Meta: On Personal Tastes, Writing Styles, and Genres
There's been a lot of talk lately about good versus bad fic in terms of writing styles, genres, and well, anything else you can think of in regards to writing. And we can argue as much as we like about these, except no one will ever "win". See, writing, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. How cliché of me - but its true. I intend to tackle a couple of different topics related to writing in this post. Everything covered here is something I've thought about in the past, though current events have caused me to get around to putting my thoughts to the page.
I have problems with superfluously detailed writing as well as over-simplified sentence structure. I just can't read them, but I can read anything and everything in between these two writing styles. I'll often say that those who write the latter "suck", however, that is my opinion, and not the law. There are plenty of people who enjoy that. I do prefer a narrative style with minimal details - enough to spur the imagination, but not so much that I feel constrained by the words on the page.
Rarely though do I feel that the former is bad writing, and I can only assume that it's because I feel they have a firmer grasp on the language. I feel. Emphasis there is very important. This is not always true, as really, nothing is always true. Yet, while I think it's good writing, I have a difficult time enjoying it because I feel too constrained by it. Details are great, I love them, but I want them to add to the story, not weigh it down. This is the big reason why I love the Lord of the Rings movies but cannot get through a chapter of any of the books. I don't like J.R.R. Tolkein's writing style.
Over-simplistic sentence structure reminds me of the first books I read as a young child. "See spot run. See spot fetch. Fetch, Spot, fetch." Not to say I see anything that simplistic in fiction written for those over the age of six, but sometimes I see fiction where the sentence structure happens to strongly remind me of those books. I don't think those who write early readers books are bad writers, they're writing to the genre (I adore Dr. Seuss, btw), but if they bring that same sentence structure to a story that it obviously meant for those at a reading level above this, I think it's rather bad writing.
What it all comes down to though is personal taste. If something doesn't fit into what I'll enjoy reading, I don't read it. That being said, we get to the subject of what constitutes prose. I've taken both a creative writing prose and creative writing poetry course in high school. They were both taught by the same teacher, and there was a lot of overlap. While there are different styles to the two, it lies mostly in the formatting and not the actual sentence structure. I've read and written poetry that may as well have been a short story and vice versa. But they still both qualified as the genre I write them in because of the formatting.
If I were to break up that last paragraph into separate lines based on pauses - as that is often where free verse poetry is broken apart - it would be considered a poem, while in its current state it's prose. That's not to say it would be a particularly good poem, but it would be a poem all the same. Poetic prose is a lovely creative invention. It allows one to explore a language as ripe as the English language. It allows one to express things that they might not be able to express in another form - and not for lack of trying. Of course, this doesn't mean its for everyone, but it's still a valid form of writing.
Stream-of-conscious writing is not the norm for prose, but that does not mean it doesn't belong there. It adds a sense of urgency to the piece that I feel is not as easily done in narrative prose. Easy does not equal less good, nor does difficult equal better. Writing anything at all can be a challenge. Just as those who have difficulties with writing at all. I find math challenging. Terribly so. I cannot do a proof for the life of me, however, I can prove a non-mathematical theory quite easily through the written word. Doesn't mean I'm right, but I can do it.
There's days those where I struggle to write a cut and dry post to my journal let alone write a piece of fiction. Writers, artists, mathematicians, scientists, musicians all have the ability to make something look easy when it really isn't. People are as specialised as the styles we choose to write in. And I think people forget this too often when they take sides on something or another.
I'm not going to touch much on characterisation other than to say it fits in perfectly with what I've already said - there's the good, the bad and the ugly, but that varies from person to person. I will also add that I think knowledge of a source material is important for writing in the fandom you're writing in, but even so one's interpretation can be different from another's. I don't know that I could enjoy writing something for a source material I'm not completely familiar with. As it is I worry about writing Ron in character, and I've read all the books twice, and read certain passages multiple times. That's a lot of Ron knowledge to have and still be worried about my characterisation!
Speaking of source materials, we get onto a currently touchy subject about genres. First, what defines a genre? It's usually a matter of a few elements that can be found within a piece of writing. I would say what I'm writing now fits into both essay and meta, though I chose to call it meta. Science Fiction/Fantasy is an immense genre that encompasses a large number of sub-genres (is there a word for this?) that vary anywhere from one different element to nothing at all in common. No single author can define a genre unless they manage to create a completely new one, and even then, I'd like to see them try! They can certainly push the boundaries of a genre, but to single-handedly define a genre? I don't see it as possible. By the time something qualifies to have its own genre, it's not alone. No one is going to create a genre for one work of prose.
