My Second Eastercon

[coalescent]

How to explain an Eastercon to someone who's never been, or even heard of it? It's six hundred fans (literature fans, mind...) in the same place, over the same weekend, doing a very wide range of things: attending or contributing to panel discussions on anything sf-related you can think of, selling or buying books, producing (or complaining about) the con newsletter, filking (god help us), costuming, building robots, demonstrating how a Tesla coil works, drinking, and, of course, arguing about the definition of a sandwich. But it's also so much more than that.

This year, Concourse, the 55th British National Science Fiction convention, was held at the Winter Gardens convention centre in Blackpool. Not the most inviting location in the world; it was particularly disturbing to sit on the train opposite three guys who were cheerfully discussing Violent Crimes I Have Committeed. But the con itself was good. The Guests of Honour were Philip Pullman, Christopher Priest, Danny Flynn, Sue Mason and Mitchell Burnside Clapp (with an honourable mention for Francis Spufford), but the best thing about Eastercon is that literally dozens of other authors, critics, and notable persons in the field go too; and they get involved, contributing to panels and other events as much as anyone else. This year, amongst others, I saw Ian Macleod, author of The Light Ages; Charles Stross, wunderkind of the British SF scene; Justina Robson, author of Natural History and others; Adam Roberts; Richard Morgan, this year's winner of the Philip K Dick award; John Jarrold, ex of Earthlight; Gwyneth Jones; Tony Ballantyne, up-and-coming author who has published some first-rate stories in Interzone over the past couple of years and whose first novel, Recursion, is due out in a couple of months; Peter F Hamilton; and Alastair Reynolds. And, of course, John Clute, master critic of the fantastic and co-author of The Encyclopaedias of Science Fiction and Fantasy, before whom we all bow down in awe. There's nothing quite like being able to walk up to the Clutemeister and casually chat to him about, say, whether he thinks Cloud Atlas should be a contender for the Clarke Award next year (answer: yes, definitely), or why zombies eat brains, but not in films (answer: if you go back to the old sources, the myths and the voodoo, they're mental vampires).

No, I take that back: the best thing about Eastercon is the people you go with. In my case, that was greengolux, twic, snowking, despotliz, elleblue, truecatachresis, squigglyruth, ajr...and many others were also there, including cleanskies, swisstone, alexmc, hawkida, ang_grrr, dougs, and probably at least half a dozen more whose lj names I don't know.

So how did it all go down?

Friday might have been the best day. The first event we attended was the George Hay Memorial Lecture, this year given by Francis Spufford. The lecture covered the peculiar mythology that grows up around engineers and those that work with technology. In Britain we have boffins - white coat, white hair, glasses and a befuddled expression - and what does this say about our relationship with science and technology? After all, you'd hardly describe Leonardo da Vinci as a boffin. The material covered here was related that explored in his wonderful book, The Backroom Boys, but none the less interesting for that; in fact, Spufford turned out (for me at least) to be one of the stars of the con, contributing to numerous panels and always bringing an interesting perspective to the discussion. There's an online quiz (inevitably) where you can find out what sort of geek you are. Spufford, I think, is the ultimate geek liason. He can translate between us and them with perfect ease.

Next up was a panel on the future of SF publishing, which was unfortunately relocated at the last minute to a large, loud hall, meaning that it was at times hard to follow. What I picked up, though, was surprisingly optimistic; apparently science fiction is starting to make the sales that fantasy has routinely made for the last decade - or perhaps more accurately, the sales have been there all along (10% of books sold in Britain are SFF), but now the booksellers are starting to believe it. A quick break for dinner, then it was time for a panel on children's books ('are the classics still classic?'). This again suffered from noise pollution, but the lineup was so good - John Clute, Ian Macleod, Francis Spufford and Janet Figg, with Farah Mendlesohn moderating - that to a certain extent this didn't matter. What made the panel work, I think, was the mix of perspectives: not just authors, or readers, or critics, but panellists from each camp. Well, that and the fact that the discussion itself was fascinating, raising the idea that there may not be such a thing as a canon of classic children's literature; the idea that children's books are, far more than other writing, inescapably of their time, partly because the writers are (obviously) not children themselves.

