A Presumptuous Request
Ramirasu
During that time I've become a solid fan of the work of many
of the alt.startrek.creative contributors who have displayed
their work here. Understand that I'm a complete neo-
phyte/tyro--I've never become deeply involved in any of the
sort of Star Trek fandom (not that I haven't got *respect* for
it; I just haven't gotten *involved* in it) which necessitates sew-
ing one' own suits together or attending conventions. So it could
be I've gotten in over my head: can't pass a quiz, that's me.
Here's what I *like* about Star Trek though: I think that the Star Trek
Body Of Work--the Trekiverse--may be one among the few consistent
bases for storytelling that remain to us. When I say "consistent"
I'm not talking about consistency in Berman-&-Braga-Just-Proved-
They-Don't-Know-Star-Trek sense, but about consistency in the
only sense that matters where fabulation is concerned: the sense
in which the tale is *consistently* apt to be able to provoke a
response--preferably a dropped jaw--from its reader or auditor.
Lots of you guys here can pull that off. You can score that dropped jaw.
You're able to do it partly because you're talented--but partly
you're able to do it because you've got good material to work with.
Xovers aside--could the greater number of you do with the
Single-Girl-In-New-Yorkiverse or with the Snarky-Dudiverse
--*consistently*--that which you find yourselves consistently
able to do with the Trekiverse? Speaking, once again, with complete
respect, but also with complete seriousness, I doubt it.
Well--to the point. I'm just an old-fashioned girl, and Gamin Davis
is one of my favorite fic-purveyors. I've managed to read most of
her work, or at least most of that portion of her work which has
appeared here. But I've missed some of it. And of the portion
I've missed the part I *miss* most is the second half of "Final Victory"
(sections 9/16 through 16/16) which were posted between 9/1/2000
and 9/6/2000. I've run a couple of searches and haven't been able to turn
these up. In fact it seems--in light of the couple of searches I've run
that for some reason *none* of the alt.startrek.creative messages
which were posted between 8/31/2000 and 9/13/2000 survive.
Go figure...
So--would it be possible that these missing sections of "Final Victory"
might be reposted? And if it's not, might I be informed of this so
that I can make some alternative plans?
BTW, I anticipate that some scoffery might be incident upon this
request of mine--*what*, do I not know how "Final Victory"
*comes out*? What's the urgency? Where's the suspense? Point
conceded. But I'd like to read the Missing Bits of "Final Victory"
anyhow...
Jemima Pereira
seinensi...@yahoo.com (Ramirasu) wrote:
> Here's what I *like* about Star Trek though: I think that the Star Trek
> Body Of Work--the Trekiverse--may be one among the few consistent
> bases for storytelling that remain to us. When I say "consistent"
> I'm not talking about consistency in Berman-&-Braga-Just-Proved-
> They-Don't-Know-Star-Trek sense, but about consistency in the
> only sense that matters where fabulation is concerned: the sense
> in which the tale is *consistently* apt to be able to provoke a
> response--preferably a dropped jaw--from its reader or auditor.
Your definition of consistency doesn't make much sense. I can point you
to some very bad Trekfic, if you really think jaws are dropping all
over. Try Godawful, for a start. (http://go.to/godawful) Can you name
some other "Body Of Work" that you think is consistent?
> Lots of you guys here can pull that off. You can score that dropped jaw.
>
> You're able to do it partly because you're talented--but partly
> you're able to do it because you've got good material to work with.
> Xovers aside--could the greater number of you do with the
> Single-Girl-In-New-Yorkiverse or with the Snarky-Dudiverse
> --*consistently*--that which you find yourselves consistently
> able to do with the Trekiverse? Speaking, once again, with complete
> respect, but also with complete seriousness, I doubt it.
Personally, I don't think we have especially good material to work with.
If I had cable, I think I'd write SG-1 fic instead of Trek - now
*that's* an interesting universe. Trek is artificial, repetitive,
overworked and inconsistent.
There are advantages of fanfic to the writer and reader - mainly
familiarity and accessibility - but you shouldn't confuse that with
authorial talent proper. I fully believe that anyone who can write a
good Trek story can write good original material - and probably better
original material, because it would be more realistic and/or
scientifically accurate than Trek-based stories.
On the other hand, you probably are partly right about the Single Girl
in New York. That people here can write exciting science fiction does
not mean that they could write interesting mainstream fiction (if there
is, indeed, such a thing - I doubt it). I would die of boredom before I
finished a Single Girl in New York story - but I can think of some other
writers who could do it well.
jemima
______________________
jem...@crosswinds.net
http://jemimap.cjb.net
Gamin Davis
> Well--to the point. I'm just an old-fashioned girl, and Gamin Davis
> is one of my favorite fic-purveyors. I've managed to read most of
> her work, or at least most of that portion of her work which has
> appeared here. But I've missed some of it. And of the portion
> I've missed the part I *miss* most is the second half of "Final Victory"
> (sections 9/16 through 16/16) which were posted between 9/1/2000
> and 9/6/2000. I've run a couple of searches and haven't been able to turn
> these up. In fact it seems--in light of the couple of searches I've run
> that for some reason *none* of the alt.startrek.creative messages
> which were posted between 8/31/2000 and 9/13/2000 survive.
> Go figure...
Hey, I am very honored that I'm one of your favorite authors! I
don't think anybody else here has ever said that (at least not
publicly). You can read "Final Victory" in its entirety (as well as a
lot of my other stories) at my website (which I haven't advertised
because the person building it for me is still putting finishing
touches on it):
salatrel0.tripod.com/gamindavis.html
If you want to comment by E-mail, don't use the link--it doesn't
reflect my new E-mail address, which is tre...@nwark.net. BTW, in
case you haven't been following it, I'm currently posting another
story, "Time of Miracles".
> BTW, I anticipate that some scoffery might be incident upon this
> request of mine--*what*, do I not know how "Final Victory"
> *comes out*? What's the urgency? Where's the suspense? Point
> conceded. But I'd like to read the Missing Bits of "Final Victory"
> anyhow...
<g> The title is a bit obvious, but it was suggested by somebody
else and it was a whole lot better than my original title, so I chose
to use it. Even so, you might still enjoy the rest of it.
Gamin
Gabrielle Lawson
Jemima Pereira wrote:
> In article <9e359764.0107...@posting.google.com>,
> seinensi...@yahoo.com (Ramirasu) wrote:
>
> > Here's what I *like* about Star Trek though: I think that the Star Trek
> > Body Of Work--the Trekiverse--may be one among the few consistent
> > bases for storytelling that remain to us. When I say "consistent"
> > I'm not talking about consistency in Berman-&-Braga-Just-Proved-
> > They-Don't-Know-Star-Trek sense, but about consistency in the
> > only sense that matters where fabulation is concerned: the sense
> > in which the tale is *consistently* apt to be able to provoke a
> > response--preferably a dropped jaw--from its reader or auditor.
>
> Your definition of consistency doesn't make much sense. I can point you
> to some very bad Trekfic, if you really think jaws are dropping all
> over. Try Godawful, for a start. (http://go.to/godawful) Can you name
> some other "Body Of Work" that you think is consistent?
I think I get what she was getting at, even if I don't get "consistency" as
described. It's one of the things that attracts me to Trek. Trek is more than
just a TV show or four TV shows (now five). It's a phenomenon. It's
amazing to think how much history there is (at least 400 years since Trek
history starts with our history--with some inconsistencies due to the writers'
inability to predict the future). There is a lot of fodder for tales in 400
years of history (and the future). It's more immense than Star Wars, I'd
say, because Star Wars doesn't include us like Trek does. It's bigger
than StarGate, which you mention below. I remember when I was the only
one of my friends who liked the original movie (which I saw in the Czech
Republic under the title "Hvezda Brana").
> Personally, I don't think we have especially good material to work with.
> If I had cable, I think I'd write SG-1 fic instead of Trek - now
> *that's* an interesting universe. Trek is artificial, repetitive,
> overworked and inconsistent.
SG-1 is not always so unrepetive or underworked either. It's what
one does with it. There have been some really original Star Trek fanfic
stories done. CDS has one that I just was amazed by ("When There
Are No More Tomorrows" if I've got the title right. It's on Fanfiction.net).
There are fanficers who are taking Trek into new directions the guys
working on the TV show would never have gone (and I'm not just talking
about the slash stuff.)
> There are advantages of fanfic to the writer and reader - mainly
> familiarity and accessibility - but you shouldn't confuse that with
> authorial talent proper. I fully believe that anyone who can write a
> good Trek story can write good original material - and probably better
> original material, because it would be more realistic and/or
> scientifically accurate than Trek-based stories.