I'm not sure where I was going with that one anymore, so I'll just move on. A genre of writing that pops up in fandom is RPF or Real People Fic. I think this is one of the most controversial topics in fandom because there's something amoral about writing and reading it, and that makes people uncomfortable, which they are more than welcome to feel. I used to be very uncomfortable about the idea of it. I wondered, how can you write fic about real people when you don't know that much about them? It just seemed... surreal to me. And I suppose it still does in an entirely different way. I've accepted it as a valid form of fiction one that should not be spurned by so many. Though I don't expect anything I say here to change how people feel about the genre, I'm not going to refrain from delving into this.
What we know of these celebrities is what we garner from interviews and the such. We observe their behaviours on television interviews, and pore over them in print. In RPF we take what we know about them from the media (source material) and expand upon it in much the same way that one does with fictional characters in books, television shows and movies. They are now fictional characters, what is written about them has nothing to do with who they are in real life, it is merely speculation based on the media's portrayal of them. And as we often learn from shows like behind the stars and e true Hollywood story, what we perceive a celebrity to be like is quite different from how they really were.
Rags like the Star and National Enquirer are nothing more than glorified RPF, for all the truth that is found within those pages. Sure, there is some truth to it, but it's a story that someone has written - extrapolating from the facts and making it interesting. "Oh! Brad Pitt hugged Angelina Jolie! They're shagging!" says a reporter one day, and the next day its all over the rags that Brad is cheating on Jennifer with Angelina. Is it true? Possibly. Maybe more so than anything that's written in RPS (Real People Slash), but still not the truth.
I chose to view RPF/RPS as fiction and not as an invasion on the celebrity's life. It's akin to writing in your diary as a teenager about your wedding with Devon Sawa, or Jordan Knight, or David Cassidy, or whomever it was you fancied at the time. I don't see how sharing it with someone else makes it different. It's a fantasy, one that isn't expected to happen within the real world, and the desire to be able to share it with others is not a reason for persecution. Of course, if a celebrity chooses to condemn fan fiction about themselves, that's their prerogative and I will respect their wishes.
I'm not going to shove it in their face or pretend its real. I'm no tinhat, and I think that's one of the big issues with RPF. People have the impression that those who read and write it believe it's really real. It's not, but I have as much right to speculate all I want over a shared touch in a photograph or a videotaped interaction with another celebrity as much as I have the right to speculate about the subtext in the Harry Potter books. I don't expect everyone to see this as a valid argument, the same as I don't expect everyone to enjoy the same genres or writing styles.
There are so many taboos in writing and reading that I can only imagine there are as many in writing about them. But what's the fun of taboos if you don't break one or two along the way?
Writing is in the eye of the beholder or rather the reader/writer and I think we'd all do good to remember that.
I have problems with superfluously detailed writing as well as over-simplified sentence structure. I just can't read them, but I can read anything and everything in between these two writing styles. I'll often say that those who write the latter "suck", however, that is my opinion, and not the law. There are plenty of people who enjoy that. I do prefer a narrative style with minimal details - enough to spur the imagination, but not so much that I feel constrained by the words on the page.
Rarely though do I feel that the former is bad writing, and I can only assume that it's because I feel they have a firmer grasp on the language. I feel. Emphasis there is very important. This is not always true, as really, nothing is always true. Yet, while I think it's good writing, I have a difficult time enjoying it because I feel too constrained by it. Details are great, I love them, but I want them to add to the story, not weigh it down. This is the big reason why I love the Lord of the Rings movies but cannot get through a chapter of any of the books. I don't like J.R.R. Tolkein's writing style.
Over-simplistic sentence structure reminds me of the first books I read as a young child. "See spot run. See spot fetch. Fetch, Spot, fetch." Not to say I see anything that simplistic in fiction written for those over the age of six, but sometimes I see fiction where the sentence structure happens to strongly remind me of those books. I don't think those who write early readers books are bad writers, they're writing to the genre (I adore Dr. Seuss, btw), but if they bring that same sentence structure to a story that it obviously meant for those at a reading level above this, I think it's rather bad writing.
What it all comes down to though is personal taste. If something doesn't fit into what I'll enjoy reading, I don't read it. That being said, we get to the subject of what constitutes prose. I've taken both a creative writing prose and creative writing poetry course in high school. They were both taught by the same teacher, and there was a lot of overlap. While there are different styles to the two, it lies mostly in the formatting and not the actual sentence structure. I've read and written poetry that may as well have been a short story and vice versa. But they still both qualified as the genre I write them in because of the formatting.
If I were to break up that last paragraph into separate lines based on pauses - as that is often where free verse poetry is broken apart - it would be considered a poem, while in its current state it's prose. That's not to say it would be a particularly good poem, but it would be a poem all the same. Poetic prose is a lovely creative invention. It allows one to explore a language as ripe as the English language. It allows one to express things that they might not be able to express in another form - and not for lack of trying. Of course, this doesn't mean its for everyone, but it's still a valid form of writing.
