schmevil

I've been slogging through Hegel and Kojeve's commentaries on Hegel. This is tragic-- BUT! I had the best kind of lol moment: lolphilosophy, which is the ultimate, I say ULTIMATE, moment of lol. It came when Kojeve, filled with disgust said: "Let us speak no further of this." And then called relativists vulgar. Philosodis, oh snap. Ok, maybe catty philosophy is funnier in context. :-(

This is why I can't sell my books - 'lol!' in the margins.

***

Questions!

Question: So what's up with Reed Richards? Apparently he has big plans for the world that no one knows about.

Oh Reed, you'd make, if I may say, a FANTASTIC supervillain.

In interviews it's been established that Reed's psychohistory equations reveal something ominous which his Plan aims to avoid. Now, this is something ominous that is distinct from the ominous future Tony Stark envisioned and Reed verified, and presumably, distinct from the work the Mad Thinker checked. So like, ominous times two, people. At least this is what the interviews seem to suggest.

I think there's an alternative possibility of Reed losing his shit and trying to make heaven-on-earth.

Next summer's Event?

Question: why don't comic book writers get that if they do something really radical, the next guy is going to overturn the crack and return it to the previous status quo? And further that this leads to needlessly complicated continuity?

I mean, I'm not saying that radical change in comics is bad per se, but radical change that is obviously, necessarily going to be changed by the next guy? Is just willful silliness. It's like, "Screw you guys, I can so sell the concept of Batman as a pro ball player to the fans! Bat-Man, get it?"

Good GOD, do they not understand that comics is a collaborative medium and that their interpretation of the character will not, CANnot be the only, or the only right interpretation? Superhero comics especially is an agglomeration of versions of characters and events with no solid center. So you can get away with a lot in terms of interpretation but it's nigh impossible to change the 'essence' of the character, because a) nobody knows what a universally accepted essence of the character would look like; and b) your fellow writers are bound to disagree with you 90% of the time.

The only way to make a radical change stick, is by convincing your fellow writers AND the fans that you're right.

Good luck, cowboy.

I don't like Thor.

I kind of tried to like Thor - there was so much hype and Coipel's art is so lovely that I figured I'd give it a try. I've been reading mainstream comics again for a relatively short time, so I thought it couldn't hurt to try something outside of my comfort zone, see how (if at all) my preferences have changed since I was a Marvel Zombie. If you're not familiar with the series, please do check it out because the pencils and colouring are beautiful. But--

Yeah, um. No Thor for me thanks - please keep your god-germs off my vigilantes, ninjas, mutants and mecha. And now for some reasons:

< RANT >

1. He parked his Aryan castle in the sky over the Midwest.

This is a dick move no matter how you try to spin it. And it's dickish on a number of different levels.

Thor acquired a tract of land in the Midwest by parking his flying castle over a farmer's field and then tossing the guy a truckload of gold. His negotiating position was basically: "FU mere mortals, I do what I want. But here's some shiny stuff for your troubles - mortals like shiny stuff, right?" The entire sequence is massively condescending and legally wonky. Not only does the transaction pose some problems for the farmer and the county in terms of taxation and property law, but it poses a huge, huge world shaking problem for the US and the international community. The world's superpower has essentially been invaded and conquered by an angry god who is likely to make his flying castle available to American fugitives as a safe haven.

Unless the story ends with the human race rising up and engineering a solution to their little god problem, this is not a story I personally want to read.

Forget his past heroic acts and former membership in the Avengers. A being who is completely outside the ability of humans to govern or restrain, has parked his house in American airspace - in the American heartland! - and intends to fill that castle with other 'gods' of nearly equal power, who are certainly equally, practically outside human jurisdiction. And he more than likely intends to help human citizens break the laws of their respective countries, whenever he finds them impractical or unjust.

So what does it mean for the balance of power in the MU when the world's superpower has to bend over and take it from a 'god'? What does it mean for the species when the world's economic/military/super-powerhouse can't govern it's own sovereign territory, or have jurisdiction over it's citizens?