And I think this paragraph is a bit harsh. Don't confuse familiarity and
accessibility with authorial talent? I should hope not but I don't like that
you're implying that's what we've got going on here: accessibility and
familiarity and NOT talent. While I am one of the first to admit that you
have to dig though a lot of drek to find the gems, there are gems here.
There are some really talented writers, whether they are writing original
stuff or fanfiction. And accessibility and familiarity don't guarantee
anything. Without talent, all you get is drek.
A talented fanfic writer may not necessarily be able to write original
material.
Some can. Some can't. Some could with further practice. It takes quite a bit
more effort to create all new characters' lives, motivations, and conflicts.
It takes more effort to fully realize a setting. Some try and just can't carry
it off. This is true of writers who don't write fanfic, too. With Trek, the
main
characters (with their histories, motivations, and to some extent, conflicts)
and
setting (ships, planets, etc.) are provided.
> On the other hand, you probably are partly right about the Single Girl
> in New York. That people here can write exciting science fiction does
> not mean that they could write interesting mainstream fiction (if there
> is, indeed, such a thing - I doubt it). I would die of boredom before I
> finished a Single Girl in New York story - but I can think of some other
> writers who could do it well.
I would be one of those. New York scares me anyway.
--
--Gabrielle
I'd much rather be writing!
http://www.stormpages.com/gabrielle/trek The Edge of the Frontier
http://www.stormpages.com/gabrielle/doyle This Side of the Nether
Michael Roy Hollihan
>
> There are advantages of fanfic to the writer and reader - mainly
> familiarity and accessibility - but you shouldn't confuse that with
> authorial talent proper. I fully believe that anyone who can write a
> good Trek story can write good original material - and probably better
> original material, because it would be more realistic and/or
> scientifically accurate than Trek-based stories.
I'm not sure I completely agree with this. John *rd*ver made this point
last year, though folks here weren't disposed to hear it: Fanfic writing
is different than "original" writing in that some very important
creative muscles don't get used.
If I say, "Kirk stormed into the room," you can immediately picture it.
That's because many people have already done the hard work of imagining,
creating, developing and presenting that character. But if I say "Smith
stormed into the room," you draw a blank. I have yet to do the work of
writing scenes, dialogue and action to illustrate and breathe life into
that character. "Janeway gave him the death-glare," conjures immediately
a complete image. How much work will I the writer have to do to get a
similar totality for my original character?
That's hard, as all the Mary Sues out there show. ;-) Look at all the
"original" characters used within the Star Trek universe, by fanfic
writers. Even here, the work of creating or sketching out a believable
universe is done already, but the characters themselves are
hit-and-miss. There's only one successful "original" character that
comes to my mind as i write this: Jungle Kitty's Suzanne Brandt. Ask her
how much work went into making her "real."
Try reading in the "original crew" universes sometime. I have--close to
thirty of them! For every James Winter (Hi J!), there's a lot more bad
writing. Again, a lot of the work is done for the fanfic writer, but
actually coming up with interesting, believable and compelling
characters is tough. (Believe me, I know. I'm trying it myself right
now.)
Understanding someone else's character well enough to put them into new
situations of your own creation--while still a challenge--is, I would
argue, not as difficult as making up your own characters and universes,
*and* making it worth reading.
--
Michael Roy Hollihan
(Remove the NOT to REPLY)
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Jungle Kitty
> I'm not sure I completely agree with this. John *rd*ver made this point
> last year, though folks here weren't disposed to hear it: Fanfic writing
> is different than "original" writing in that some very important
> creative muscles don't get used.
That's one of the things I agree with Mr. *rd*ver on. And I didn't
realize how completely dependent I am on the Trek universe until I tried
to de-Trek some of my erotic pieces to see if I could get them
published. Even the stories that have very little actual Trek in them
rely on reader familiarity with the Trek universe.
>
> If I say, "Kirk stormed into the room," you can immediately picture it.
> That's because many people have already done the hard work of imagining,
> creating, developing and presenting that character. But if I say "Smith
> stormed into the room," you draw a blank. I have yet to do the work of
> writing scenes, dialogue and action to illustrate and breathe life into
> that character. "Janeway gave him the death-glare," conjures immediately
> a complete image. How much work will I the writer have to do to get a
> similar totality for my original character?
>
> That's hard, as all the Mary Sues out there show. ;-)
I've been thinking about this lately and I think one of the main
problems with flat or uninteresting original characters is this: As
fanfic writers, we learn to invoke characters that are easily
recognizable to our audience. As you point out, "Kirk stormed into the
room" brings up an immediate visual image for Trekfans. (Aside: This is
the main reason that I can't read fanfic of shows that I have rarely or
never seen.) All the writer has to do is type the word "Kirk" to invoke
the character. So now this writer wants to introduce an original
character, one that probably is very full-blooded and alive in hir
imagination. But ze writes it in hir usual way--ze invokes the character
who lives in hir imagination, essentially writing fanfic of a show that
no one but ze has ever seen. All the life that the writer sees in the
character isn't being communicated to the reader mostly because the
writer has never has to do this before.
> There's only one successful "original" character that
> comes to my mind as i write this: Jungle Kitty's Suzanne Brandt. Ask her
> how much work went into making her "real."
<blush, preen, big smile> Thanks for the plug, Mike. Actually though, I
think I was very lucky with Brandt and I'm not sure if I can take a lot
of bows for working *hard*. I wrote a lot of stories with her in them (I
think there are around 100 now) but I don't know if I'd say
a lot of "work" went into making her real. It really wasn't a conscious
thing. I didn't set out to write an entire series or anything beyond the
first story. I just wanted to write a story in which Kirk has a playful
relationship and a sexual encounter with an interesting woman (and I
wanted to do that mostly because I'd been writing slash and I thought,
"As long as I'm celebrating sexuality, why not celebrate the one I
actually have firsthand experience with?"). All I knew about "Mary Sue"
at that time was that everybody hated her. So I thought, "What kind of
woman would make me sick?" and I wrote the opposite. <g> So she came
onboard, was established as an old friend, they had some sparkling
repartee <wink>, had some sex <wink wink>, and then they went their
separate ways with no big emotional brouhaha, which I think is the main
reason she didn't get booed off the stage. I thought the first story
would be the only one, then after that I thought maybe three or four,
then... I found I really liked writing het and it seemed easier to keep
using Brandt than to have to introduce a new woman for each story. By
then, she'd taken on a life of her own (for me at least) so I found I
could do a lot more with her since each story gave her a little more
"life." For some reason, I was having too much fun with it to notice if
it was work or not. Now I can look back and see the mistakes I made and
sigh with relief at the ones I avoided (and I didn't know the difference
when I was writing them) but I've had good betas and I think my
instincts have served me well (by which I mean, when I ask a beta "Is
this girly/hokey/unbelievable/whatever?" I usually already know the
answer is yes. But I still appreciate them being honest with me.) That's
why I say I was lucky. In fact, now that I'm more conscious of what I'm
doing, it's much harder.
I think the biggest hurdle in creating an OC who will interact with the
Trek characters in a significant way (other than the above mentioned
lack of practice at creating rather than invoking characters) is the
tendency of the writer to rush to the "good parts." I've read a number
of OC stories in which a main character falls in love with the OC.
Trouble is, the reader doesn't. The reader has no reason to care about
the OC at all. As far as the reader is concerned, this OC just walked
onstage and became the big love of someone's life. The writer (again
invoking the TV show of hir own imagination) loves the OC and finds the
situation incredibly moving but we don't. How many of us are deeply
interested in any of the one-shots, even the canon ones, like Carol
Marcus, Edith Keeler, Miramanee? I think in all three cases, most people
feel more for Kirk than for the woman. Even the ones I like just don't
stand on their own. Example of rushing to the Big Love Affair: I'd
written only three Kirk/Brandt stories before "Star-Spangled Night" (the
story in which they first use the L word). I cringe now to think how
soon I introduced that in the series, yet I give myself a little bit of
credit for at least waiting until the fourth story. Put that in the
story in which the OC is introduced and--sad to say--you're just asking
to wear the Scarlet MS. <g> But there are worse things that could
happen...
A last word of warning on writing an OC, esp one involved with a canon
character: no matter what you do, someone is going to yell "Mary Sue!"
After 4 years, I've decided that's irrelevant. It's not like there's a
strict definition of MS and the very thing that makes her a MS to one
reader is the same thing that keeps her from being an MS to another.
