![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
On Meta
This grew out of a conversation with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lavenderoracle.
Read this first.
A conventional literary definition meta fiction is a story that breaks the fourth wall, that is, it is self conscious. The purpose of meta fiction is ostensibly to evoke a more honest reaction of the audience than would otherwise be engendered. Some meta purports to be fiction without 'sneaky writer's tricks' though meta itself is a sneaky trick, of course. By breaking the fourth wall - killing dead the audience's ability to suspend disbelief - the author forces her readers to begin analyzing the text and their own reactions to it, if even somewhat less than deliberately.
Fandom meta, on the other hand, seems to be: that esoteric stuff that smart people write. This is a gross perversion of the original term, and so waters down the meaning that it's generally useless in serious conversation. We're all geeks in fandom and we tend to fall prey to the geek's love of Sekrit Code, but I think that the near fetishization of specialized terminology at times is out of control. Much of our lingo is so contextually dependant that to outsiders, we look like we're speaking giberish. Sure that's fun but sometimes it gets to the point where we really are speaking gibberish. 'Meta' is an excellent case in point.
saeva says:
While Metafic is defined as the characters being aware they're characters, meta-based fic could be defined as the authors being aware the characters *aren't* characters, insomuch as characters still have to be connected to social, psychological, and political issues (among others) within their own world.
ETA: Please note thatsaeva was specifically defining metafic. This was quoted from a Slytherclaw list post on the nature of Slytherclaw.
saeva is suggesting that we move from a strict definition of meta, to something that's more a kind of sensibility and I think this is one of the more useful redefinitions of the term. At least it is interally logical and far more precise than most. The notion of meta-based fiction, however has enormous potential for becoming a dangerously flimsy conceit in the hands of that kind of fan.
"Dude, my fic is like, about gender rolez. It's Teh Meta!!11"
However, considering the fluid and contrary nature of fandom,saeva is probably closer to how meta as a device is used, than the classic definition. Meta fan fiction often seems to feature both these definitions at once. Or at least much of the good meta fic does. My two favourite somtime-meta writers are acadine and pogrebin. In each of their stories, the notion of meta seems to function on both levels, at least as far as the authors are concerned.
So here's my question, do you perceive meta as being explicitly or implicitly acting to demolish the fourth wall? With the corollary: do you define literary language in terms of authorial intent or audience perception?
lavenderoracle.Read this first.
A conventional literary definition meta fiction is a story that breaks the fourth wall, that is, it is self conscious. The purpose of meta fiction is ostensibly to evoke a more honest reaction of the audience than would otherwise be engendered. Some meta purports to be fiction without 'sneaky writer's tricks' though meta itself is a sneaky trick, of course. By breaking the fourth wall - killing dead the audience's ability to suspend disbelief - the author forces her readers to begin analyzing the text and their own reactions to it, if even somewhat less than deliberately.
Fandom meta, on the other hand, seems to be: that esoteric stuff that smart people write. This is a gross perversion of the original term, and so waters down the meaning that it's generally useless in serious conversation. We're all geeks in fandom and we tend to fall prey to the geek's love of Sekrit Code, but I think that the near fetishization of specialized terminology at times is out of control. Much of our lingo is so contextually dependant that to outsiders, we look like we're speaking giberish. Sure that's fun but sometimes it gets to the point where we really are speaking gibberish. 'Meta' is an excellent case in point.
saeva says: While Metafic is defined as the characters being aware they're characters, meta-based fic could be defined as the authors being aware the characters *aren't* characters, insomuch as characters still have to be connected to social, psychological, and political issues (among others) within their own world.
ETA: Please note that
saeva was specifically defining metafic. This was quoted from a Slytherclaw list post on the nature of Slytherclaw.saeva is suggesting that we move from a strict definition of meta, to something that's more a kind of sensibility and I think this is one of the more useful redefinitions of the term. At least it is interally logical and far more precise than most. The notion of meta-based fiction, however has enormous potential for becoming a dangerously flimsy conceit in the hands of that kind of fan."Dude, my fic is like, about gender rolez. It's Teh Meta!!11"
However, considering the fluid and contrary nature of fandom,
saeva is probably closer to how meta as a device is used, than the classic definition. Meta fan fiction often seems to feature both these definitions at once. Or at least much of the good meta fic does. My two favourite somtime-meta writers are acadine and pogrebin. In each of their stories, the notion of meta seems to function on both levels, at least as far as the authors are concerned. So here's my question, do you perceive meta as being explicitly or implicitly acting to demolish the fourth wall? With the corollary: do you define literary language in terms of authorial intent or audience perception?
no subject
"Meta" is when you discuss *how* the discussion is taking place.