2. He's a capital 'g' God.

Unlike Phoenix, Dr. Manhatten or even Superman (who's more human than Kryptonian), Thor is an Asgardian God and always has been. The question of why a god would want to spend time avenging wronged mortals and battling bank robbers and Nazis was answered by pairing the character with a human alter-ego. Thor had pissed off his dad and got stuck in a time-share with a disabled human doctor, and so learned to value humans as allies. However. New Thor does not seem to have such restrictions - if anything he's become more powerful than before and recently spent some time as an omniscient being. He's no longer a god who's forced to play with mortals, forced to hold back, as he says in issue 3, now Thor can show his true godly power.

Basically, what's on offer in this series seems to be "Blond God Pwns All".

There is no arc to his power, no story to it. It simply is. He has a very comfortable, untroubled relationship to his power and godly status - his power doesn't force him to reexamine his conception of humanity and humanity's place in the universe, because he's always had it. It doesn't lend itself to stories about the transformative possibilities of power because he's always had that power.

And unlike Ares or Hercules (two other Marvel 'gods') Thor isn't part of an old, egomaniacal race of powered jerkwads who can comfortably play in the human world; he is posited as a true God. So much more powerful than the other Marvel heroes that he's a kind of story ender. Yeah, Thor showed up. Done. Especially now, when the character isn't constrained by the necessities of a team book, and he can just be totally, awesomely inhumanly better than us.

There are, I'm sure, many many interesting stories that can be told about a 'god' on earth but I'm certainly not part of the target demographic.

3. Asgard in America?

I've never followed Thor, but I'm told that they tried this before, over New York city. The story hinged on a Thor cult cropping up in the US. And then he went crazy. (I don't know - I didn't read it.)

Regardless - blond Norse God alive in America. Whether they go the cult route again, or opt for something completely different, I am so completely - beyond the telling of it, beyond the possibility of the telling of it - uncomfortable with the idea of a big, blond Norse God alive in the US.

Especially when he is the only God alive in the US, when there is no sign of Hindu, Judeo-Christian or First Nations gods.

Especially when he is being presented as the true hero of humanity, he who is above the petty politicking of Civil War, Registration and all that jazz. He is the carrier of the true flame of heroism.

I mean, maybe I'm overthinking this but who the fuck says to themselves: "You know what America needs in these troubled times? A big, Aryan, hammer-wielding God-protector who will show us the true meaning of justice, heroism, moonbeams, kittens and the good life!"

The character could not possibly be less representative of American ideals and yet - it's totally ok for him to spit on those ideals, on the political processes developed to protect those ideals, because he's a God!

He's above those things. He's above Americans.

He's above us - he's above the human race.

</ RANT >

Ok, yeah. I'm all wanked out.

Way back when, I pre-ordered Deathly Hallows, not realizing that summer classes didn’t end until August 1st. This past weekend I finally had a chance to read the book. It’s kind of strange reading it now, when most other people have had time to mull over their reactions to it – I’m even having trouble finding interesting reaction articles and posts at this point. Oh well. Having read it completely unspoiled and not being infected by online squee, my interpretation is king. ;-)

I really enjoyed this book. I got nearly everything I wanted out of it and I was comfortable with it. Deathly Hallows is not an especially challenging book but I don’t think that the rest of the series was either. It was, above all, a good read.

( spoilers )

Wow, I am offically the worst lj-er ever. The worst correspondent ever. The worst online friend ever. I am overcome with not-turning-on-my-computer guilt. I am the worst not-turner-on-my-computer-er ever. No really. But aside from that, life continues - yawn, yawn - and accordingly, my new least favourite question is "How're things" because I simply have no way to answer that. There are no things. My life is currently thingfree. The most exciting thing I did this week was spread manure over my backyard. Certainly my back found it exciting.

Other recent pseudo-happenings:

-> I bought seasons four through seven of Buffy and can now watch any ep any time I like. THE POWER! Actually, I'm excited because I can obsessively watch particular scenes over and over in the dead of night, and secretly, so secretly, cry like the pathetic fanthing I am. Oh Buffy, don't leave me!

