![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Redefining Meta
In fandom meta is a catch all (and yet highly contested) term for what otherwise would be known as modernist and postmodernist fiction and most, if not all, theoretical discussion of literary trends and related social issues. When we speak of metafic (as opposed to the metafiction of the 'real' literary world) we're often referring to:
a) self-conscious fiction
b) fiction which is concious of being part of a larger social, political or literary paradigm
c) fiction which is experimental, or defies narrative norms
d) artfic/litfic/wankfic
In literary criticism, the term metafiction refers merely to writing about writing, or a fictional text that explores the issues of writing. Metafiction is often typified by a narrative paradox - we are reading the story of how the story was, or came to be written - and is always highly self-conscious of its status as art(ifice). Metafiction doesn't seek to disguise its fictional status, instead, its purpose is to exploit and explore it.
Metafiction is usually associated with the modern and postmodern movements, which together encompass the above definitions of fandom meta.
I can't be certain when the the term meta came into popular use in fandom, but it I do have an idea of why it, rather than another term, was latched onto and diffused. I would appreciate anyone with a clearer picture of the rise of fannish meta, speaking up and educating me on the 'actual history' *coughcough* of the term in fandom.
Before becoming involved in the livejournal community, I hadn't often encountered the term in fannish discourse. It popped up in debates on FAP and other lists every once in a while, and I was always struck by how poor a grasp people seemed to have on its definition. It was being used in the oddest of ways. On lj, however, it's pervasive. Downright pandemic. Every third post is called meta, either by the writer, the commenters, or people linking to the post. Hell, if I write an essay on shipping tendancies that'll be called meta.
This diffusion of the terms meaning has to do with the kind of blurring of explicit fiction and essays about that the fan fiction community on lj engages in. LJ is 'behaving' as a sprawling communal text and our subculture as a narrative. Our readings of essays and fics are coming closer and closer together. I'm going to suggest a few reasons why:
1. Our interraction occurs in the same text-based medium, with their being no visual cues to distinguish between essays and fiction. Neither are there any of the sort of rules that academia provides us, no clear lines between what one can call fiction or essay.
2. We are interracting with each other through assumed identities - characters - and sharing extremely selective versions of our lives - stories - with each other. We are conditioned by fandom and lj to read everything as fiction. Never mind the eternal inability to find some kind of irreducable, ultimate truth, we can't even be sure that the sweet girl we're having a conversation with in one journal, isn't the troll we're fighting with in another. Sockpuppets, multiple and partitioned identies and frequent name changes contribute to the fictionalization of identity.
3. The proliferation of RPGs and parody journals only add to the fragmentation of identity. Will we soon percieve fannish identity as multiple by nature? Jane writes as Sue, posts as Chicky345, chats as MoonFairy, RPs as Narcissa in one game, Ron in another and maintains a journal where she sends up Mary BNF. Who the fuck is Jane? Is Jane being dishonest, or deliberately fictionalizing herself, or is this just how Jane feels most comfortable expressing herself?
4. We are a community of writers and readers, and as such status is based on our facility at these two activites. An excellent body of fic and an articulate, fascinating journal both accord one a certain measure of admiration and as strategies, they are often conflated.
One of ways fanfiction has been commonly described, or discussed is as an argument. The fan writer is telling another writer how she thinks something should or could be, based on her reading of canon and her own desires. Every fic is an argument for a particular reading of the source text. In a parody, the writer is telling us that she Ron as a homophobic bigot and further that she has a problem with that characteristic. In a 'darkfic' an author is telling us that average Gryffindor Ginny has the potential for Slytherin ambition and is capable of doing terrible things, and she points to areas of canon which support her reading. The author is making an argument, regardless of whether she believes it to be based on a perfect or 'proper' reading of the source text. How many of us have seen author's notes reading, "I don't think it's like this in canon, but if it Harry and Draco were in love, it might happen like this"?
We might consider fanon as a dominant paradigm that fics either affirm or challenge to varying degrees. Control of the paradigm, via influential stories or criticism, is articulated through linking and quoting. Fannish politics becomes an argument to control the arguments about a particular text, and therefore shape the resulting, derivative fictional texts and discussion of those derivative texts. Phew. *tonguetied*
If fics are arguments and ljs are often arguments about those arguements, then it isn't so hard to see why our essays are being called meta. Fannish meta is still self-concious writing about the process of writing, but the text it is calling attention to is much broader than the literary one. Fannish meta seems to explore the way our representations (online identities) write fanfic, and about writing fanfic, and how the process of fragmentation/fictionalization/dissociation affects those narratives. When Sarah writes an essay about how the H/D 'ship' functions and the implications for fic, she is writing fannish meta, because she is examining how H/D fic is affected by arguments about H/D and further, how the personalities behind those arguments are shaped by necessity, whim and fandom.
