Questions of Character
Character has been coming up a lot lately in the various fannish playgrounds I've been hanging out in. Discussions of female characters at gabolange's (flocked, or I'd link) and surrealis's ( here), discussions of characters of color at sugargroupie's (most relevant bits flocked), a chat with some RL friends about J. K. Rowling's efforts to control the interpretation of her
( Read more... )
Right now, fanfic and fandom is impacting my understanding of the SG-1 characters more than the show is--which is not something I mind
This is one of the things I love about SG-1--or rather, the SG-1 fandom. I can't think of the show separate from the fandom; my enjoyment of the former is so strongly influenced by the latter. But this is also where I think that each show and each fandom are individual; we tend to have different relationships with all of them, depending on myriad variables. And the individualities of different shows and fandoms and characters was really sinking in as I was writing this. Yes, I have patterns in the way I like and think about characters; but I've also got a lot of exceptions, and my relationships with no two characters are alike. This, of course, is what makes it all so much fun.
Perhaps it's a feature of my somewhat vivid imagination, but I have never felt that what we see on screen is the whole story.
I wonder whether it's a product of your "vivid imagination" (and mine, and everyone else who reads and writes fanfic) to read between the lines, to see what's suggested beyond what we have, or if that's simply the nature of story. Narrative is always selective, and there's no medium that will tell every aspect of a single character, much less a cast of them. Good narrative will always point to all the other stories that might have been told, and a narrative that forecloses other possible stories (*coughs*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows*coughs*) isn't going to be as good as one that does not.
So basically, yes, I totally agree with you. (Shocking!!! Imagine you and I agreeing on anything! *g*)
Does it matter that they're "not real"? I'm not precisely sure that it does.
Again, yes, I agree completely. And I think a lot depends on one's definition of "real." One of my great pet peeves is the conflation of "truth" with "fact," as though fiction cannot also be true. I think under a similar category I'd also include the conflation of "real" with "existing (or formerly existing) in material reality." I think there are different values of "real," and one of those is "fictional."
As for unlocking your own posts, only as you wish. This discussion isn't exactly exploding right now, so I don't know that too many people are missing out. But if you do decide to do so, let me know and I'll put in the links.
Reply
You put in a caveat there, when you said "everyone else who reads and writes fanfic." The thing is that not everyone sees stories in the way we do; not everyone sees the possibility in an ongoing narrative. There are many out there who simply don't understand the drive behind fan writing and creation; for some people the question isn't of copyright violation or the sanctity of canon, but simply "Why would you bother?"
And there isn't one good answer, but it begins somewhere between the lines of good narrative, which drives us to find more possibilities for characters and plots that we love, and bad narrative, which is full of gaping holes waiting to be filled. There are questions that we think to ask, and hope to answer, but it isn't a universal drive. And, given the way fandom interacts with itself and with the outside world, we don't want it to be . . .
One of my great pet peeves is the conflation of "truth" with "fact," as though fiction cannot also be true.
I find there can be more truth and beauty in fiction than in daily life. Not universally, of course, but often. And one does not have to be factually accurate or present in material reality to have power.
Shocking!!! Imagine you and I agreeing on anything! *g*
Nah. That never happens. ;)
Reply
True, and I did put the caveat there on purpose. Lots of people don't see what the impulse would be behind fanfic. And there are plenty of people who just don't get the impulse behind fiction, which makes me so sad. (One of my cousins was mocked in my family of readers for years because he stopped reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe when the beavers started talking, arguing that beavers don't talk. I'm not sure why the magical wardrobe didn't give him pause. Worse yet, the boyfriend of a former roommate was in the room once when I was watching an episode of X-Files, and he was completely baffled by the fact that I was so upset by something that happened to Scully. "But," he stammered, "she's not real.")
I'm not sure, though, that it isn't still the nature of story--the nature of language, even--to be suggestive of more, whether all readers/viewers are responsive to it or not.
Reply
I agree, story and language are inherently and necessarily evocative. I think it is more interesting that we are all impacted by the things we watch and read, but that some of us--perhaps the imaginative ones, perhaps not--choose to frame our response in terms of continuing the story, while others choose to sit back, relax, and have more popcorn. The academic in me would like to think that there is more value in the written response(whether fiction or meta-analysis), but fiction--especially the kind we are really talking about here--is designed to be enjoyable on a superficial level as well . . . so, maybe not.
Also, I'm having *way* too much fun playing icon twin here. ::grin::
Reply
Leave a comment