Discussion The Scribble Pad (Fanfic Writing Discussions)

Using the article as a sort of springboard for my thoughts and ramblings about art and literature:

I think writing with hope can be valuable but that writing and art in general can be a sort of pressure valve for society and for the individual writer and artist. A way to wrestle with negative emotions, ideas, and situations. To confront fears. To deal with death and loss. To face traumas. To acknowledge horror and grief. The negative emotions are as much a part of the human experience as the positive ones.After the Black Death swept through Europe, for example, we see the development of the Danse Macabre (or Dance with Death) in the Late Middle Ages, that was basically intended to show the universality of death. How it struck everyone regardless of station. The Black Death killed people of all stations so no wonder this theme got so much exploration in the art of the Late Middle Ages. Similarly, memento moris (reminders of death) also crop up in the artwork of the Late Middle Ages and effigies of nobles/royalty began really emphasizing the horror of death (depicting skeletons or decaying bodies) instead of idealistic portrayals of the dead as if they were alive as was more of the style in the High Middle Ages. The Black Death was one of the most traumatic events in human history, so people wrestled with that trauma in art. And we can still see that wrestling in art in cathedrals today and in other places. So, if there is a big surge in dark art, I think it behooves us to ask why that would be. Why the mood of the time is so pessimistic. If dark art is speaking more to people in a certain age or era, why is that? What trauma are they facing? What horror are they confronting? It'll be there in the art. The art that is speaking to the people and to their fears. Their traumas.

During the Cold War, the apocalypse often came from the fallout of nuclear warfare. This is society confronting the fact that humans now possess the power to destroy the world many times over. Even works that some might consider optimistic wrestle with the reality and implication of world destroying weapons. The OT, for example, features not one but two Death Stars. Two weapons that can destroy worlds with a single push of a button. The Chronicles of Narnia feature Charn, a world destroyed by a single Deplorable Word, and a warning from Aslan to Polly and Diggory that soon there world will have weapons capable of destroying it. Basically, a warning that nuclear weapons will exist in the lifetimes of Polly and Diggory. An acknowledgment that we humans can absolutely destroy our world in a children's book series that I don't think anyone would classify as particularly dark or pessimistic. In fact, most would probably consider the Chronicles of Narnia fairly innocent and idealistic in its outlook. In more modern works, the apocalypse often comes from environmental disaster. Makes sense for a world confronting global warming and climate change and the implications thereof. Society asks its big questions and confronts its big fears through art.

Moving on a bit from that point, I don't think it is fair for works that deal in the more hopeful, optimistic end of the spectrum to be dismissed as lacking depth or being meaningless fluff or whatever. At the same time, though, I don't think it is fair to dismiss works that may deal with darker emotions as just being jaded, cynical, and not enjoyable, etc. (Especially since not all fiction is meant to be enjoyable or happy. For example, Macbeth is one of my favorite plays, but I don't know that I'd define it as enjoyable and I certainly wouldn't consider it happy. It's tragedy. It puts me through an emotional wringer. But I'm not sure that it is happy. It's still worth watching and reading, though.)

All that isn't to say that I think it is wrong to have personal preferences and tastes about what one enjoys in any type of art (music, painting, literature, theater, movies, TV shows), etc. Everyone will have their own personal preferences and tastes, and to me each person's preferences and tastes are worthy of respect. The problem for me is just when an individual person acts like his or her preferences and tastes are the standard for what constitutes good or worthwhile art, or acts as if the only art that should be produced is art that happens to align with his or her preferences and tastes. Using myself as an example again, I think it's perfectly fine that I prefer to watch historical dramas and period pieces than action/adventure films, but it wouldn't really be fair of me to act like the only TV shows that should be made are historical dramas and period pieces. Or it's fine for me to prefer to look at the paintings of the Impressionists rather than most modern art but that doesn't mean I should be dismissive of modern art or people who have different taste than me and prefer modern art. Or it's fine that I don't tend to buy a lot of romance novels (I prefer fantasy, historical fiction, non-fiction, etc.) but it'd be wrong of me to act like bookstores and libraries shouldn't sell or offer these books for borrowing. All different arts to suit all different palettes can coexist and appeal to different audiences. And there can sometimes even be crossover between audiences.