My favorite example is this (paraphrased liberally, but based on real threads on atbvs):
"Willow is a lesbian."
"No she's not."
These are not meta statements, but discussion of the show itself.
"Willow is a lesbian! You're a homophobe!"
"No she's not! No I'm not!"
Still not meta.
"Homophobe!"
"Freak!"
"Why is everyone here so negative? Can't we just have a discussion without resorting to ad hominems?"
Bingo! Meta.
In fandom - specifically LJ corners fandom, "meta" has come to mean any discussion that's not "ooh shiny" or that goes deeper than a surface reading of the text, and that's simply not so.
Certain discussions of writing can be meta, and obviously, discussions of how we conduct discussions *are* meta.
I've never really placed meta-fic within the same confines, though it is a commentary on how we read and write and respond to narrative fiction. At least, when it's done well it is.
I don't even know why I'm responding to your post. Huh.
I'll go away now.
no subject
I'm curious as to how you do define meta-fic. I have one story which I think I can safely call meta, because it's about how narrative influences perception.
reversible fourth wall buggery
Re: reversible fourth wall buggery
no subject
Anyway, I think my definition of metafic falls more under the "explicit" heading. My only prior exposure to the term "meta" comes from computer science, where it indicates taking things to a new level and using a system to describe itself. Thus a metaobject is an object that describes objects, metadata is data about the data, a tag is a tag about the following tags, a metacircular interpreter is an interpreter written in the language it's interpreting.
By analogy, then, a metafic is a fic about itself - a self referencing fic, if you will. Alternatively, you could broaden that to a fic about the act of writing or reading fiction, but I find the narrower definition to be more informative. As my English prof was fond of pointing out, every story is both a metaphor for the act of reading and for the time period in which it was created. Because literary interpretation is so vague and so subjective, you could make a case for every fic being a metafic.
Of course, some stories just ooze meta. One of my mom's friends wrote a novel called Leash where the narrator starts speaking directly to the reader, and indeed, if you read it, it's hard to imagine it being anything but meta. Some of my fics are like that too - The Last Word (http://www.livejournal.com/users/nostrademons/23438.html) ends with itself being submitted to some website (presumably FA).
BTW, I tend to define literary language in terms of audience perception. That's why I go for an explicit definition of meta - because it's possible to perceive so much within a work, an implicit definition leaves you dangerously close to not saying anything at all. Maybe not the association you were looking for, but there's your data point.
no subject
I like your definition of meta and I think I might adopt some of your terms to explain it in future. You analogy is clear and a damn sight more logical than many literary definitions I've seen, but it still manages to dovetail with those.
Because literary interpretation is so vague and so subjective, you could make a case for every fic being a metafic.
*nods* Which is why, like you, I'm more interested in a stricter defintion. Something so open as this, renders the notion of meta useless as a tool for analysis and discussion.
no subject
Meta-based fiction is another story entirely. (Uh, no pun intended.) I think it's more fiction (for the sake of fandom) that realises there's a wider world than "the bubble" the characters exist in and attempts to address it. It's self-conscious, in that the reader can connect to a world outside of the head of a character. I'm explaining it badly,
It's not so much that there are issues dealt with, as you plebe example suggests, but more that the reader is aware of a government, of a history, of a political struggle, of social status, etc. Everything that a real person is aware of. Meta-based fiction goes one step further than creation, but serves to address those outside issues in a context that can be linked back to the world outside of the fiction. (Published writers seem to be both good and bad about this. I continually want to smack JKR for her lack of consistency.)
In the end, I think the problem with both defining and writing meta fiction is that far too often it ceases to fiction and quickly becomes STATEMENT. ("I am using this to make a STATEMENT on the toleration of female mutilation in Africa!") Fiction, at it's heart, is still a story. That's why I don't write meta or meta-based fiction (as I define it). Because I'm far more concerned with the narrative than I am with the readers knowing my opinion of the price of food in China.
no subject