheppard is nervous for about a chapter, until observation and discussion ( not just of or with slashed characters) reassures him that, although slightly changed, the work relationships of Atlantis still work.
In series #2, the combined powers-that-be are told to “get over it - or get left behind”.
And we are not just talking sex here.
In series #1 there is a situation where Weir is called on to resolve a difference of opinion between two characters - each of whom has a very strong opinion as to the proper use of / authority over an Ancient artifact. Most of the characters ( including slash couple) strongly support character D. Weir listens to all sides, the decides in favor of character E. Many characters are disappointed, but they ALL ( including D ) go along without sulking. They will respect Weir’s decision, because it *is* her decision. And when the decision proves... less then ideal... they request a change without once suggesting that Weir - or the previous ‘winning’ side - were other than honest or /and competent.
In series #2 there are several not-quite-identical situations where the President ( or in one case the Pope) wishes to meet the lead characters ( and presumedly make an argument in favor of their particular preferred course of action). In all cases these ( clearly not respected) people are told to ‘shut up’ because it is ‘none of their business’. (Even though - if one thought about it rationally, diplomacy and defense policy clearly *is* the business of a head of state.)
I could go on - but you get the drift.
It’s not that ‘our hero’ isn’t always and eventually *right*. I mean - author, plot bunny, who do you THINK is going to win? Its just that author #1 manages to make the characters she loves *right* without having to make every other character oh-so-stupid-and-wrong.
It's not that both authors don’t HAVE clear personal opinions. It’s not that the opinions are not clear in the fic. It’s just that one author is using the opinions to reveal the characters. In the other, she ( he, it) is using the characters to give her opinions a cheap wank.
The difference is... as I said... that gulf between great and grate.