-> I'm up to the fifth Preacher trade and I'm still loving it. Number four (Ancient History) is going to go down as a all-time personal fave, if only because Jody, the sickest - and I mean that in a good way - hillbilly ever, beats a gorilla to death with a Louisville slugger. There's just something unspeakably hilarious about that entire interlude. Also, the volume includes the back story for Arseface - for the uninitiated, a kid who tried to blow his head off but only succeeded in fucking his face into the shape of a drooling arse - and the Saint of Killers.

One of the things I like about buying trades rather than each monthly issues, is all the peripheral stuff that gets packaged with them. The intros to Preacher have been great, as intros go, but I especially enjoyed this one, because Ennis talks about the origins of the Saint and the whole Western theme. Eastwood's Unforgiven was an obvious influence, right from the start, but "The Saint of Killers" is such a clear homage that it's like reading fic. Of course, when the Saint goes to hell it veers off a bit from the story of Will Muny, but hey that's what good fic does right? Explore strange new possibilities. ;-)

Anyway, Ennis' story is a lot more brutal and grandiose than Eastwood's, necessarily because Ennis is trying to create a character who's meaner than anyone in hell, and Eastwood is trying to create a character who's meaner than anyone else around, but also a man. I think a key difference is in how Muny and the Saint start killing again. For those who are unfamiliar with both, Muny and the Saint are alcoholic cowboy's who'd kill for money, pleasure or for no reason at all, and would do just about anything for money. Each is seemingly redeemed by the love a good woman, and gives up drinking, carousing and killing. They retire to their respective farms to raise babies, until necessity sends them back into the world. Muny's driven by the need to feed his children, while the Saint needs to bring a doctor to help his sick family.

Ennis went straight for the jugular - instant angst! family in danger! - and the Saint's return to killing is in response to a group of cowboy's delaying him on his journey. The Saint is just really fucking mad. Eastwood's Muny though, sets out to kill for money, dead sober and more worried than angry. He's worried that his redemption is only skin-deep, and while the Saint shares this concern, he isn't torn up about it the same way Muny is. It's as though getting off the drink just gave his constant fury more clarity.

Eastwood's story is the more human one, but of course Ennis isn't just writing a kickass Western, he's also sending his character down to hell in order to satirize and brutalize Christianity. I love that the Saint freezes hell with the sheer power of his hate, that human hate is stronger than semi-divine power. The Saint kills the Devil - who's a bit of a bullying pussy, by the way - and humiliates the Angel of Death who's so tired of his job he gives it up to the crazily angry human. The Saint kills the guy who started the whole down-with-God thing in the first place, offhand, matter of fact. Just kills him. The human capacity for hatred and murder is astonishing.

-> I finally got around to pre-ordering the Half-Blood Prince. I'm trying to decide if I want to re-read the series before it comes out. It's not something I've done before, since I've only been in HP fandom since the release of the first film, and so have only been around for one book release. Question for those who're still reading through the hugeass posting gaps - how rewarding was rereading? Because HP does not seem to me to be the kind of series that requires rereading, in the sense that JKR isn't exactly million-plots-a-minute girl, and none of the books have been *ahem* hard to follow. So, aside from the simple pleaser of enjoying the stories all over again, was it worth rereading for a book or movie release?

-> I'm loving the Dr. Who/House/Law & Order scheduling block, which I watch with my father. We agree that the Doctor and Rose are socute and sofunny and that House is suchanasshole who deservestobefired. Amusingly, we're both bored with the House/Cameron subplot and for all the same reasons.

Dad: "Oh, so now he's going to rehire the love of his life and become a better man."

Me: "Yep."

Dad: "Cuddy should do everyone a favour and fire him. Screw his reputation, he's probably scaring off lots of other highly qualified doctors with his asinine comments."

Me: "He's funny though."

Dad: "Yep."

Of course, after that we talked about how House won't become a better man and he and Cameron can't have a happy ending, and how of course House will end up alone. Because people like House? Aren't redeemed by love, though sometimes they're improved by lots of therapy.