Mary Sue has become the shorthand for "something I don't like." It's
just someone taking a very cheap shot because they're too lazy to offer
any real criticism. The term is usually slung by someone who wants to
piss the writer off or get them to stop writing "that stuff" or, IOW,
"write what I like!" It reminds me of my experience growing up in one of
the few Protestant families in a Catholic neighborhood. All our
neighborhood friends went to Catholic school but we all played together
after school. Whenever we didn't want to play the way our Catholic
buddies wanted to, they'd yell, "Mortal sin!" These were 7-year-olds;
they didn't understand mortal sin; they just knew that it was a Big Deal
and hoped that by passing this horrible judgment on us, we'd do what
they wanted. Problem was, we knew even less about mortal sin than they
did but we could recognize a big line of bullshit, so we just yelled,
"IS NOT!" and went back to whatever we were doing.
Note to all OC writers: Mary Sue is not a mortal sin. You will not burn
in hell for writing about original characters.
Sorry to go on so long but I think about these things, mostly trying
to figure out why this used to be sooooooo easy. BTW, I hope this
doesn't sound too pompous and lecture-y. I think it would be great if
some of the other writers here would join in with their experiences with
original characters.
--
Jungle Kitty
http://www.invisibleplanets.com/
----------------------------------------------
Heads-up for visitors to San Francisco:
"The Eagle has a fabulous beer bash but on
Sunday, they call it a brunch."
"What kind of tops would go to a brunch?"
"Out-of-town tops."
----------------------------------------------
Amiroq. aka Gypzy
> I've been thinking about this lately and I think one of the main
> problems with flat or uninteresting original characters is this: As
> fanfic writers, we learn to invoke characters that are easily
> recognizable to our audience. As you point out, "Kirk stormed into the
> room" brings up an immediate visual image for Trekfans. (Aside: This is
> the main reason that I can't read fanfic of shows that I have rarely or
> never seen.)
Well, that's only true sometimes. I currently have a desk drawer full of
printed off Highlander fanfic which I got from a friend. I'd never seen
Highlander before, but I knew the premise (and not much else).
Basically, my total knowledge of Highlander was
1, it's a series about these Immortals, the main character of which is
Duncan who is Scottish and another is Methos who is 5 000.
2, Duncan and Methos are destined to be together. :)
I read lots. These were good authors. They showed me the characters. I
actually became a fan of Highlander without ever seeing an episode, or
really knowing much about it at all. I saw my first episode yesterday
with my sister and friend sitting there telling me "That's Richie...
That's Joe (with me saying "That's not what Joe looks like! It's wrong!
It's wrong!"<g>)... That's Duncan, we think he's cute... That's Methos.
See how they love each other?" etcetc.
The point is, if the writer is good, it can be done. I threw out
everything of those that wasn't Highlander or Star Trek because I had no
idea what was going on, but the Highlander was *good*.
> Note to all OC writers: Mary Sue is not a mortal sin. You will not burn
> in hell for writing about original characters.
Not all OCs are Mary Sues, though. I know this, my first story was a
Mary Sue. I admit it and move on. This, though, is the difference:
Mary Sue is evil, but not a mortal sin - she is the embodiment of
everything perfect. She's beautiful, young, just out of school and yet a
brain surgeon *and* a quantum mechanic. She has unusual colouring and
telempathic powers. She has only one character flaw - everyone wants
her.
OCs are believable.
That's the difference.
Amiroq. aka Gypzy
Rabble Rouser
>situations of your own creation--while still a challenge--is, I would
>argue, not as difficult as making up your own characters and universes,
>*and* making it worth reading.
Making up your own characters AND universes *and* making it worth reading.
Probably true enough. Especially if you had to create a setting and believable
"universe" from scratch.
And yet for all the rants against Mary Sue I have yet to personally read a
story that really evokes her in an original character (except for one where she
was deliberately and very effectively evoked by Saavant in "T'Mia and the Rain
Man" to represent what Spock means to a fan) Maybe she was more common in the
beginning of fandom in the zines.
It's as if MS is some ghost haunting fandom--or more accurately a boogie man.
Truth is, maybe because of the way the epithet is hurled around, I rarely,
rarely see original characters period in fanfic. When I have--from JK's
Brandt, to JW's Durant, to a very vivid POV character in a story by Francesca
called "The Hands We Are Dealt" they've been pretty damn successful.
The worse "Mary Sues" I've seen--the worse failures to evoke a character I can
care about or where a writer writes a cartoonishly perfect character or
carelessly projects her own experiences onto the character have been with
depictions of canon characters.
Although it may be true that with a canon character you have a shorthand
available (I think more in turn of background then description--I can evoke
"Pon farr" and people will automatically fill in the events of "Amok Time) you
have a challenge just as demanding that I often see failed. To be true to a
character that everyone "knows" and everyone can judge--and boy is it hard to
hit the mark.
I find Jungle Kitty's stories just as remarkable (if not more) for her Kirk as
for her Brandt because lord knows she's one of only a small handful of writers
who write him well consistantly--I think that's just as rare and as much of an
achievement.
- - - - - - - - - -
Rabble Rouser
Story Page:
http://www.geocities.com/rabble_rouser_st/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The test of courage comes when we are in the minority.
The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.
Michael Roy Hollihan
>
> I've been thinking about this lately and I think one of the main
> problems with flat or uninteresting original characters is this: As
> fanfic writers, we learn to invoke characters that are easily
> recognizable to our audience. As you point out, "Kirk stormed into the
> room" brings up an immediate visual image for Trekfans. (Aside: This is
> the main reason that I can't read fanfic of shows that I have rarely or
> never seen.) All the writer has to do is type the word "Kirk" to invoke
> the character. So now this writer wants to introduce an original
> character, one that probably is very full-blooded and alive in hir
> imagination. But ze writes it in hir usual way--ze invokes the character
> who lives in hir imagination, essentially writing fanfic of a show that
> no one but ze has ever seen. All the life that the writer sees in the
> character isn't being communicated to the reader mostly because the
> writer has never has to do this before.
That's what I was trying to say. Thanks for saying it better. :-)
> <blush, preen, big smile> Thanks for the plug, Mike. Actually though, I
> think I was very lucky with Brandt and I'm not sure if I can take a lot
> of bows for working *hard*. I wrote a lot of stories with her in them (I
> think there are around 100 now) but I don't know if I'd say
> a lot of "work" went into making her real. It really wasn't a conscious
> thing. I didn't set out to write an entire series or anything beyond the
> first story. I just wanted to write a story in which Kirk has a playful
> relationship and a sexual encounter with an interesting woman (and I
> wanted to do that mostly because I'd been writing slash and I thought,
> "As long as I'm celebrating sexuality, why not celebrate the one I
> actually have firsthand experience with?"). All I knew about "Mary Sue"
> at that time was that everybody hated her. So I thought, "What kind of
> woman would make me sick?" and I wrote the opposite. <g> So she came
> onboard, was established as an old friend, they had some sparkling
> repartee <wink>, had some sex <wink wink>, and then they went their
> separate ways with no big emotional brouhaha, which I think is the main
> reason she didn't get booed off the stage. I thought the first story
> would be the only one, then after that I thought maybe three or four,
> then... I found I really liked writing het and it seemed easier to keep
> using Brandt than to have to introduce a new woman for each story. By
> then, she'd taken on a life of her own (for me at least) so I found I
> could do a lot more with her since each story gave her a little more
> "life." <snip>
Those last two sentences say it all. Having done the hard work of
creating Brandt, it's now easier to re-use her.
>
> I think the biggest hurdle in creating an OC who will interact with the
> Trek characters in a significant way (other than the above mentioned
> lack of practice at creating rather than invoking characters) is the
> tendency of the writer to rush to the "good parts." I've read a number
> of OC stories in which a main character falls in love with the OC.
> Trouble is, the reader doesn't. The reader has no reason to care about
> the OC at all. As far as the reader is concerned, this OC just walked
> onstage and became the big love of someone's life. The writer (again
> invoking the TV show of hir own imagination) loves the OC and finds the
> situation incredibly moving but we don't. How many of us are deeply
> interested in any of the one-shots, even the canon ones, like Carol
> Marcus, Edith Keeler, Miramanee? I think in all three cases, most people
> feel more for Kirk than for the woman. Even the ones I like just don't
> stand on their own. <snip>
It may be that TV has corrupted us all. Maybe too many people are
comfortable with the idea of a new character walking on stage and having
a regular character "fall madly in love" with them in 30 or 60 minutes.
And since the status quo must be restored, of course the relationship
doesn't last, and the after-sorrow must be shown too.... We are being
trained to "get to the good parts" quickly.
