On Writing, And On Personal Satisfaction
Mith and I have had a few conversations about this, and I sort of wanted to see if it's true for other writers, too; I suspect it is, but I'm really interested in hearing from people. Also -- and I really want to stress this -- the point of this post isn't to complain but to wonder, so if the tone comes off as whiny, I apologize, as that wasn't my intent.
Enough with the disclaimers. What am I going on about, anyway?
I've noticed -- and as I said above, I suspect I'm not the only one -- that the stories I've gotten the best reception for generally aren't the stories I'm most satisfied with. And that interests me, because it says a lot about the type of stories that really satisfy me, as opposed to the types of stories that might satisfy the people who read me.
I've written more fic than I ever though myself capable of writing since I rejoined fandom about -- holy shit, it's really been over a year. Of the stories I've written since then, because we shall not speak about the things I wrote during my Harry Potter days in high school, my favorite fics are undoubtedly Old Gods, a Gabranth-centric tale of broken faith and redemption denied, and Quintessence of Dust, where Roland lectures Argilla on Hamlet and in the process reveals himself. They're both het_challenge fics (I really do think that h_c sees a lot of my best output, when I think back on it), but in both fics the pairing isn't really the point; I tend to think of them as gen with het on the side. The focus on both is on character exploration, on the use of past texts to illuminate the present situation, on redemption denied and on falling (hell, on tragedy), on things forgotten and remembered. They're heavy on the meta, heavy on the Puel-being-a-highfalutin'-litgeek, and both in the end suggest that we are defined not by our thoughts and words but by our actions. (Why yes, I am something of an existentialist.)
My most popular story, if one accounts for the reviews I've gotten over at FF.net, is Tour of Duty, which is a bittersweet Zack/Aeris fic I wrote about a year ago. It's not a bad story. By my standards, it's cute, though there's the obligatory pulling-of-heartstrings, which you kind of have to do with that pairing, anyway. I think I balanced humor and poignancy pretty well in it, and writing Zack has always been easy for me. But -- oh lord, this is going to sound pretentious -- is it a testament to my skill as a writer on the same level as the other two? I don't think so, not because this story intrinsically has less worth but because I personally don't find it as satisfying.
So what do I find satisfying? What is it that I want to accomplish as a writer? What kind of stories do I really want to tell?
I'm an actress. (Obviously.) Much of my writing is shamelessly theatrical. I need to have conflict, preferably in the form of two or more characters at cross-purposes, with the plot unfolding from what they do to get what they want, and how they adapt to the challenges the other people in the story pose. I draw on previously existing works and conventions and interpret them as best I can (which is, I think, what draws me to fanfic in the first place; canon is a script to me, and while I won't really ever change the lines or the structure, I'll fill in the motivations and the subtext and the backstory as best I can, the way any performer has to, but I think that's another essay), I play with language, I keep my third-person tight, I coordinate action and dialogue and spectacle, I layer in multiple perspectives and symbols and meanings, and I have a degree of self-awareness about it all. Hence why so much of my stuff acknowledges or addresses artifice, I guess. These trends are, if anything, even more evident in my original work, especially Bandiverse. (Sevien. Just -- Sevien.) So the fics of mine I like most, I think, provide a cohesive and compelling view of characters and of the worlds they inhabit. They're backed up by a solid interpretation, they say something about the characters that hasn't been said or has only been alluded to in the text, and they -- mean something sounds vague, but I think it goes back to the philosophy I discussed earlier about action ultimately carrying more weight than thought. Perhaps it's more accurate, then, to say I prefer my fics that go somewhere, that depict an event as fully as possible, that give characters room to do things and maybe even grow.
Not all my stories live up to that, of course. And what I describe isn't the only way to tell stories. Far from it. But I think it's the way that satisfies me most. Given the kind of feedback I've gotten, though, I'm not sure if my audience/readers/what have you follow the same philosophy, not that I'd necessarily expect them to.
So talk to me. What kind of stories satisfy you the most? What kind of stories seem to satisfy your readers? Is there a difference, and what might that mean?
Enough with the disclaimers. What am I going on about, anyway?
I've noticed -- and as I said above, I suspect I'm not the only one -- that the stories I've gotten the best reception for generally aren't the stories I'm most satisfied with. And that interests me, because it says a lot about the type of stories that really satisfy me, as opposed to the types of stories that might satisfy the people who read me.
I've written more fic than I ever though myself capable of writing since I rejoined fandom about -- holy shit, it's really been over a year. Of the stories I've written since then, because we shall not speak about the things I wrote during my Harry Potter days in high school, my favorite fics are undoubtedly Old Gods, a Gabranth-centric tale of broken faith and redemption denied, and Quintessence of Dust, where Roland lectures Argilla on Hamlet and in the process reveals himself. They're both het_challenge fics (I really do think that h_c sees a lot of my best output, when I think back on it), but in both fics the pairing isn't really the point; I tend to think of them as gen with het on the side. The focus on both is on character exploration, on the use of past texts to illuminate the present situation, on redemption denied and on falling (hell, on tragedy), on things forgotten and remembered. They're heavy on the meta, heavy on the Puel-being-a-highfalutin'-litgeek, and both in the end suggest that we are defined not by our thoughts and words but by our actions. (Why yes, I am something of an existentialist.)
My most popular story, if one accounts for the reviews I've gotten over at FF.net, is Tour of Duty, which is a bittersweet Zack/Aeris fic I wrote about a year ago. It's not a bad story. By my standards, it's cute, though there's the obligatory pulling-of-heartstrings, which you kind of have to do with that pairing, anyway. I think I balanced humor and poignancy pretty well in it, and writing Zack has always been easy for me. But -- oh lord, this is going to sound pretentious -- is it a testament to my skill as a writer on the same level as the other two? I don't think so, not because this story intrinsically has less worth but because I personally don't find it as satisfying.
So what do I find satisfying? What is it that I want to accomplish as a writer? What kind of stories do I really want to tell?
I'm an actress. (Obviously.) Much of my writing is shamelessly theatrical. I need to have conflict, preferably in the form of two or more characters at cross-purposes, with the plot unfolding from what they do to get what they want, and how they adapt to the challenges the other people in the story pose. I draw on previously existing works and conventions and interpret them as best I can (which is, I think, what draws me to fanfic in the first place; canon is a script to me, and while I won't really ever change the lines or the structure, I'll fill in the motivations and the subtext and the backstory as best I can, the way any performer has to, but I think that's another essay), I play with language, I keep my third-person tight, I coordinate action and dialogue and spectacle, I layer in multiple perspectives and symbols and meanings, and I have a degree of self-awareness about it all. Hence why so much of my stuff acknowledges or addresses artifice, I guess. These trends are, if anything, even more evident in my original work, especially Bandiverse. (Sevien. Just -- Sevien.) So the fics of mine I like most, I think, provide a cohesive and compelling view of characters and of the worlds they inhabit. They're backed up by a solid interpretation, they say something about the characters that hasn't been said or has only been alluded to in the text, and they -- mean something sounds vague, but I think it goes back to the philosophy I discussed earlier about action ultimately carrying more weight than thought. Perhaps it's more accurate, then, to say I prefer my fics that go somewhere, that depict an event as fully as possible, that give characters room to do things and maybe even grow.
Not all my stories live up to that, of course. And what I describe isn't the only way to tell stories. Far from it. But I think it's the way that satisfies me most. Given the kind of feedback I've gotten, though, I'm not sure if my audience/readers/what have you follow the same philosophy, not that I'd necessarily expect them to.
So talk to me. What kind of stories satisfy you the most? What kind of stories seem to satisfy your readers? Is there a difference, and what might that mean?