In a segue of breathtaking artfulness, the panel immediately after this was about slash fiction. I've repressed most of it, thankfully, but I'm left with the strong impression that it's just pointless; you can claim you're exploring the psyche of a character as much as you like, but in the end you're not, you're inventing your own version of that character for your own personal gratification, and in many cases it's a version that is in direct opposition to the one in the text. But, as Geneva pointed out, this is at least as much an objection to fanfiction in general as it is to slash.

And then there was the panel about The Future Of Fandom, for which we all sat in the third row.

Something is happening in the fandom of the fantastic.A slippage. A freeing-up. The silliness is astounding. Notions are sputtering and bleeding across generations -

- OK, no, that's not entirely (or indeed at all) accurate. But it was too good an opportunity to parody China Mieville's New Weird manifesto to miss because, as you may have gathered, we were spotted and duely named by the panellists. I don't think I've ever been part of a Movement before; certainly not one that has exchanged taunts via a convention newsletter, at any rate ("Dear Old Fogies, You'll never take us alive! Love and kisses, the third row"/"To the third row: resistance is useless! - The Old Fogies").

The newsletter itself deserves further mention, since several of us helped out throughout the weekend. The idea is that a double-sided sheet of A4 comes out twice a day carrying news, gossip, schedule changes, and so forth. It was via the newsletter that I found out about the Hugo shortlists on Saturday (and the retro Hugos; that 1953 Best Novel list is a killer), and it was via the newsletter that I found out that David Pringle has stepped down as the editor of Interzone, to be replaced by Andy Cox (but what's going to happen to The Third Alternative?). All-in-all, an invaluable service, heroically run by Alex Mclintock. It felt good to be a part of it.

Saturday's highlight was the Not The Clarke Awards panel, in which several ex-judges (plus, this year, Francis Spufford) debated the merits of what was felt to be an idiosyncratic shortlist and tried to predict what will win, and what should win. In the end, their conclusion was the same on both counts: Tricia Sullivan's Maul, not least because it's the only book nominated that is (a) not part of an ongoing series and (b) proper science fiction, dammit. Quoth one panellist: "It's impossible to second-guess the jury that picked this shortlist." And at the end they talked a little about how judges are selected, and Claire Brialey asked for BSFA members theoretically willing to be judges to make themselves known, so Geneva and I gave our names. In many ways, it's a terrifying prospect, and I'm sure that in any queue there will be many people ahead of me who are much more qualified to do the job...but I'd be lying if I said it didn't appeal to me. Other saturday events included Chris Priest's guest of honour speech, and a couple of panels (one on 'designing alien characters', one on 'superheroes: pen and ink or silver screen?') that lacked good moderators, and as a result meandered inconclusively about all over the place.

Sunday was incredibly busy: A panel on modern sf followed by a panel on the Victorian influence on sf followed by a panel on fairytales followed by a panel on computers in sf followed by philip pullman's guest of honour interview followed by a post-cyberpunk panel followed by the BSFA awards followed by a panel debating the relative merits of fanzines and blogging followed by dinner! Followed by a panel on Firefly followed by a panel on fannish feuds, followed by bed. Somewhere in there we ate packed lunches considerately provided by Liz' mum and yes, those were the sandwiches that provoked the great debate. Then on monday there was a panel about modern fantasy, then a long train ride to London and an attempt to see Jeff Vandermeer and Jeffrey Ford talk about their work at Borders on Oxford Street. But we were late.