As for "getting to the good parts," it goes back to the assumptions
fanfic writers can make, and all the previous work they/we/I rely on in
writing fanfic. I don't have to spend pages and chapters establishing a
relationship between Janeway and Chakotay. Paramount has done the work
for me. I need only toss a "J/C" into the header and the reader can
adjust their viewpoint before even reading my story! I can write some
pages for texture and atmosphere if I want, or go straight to what I
want to show.
It's like you said above, folks carry the show around in their head. All
that prelude already exists and is assumed, so many writers *can* go
straight to their point. I don't have to show all that, unless I want to
put my authorial/POV spin on it first. All I have to do is create the
part that doesn't exist yet. ;-)
>
> Note to all OC writers: Mary Sue is not a mortal sin. You will not burn
> in hell for writing about original characters.
When I invoked the dread MS, I wasn't criticising anyone. I was only
hoping to show how difficult it is to create a believable, compelling,
new, original character. For example, when I wrote "My Dinner With
Seven," I wanted to re-write the VOY ep, "Someone to Watch Over
Me,"--because Lt. Chapman was a bigger doof than I am! I thought I could
have done better on that date. So, I wrote myself into the story and
left off description so as not to ruin suspension of disbelief. ;-) In
that instance, I didn't need a MS, I was honestly writing myself in; and
an OC wouldn't have been so easy or fun to write, either. Which (the fun
part) was wholly the point.
Jemima Pereira
<tarl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think I get what she was getting at, even if I don't get "consistency"
> as
> described. It's one of the things that attracts me to Trek. Trek is more
> than
> just a TV show or four TV shows (now five). It's a phenomenon. It's
> amazing to think how much history there is (at least 400 years since Trek
> history starts with our history--with some inconsistencies due to the
> writers'
> inability to predict the future). There is a lot of fodder for tales in
> 400
> years of history (and the future). It's more immense than Star Wars, I'd
> say, because Star Wars doesn't include us like Trek does. It's bigger
> than StarGate, which you mention below. I remember when I was the only
> one of my friends who liked the original movie (which I saw in the Czech
> Republic under the title "Hvezda Brana").
Yes, there's a lot of history out there, but how much does the
individual fanfic really use? Not that much. And the Trek universe,
while baroque and colorful, is not a particularly well-thought out one.
Sit down and design your own universe - it's not that hard. It's not
what's keeping fanfic writers from going original.
Rather than split the thread, I'll say right here something I think the
last few posters missed - yes, it's a challenge to write your own
characters, and it's something some of us may not want to do. That,
however, doesn't mean we *couldn't* do it, as the original poster
implied.
I think most fanfic writers could write original characters and stories,
if they read up a bit on writing methods, because I believe it is just
as much of a challenge to write someone else's characters - especially
characters who are as well known as Kirk or Janeway are. At least, when
you write original characters, the assumption is that they are in
character until they contradict themselves. There aren't hundreds of
people watching like a hawk for Odo to stray out of character.
> > There are advantages of fanfic to the writer and reader - mainly
> > familiarity and accessibility - but you shouldn't confuse that with
> > authorial talent proper. I fully believe that anyone who can write a
> > good Trek story can write good original material - and probably better
> > original material, because it would be more realistic and/or
> > scientifically accurate than Trek-based stories.
>
> And I think this paragraph is a bit harsh. Don't confuse familiarity and
> accessibility with authorial talent? I should hope not but I don't like
> that
> you're implying that's what we've got going on here: accessibility and
> familiarity and NOT talent.
No, that's the opposite of what I meant. I meant that the original
poster was sensing the general accessible aura of fanfic, which makes it
a wonderful playground for both writers and readers, and assuming from
that that Trek was doing all the heavy lifting for the writers. As you
mentioned, you don't have to go far to find bad Trek, which shows that
the authors, and not the universe, are doing the work here.
> A talented fanfic writer may not necessarily be able to write original
> material.
> Some can. Some can't. Some could with further practice. It takes quite
> a bit
> more effort to create all new characters' lives, motivations, and
> conflicts.
> It takes more effort to fully realize a setting. Some try and just can't
> carry
> it off. This is true of writers who don't write fanfic, too. With Trek,
> the main
> characters (with their histories, motivations, and to some extent,
> conflicts) and
> setting (ships, planets, etc.) are provided.
I disagree. With Trek, the characters are sketched in 42-minute TV
shows, in which their histories, motivations, and conflicts are given
short shrift (though the setting is pretty elaborate, and is something
fanfic writers *do* tend to gloss over). When someone writes "Kirk
stormed onto the bridge", that's setting they're assuming, not
characterization. Fanfic writers give the Trek characters more
motivations and conflicts than the average sci-fi writer gives his
original characters.
That, in the end, is another reason why I think fanfic writers could
write original sci-fi. Science fiction does not make the demands of
characterization that other genres do.
Shayney
if they read up a bit on writing methods, because I believe it is just
as much of a challenge to write someone else's characters - especially
characters who are as well known as Kirk or Janeway are. <<
I agree. Writing fanfic and writing profic do require some different skills,
certainly. Perhaps some fans would have trouble writing original characters.
But...many pro writers aren't very good at writing in other people's universes.
That, too, takes a certain talent. There are a lot of writers whose pro work
I adore, but whose fanfic sucks. (No, I'm not naming in names, in case they're
here. :-)
-- Shayney
This is where I keep my fanfic:
http://member.aol.com/ShayneyL/
Alara Rogers
> I disagree. With Trek, the characters are sketched in 42-minute TV
> shows, in which their histories, motivations, and conflicts are given
> short shrift (though the setting is pretty elaborate, and is something
> fanfic writers *do* tend to gloss over). When someone writes "Kirk
> stormed onto the bridge", that's setting they're assuming, not
> characterization. Fanfic writers give the Trek characters more
> motivations and conflicts than the average sci-fi writer gives his
> original characters.
>
> That, in the end, is another reason why I think fanfic writers could
> write original sci-fi. Science fiction does not make the demands of
> characterization that other genres do.
I think the exact opposite, actually.
In my experience, aside from a rare few who actually pay attention to
the fact that this is a *science* fiction show, the strong point of
good fanfic writers is generally characterization. The skill that
allows a writer to write well about a new character is not that
different from the skill tht allows a writer to bring an established
character to life, particularly when the reaction is "I don't like
Character X, but you really made him seem interesting to me."
There are genres that can only be handled in serial fiction, which
fanfic is-- the brief vignette that fills in the blanks, the twist
tale that gets all its punch from the upending of what you know about
the characters-- and there are skills that are almost never called on
by fanfic, like worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is vital to sf writing--
you cannot write good sf without the ability to worldbuild, and most
fanfic writers show no skill at this. It doesn't interest them. On the
other hand, writing brief, punchy character vignettes, using human
nature as a template rather than an existing character, is something
many fanfic writers should be able to do.
So I actually think fanfic writers as a class would do better with
Single Girl In The City than folks give them credit for. But I have no
confidence that the majority of fanfic writers could write good
science fiction. Write damn good stories set in an existing sf
universe, yes, but without the talent and interest in worldbuilding,
without the ability to generate ideas that are primarily plot or
setting driven and not all character driven, you can't write sf.
Whereas I think fanfic writers demonstrate, as a class, that they are
more often than not good at characterization.
Henrietta Wotton
> It may be that TV has corrupted us all. Maybe too many people are
> comfortable with the idea of a new character walking on stage and having
> a regular character "fall madly in love" with them in 30 or 60 minutes.
> And since the status quo must be restored, of course the relationship
> doesn't last, and the after-sorrow must be shown too.... We are being
> trained to "get to the good parts" quickly.
I'm quite addicted to OCs and recently had to issue myself a challenge
to write a story in which I *didn't* invent any. There are several
ways, I think, to make them less annoying, even if you can't persuade
the reader to get as interested in them as you are. One good rule is
not to have them have a love affair with a canon character. If you
think about memorable one-shot guest stars, very often they aren't
love interests. Think Khan, or Q, or Aamin Marritza, or Annorak (sp?).
Another is to let the canon characters interact with them on an equal
level, not bring them in to solve all problems or dispense words of
wisdom. Since all the Treks featured "guest" OCs on a regular basis, I
can't really see what's so difficult or so wicked in having them pop
up regularly in fanfics as well.
Henrietta
Jemima Pereira
al...@mindspring.com (Alara Rogers) wrote:
> Jemima Pereira <jem...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> > That, in the end, is another reason why I think fanfic writers could
> > write original sci-fi. Science fiction does not make the demands of
> > characterization that other genres do.