Stream-of-conscious writing is not the norm for prose, but that does not mean it doesn't belong there. It adds a sense of urgency to the piece that I feel is not as easily done in narrative prose. Easy does not equal less good, nor does difficult equal better. Writing anything at all can be a challenge. Just as those who have difficulties with writing at all. I find math challenging. Terribly so. I cannot do a proof for the life of me, however, I can prove a non-mathematical theory quite easily through the written word. Doesn't mean I'm right, but I can do it.
There's days those where I struggle to write a cut and dry post to my journal let alone write a piece of fiction. Writers, artists, mathematicians, scientists, musicians all have the ability to make something look easy when it really isn't. People are as specialised as the styles we choose to write in. And I think people forget this too often when they take sides on something or another.
I'm not going to touch much on characterisation other than to say it fits in perfectly with what I've already said - there's the good, the bad and the ugly, but that varies from person to person. I will also add that I think knowledge of a source material is important for writing in the fandom you're writing in, but even so one's interpretation can be different from another's. I don't know that I could enjoy writing something for a source material I'm not completely familiar with. As it is I worry about writing Ron in character, and I've read all the books twice, and read certain passages multiple times. That's a lot of Ron knowledge to have and still be worried about my characterisation!
Speaking of source materials, we get onto a currently touchy subject about genres. First, what defines a genre? It's usually a matter of a few elements that can be found within a piece of writing. I would say what I'm writing now fits into both essay and meta, though I chose to call it meta. Science Fiction/Fantasy is an immense genre that encompasses a large number of sub-genres (is there a word for this?) that vary anywhere from one different element to nothing at all in common. No single author can define a genre unless they manage to create a completely new one, and even then, I'd like to see them try! They can certainly push the boundaries of a genre, but to single-handedly define a genre? I don't see it as possible. By the time something qualifies to have its own genre, it's not alone. No one is going to create a genre for one work of prose.
I'm not sure where I was going with that one anymore, so I'll just move on. A genre of writing that pops up in fandom is RPF or Real People Fic. I think this is one of the most controversial topics in fandom because there's something amoral about writing and reading it, and that makes people uncomfortable, which they are more than welcome to feel. I used to be very uncomfortable about the idea of it. I wondered, how can you write fic about real people when you don't know that much about them? It just seemed... surreal to me. And I suppose it still does in an entirely different way. I've accepted it as a valid form of fiction one that should not be spurned by so many. Though I don't expect anything I say here to change how people feel about the genre, I'm not going to refrain from delving into this.
What we know of these celebrities is what we garner from interviews and the such. We observe their behaviours on television interviews, and pore over them in print. In RPF we take what we know about them from the media (source material) and expand upon it in much the same way that one does with fictional characters in books, television shows and movies. They are now fictional characters, what is written about them has nothing to do with who they are in real life, it is merely speculation based on the media's portrayal of them. And as we often learn from shows like behind the stars and e true Hollywood story, what we perceive a celebrity to be like is quite different from how they really were.
Rags like the Star and National Enquirer are nothing more than glorified RPF, for all the truth that is found within those pages. Sure, there is some truth to it, but it's a story that someone has written - extrapolating from the facts and making it interesting. "Oh! Brad Pitt hugged Angelina Jolie! They're shagging!" says a reporter one day, and the next day its all over the rags that Brad is cheating on Jennifer with Angelina. Is it true? Possibly. Maybe more so than anything that's written in RPS (Real People Slash), but still not the truth.
I chose to view RPF/RPS as fiction and not as an invasion on the celebrity's life. It's akin to writing in your diary as a teenager about your wedding with Devon Sawa, or Jordan Knight, or David Cassidy, or whomever it was you fancied at the time. I don't see how sharing it with someone else makes it different. It's a fantasy, one that isn't expected to happen within the real world, and the desire to be able to share it with others is not a reason for persecution. Of course, if a celebrity chooses to condemn fan fiction about themselves, that's their prerogative and I will respect their wishes.
I'm not going to shove it in their face or pretend its real. I'm no tinhat, and I think that's one of the big issues with RPF. People have the impression that those who read and write it believe it's really real. It's not, but I have as much right to speculate all I want over a shared touch in a photograph or a videotaped interaction with another celebrity as much as I have the right to speculate about the subtext in the Harry Potter books. I don't expect everyone to see this as a valid argument, the same as I don't expect everyone to enjoy the same genres or writing styles.
There are so many taboos in writing and reading that I can only imagine there are as many in writing about them. But what's the fun of taboos if you don't break one or two along the way?
Writing is in the eye of the beholder or rather the reader/writer and I think we'd all do good to remember that.