Anyway, this all got me thinking about how he would have been better off if, from a young age, they'd try to impress on him that being more intelligent than others doesn't mean that you've got more rights than others, or that you are automatically more right than others. Because it's obvious to me at least, that House's attitudes aren't a result of frustration over his diminished physical capacity, but lifelong - that is, he's always been a jerk, but the infarction gave him a really great excuse to be a jerk. And can I just say, how tired I am of fen letting him get away with using that excuse? Because as much as I like the character, I can admit he's a jerk who is overwhelmingly in the wrong.

My dad and I missed the last bit of the ep and lavenderoracle has just informed me that House agreed to go out with Cameron. *facepalm* At least we knew that was what was happening while we were 'testing' some freshly baked carrot-raisin muffins (sopredictable). Instant reaction: am I watching the mother-fucking OC? And honey, this so isn't going to work out. Put your lipgloss away and go back to work.

ataniell93 wrote about house identification and darkfics here.

Occam's razor people: the reason we see so many Slytherin rapists in fic is that in canon, the villains, both petty and major, are overwhelmingly Slytherin. Most fics that deal in rape are of the salt-the-earth variety, where the Death Eaters have won the war and the world is nasty place to be. Alternatively, there's always your soap opera/after school special-inspired dealin'-with-terribleterrible-pain fics. These kinds of stories don't require a subtle kind of villainy, so JKR's mean, knuckle-dragging, or crapass scheming Slytherins are perfect. You don't use a James Potter to do a Goyle's, or a Bellatrix's work.

Second cut: the reason so many self-identified Slytherin people write rapefic is that fandom's version of Slytherin House has gained a reputation for producing darkfic, and thus people who want to address the subject gravitate to it. It's not an unearned rep and is, I think, driven by the moral ambiguity that's at the heart of JKR's Slytherin House. That sort of just-win mentality lets you, as a writer, take those characters to very dark places much faster than others - it's easy. Again, if you want to write the kind of fic where people tread all over moral lines, you join the network of fans that's already doing it. Thus we're seeing fics about Slythrapists by people who are both fans of Slytherin characters, and people who really could be sorted into the house.

House identification is a fun bonus to HP fandom and some of the reasons we like it so much are:

1. It helps us manufacture online identities that prominently feature characteristics we admire, and it works as a kind of id-shorthand. Calling yourself a Slytherin lets everyone know that you're cunning and ambitious, even if you aren't. It also instantly confers an expectation of a certain level of moral relaxation and boldness. You're the kind of person who will do anything for what she wants. You have no limits. You're dangerous.

2. It helps us build networks of like-minded people. If you're a Slyth and she's a Slyth, well chances are that you both liked the Slyth characters and will enjoy talking about them. It's also likely that you enjoyed certain things about the book - themes, story arcs, whatever - because there aren't too many different reasons for aligning yourself with Draco, Snape et al. You're making a public association with the villains and bastards of the series and there aren't too many different reasons for doing that.

When you get a whole bunch of like-minded people (and fans of said people) talking and writing together, you tend see reinforcement of the things that drew them together. So if that network came together to talk about the villains and the terrible things they do, well, there's going to be a lot of stuff that explores 'dark' themes. (We need btw to draw a very big line between fandom Slytherin House, and that subset of it interested particularly in 'dark themes'. They aren't even remotely close to being the same thing.)

None of this precludes their ability to see Slytherin characters 'as people', or to genuinely like them. You can write a fic about Lucius raping half the European continent and still enjoy his function in canon. Still like him as a man. Because even if you wrote him as a rapist, you could turn around and write him as a philanthropist. He's a character. A prop. And even if all you ever wrote was Slythrape, Slythtorture and the like you could still love the characters to death, both for what they are in canon, and what they allow you to do in your writing.

And that was a bit random.

* I stubbed my toe. It's shades of red, purple and black. Fuck the world.

* I've lost ten pounds on my diet. Non-woe.

* I've been working on an old HP fic, Arithmancy and Flowers, and I'm blocked. Why is no one online to talk me through this? Woe. [AIM=feMHC. Have turned off privacy controls. Heeeelp me!]

* The Heidi/FA wank is an utter non-wank. Much wank on part of FW posters. Much boredom.


Spoilers!