A couple of notes on a couple of things:

• The existence or non-existence of the New Weird kept circling throughout the con, like a shark. The problem seems to be a lack of agreement about what the term means, exactly. Some authors (stand up, Jeff Vandermeer) are understandably reluctant to be tarred with any brush that could lead to certain reader expectations in the future, but other panellists (stand up, Cheryl Morgan) argued that New Weird is an approach, not a set of characteristic; that it's about challenging convention, not about establishing new conventions. Permanent revolution, if you like. And several panels pointed out the increasing collision between mainstream and sf; there are sf writers whose listed influences are almost exclusively from outside the genre (Ian Macleod, Jeffrey Ford), and mainstream writers who are demonstrably influence by writers from within the genre (David Mitchell, Jonathan Lethem). And then there's slipstream, although it was quite reasonably pointed out that that can only exist as a useful classification if there's a stream to slip behind. All in all, it's an interesting time.



• The fairytales panel was interesting, but somewhat unbalanced: with John Clute and Peter Nicholls, and Farah Mendlesohn chairing, the critic-to-author ratio was somewhat skewed, and poor old Philip Pullman was a bit outnumbered. It has to be said, though, that he still contributed a great deal (and indeed, that was true of every panel he was on. I was a little surprised that someone as 'big' as Pullman would come to an Eastercon, and I'm impressed that he did. Although that said, I've seen him talk so often over the past couple of years that I'm almost at saturation point - I've heard all his stories, for now).



• I don't fully understand the concept of fanzines. No, that's not true: I don't fully understand the concept of paper fanzines. Yes, it's nice to have a physical artifact to take away with you, but fundamentally I don't see what it is that a paper fanzine can do that the online equivalent can't do better. That said, I don't think blogs are an accurate comparison. Community blogs, maybe, but not personal ones.



• In general, there were three streams of panel, I thought: The straight 'fan' panels (the future of fandom and so forth), the panels looking at what sf does ('computers in sf', 'designing alien characters', etc) and the panels looking at how sf does what it does (fairytales, and to a certain extent the reviews of modern genre work). I think my inclinations personally lie with the third type, but that the second type is the most broadly popular.



• The BSFA awards results. Two of them went to the right people - the non-fiction award to Farah Mendlesohn (and by proxy The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction), and to Colin Odell for the cover of The True Knowledge of Ken Macleod. Two of them went to the wrong people. The short fiction award went to Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean for The Wolves in the Wall, which surely only won because it was the most readily available; yes, the shortlist was weak to start with, but there was still more significant work there. And the Best Novel award went to Jon Courtenay Grimwood for Felaheen. I can accept that people like the arabesks a lot, although I don't understand why; I am surprised that they like them more than Natural History or Pattern Recognition.



• There is a media stream of programming, but it's limited in scope and ambition. There was a panel about Buffy, another about Farscape, and another about Firefly. Compared to the lit panels, this is very odd; where are the comparisons? Where are the critical assessments? Where are the reviews of the current field? There's a niche in the market there that straight media cons don't fill. And possibly most importantly, why not show some of the material under discussion? I think there was a video room, but I never found it, and that's not quite what I'm talking about, anyway; I'm talking about showing a film, then discussing it. Or showing an episode for people who've never seen the show, and then taking the discussion from there.
  
  Then there are guests. Clearly it's impractical to invite actors, since they demand fees, but that doesn't matter - nobody cares about the actors, anyway. But what about the writers and creators? Joss Whedon is probably implausible (although imagine Joss Whedon and Philip Pullman debating fairytales, or storytelling, or anything!), but what about people like Simon Pegg or Russell T Davies?

Other reports:
Geneva|Lyndsey|Liz|Dougs|hmpf
Related:
Geneva on paper vs. web|Sarah on media programming at cons

And to conclude, the obligatory list of media exchanges.