>
> I think the exact opposite, actually.
I think we actually agree here. I was addressing the people who thought
fanfic writers are living off Paramount's characters. Even if we were,
then that (poor characterization) would be no obstacle to writing
sci-fi. But I agree that fanfic writers are actually good at
characterization.
If we split the difference between the camps, and say fanfic writers'
characterization skills are mediocre, that's enough for a Hugo award -
or at least it used to be.
> and there are skills that are almost never called on
> by fanfic, like worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is vital to sf writing--
> you cannot write good sf without the ability to worldbuild, and most
> fanfic writers show no skill at this. It doesn't interest them.
I don't see the basis for either of those points - that fanfic writers
are uninterested or unskillful at world-building. I know we have the
ready-made Trek universe which we, unfortunately, cannot alter very
much, but that's not the only forum for world-building. Whenever my
Voyager lands on an inhabited planet, I have a world to build. And, as
I stated before, world-building is, IMHO, not that hard. No one seems
to have put much effort into making the Trek universe scientifically
accurate, realistic, or even believable, yet we all like it well enough.
All fanfic is not conversations in Quark's. If fanfic writers were
truly uninterested in the sci-fi side of Trek, they would be writing
West Wing fic.
Jungle Kitty
> It may be that TV has corrupted us all.
It may be but perhaps in a different way than you think. An offlist
criticism recently made me aware of another gap between fanfic and other
types of fiction. Fanfic writers generally describe TV shows, in some
cases right down to blocking camera shots. All the meaningful eyeball
choreography is the equivalent of closeups. Hell, I realized I put
breaks in scenes for no reason other than it feels like one is
needed--the commercial. 8-O The concentration is on making the reader
see your TV show, not in telling a story. I'm not expressing this very
well. Damn. All I can say is it's made me try to be more aware of words
and actually respect them as a medium and use them to tell the story
instead of using them the way I'd describe my favorite TV show at the
water cooler the next day.
> Maybe too many people are
> comfortable with the idea of a new character walking on stage and having
> a regular character "fall madly in love" with them in 30 or 60 minutes.
> And since the status quo must be restored, of course the relationship
> doesn't last, and the after-sorrow must be shown too.... We are being
> trained to "get to the good parts" quickly.
Yes, good point. But we don't have access to all that TV has--they can
communicate a lot visually, the actors' body language, looks and
interplay have a lot to do with it. We need to communicate on that
level but it takes time and WORK to communicate that with only words,
hence the sense of rushing to the good parts when that's left out.
>
> As for "getting to the good parts," it goes back to the assumptions
> fanfic writers can make, and all the previous work they/we/I rely on in
> writing fanfic. I don't have to spend pages and chapters establishing a
> relationship between Janeway and Chakotay. Paramount has done the work
> for me. I need only toss a "J/C" into the header and the reader can
> adjust their viewpoint before even reading my story! I can write some
> pages for texture and atmosphere if I want, or go straight to what I
> want to show.
Yep.
> > Note to all OC writers: Mary Sue is not a mortal sin. You will not burn
> > in hell for writing about original characters.
>
> When I invoked the dread MS, I wasn't criticising anyone.
I didn't think you were, Mike. It's just that whenever I hear that term
used in a "critical" way, I think that's one more obstacle in the path
of a writer ever working with an OC. So I just wanted to restate my own
beliefs that (1) you can write an OC who isn't Mary Sue even if ze is
young, beautiful and the beloved of a main character, (2) someone is
going to call hir Mary Sue anyway, (3) you can survive this, and (4)
fear of being labelled an MS writer but writing your OC anyway can
actually help your writing.
Alara Rogers
I'll name names.
K. W. Jeter. Very good, very dark cyberpunk writer from before
cyberpunk existed. His Blade Runner novels are great. His DS9 novels
totally bite. He can't get out of his "the world is darkness" mindset
enough to write even the darkest of the Trek series.
Kristine Kathryn Rusch writes the most gut-wrenching, emotionally
grueling original novels you can imagine. Her Trek work is just ehh.
Melissa Scott's Trek novel was quite dull. And had no gay characters
in it, which is otherwise her trademark. :-) One is amused by the
thought of what her *fanfic*-- Trek fic written without the controls
of Pocket Books-- might look like...
On the other hand, proof that it can be done well: Diane Duane, Vonda
McIntyre and Janet Kagan. All three write great original fiction as
well as great Trek novels.
Shayney
skills,
> certainly. Perhaps some fans would have trouble writing original characters.
> But...many pro writers aren't very good at writing in other people's
universes.
> That, too, takes a certain talent. There are a lot of writers whose pro
work
> I adore, but whose fanfic sucks. (No, I'm not naming in names, in case
they're
> here. :-)
I'll name names.
K. W. Jeter. Very good, very dark cyberpunk writer from before
cyberpunk existed. His Blade Runner novels are great. His DS9 novels
totally bite. He can't get out of his "the world is darkness" mindset
enough to write even the darkest of the Trek series.
Kristine Kathryn Rusch writes the most gut-wrenching, emotionally
grueling original novels you can imagine. Her Trek work is just ehh.
Melissa Scott's Trek novel was quite dull. And had no gay characters
in it, which is otherwise her trademark. :-) One is amused by the
thought of what her *fanfic*-- Trek fic written without the controls
of Pocket Books-- might look like...
On the other hand, proof that it can be done well: Diane Duane, Vonda
McIntyre and Janet Kagan. All three write great original fiction as
well as great Trek novels. <<
Well, that wasn't quite what I had in mind, though I see your point. The thing
is, these people aren't really writing fanfic. As you note, they are under the
control of Pocket Books.
I was talking about the fan writers who also write pro stuff, usually under
different names. Often, you could tell these people were destined for pro-dom
even before they considered it. One successful pro writer I know got constant
complaints about her fanfic. It was well-written, but readers found the
characters out of character, didn't like the fact that she often completely
changed the situation (had Kirk and Spock leave Starfleet, for example), or
that she always had so many original characters.
Shayney
It may be but perhaps in a different way than you think. An offlist
criticism recently made me aware of another gap between fanfic and other
types of fiction. Fanfic writers generally describe TV shows, in some
cases right down to blocking camera shots. All the meaningful eyeball
choreography is the equivalent of closeups. Hell, I realized I put
breaks in scenes for no reason other than it feels like one is
needed--the commercial. 8-O The concentration is on making the reader
see your TV show, not in telling a story. I'm not expressing this very
well. Damn. All I can say is it's made me try to be more aware of words
and actually respect them as a medium and use them to tell the story
instead of using them the way I'd describe my favorite TV show at the
water cooler the next day. <<
You have a point, but I don't think it's only fan writers who have been
corrupted. TV and movies have affected mainstream writing this way, too.
Sometimes, you read a novel and can tell the author had the made-for-TV movie
in mind while he was writing it. <g>
Michael Roy Hollihan
>
> Michael Roy Hollihan wrote:
>
> > It may be that TV has corrupted us all.
>
> It may be but perhaps in a different way than you think. An offlist
> criticism recently made me aware of another gap between fanfic and other
> types of fiction. Fanfic writers generally describe TV shows, in some
> cases right down to blocking camera shots. All the meaningful eyeball
> choreography is the equivalent of closeups. Hell, I realized I put
> breaks in scenes for no reason other than it feels like one is
> needed--the commercial. 8-O The concentration is on making the reader
> see your TV show, not in telling a story. I'm not expressing this very
> well. Damn. All I can say is it's made me try to be more aware of words
> and actually respect them as a medium and use them to tell the story
> instead of using them the way I'd describe my favorite TV show at the
> water cooler the next day.
I know exactly what you mean--novelised screenplays. I have a very
visual sense when I write. I can see the setting, where the characters
are in the scene, posture and movement, expressions, etc. I often feel
like I'm just describing that. But I also work for the other senses as
well--especially tactile. And, though I don't know how successful I am
at it, I really try to sense the flow, the back and forth, the pauses
and missed moments and hesitations and misunderstandings, of dialogue.
To me, it's like watching water flow back and forth in a constantly
changing container. ;-)
>
> > Maybe too many people are
> > comfortable with the idea of a new character walking on stage and having
> > a regular character "fall madly in love" with them in 30 or 60 minutes.
> > And since the status quo must be restored, of course the relationship
> > doesn't last, and the after-sorrow must be shown too.... We are being
> > trained to "get to the good parts" quickly.