( Vernita Green, Karen and Motherhood )

( Budd, Elle and Honor )

musesfool puts the Lupin=James theory to death with this cute fic.

childfree brings us yet another bizarre baby-related story: "Man Throws Glass of Water at Baby"

I'm not the only one! mecurtin sees the Jesus!Lex imagery too. Proof that I wasn't totally cracked for writing Transom? Probably not. An interesting analysis? Damn straight. *still craves proof of sanity*

crackernuts compares animagery to shapeshifting but doesn't come up with anything conclusive. How does the transformation work?

malecrit thinks people need to stop messing with Draco and just write Lockhart. H/L 4 eva!!1 Harhart?

icarusancalion teaches us the basics of battle scenes.

lavenderoracle had a birthday. *kiss*

Men do not fall in love with whores because of the sex. They fall in love with women who happen to be whores, and they fall in love with the idea of whores. They DO NOT fall in love with whores because of the sex. Men who frequent whores are looking for commitment-free sexual gratification. Most require nothing more than a warm, willing body and occasionally a sympathetic ear. Of course there are niches for whores who specialize in various kinds of kinkplay, or offer companionship in addition to sex, but those are niches, with very few people working them.

Most whores don't have a good home they could go home to, nor do they have ready alternatives to an industry which is ultimately degrading, debilitating and extremely unhealthy. It's not now, nor has it ever been a romantic occupation. Whores work until they die, too young, looking old.

I'm really tired of whorefic. Especially slash whorefic. See, I get that it's escapism, really I do. I'm writing about children's books and mediocre television shows too - I get escapism. However, there are very few writers who take hold of the idea and can own it in a reasonable way. Even in escapist fiction, reason is important because it's essential to the dramatic integrity of the story. If, as a writer, you can't establish the settup in a reasonable way, you need to take a harsh look at your skills.

There are about a million slashy whorefics in which our male hero runs away for some suitably suburban-angsty reason and turns to tricking. There are about ten slashy whorefics that do this in a way which is not laughable. The thing that most of us seem to forget is that um, most straight guys would not leap to trickng as way of earning their daily bread. It's just not something that would enter their head because straight boys tend not to have learned to use their sexuality in the same ways that girls and some homosexual boys do. As a straight boy, their sexuality is tied up in getting girls. Not in being had. So right from the get go, writing a slashy whorefic is many times more difficult than a het fic. It only gets worse from there.

Obstacle the second? How does a kid like Harry or Clark even find work in the sex industry, let alone become a leather and silk-wearing sex god? It's not like you can just walk down some random street, show some skin, pick up a John and *BANG* you're superwhore. Like any industry, you have to learn the market. What sex acts cost how much and what are appropriate markups during the holidays. Then there are concerns particular to the sex industry - what protection is necessary for what sex acts, how do you ensure your safety, where are all the free clinics and who are the cops who go easy on whores? How do you live through the next day?

I mean, fuck. Why not go wait tables, sell drugs, roll old women for their purses? How does a kid like Harry or Clark come to the conclusion that sucking cock for lunch is a good idea when there are so many alternatives, even for a runaway?

Harry is a relatively intelligent kid, who's shown flashes of ruthlessness and cunning. He's never been comfortable living with the Dursleys and has actively fought back with the meager weapons at his disposal. He's magically powerful and resourceful.

Clark has superpowers. Super. Powers.

Just about every other male hero out there has something to fall back on, even if it's only enough arrogance to ensure that they'd rather snatch purses than get on their knees for a paunchy, middle-aged man, sweating through his cheap suit and grunting as he comes.

Fast forward. We're now at the part where the John falls in love with the whore. Snape and Harry, or Lex and Clark have been fucking regularly, and perhaps even have a live-in arrangement. Snape/Lex is so very smitten with Harry/Clark's cock-sucking skills that he bathes the boy, clothes him, angsts over him and eventually takes him away from it all.

What the hell kind of moron falls in love with an untrustworthy, dirty, street urchin, with big eyes and a bigger mouth, simply after coming really hard? I mean, great sex is great sex, but it sure isn't worth house-training a street whore over. There's a reason that rich men who want live-in lovers prefer expensive callgirls/boys. They're clean! Neither of these characters are complete fools and there is no reason to suspect that they'd be so gulible as to wear their wallets on their sleeves.