Or something.
Will spellcheck later, when not using an evil Mac. *shudders*
a) self-conscious fiction
b) fiction which is concious of being part of a larger social, political or literary paradigm
c) fiction which is experimental, or defies narrative norms
d) artfic/litfic/wankfic
In literary criticism, the term metafiction refers merely to writing about writing, or a fictional text that explores the issues of writing. Metafiction is often typified by a narrative paradox - we are reading the story of how the story was, or came to be written - and is always highly self-conscious of its status as art(ifice). Metafiction doesn't seek to disguise its fictional status, instead, its purpose is to exploit and explore it.
Metafiction is usually associated with the modern and postmodern movements, which together encompass the above definitions of fandom meta.
I can't be certain when the the term meta came into popular use in fandom, but it I do have an idea of why it, rather than another term, was latched onto and diffused. I would appreciate anyone with a clearer picture of the rise of fannish meta, speaking up and educating me on the 'actual history' *coughcough* of the term in fandom.
Before becoming involved in the livejournal community, I hadn't often encountered the term in fannish discourse. It popped up in debates on FAP and other lists every once in a while, and I was always struck by how poor a grasp people seemed to have on its definition. It was being used in the oddest of ways. On lj, however, it's pervasive. Downright pandemic. Every third post is called meta, either by the writer, the commenters, or people linking to the post. Hell, if I write an essay on shipping tendancies that'll be called meta.
This diffusion of the terms meaning has to do with the kind of blurring of explicit fiction and essays about that the fan fiction community on lj engages in. LJ is 'behaving' as a sprawling communal text and our subculture as a narrative. Our readings of essays and fics are coming closer and closer together. I'm going to suggest a few reasons why:
1. Our interraction occurs in the same text-based medium, with their being no visual cues to distinguish between essays and fiction. Neither are there any of the sort of rules that academia provides us, no clear lines between what one can call fiction or essay.
2. We are interracting with each other through assumed identities - characters - and sharing extremely selective versions of our lives - stories - with each other. We are conditioned by fandom and lj to read everything as fiction. Never mind the eternal inability to find some kind of irreducable, ultimate truth, we can't even be sure that the sweet girl we're having a conversation with in one journal, isn't the troll we're fighting with in another. Sockpuppets, multiple and partitioned identies and frequent name changes contribute to the fictionalization of identity.
3. The proliferation of RPGs and parody journals only add to the fragmentation of identity. Will we soon percieve fannish identity as multiple by nature? Jane writes as Sue, posts as Chicky345, chats as MoonFairy, RPs as Narcissa in one game, Ron in another and maintains a journal where she sends up Mary BNF. Who the fuck is Jane? Is Jane being dishonest, or deliberately fictionalizing herself, or is this just how Jane feels most comfortable expressing herself?
4. We are a community of writers and readers, and as such status is based on our facility at these two activites. An excellent body of fic and an articulate, fascinating journal both accord one a certain measure of admiration and as strategies, they are often conflated.
One of ways fanfiction has been commonly described, or discussed is as an argument. The fan writer is telling another writer how she thinks something should or could be, based on her reading of canon and her own desires. Every fic is an argument for a particular reading of the source text. In a parody, the writer is telling us that she Ron as a homophobic bigot and further that she has a problem with that characteristic. In a 'darkfic' an author is telling us that average Gryffindor Ginny has the potential for Slytherin ambition and is capable of doing terrible things, and she points to areas of canon which support her reading. The author is making an argument, regardless of whether she believes it to be based on a perfect or 'proper' reading of the source text. How many of us have seen author's notes reading, "I don't think it's like this in canon, but if it Harry and Draco were in love, it might happen like this"?