>
> Yes, good point. But we don't have access to all that TV has--they can
> communicate a lot visually, the actors' body language, looks and
> interplay have a lot to do with it. We need to communicate on that
> level but it takes time and WORK to communicate that with only words,
> hence the sense of rushing to the good parts when that's left out.
That gets back to what you said above, that we all already know what's
there and the writer is just saving time, in a sense, using shorthand.
It's also a point I've made before--that for many here it's not at all
about "writing" but about sharing an emotional connection. All this
writer's stuff we've been talking about is so much "huh?" to many here,
I believe. Many don't want to "write," but wrest an emotion from their
favorite characters/series to share with others here. And that's OK. :-)
>
> > > Note to all OC writers: Mary Sue is not a mortal sin. You will not burn
> > > in hell for writing about original characters.
> >
> > When I invoked the dread MS, I wasn't criticising anyone.
>
> I didn't think you were, Mike. It's just that whenever I hear that term
> used in a "critical" way, I think that's one more obstacle in the path
> of a writer ever working with an OC. So I just wanted to restate my own
> beliefs that (1) you can write an OC who isn't Mary Sue even if ze is
> young, beautiful and the beloved of a main character, (2) someone is
> going to call hir Mary Sue anyway, (3) you can survive this, and (4)
> fear of being labelled an MS writer but writing your OC anyway can
> actually help your writing.
I've never done Mary Sue, though I have written myself into one
story--"My Dinner With Seven," which was a boy-with-a-crush rewrite of
"Someone to Watch Over Me." Now the character of Sariel in "Black
Angel's Death Song" drew a lot from me, but he's not Mary Sue at all.
Too gloomy and tragic. ;-) And the character of Tasha Yar *never* spoke
the way I wrote her in "Are 'Friends' Electric?" That was all me. What
do you call a character who's essentially a mask for the author? ;-)
I am trying to write an original crew/ship story at the moment.
Unfortunately, I'm drowning in writer's block. The story is all original
people with only a guest appearance by Captain Picard. I wish I *could*
write, 'cause I think they'd be enjoyable characters. It's a good,
open-ended situation, similar to TOS in many ways and the characters are
good people, but not TNG perfect. ;-) There's a bit of the political
feel of DS9 as well. I have a handle on most of the characters' voices,
too. Just can't write....
Ventura33
"Rabble Rouser" wrote:
> And yet for all the rants against Mary Sue I have yet to personally
> read a story that really evokes her in an original character . . .
> It's as if MS is some ghost haunting fandom--or more accurately a
> boogie man. Truth is, maybe because of the way the epithet is hurled
> around, I rarely, rarely see original characters period in fanfic.
And that's a shame. Fanfic writers shouldn't be so afraid of ending up
pilloried on Godawful that they don't even dare to write original
characters. Even the Mary Sue we all know and despise has plenty of
humorous potential. I had great fun writing Mary Sue into a threesome with
Anij and the Borg Queen for the FFF. Nothing wrong with a Mary Sue if you
acknowledge from the outset that her character's not realistic.
IMO, a Mary Sue Fuh-q Fest would be hilarious. Anyone interested?
-- Ventura33
mev...@gemair.com
http://www.gemair.com/~bwhite/ventura33/index.html
"Being bored is an insult to oneself." -- Albert Einstein
Jungle Kitty
> You have a point, but I don't think it's only fan writers who have been
> corrupted. TV and movies have affected mainstream writing this way, too.
> Sometimes, you read a novel and can tell the author had the made-for-TV movie
> in mind while he was writing it. <g>
Oh yeah! I remember a book of Michael Crichton's that was barely a book.
(His stuff has never been great literature but it used to at least feel
like reading. Now it felt like watching a coming attraction.) You could
feel it panting to be a screenplay. And then it turned into a crappy
movie. (The one with Michael Douglas co-starring with Demi Moore's
breasts.)
Alara Rogers
> > by fanfic, like worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is vital to sf writing--
> > you cannot write good sf without the ability to worldbuild, and most
> > fanfic writers show no skill at this. It doesn't interest them.
>
> I don't see the basis for either of those points - that fanfic writers
> are uninterested or unskillful at world-building. I know we have the
> ready-made Trek universe which we, unfortunately, cannot alter very
> much, but that's not the only forum for world-building. Whenever my
> Voyager lands on an inhabited planet, I have a world to build. And, as
> I stated before, world-building is, IMHO, not that hard. No one seems
> to have put much effort into making the Trek universe scientifically
> accurate, realistic, or even believable, yet we all like it well enough.
Well, of course I don't speak of all fanfic writers-- I'm a fanfic
writer, and I love worldbuilding. :-) But it seems to me that the vast
majority of Trek fanfic has nothing to do with this being science
fiction. Voayger doesn't go to an inhabited planet; instead, the
people aboard it think about their love lives. In fact it's
distressing to me how little Trek fanfic there is where people
actually explore strange new worlds instead of (or even at the same
time as) exploring romantic liaisons.
If we're generalizing about the class "Fanfic Writers" we have to look
at the majority of fanfic, not what you or I write but what everyone
writes. And, well, most people write stuff that is primarily about
character interaction, and may have nothing to do even superficially
with an SF plot. Which isn't necessarily bad. Many very good Trek eps
have a fantastic character plot and then a totally lame SF B plot
thrown in just to make people think the story is about action rather
than character. Doing away with the lame, forced B plot is something
fanfic writers are allowed to do. If all you *want* is to write a
character story, you shouldn't try to throw in technobabble just to
make it skiffy. But it does seem as if a lot of people are choosing to
write stories that have no element of sf in them except what's
supplied by the pre-built setting. There's nothing *wrong* with that,
aside from my personal preference to read stories that have a
well-integrated sf plot *and* character plot. But it does indicate
that people who do that would not do well at writing original sf. They
would do better working with a setting they don't have to invent, like
historical fiction or contemporary fiction.
> All fanfic is not conversations in Quark's. If fanfic writers were
> truly uninterested in the sci-fi side of Trek, they would be writing
> West Wing fic.
Um, a lot of fanfic writers *are* writing West Wing fic.
Trek is not the only fanfic fandom out there. I've seen ER fic, tons
of Starsky and Hutch, the Professionals, West Wing, and other things
that have nothing to do with science fiction but are all about strong
character interaction. On the other hand, Nowhere Man, an
SF/conspiracy program that had only one main character who couldn't
trust anyone, and The Prisoner, an even better, older show along the
same lines, generate next to no fanfic because there's only one
character, so character interaction isn't built in.
Fanfic writers, across *all* fandoms, seem to prefer to write in
milieus where multiple characters can bounce off each other, and this
preference seems stronger than their preference for sf/fantasy
milieus. Relatively few who work in sf/fantasy milieus take full
advantage of the setting to do worldbuilding or treat sf themes. So I
believe the majority of fanfic writers would make lousy original sf
writers because they would have no interest in it. They would be
better working with original characters in a prebuilt setting such as
real life or historical fiction than they would be at inventing a new
world. This is *not* a slam on fanfic writers, because obviously the
vast majority of writers out there use real life or history as their
settings, not sf.
That doesn't mean there are no sf/fantasy writers among fanfic
writers. Just means that, as in real life, most fanfic writers are
better with character than setting or plot.
Now, are fanfic writers better or worse than most writers at
characterization? What I would say is that the skill of having to
stick close to someone else's characterization is different from but
equally as hard as having to create a character from scratch. If you
look carefully you can see that not all fanfic writers are equally
gifted at sticking to character. I remember one memorable J/C that
read like a bad romance, with Janeway swooning into Chakotay's strong
manly arms at a party. There was no evidence in this story that
Janeway is a strong woman and a leader and that she's actually
Chakotay's boss; there was no evidence that Chakotay is respectful and
deferential to Janeway. The author decided to write him as a strong,
silent he-man and Janeway as a fainting flower. This author would have
been far better off writing original characters in the romance genre;
she was no good at sticking to established characterization. On the
other hand, there are other writers who demonstrate fantastic skill at
bringing the established characters to life, but whose original
characters are wooden and uninteresting. As I see it there are two
separate skills-- the skill of developing established characters and
the skill of characterizing new ones-- and one person doesn't
necessarily have both skills, but one person *can* have both skills.
(Some people have neither skill. :-( ) I don't think the belief that
"fanfic writers are just borrowing off someone else's character so
it's easy for them" flies. Fanfic writers have to work around a weight
of expectations that original writers just don't have. And I have seen
several pro writers completely flounder in trying to write other
people's characters (Dave Wolverton's Star Wars novel is a great
example of a guy who can write his *own* characters well and can't
write Star Wars worth beans.)
