(no subject)

[petronia]

This is for metempsychosis; somehow the comment refuses to post.



I think my sense that boybandslash is in general better might be because I have a very definite, and large, group of preferred writers in SDBfic, and barely ever need to throw myself on the mercy of recs, which are so very subjective.

Know how that works. I'm cheerfully convinced at this point that HP produces uniformly superlative writing, and if you point me toward ffnet I'll stick my fingers in my ears and sing Lothlorien Rhapsody loudly. *g*

I still hold that 2-D was quite blatantly Damon Albarn (he even looked like him, dammit), and the whole concept of slashing /him/ made me punctuate, merely because if you were going to, wouldn't you choose Graham Coxon?

...True. Very true.

Somehow, though, "embarrassing pimply-teen fantasies" seem worse when they use real people rather than fictional characters.

This is... It *is*, and it's not a double standard, but I have to think before I pin it down. ^^; Possibly it's because wishing one could meet Julius Caesar or Madame Bovary falls entirely into the realm of abstract speculation, whereas wishing one could meet Tom Cruise is the more pathetic because strictly speaking it is possible. "Yeah, you and me both. Now go picket his next L.A. premiere and stop bothering me with your lack of a life."

Possibly it's because people are just people, famous or not, and fictional characters optimally are bigger than just people. They're archetypes, or metaphors, or representatives or placeholders. Oversharing your reaction to a Jungian archetype is less cringe-inducing than oversharing your reaction to a celeb you hallucinate is a Jungian archetype.

what's more, a characterisation that author doesn't tend to use in their own RPS. I think that's what confused me so much: it was this person's fic, and this particular fandom, but somehow also a different set of writers' RPS portrayal of [celebrity].

Perhaps on some level they thought, "Well, [set of traits] makes for an interesting character, albeit not in line with the way I think of [celebrity], so let's graft them onto someone else"?

...Oscar Wilde hobnobbing with Holmes? Now that is just wrong.

It was at one of Dr. Von Helsing's lectures. I kid not, sahib; I never kid.

Comments

[metempsychosis.livejournal.com]

The comment did actually post, eventually: but this one's easier and nearer to reply to. ^_^

I'm cheerfully convinced at this point that HP produces uniformly superlative writing...

Exactly! The joys of large fandoms, I guess. Or, at least, of what I - having little comparative ml experience (read: having been on two fandom mls to which were posted fics irrespective of quality) - would call 'ljification', the fact that I know for a cert which journals to look in and find either wonderful fic or recs thereof, and in a shorter space of time than proper recs pages would give.

Possibly it's because people are just people, famous or not, and fictional characters optimally are bigger than just people.

It's an interesting theory, and I'm not sure whether or not I agree with it - I think I need time to mull. Where I differ from you is, I think, that I'm hung up on the idea of celebrities as 'people reinvented to be desire objects': it's not so bad when it's someone who can be said to have been from the moment of mental-conception to be a desire object, which is a more blatant form of consumer exploitation and thus acceptable.

Also, I have this jinx theory, where if you imagine a situation in detail it's definitely never going to happen. So every time I read those, I think "don't! Now you're never going to meet him!" and feel sad for the poor writer who has just killed their chances of fulfilling their fantasies.

Perhaps on some level they thought, "Well, [set of traits] makes for an interesting character, albeit not in line with the way I think of [celebrity], so let's graft them onto someone else"?

Also, that particular set of traits are utterly adorable, and make any character who has them instantly fun. I have a feeling I've probably adopted some of them myself for a character, inadvertently, and have to reread to make sure I'm at least not being obvious about it. ^^;; And, yes, on some level - it was definitely related to that one of that writer's portrayals of [character], but it was as if they'd been rereading fics using that characterisation of [celebrity] and got mixed up when trying to write.

I kid not, sahib; I never kid.

!!! I'm sure you don't. ^_^

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Or, at least, of what I - having little comparative ml experience (read: having been on two fandom mls to which were posted fics irrespective of quality) - would call 'ljification', the fact that I know for a cert which journals to look in and find either wonderful fic or recs thereof, and in a shorter space of time than proper recs pages would give.

It makes me feel as if I should start posting recs. Except then everyone would know what I *actually* read, and then you would laugh at me. For sure. T_T

Where I differ from you is, I think, that I'm hung up on the idea of celebrities as 'people reinvented to be desire objects': it's not so bad when it's someone who can be said to have been from the moment of mental-conception to be a desire object, which is a more blatant form of consumer exploitation and thus acceptable.

I think it depends on the celebrity. Or rather, I think celebrities are conceived objects, and the creators thereof, to differing degrees, and some are more the one than the other. George Lucas is a celeb, but if I tried to slash him I'm going to have to deal fairly quickly with the fact that he hasn't been reinvented as a desire object in the least. ^^; (There should be a canon version of the Slash-The-Slashers challenge: Slash The Creators Of Major Slash Fandoms. Like celebrity boxing, only not.) The cultural mythology (if not necessarily the truth) of boybands is that they're entirely image, though, so I'd agree with you there. The interesting ones for me, at least for purposes of mental circling, are the celebs who appear to be their *own* conceived objects: like, well, Gackt.

In this view, people who write themselves into their RPF are Failing To Get The Meta. That's something of a cardinal sin with me, so I suppose it works just as well. XD

Also, I have this jinx theory, where if you imagine a situation in detail it's definitely never going to happen. So every time I read those, I think "don't! Now you're never going to meet him!" and feel sad for the poor writer who has just killed their chances of fulfilling their fantasies.

XD That reminds me of an ex-bf, who said once that he envied me because I edit events after they happened in order to make a better story. He tended to plot things out in advance in rigourous and fulsome detail, and spent his time being disappointed because nothing ever happened to plan.

[metempsychosis.livejournal.com]

Or you could settle for composing recs in your head as a way of organising your thoughts? ^_^

Speaking of organising thoughts, the more I try and sort out my thinking re: Why RPF Is Only Bad When There Are Self-Inserts And/Or True Believers, the more unconvincing it sounds. Uh. It holds together as a logical argument in my head?

(Would the /really/ meta version of that be slashing the nonceleb image-creators of major RPS fandoms? Lou Perlman slash? ...Someone out there /must/ have slashed Smallville's creators.)

People who Don't Get The Meta strike me as faintly similar to people who think the best way to invest their writing with sadness is to have their characters commit suicide. There's that same urge to shake them and say something along the lines of "were you listening?", which I'd like to think is my heartfelt conviction that people are a lot brighter than they seem to think they are, but might just be my snobbishness.

he envied me because I edit events after they happened in order to make a better story.

...So do I.