Even if - and this is a big if - the couples got to the point where actual pleasantries were exchanged, and they began to view each other as people and not sexual organs on legs, both of them would have to be seriously emotionally troubled to put themselves at risk by caring for a john or a whore. Both are at risk of losing money. Both are at risk of losing their lives. It's in no ones best interest for it to become emotional or personal.

The thing about Pretty Woman, the thing that made it so charming, is that it's an impossible love story that works because the Richard Gere and Julia Roberts characters sparkle together and are both fundamentally honest and likeable. There is almost a purity to the relationship, entirely dependent on how little they know of each other, and how very much they're risking. That they're willing to take the risk, hell, that they're even capable of it, is astonishing. Most people could never inhabit those roles. Harry and Clark couldn't. Snape and Lex most definitely couldn't.

To suggest otherwise is, in 99% of cases, Teh Dumb.

Thank you, drive through.

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*

The problem with taking a psychoanalytic approach to fic critcism and discussion is that, well, fic isn't life and the characters aren't real people. (Duh)

Recently, many of my acquaintances have complained to me about a general lack of psychological realism in certain characterizations. Remus Lupin and Jonathon Kent come to mind as supposed examples of naughty authordom. Readers are rightly pinpointing logical inconsistencies in the characterizations of these two, in both canon and fanon, and not simply the kind of very human illogical that we are all prone to, but the kind of illogic indicative of a very fucked up individual.

How can Jonathan freak out about Helen's connection to Lex, in one episode, then give Lex a very personal gift in another? Fic writers often explain this as being Martha's influence, but I don't think we've seen evidence of her having this kind and this level of influence over her husband. We're meant to believe that both are genuine actions. In fact, we're meant to believe that Jonathan is one of, perhaps the most genuine and reactive character on the show. Everything comes directly from his heart.

How can Remus Lupin seem to be so honest and insecure on one hand, and so manipulative and confident on the other? Is one more true to his essence than the other? In the pensieve scenes, we have a teen who is either so cowed by his friends that he dare not speak up, or a teen who just doesn't give a damn, and refuses to involve himself until it's important to him. We know he doesn't like or respect Snape and that he cares for his friends deeply. We know that he's a smooth talker, but also that he was suspected of being a spy. Logically, he shouldn't be able to both the extremes.

A psychoanalytic approach does not take into account the logic of archetypes, cultural expectations and myths. It doesn't allow a character to be consistent mythologically, but not psychologically. For example, characters in ancient tragedies rarely behave in psychologically consistent ways. This isn't a flaw in the texts, so much as it is a difference in the type of story telling going on. We are so used to demanding psychological realism that other kinds of story telling tend to get maligned. However, no story will ever have 'real' characters. Writers depend on archetypes and shared, cultural references far more often than even they suspect. It isn't always evident, until you take the text out of its cultural context.

Fic in particular seems to depend on shared cultural references and archetypes, fanon, of course, is simply a set of archetypes, myths and cliches. However, the kind of story that many of us want to tell, is extremely dependent on very particular and specific cultural references. The Hurt/Comfort fic. The road trip fic. The summer fling. These are all ideologically informed, culturally specific and can be confusing to people who've never encountered them before. Certainly they also play off of more broadly "human" myths, but the fic form is overwhelmingly the modern, western, middle class version of the story. For many people, you have to get H/C before you understand that epic Blair/Jim cavefic, or that Wesley/Lilah angrysex vignette. A psychoanalytic approach makes the story seem thin and poorly though out, but really, you're missing much of the resonance and the layers in the characterization.

Looking at say, the Harry Potter series with expectations of total psychological realism, will prevent you from appreciating the fairy tale elements. If Remus seems to be an impossible character, it might be because you can't read him on different levels.

Ultimately, fiction isn't a social experiment or illustration. Characters bow to the needs of the story, and sometimes act in ways that are inconsistent to a single way of reading. If Harry Potter isn't a perfect fairy tale hero, its because he's also a modern, realistic hero.