Jemima Pereira
> Well, of course I don't speak of all fanfic writers-- I'm a fanfic
> writer, and I love worldbuilding. :-) But it seems to me that the vast
> majority of Trek fanfic has nothing to do with this being science
> fiction. Voayger doesn't go to an inhabited planet; instead, the
> people aboard it think about their love lives. In fact it's
> distressing to me how little Trek fanfic there is where people
> actually explore strange new worlds instead of (or even at the same
> time as) exploring romantic liaisons.
You could say that Voyager itself had little to do with science fiction,
and that most episodes had to do with politics or environmentalism or
Tom and B'Elanna's relationship and shady pasts. It depends on your own
threshold of sci-fi - at what point does a little science make a story
into scifi? Is Lois McMaster Bujold a sci-fi writer? Ray Bradbury?
Penny Proctor?
My only interest in fanfic is in science fiction, or, sometimes, humor.
I find enough science fiction in the fanfic I read, and enough of that
fanfic to read, to satisfy me. At some level, all fanfic is science
fiction of the alternate universe/what if? subgenre. Maybe that means I
have a low threshold of sci-fi.
> If we're generalizing about the class "Fanfic Writers" we have to look
> at the majority of fanfic, not what you or I write but what everyone
> writes.
I think we should keep the discussion to the sort of fanfic posted to
ASC. That there are mailing lists full of romantic pap is irrelevant to
the original poster's allegation that *we* could not write original
fiction if we tried.
> > All fanfic is not conversations in Quark's. If fanfic writers were
> > truly uninterested in the sci-fi side of Trek, they would be writing
> > West Wing fic.
>
> Um, a lot of fanfic writers *are* writing West Wing fic.
Yes, that was my point. If writers were really uninterested in the
sci-fi aspect, they wouldn't write Trek, they would write West Wing
instead.
> Fanfic writers, across *all* fandoms, seem to prefer to write in
> milieus where multiple characters can bounce off each other, and this
> preference seems stronger than their preference for sf/fantasy
> milieus. Relatively few who work in sf/fantasy milieus take full
> advantage of the setting to do worldbuilding or treat sf themes. So I
> believe the majority of fanfic writers would make lousy original sf
> writers because they would have no interest in it.
That they don't take "full advantage" does not imply that they have "no
interest". There are other factors involved, such as time and the
presence of a prefab universe that they cannot change - I can't take
away warp drive just because I think it's scientifically untenable.
That shows nothing at all about whether or not I could build a universe
without warp drive.
> They would be
> better working with original characters in a prebuilt setting such as
> real life or historical fiction than they would be at inventing a new
> world. This is *not* a slam on fanfic writers, because obviously the
> vast majority of writers out there use real life or history as their
> settings, not sf.
Again, not exactly true. Scifi and fantasy form the biggest genre out
there, and the only genre that strongly supports the short-story format.
> That doesn't mean there are no sf/fantasy writers among fanfic
> writers. Just means that, as in real life, most fanfic writers are
> better with character than setting or plot.
I agree that setting is a low priority in all fanfic. Plot, however, is
vital to any story. I doubt you could name a good fanfic story (not a
drabble or vignette) that didn't also have a good plot.
Constable Katie
wrote:
>In article <a62fa74d.01072...@posting.google.com>,
>al...@mindspring.com (Alara Rogers) wrote:
[snip]
>> If we're generalizing about the class "Fanfic Writers" we have to look
>> at the majority of fanfic, not what you or I write but what everyone
>> writes.
>
>I think we should keep the discussion to the sort of fanfic posted to
>ASC. That there are mailing lists full of romantic pap is irrelevant to
>the original poster's allegation that *we* could not write original
>fiction if we tried.
Pardon me for butting in, but the original poster did not allege "that *we*
could not write original fiction if we tried." As I read it, the original
poster was saying that the majority of us probably wouldn't be as
consistently good in "the Single-Girl-In-New-Yorkiverse or with the
Snarky-Dudiverse" -- which I took to mean other worlds, possibly but not
necessarily original worlds. I really can't disagree with that notion
(though if I've misunderstood what was meant by
"Single-Girl-In-New-Yorkiverse" or "the Snarky-Dudiverse," by all means,
someone correct me!).
Constable Katie, ASC* Archive team
Archive: www.trekiverse.org, trekiverse.crosswinds.net or voyager.trekiverse.net
Submissions: submissions webamused.com or trekiverse trekiverse.org
For archive updates: ASC-Archive-a...@onelist.com
ASC* FAQs: http://www.crosswinds.net/~stephenratliff/FAQs/
ASC Stories-Only list: ascl-subscribe @ yahoogroups dot com
ASCEM Stories-Only list: ascem-s-subscribe @ yahoogroups dot com
Jemima Pereira
Katie <const...@trekiverse.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:19:42 GMT, Jemima Pereira <jem...@crosswinds.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <a62fa74d.01072...@posting.google.com>,
> >al...@mindspring.com (Alara Rogers) wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> If we're generalizing about the class "Fanfic Writers" we have to look
> >> at the majority of fanfic, not what you or I write but what everyone
> >> writes.
> >
> >I think we should keep the discussion to the sort of fanfic posted to
> >ASC. That there are mailing lists full of romantic pap is irrelevant to
> >the original poster's allegation that *we* could not write original
> >fiction if we tried.
>
> Pardon me for butting in, but the original poster did not allege "that
> *we*
> could not write original fiction if we tried." As I read it, the
> original
> poster was saying that the majority of us probably wouldn't be as
> consistently good in "the Single-Girl-In-New-Yorkiverse or with the
> Snarky-Dudiverse" -- which I took to mean other worlds, possibly but not
> necessarily original worlds. I really can't disagree with that notion
> (though if I've misunderstood what was meant by
> "Single-Girl-In-New-Yorkiverse" or "the Snarky-Dudiverse," by all means,
> someone correct me!).
Since Single Girl and Snarky Dude don't refer to any particular fandom,
I assumed the poster meant original fiction. In either case, the poster
appeared to be talking about ASC, and not about all of Trek fandom,
which was my main point in the bit you quoted. Pardon me for
abbreviating what was not particularly clear in the first place.
J. Juls
Ventura33 <mev...@gemair.com> wrote in message
news:eM577.15556$YK4.1...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> IMO, a Mary Sue Fuh-q Fest would be hilarious. Anyone interested?
>
Count me in!!
Julie
DragonGrrl
Jemima Pereira wrote:
> Science fiction does not make the demands of
> characterization that other genres do.
Is this necessarily a good thing? Personally, I prefer my s/f to have a human
angle and well-developed characters. Even if the plot is halfway decent, lousy
characterizations can ruin it. That's why I enjoyed "Jurassic Park" as a movie
so much more than as a novel-- the characters were more interesting and more
likeable. Two-dimensional, poorly thought out characters can make a story
unpleasant to read. Note that an unlikeable character can still be interesting,
and a mundane character can still be likeable. You need one of those in there,
otherwise reading it becomes a chore.
You have to be a hell of a good writer to create a story that doesn't depend at
all on characterization. Arthur C. Clarke's "Rendezvous with Rama" springs to
mind-- the s/f concept itself is so wondrous and engaging that the human beings
in the story are only there as observers, to provide the reader with a frame of
reference. It's a story about exploration and discovery, so there has to be
someone to do the discovering, and it doesn't matter how much or how little we
know about them. Unfortunately, not every writer can pull that off, because not
every writer is Arthur C. Clarke.
I'm also curious as to your ideas on what genres require heavy character
development, if s/f does not. Westerns don't need it, all they need is horses
and gunplay and long beautiful descriptions of landscapes. Romance doesn't need
it, it just needs lots of sex and raw emotion. Saying that s/f doesn't need
good characters is like saying s/f readers don't want anything more than robots
and monsters and explosions in space. This might just be my personal bias, but
I think any story in any genre is much more readable when it has good
characters. Only if it's written incredibly well otherwise can it get away
without them.
--Brenda
Jemima Pereira
<the...@yucc.yorku.ca> wrote:
> Jemima Pereira wrote:
>
> > Science fiction does not make the demands of
> > characterization that other genres do.
>
> Is this necessarily a good thing?
No, but it's the way of the world.
> You have to be a hell of a good writer to create a story that doesn't
> depend at
> all on characterization. Arthur C. Clarke's "Rendezvous with Rama"
> springs to
> mind-- the s/f concept itself is so wondrous and engaging that the human
> beings
> in the story are only there as observers, to provide the reader with a
> frame of
> reference. It's a story about exploration and discovery, so there has to
> be
> someone to do the discovering, and it doesn't matter how much or how
> little we
> know about them. Unfortunately, not every writer can pull that off,
> because not
> every writer is Arthur C. Clarke.