We might consider fanon as a dominant paradigm that fics either affirm or challenge to varying degrees. Control of the paradigm, via influential stories or criticism, is articulated through linking and quoting. Fannish politics becomes an argument to control the arguments about a particular text, and therefore shape the resulting, derivative fictional texts and discussion of those derivative texts. Phew. *tonguetied*
If fics are arguments and ljs are often arguments about those arguements, then it isn't so hard to see why our essays are being called meta. Fannish meta is still self-concious writing about the process of writing, but the text it is calling attention to is much broader than the literary one. Fannish meta seems to explore the way our representations (online identities) write fanfic, and about writing fanfic, and how the process of fragmentation/fictionalization/dissociation affects those narratives. When Sarah writes an essay about how the H/D 'ship' functions and the implications for fic, she is writing fannish meta, because she is examining how H/D fic is affected by arguments about H/D and further, how the personalities behind those arguments are shaped by necessity, whim and fandom.
Or something.
Will spellcheck later, when not using an evil Mac. *shudders*
no subject
no subject
Rather than explode, my brain opted to melt. It's now so much ooze, trickling from my ears.
no subject
Many, many people in fandom confuse writing critical analysis of the text (or the fiction inspired by the text) with writing "meta" posts. imo, meta in that sense ought to be reserved for discussions of how we discuss things, (e.g., "this fandom is so negative!" "You have a tone. Why are you so hostile?" [and other fannish faves, like BNFdom and status, etc.] and how that shit shuts fannish discourse down) and discussions of how our discussions affect our reading and writing of the text (e.g., I hated X bit of fanon until BNF1 wrote a great essay explaining why it would make sense, so now I use it in all my fic and it's changed the way I view Character U).
Metafiction - breaking the fourth wall, subreality cafe fiction, conversations between author and muse/characters, etc. has been around fandom longer than I have obviously, though I don't think many authors pull it off well. I think some of the people who write it think they're the first people to ever have thought of it, so it reeks of "Aren't I cool and clever?" self-satisfaction rather than actually commenting in a meaningful way on the characters/conventions/genres they're purportedly writing about.
I think calling fanfic "arguments" in that sense is often giving too much credit to most of us.
I think most fans aren't quite aware of how they're reading a text while they're reading it and responding to it. Hell, I know *I* don't think about that stuff in the first reading of a text (I include watching a show etc. in that), and it's only after I've engaged on a deeper level that I begin to start teasing out why I did engage, what that means, why I read what I read and write what I write, etc. once I move into the act of writing fic for a text.
I think even after spending time in fandom, a majority of fans aren't thinking of their writing in those terms, though their fic may in fact fit the criteria (I believe X and Y had chemistry. I use Situations A, B and C from canon and throw in a dash of conventional wisdom aka fanon that everybody agrees with to show how this chemistry will play out in the narrative future or may have played out in the scenes the author didn't share, either interstitially or in the narrative past). I think quite frequently those who *are* aware of it can be exceptionally heavyhanded about it. ("So-and-so said X and Y could never work as a pairing. I'm gonna write a fic to prove her wrong!" only provides good fiction in the hands of a good author, and often not even then, though I've engaged in this behavior myself, with mixed results.)
I have nothing to contribute, just nattering on as I so often do in your LJ. I do like the idea of LJ as a sprawling fannish narrative, though. *g*
no subject
As to when it should be used to describe criticism, that's more complicated, as you say (and this is a great point), because of the fact that we have people both writing and discussing fic, for whom any general discussion could reasonably be described as meta, since it is "meta" in relation to the other thing they do. I don't think anyone uses the term to describe recs or reviews, do they?
"Meta," used alone, is still slang and up for negotiation, as I see it. Likewise, "metafic" (as opposed to "metafiction") is a fandom term, not a literary critical one. The needs of fandom may turn out to differ from those of the academy.
Again, must return both to your essay and
no subject
no subject
I use 'meta' in the broad sense simply because I derive its meaning from fandom, and therefore I irresponsibly ignore semantic shifts, but the word is not alone in being appropriated for fandom causes.
Also, I have been thinking about a lot of these issues, especially the fandom/LJ as some kind of giant literary thing, and I admire that you've brought it all together so cleverly.
We are interracting with each other through assumed identities - characters - and sharing extremely selective versions of our lives - stories - with each other. We are conditioned by fandom and lj to read everything as fiction. Never mind the eternal inability to find some kind of irreducable, ultimate truth, we can't even be sure that the sweet girl we're having a conversation with in one journal, isn't the troll we're fighting with in another.
I am also very glad to see I am not the only one who thinks this! I thought LJ-users as characters in self-fiction was too strange an idea for anyone else. But I figure, if Authorial Intent is not decisive in fiction, surely the same arguments can be applied to the selective non-fiction that is LJ. :D