finally tripped on the carpet

Nov 03, 2006 15:05

a. sometimes i wish there were more moments in life like the last ten minutes of major league II, where rick vaughn comes out of the bullpen for the last out of the ninth, and he's wearing the leather jacket and the plastic frame skull glasses. i mean, don't we all?

b. oh, hey, this one's an oldie but a goodie: ( if you write something where a real person appears in a fictional setting, it is called real-person fiction. )

pop fictions, writers of unpopular fiction are trying

Leave a comment

Comments 23

annakovsky November 3 2006, 19:35:15 UTC
the debate being: is there anyone close by who can hit this person over the head with a brick?

Ahahahahahahahaha.

Man, the fact that there is apparently a discussion out there about whether RPF is RPF makes me want to cry. Oh, fandom, stop sucking.

Reply

throughadoor November 3 2006, 20:34:47 UTC
it appears that the tv show-based rpf fandoms are having growing pains. *yawn*

Reply


traveller November 3 2006, 19:37:38 UTC
someone's trying to debate item b? i, in fact, have a brick.

Reply

throughadoor November 3 2006, 20:37:48 UTC
the argument i saw was something about how a real person character appearing in the universe that they (the actor) also portray a character in fictionally is more than just rpf because it's an exploration of the myth-arc of the universe. and while i can see the point, i guess i'm just old-fashioned when it comes to rpf/rps and whenever someone starts talking about how it's "more" or "different," i assume that what they really mean is "better than" or "less ethically dubious than."

i'm getting ooooooooooooold, cee.

Reply

dafnagreer November 3 2006, 21:29:18 UTC
Is this about that SGA story w/ Hewlett? Cause I didn't see that debate but I did read the story and while I thought it was entertaining, it wasn't quite the second coming that some have suggested. (But I felt that way about the SGA war-time setting one w/ multimedia effects that was posted lately -- cool, but not that different than what you did w/ your serial killer story a million years ago.)

Reply

throughadoor November 3 2006, 21:46:26 UTC
yeah, that's the one, and to be honest, i haven't read the whole story. i just read some comments about the story from the authors who said that they were hesitant to label the story as "strictly RPS," which generated a bit of an eye-roll from me.

i did think that the audio and video stuff from that WWII story was pretty amazing -- it was the first time i'd ever seen multimedia taken to that extent in a piece of fan fiction.

Reply


notpiecebypiece November 3 2006, 19:54:17 UTC
I'm a little confused by point b, but maybe this is because I am not enough informed about RPF debate. but I would like to ask -- is it possible that when writing RPF with little to no canon, a different standard could be used, when judging quality, than how closely it adheres to existing canon? I am just saying this because a lot of the fic (but not RPF) I've been reading/writing recently has little basis in canon and I'm curious about measuring quality. because this kind of fic is usually enjoyable to me for other reasons than how closely it adheres to canon -- for example, an interesting exploration of a character's motive, or imagining chemistry that seems to make sense even without text to support it, etc.

Reply

throughadoor November 3 2006, 20:41:27 UTC
when i saw "canon" (both in relationship to rpf and just in general) i'm not just talking about events and facts but also characterization. i've never understood why people read/write rpf when there's little or no source material from which to get a sense of this person's voice/character/motivations, because, at that point, why not just write original fiction? but that's just my preference, as much as i may have stated my preferences like they were 100% fact in my post, i know that many people do feel differently.

Reply

notpiecebypiece November 3 2006, 20:54:16 UTC
when i say "canon" (both in relationship to rpf and just in general) i'm not just talking about events and facts but also characterization ohhhhh okay. that makes it a lot clearer.

Reply


queenofalostart November 3 2006, 19:56:11 UTC
but if you end up writing an actor-character that's such an extrapolation of what little you know about the actor that you don't even think it counts as RPF anymore? you're still writing RPF, you're probably just writing RPF with unintentionally poor characterization.

*takes off top in your honor*

Reply

joyfulseeker November 3 2006, 20:16:41 UTC
Maybe it's because it's Friday and I didn't sleep much last night, but that made me make an embarrassingly loud noise in my cubicle.

Reply

throughadoor November 3 2006, 20:41:46 UTC
whoo!

Reply


dirtyvirgin November 3 2006, 21:17:16 UTC
d. been there, hysterically tried to resign from my job, stayed, am now apparently content in my rut. but we loves you babe and i'm still working on the motherland journey. i'll keep you posted.

Reply

throughadoor November 6 2006, 02:14:58 UTC
one might say i'm waiting with antici ... pation.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up