Yes, but all genres have their stars and their hacks. People are
willing to read poor imitations of Tolkien, and people are just as
willing to read "idea" sci-fi where the idea is not up to the Rama level.
> I'm also curious as to your ideas on what genres require heavy character
> development, if s/f does not. Westerns don't need it, all they need is
> horses
> and gunplay and long beautiful descriptions of landscapes. Romance
> doesn't need
> it, it just needs lots of sex and raw emotion. Saying that s/f doesn't
> need
> good characters is like saying s/f readers don't want anything more than
> robots
> and monsters and explosions in space. This might just be my personal
> bias, but
> I think any story in any genre is much more readable when it has good
> characters. Only if it's written incredibly well otherwise can it get
> away
> without them.
Every kind of story is better the better it is, but the market begs to
differ with your final statement - sci-fi does not have to have good
characterization in order to get by. When you get down to it, a romance
is about the m/f, a western is about the gunslinger, and a mystery is
about the detective. A sci-fi story can be about the planet, or the
Dyson sphere, or the black hole, instead of the characters. Not
everyone likes that kind of sci-fi, but it does sell.
If you want a concrete example, serious (non-niche market) mainstream
literature has to have good characterization, because it is about the
individual as opposed to the universal.
Amiroq. aka Gypzy
Not to mention the "Sex Is All Important - You Aren't In Love If You
Aren't Having Sex" theme. I actually saw an episode of Ally McBeal, I
think (which I can't stand, but my family watches it) where that tall
blonde woman - Nell? - was asking Ally why she and her boyfriend hadn't
had sex yet - it had been a whole month!
For giddashes sake! Personally, I don't intend to have sex until I'm
married or in a long-term relationship which I feel will last for at
least ten years. And that's not entirely a religious thing, although it
is partially. And forty or fifty years ago this was the norm. If you
think about it, that's not very long, considering the age of the human
race. I don't condemn casual sex. I even read a heck of a lot of it in
stories. But it does make me wonder why people feel the need to do it.
Amiroq. aka Gypzy
DragonGrrl
Jemima Pereira wrote:
> > > Science fiction does not make the demands of
> > > characterization that other genres do.
> >
> > Is this necessarily a good thing?
>
> No, but it's the way of the world.
<snip>
> If you want a concrete example, serious (non-niche market) mainstream
> literature has to have good characterization, because it is about the
> individual as opposed to the universal.
That sort of makes sense... in other words, any "genre" fiction can scrape by
on the features of its genre when it has to. Interesting that what we consider
"serious" fiction (the kind of stuff that gets the big literary prizes and so
on) are the books about people and relationships and feelings. A general
question: why is serious fiction always about the individual, instead of about
the universal and the imaginative?
--Brenda
Cabiria
> That sort of makes sense... in other words, any "genre" fiction can scrape by
> on the features of its genre when it has to. Interesting that what we consider
> "serious" fiction (the kind of stuff that gets the big literary prizes and so
> on) are the books about people and relationships and feelings. A general
> question: why is serious fiction always about the individual, instead of about
> the universal and the imaginative?
>
I think it has to do just with the nature of being human. As we are each
trapped inside our own skulls, we can really only experience the world as
an individual, leading to the end that, for the world to interact with us
on a gut level, it must reach us on that same individual level. It also
depends on your definition of "serious fiction" type literature. Often it
is called serious because it deals with concepts/philosophy more than the
plot presented; it is read by generations of readers because, to put it
bluntly, it shakes up their guts. It gets that visceral intellectual
reaction of a mind being forced to question its own framework, which can
have a very real and palatable effect on the rest of their life. For this
I would reference the works of Hermann Hesse, which completely messed up
my life in a good way :) A more universal work may delight you and open
up the horizons *outside* of you with what could be possible, but it
doesn't effect how you are inside the skull.
Kind of the old Speilberg vs Kubrick argument, I guess.
And please note I am not making any qualitative judgements on either
form--personally, I feel that the best work incorporates both sides.
Just my elevent-cent ramble,
Cab
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cynicism is more than a pose; it's also a handy time saver. By deflating
your companion's enthusiasm, you can cut conversations in half.
--Lisa Birnbach
Jemima Pereira
<the...@yucc.yorku.ca> wrote:
> > If you want a concrete example, serious (non-niche market) mainstream
> > literature has to have good characterization, because it is about the
> > individual as opposed to the universal.
>
> That sort of makes sense... in other words, any "genre" fiction can
> scrape by
> on the features of its genre when it has to. Interesting that what we
> consider
> "serious" fiction (the kind of stuff that gets the big literary prizes
> and so
> on) are the books about people and relationships and feelings. A general
> question: why is serious fiction always about the individual, instead of
> about the universal and the imaginative?
I've heard that for modern fiction it has something to do with
alienation and our inability as individuals to have an impact on the big
bad world. In genre fiction, on the other hand, an individual is always
saving the earth from that pesky asteroid, or Mars from planetary
asphixiation. So maybe the short answer is that serious fiction has to
be realistic.
Ofnone2153
>is different than "original" writing in that some very important
>creative muscles don't get used.
That's true, if you're talking about just dreaming up your own episode of ST
and hammering it out without any finesse. But there' s alot more to fanfic
writing than that. The reason fanfiction has sustained itself as a popular
time-waster on the internet is that the reader/fan gets to see the characters
in ways the tv show can't or won't show them.
IMO, people who just write their own episode of their favorite show probably
should try and write their own material. But what about stories that delve into
the character's psyche, something rarely shown in trek episodes? This requires
plenty of *work* for the author! I speak from experience-- i just finished a
little character sketch that's four typed pages but took me a month and four
beta readers to complete.
My point is that fanfic shouldn't be tossed off as an inferior form of writing
just because it isn't original. There's a ton of bad fanfic writers; but
there's just as many bad writers who do orignal work-- you just don't read
their stories on the net. It's a whole other type of writing -- one they don't
teach you in english class -- that is required to do fanfic right. It's
working within the parameters of the established canon (or knowing when to bust
through them) that requires the true talent, and the true effort.
Ice Queen
x~x~x~x~x
Fanfic, pictures: www.gurlpages.com/ofnone
WWDD (what would darwin do?)
Alara Rogers
> >Fanfic writing
> >is different than "original" writing in that some very important
> >creative muscles don't get used.
>
> That's true, if you're talking about just dreaming up your own episode of ST
> and hammering it out without any finesse. But there' s alot more to fanfic
> writing than that. The reason fanfiction has sustained itself as a popular
> time-waster on the internet is that the reader/fan gets to see the characters
> in ways the tv show can't or won't show them.
>
> IMO, people who just write their own episode of their favorite show probably
> should try and write their own material. But what about stories that delve into
> the character's psyche, something rarely shown in trek episodes? This requires
> plenty of *work* for the author!
I think you and the poster quoted above might be talking past each
other, because you're addressing a point that poster didn't quite
make.
Fanfic *doesn't* use the *same* "creative muscles" that original
writing does. It is a very different form of writing. If you write
nothing but fanfic there is no guarantee you will be any good at
writing non-fanfic. THIS DOES NOT MEAN FANFIC IS EASY, LAZY, OR
INFERIOR.
Two different genres will *always* have different requirements. Take
comics and prose. Some of the best comic book writers write terrible
prose novels, and vice versa. Having the skill to do one does not
guarantee the skill to do the other. However, it doesn't *deny* the
skill-- Neil Gaiman is a good example of a fantastic comics writer who
is also a fantastic prose writer.
Fanfic can indeed be very challenging. It exercises a different kind
of characterization skill. Instead of having the freedom to make
someone up from scratch, the fanfic writer must work within
established parameters. Yes, this gives them some shortcuts that the
original writer doesn't have, but it also requires a skill that
original writing doesn't require.
However, this doesn't change the fact that fanfic writing is not the
*same* as original writing. The skills used are different. So if you
write nothing but fanfic, this doesn't mean you can write original.
And if you write nothing but original, this doesn't mean you can write
fanfic.
T'Maia
"Ventura33" <mev...@gemair.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eM577.15556$YK4.1...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> IMO, a Mary Sue Fuh-q Fest would be hilarious. Anyone interested?
>
> -- Ventura33
Yes! Here, here, here! I sign up today. [Pulls Ventura aside and whispers:]
Can I get Spock? Please? I won't tell.
T'Maia