Books Borrowed: 1

Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman Rushdie

Books Returned To Me: 1

Natural History by Justina Robson

Books Returned To Others: 3

Dogwalker by Arthur Bradford
Pattern Recognition by William Gibson
The Backroom Boys by Francis Spufford

Books Bought From The Dealers' Room: 7

Travel Arrangements (collection) by M John Harrison
A Rag, a Bone and a Hank of Hair by Nicholas Fisk
Amnesia Moon by Jonathan Lethem
The Wall of the Sky, the Wall of the Eye (collection) by Jonathan Lethem
Passage by Connie Willis
The Fourth Circle by Zoran Zivokvic
The Book by Zoran Zivkovic

Magazines Or Other Material Bought From The Dealers' Room: 3

Fantasy And Science Fiction, January 2004
A Very British Genre: A Short History of British Fantasy and Science Fiction, by Paul Kincaid
A Load of Old BoSh, by Bob Shaw

Books Bought From Borders On Monday Evening: 1

The Child That Books Built by Francis Spufford

Books Acquired For Free Because Liz' Dad Had Been To The Remaindered Shop And Bought Duplicates: 1

Chasm City by Alastair Reynolds

Books Acquired For Free Simply For Going To The Convention: 1

Tigana by Guy Gavriel Kay

Fanzines Acquired: 3

Banana Wings #19 Ed. by Claire Brialey and Mark Plummer
Earisheen #3 by James Bacon
Liejournal: The Concourse Newsletter, #1-#5 by many. If it counts.

And now, I'm off into town. I'll have to catch up on my friends page later.

Comments

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

fundamentally I don't see what it is that a paper fanzine can do that the online equivalent can't do better.

Hmm. Would you say the same if you substituted the word 'book' for 'fanzine' in the above sentence? What exactly is it that you think online fanzines do better than paper fanzines?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Reordering slightly...

What exactly is it that you think online fanzines do better than paper fanzines?

"To begin with, everything."

They're more permanent; they're more accessible; they're more interactive. But then, I don't even know if we're working from the same definition of 'fanzine'; it might be easier if you listed what you think a fanzine should do, and then for me to respond to that. Or we could do it over at Geneva's place.

Would you say the same if you substituted the word 'book' for 'fanzine' in the above sentence?

Yep, that's the obvious question, and one I have been thinking about - I read The Book on the train on the way home, and it's basically an argument for the necessity of books as physical objects. And I like books! Don't get me wrong, I like holding them and reading them...but I do think there are differences between books and fanzines.

For starters, books are a lot bigger. I'm happy to read a short story from SciFiction, or an issue of Emerald City, off my computer screen; I'm much less comfortable with the idea of reading something the length of a novel in the same way.

For another thing, fanzines are more interactive. Yes, you may write a letter to an author when you're done with the book, but it's not general practice - fanzines are more explicitly part of a dialogue.

And to be honest, if at some point they developed a satisfactory e-book - one that's easy to read, and pleasant to hold - I'm not sure how I'd feel.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

And it's entirely possible that one of the reasons Felaheen (narrowly, from what I hear) beat Pattern Recognition is that the latter isn't really sf.

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

Pattern Recognition [...] isn't really sf.

Goddam you. I was going to make that point. Of the books on the BSFA shortlist I had read (Natural History, Midnight Lamp and Pattern Recognition), Pattern Recognition was my favourite.

I didn't enjoy Natural History at all.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Pattern Recognition is that the latter isn't really sf.

Well, it is and it isn't. :)

It's set in a world that is recognisably ours, yes; strictly speaking, the only sfnal element is Cayce's allergy, and that's more-or-less tangential to the plot. And yet...it made it onto the ballot. I think it's there because it stands squarely at the intersection of mainstream and sf: because it fuses the techniques of the latter onto the material of the former. It looks at the world in an sfnal way.

I'm uncomfortable claiming it's not sf, but I'm equally uncomfortable claiming that it is!

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's nice to have a physical artifact to take away with you, but fundamentally I don't see what it is that a paper fanzine can do that the online equivalent can't do better.

You can read it in the bath.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

No you can't! It would get all soggy and wet. Admittedly, that's not as severe a drawback as potentially electrocuting you... :)

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

You can, and I have, read things on the web in the bath. Laptops with wireless connections are great.

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

we were spotted and duely named by the panellists

I don't know if the misspelling is deliberate, but please keep it. :)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It was so accidental that I can't spot it even now you've pointed it out.

