![[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.