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

There's a niche in the market there that straight media cons don't fill.

Have you considered the possibility that no-one else thinks it's large enough for it to be worth filling?

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

There's a niche in the market there that straight media cons don't fill.

Have you considered the possibility that no-one else thinks it's large enough for it to be worth filling?

But I know loads of people within fandom who are more than willing, even eager, to talk critically about SF films and TV. It's not a huge niche in the separate con market, but it's a niche in something like the Eastercon programme that I think could happily be filled. There's no reason why a general con like Eastercon can't treat films and TV with as much thought as they treat SF literature. There were a lot of fantastic intellectually-rich literary panels, but the same kind of treatment was not forthcoming for media SF, though I think that kind of treatment would be more than welcome in many cases.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Have you considered the possibility that no-one else thinks it's large enough for it to be worth filling?

The thought has occurred to me, but it's too depressing because I can't understand why someone would think that way (for the reasons Geneva gives), so I'm pretending it's not true.

[green-amber.livejournal.com]

It's always fun seeing anew fannish group emerge .. I hope you last longer than the KNew Mutants :-) I have two of you on my Friends list (you and Geneva) plus Cleanskies who seems connected?? - what's your common secret origin thingy? Are you all ex Oxford fans, or all ex-UKTVBTYS? I'm a fan anthropologist - I like to know these things..

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

coalescent, greengolux and cleanskies are all members or ex-members (is there such a thing?) of ousfg, the Oxford University Speculative Fiction Society. Also present at Eastercon were elleblue, truecatachresis, twic and squigglyruth from the same source, and snowking and I who got trapped in the gravity well that is Niall. We met Niall via umta.

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

A lot of us (including me and Niall) got into this whole thing through OUSFG (the Oxford University Speculative Fiction Group). Yes, we know cleanskies through OUSFG. Others got into it through uk.media.tv.angel. Niall was initially the connecting thread between the umta crowd and the OUSFG crowd, but it's a bit more intermingled now.

[xsabx.livejournal.com]

It's always fun seeing anew fannish group emerge

Genuinely Serious Question Ahead, no inflammation intended: why do they have to be fannish? Can they not just be mates with a similar interest. Is it traditional, that because they have come together with a liking of a similar subject, that they be known as part of a Fandom? We don't regard football fans as fannish, my cricket loving mates don't have Fandom. Someone tell me why it's fannish to be a lover of SF, because I've realised I have no idea why...

Media programming

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

Why wasn't there more media programming at Eastercon? Because it wasn't offered to the committee. Want to see more media programming at future Eastercons? Offer it to the committee. Yes, it would be nice to see programme items where clips are shown and then discussed, but such items need someone prepared to go through and select clips to discuss. These things take a lot of time - I know, I did such a talk at Eastercon in 2002. There are indeed loads of people prepared to wax lyrical about films and tv, but if they don't offer to do so in front of an audience, it won't get into the programme.

I just don't believe this notion of 'Old Fogies' (which used to be called the Secret Masters of Fandom) ensuring that all media programming is blocked at Eastercons. Such an idea tends to fall apart when you remember that one of the co-chairs of Concourse is heavily involved in Redemption, a Blake's Seven/Babylon 5 con, or that the current BSFA awards administrator got into cons through Hitch-Hiker fandom.

Want a panel on American gothic telefantasy? Get three or four people to agree to be on it, then suggest it to the next Eastercon committee. You never know, you might find that the barriers everyone seems to be railing at aren't really there.

Re: Media programming

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

Why wasn't there more media programming at Eastercon? Because it wasn't offered to the committee.

Yup, I am aware of this, and did make a similar point to people when we discussinig the make-up of panels.

Yes, it would be nice to see programme items where clips are shown and then discussed, but such items need someone prepared to go through and select clips to discuss.

One of my favourite media programme items last year was green_amber's character analysis of Spike from Buffy, which was presented using clips from different shows. But yes, it was a talk that had obviously had a lot of work put into it.

It would be easier to show an entire episode from a TV show and then discuss it, but the problem with that is that it would take up two separate programme slots, since most TV shows have episodes that last around an hour.

Personally, I'm not criticising what has been done, but just throwing out ideas about what kind of things would be cool for us to try to do, exploring some options. :)

Re: Media programming

[xsabx.livejournal.com]

You never know, you might find that the barriers everyone seems to be railing at aren't really there.

You know, I think the barriers are there, and they lie between the people wanting to be entertained and those who do the entertaining. Your argument (if you want it, do it yourself) does rather hinge on the people who want the programming to provide it, rather than it being considered as an automatic given. Of course, I know that's how Con programming works: you get people who are willing to talk to do so, if someone has a good idea then you attempt to exploit it. However (and this is my main point) the whole make-up of what you present needs to be targeted not simply through the odd strand. There needs to be other things that will invite the kind of person in who might then be willing, *in the fullness of time* to contribute. So, maybe that means that the Third Row is the salvation of Modern Fandom. Maybe they will do what many in my version were unable to do because we were seduced by The Shock of the New. However, what is still apparent is that there are barriers, because if there weren't I wouldn't still be having this discussion and it wouldn't always be about 'well if you want it, you do it, it's not our interest'

Media programming

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

Hi,

I'm the clueless person who did the Farscape panel, - well, okay, not generally clueless, but I only found out that it really was a go when I arrived at the con, and so was slightly less than well prepared... however, the disappearance of the other two panel members was not really my fault - I never met them, so I didn't have a chance to scare them away. *g* (BTW: I found your LJ by accident, more or less, via your review of Veniss Underground at diversebooks.com. Any idea how I might find more con reports?)

I would have loved to see more in depth media programming as well. Like (perhaps?) many of the younger generation in fandom, I believe that we should not blinker ourselves - there is great stuff to be found in many subgenres and many media. Some of the recent examples of the genre in other media have been staggeringly good, and they deserve the same kind of critical attention that literature gets.

I am sorry I was not able to provide a more interesting panel. I would probably have been able to - after all, I've done some in depth thinking about the show for uni already - had I had a bit more time to prepare, and had there been other knowledgeable people on the panel apart from me (Dave Lally, after all, didn't really know a lot about the show and mainly sat there to make me feel not quite so lonely and exposed... though I'm profoundly grateful that he did that. I *did* feel pretty odd.) Also, I was a bit too nervous... but then, it was only my second panel ever, and the first in English, so I guess that will get better with practice.

BTW... your report makes me feel extremely annoyed that I missed the first day. When I got around to booking I could only get a train that arrived late at night. I seem to have missed lots of really interesting panels. (And then I missed some more on the next days because I was too busy meeting people and making friends, but then, I guess that's about the best reason for missing a panel you can have.)

Re: Media programming

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I'm the clueless person who did the Farscape panel

I didn't actually make it to that - I wanted to, but it clashed with the cyberpunk panel and, well...

(BTW: I found your LJ by accident, more or less, via your review of Veniss Underground at diversebooks.com.

Of all the reviews I've posted there that I thought might get people to come and look at my lj...that wasn't one of them. Not my finest work. :)

Any idea how I might find more con reports?)

Other than the ones linked in my original post, not really, I'm afraid. anonymousclaire might have a few.

I would have loved to see more in depth media programming as well.

I'm collecting names for the future...

And a few words on fan fiction...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

'cause I'm one of those people who happen to write it, read it, and think it has objective literary/artistic value. You said:


>"you can claim you're exploring the psyche of a character as much as you like, but in the end you're not, you're inventing your own version of that character for your own personal gratification,"

In what ways do you consider the exploration of characters in 'real', professional fiction more valid or legitimate than that which happens in fan fiction? Aren't the characters in 'real' literature just as fictitious as those in fan fiction? And don't authors get some kind of enjoyment out of crafting those characters, their worlds, and the stories they are involved in, as well? It would be rather sad if they didn't!
So does the difference simply lie in the fact that fan fiction authors have not created the characters they use? But then, it is not unheard of for pro authors to use, and often radically reinterpret, existing characters, either. Are they more entitled to it because they're professionals? What exactly makes a person entitled to take characters they haven't invented and use them in their own writing, either in a way that stays faithful to the original material or in a way that turns it upside down or shifts our perceptions of it? Do you have to be an already published author to be allowed to do something like that?
And how about pro authors who, sometimes incognito, write fanfic on the side? There are quite a few that I know of. Is their fanfic without value whereas their pro work has objective value? Or does, perhaps, the fact that they write fanfic devalue their pro work? (I hope not!)
Or is the problem that fan fiction is often unashamedly erotic? In that case, I'd be interested to know what makes the achieving of a successfully erotic story less worthwhile an artistic endeavour than any other? I do not read a lot of explicitly erotic fanfic because I do not care for reading lots of sex scenes. I may tolerate a sex scene if the rest of the story is good, but it's not what I'm looking for in fanfic, although I would not deny that part of my motivation in writing and reading fan fiction *is* erotic - but my brand of eroticism is of a more subtle kind. However, I do recognize that it is just as challenging to write a good erotic, or even, possibly, pornographic story as it is to write any other kind of story, and that the result can be art in its own right, even if it's not my cup of tea.


(To Be Continued...)

Continued...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

>"and in many cases it's a version that is in direct opposition to the one in the text."

I think nobody contests that the largest part of the fanfic that you can find on the net is crap of an order too painful to even look at for more than half a second. However, the really good stuff does exist, and if you manage to find it, it can be amazing - searching for fanfic is a bit like searching for gold in a very muddy river ;-). And yes, I think that the really good stuff does a marvellous job of exploring the characters - as good a job as any fiction can do to explore fictitious characters. It does not matter that the characters did not originate with the writers; it does not matter (or rather, it matters a lot, but it does not detract from, but rather *adds* to the quality) that every writer adds their own, unique twist to them. Fan fiction, *good* fan fiction, should be a believable extrapolation from the existing material. That can include a certain amount of original, even idiosyncratic interpretation. It usually - in good fan fiction, that is - does not go so far as to completely turn characters on their heads, 'cause after all, the readers want to read about the characters they have come to love on a certain show (or in a book, movie, or whatever), and not about someone else's very private fantasy. 'OOC', 'out of character', is about the most devastating thing you can tell a fanfic author about their stories, and most fanfic readers detect 'OOC'-ness very quickly. The art of fan fiction, part of it, anyway, is to offer your own version of a certain universe and certain characters while still keeping it believable, keeping it in tune with the source material. That takes quite a bit of skill. Of course, every reader's idea of what is believable will vary.

I could probably write you a whole manifesto here (I haven't even touched yet on *why* I think fan fiction is an important and exciting literary form), but I think I should probably go to bed now, as I'm still suffering from convention-lag. ;-)

Oh, and:

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

mind if I friend you?

Sorry for spamming (if this is spamming)... I just don't like to friend people without asking.

Re: Oh, and:

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

mind if I friend you?

Not in the least, assuming I can reciprocate. And I think this thread is way past the point where I'm going to worry about spamming. :)

(I'll reply to your other posts when, um, I'm not at work.)

[scribeoflight.livejournal.com]

When you say that "10% of books sold in Britain are SFF", do you mean to say that "10% of the fiction sold in Britain is SFF"?

Or is it really 10% of the total number of all books sold, both fiction and non-fiction?

Intrigued! :o)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Oh, bugger, I can't remember. I think it was the latter (I remember being impressed), but I really couldn't say for certain.

[(Anonymous)]

Incidentally, can we get a summary of this thread?

Would make a good article for The Third Row.

-- Tom

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, can we get a summary of this thread?

Ahaha. Ahahahahahaha. Summarise this? Sure.

*breaks down and gibbers incoherently*