I would also say that there are a lot of great creators that can't be pigeonholed into one type or style of writing/art. The poet William Blake gives us the Songs of Innocence but also the Songs of Experience. Shakespeare gives us the lightness and humor of Much Ado about Nothing but also the darkness and tragedy of Hamlet and Othello. C.S. Lewis gives us the Narnia books but also A Grief Observed. J.R.R. Tolkien introduces us to the wonderful world of the Shire but also shows us the scouring of the Shire, and we may get the heroes of Frodo and Aragorn, but we also come to know Gollum and Boromir. Some of the best creators seem to want to explore a range of ideas. A range of emotions and experiences. So, my inclination is to give them that space and scope. That freedom to explore the highs and lows of what it means to be human.

Let the man who wrote Surprised by Joy also be the one to wrestle with the Problem of Pain if he so chooses (if he chooses not to do that, that is fine too). Both can be worth writing and reading. I have both in my Audible and Kindle libraries. Both speak to me when I am in different moods. It can be good to be Surprised by Joy but also to confront the Problem of Pain. And C.S. Lewis is one of my favorite authors, so I enjoy doing that with him. Joy can be transcendent. So can grief and pain. And if I want anything in my art, it tends to be a sense of transcendence that I long for most. I would say that it is wrong to tell William Blake he can't write Songs of Innocence because it sounds too much like sparkling rainbows and dancing unicorns. At the same time, though, I think it'd be wrong to tell William Blake that Songs of Experience shouldn't be written because, well, it is just too bleak and depressing. My stance is both should exist so people can be moved by reading and writing them if they so choose. And if they don't so choose that is fine as well. (Unless it's for a school assignment. Then it just has to be done, lol.)

I do think "grim, dark" became something of a trend in adult fantasy after the popularity of the TV show Game of Thrones, but I would be reluctant to even label all of George RR. Martin's Westeros fantasy as "grim, dark." The short stories collected into A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms following the knight, Sir Duncan (often called Dunk) and his squire Aegon (affectionately known as Egg) are more innocent and light-hearted in tone. (And the audiobook version is read by the guy who plays Viserys in the Game of Thrones TV show). Those who are intrigued by A Song of Ice and Fire but want a finished series with a less dark tone might want to check out The Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series by Tad Williams. If they find themselves falling in love with Osten Ard, Tad Williams is still publishing novels and novellas set in that world, whereas it is looking increasingly likely that the A Song of Ice and Fire series won't ever get finished. I will also take a moment to plug my absolute favorite fantasy author of all time and recommend Guy Gavriel Kay whose writing offers a poignant mix of the beautiful and the melancholy. He is not as prolific as some other fantasy authors, but he is still active in publishing and usually writes books that be read as standalone or part of a duology, which is nice for those that don't want a commitment to a super long series that may never be finished a la George RR Martin. I understand not liking "grim, dark" fantasy (it's not for everyone) or getting tired of it when it seems that the market is oversaturated with it, but then I would just recommend doing the research to seek out alternative series or authors. George RR Martin not your cup of tea? Well, maybe Tad Williams will be more up your alley. Or maybe he won't be. Who knows? It's a matter of checking out different authors to see what styles and stories resonate with you.

I will also say that I think there has been a tendency to equate "grim, dark" with "realism" and that is a bit of a mistake. "Grim, dark" is often not realistic in the same ways that many happily ever after stories aren't realistic. To use Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire as an example a quasi medieval world with a feudal society structured around agriculture could not realistically sustain itself with winters that last years and come about on a random, unpredictable basis. That's "grim, dark" world building for sure, but it isn't exactly realistic world building. The Dothraki are also an unrealistic culture (just compare them to the Mongols who are probably their closest real world inspiration). The Dothraki are "grim, dark" and arguably a stereotyped portrayal of a nomadic people but they aren't exactly realistic. It's okay that a world with dragons and ice zombies isn't realistic (it's fantastical) but it does show that "grim, dark" and realistic may not be the same thing despite the tendency many people have to equate them. More realistic would be historical fiction like that by Bernard Cornwell and Elizabeth Chadwick. Bernard Cornwall's works can be quite dark and bloody; Elizabeth Chadwick's less so. But both are fairly realistic (Bernard Cornwall's for the Dark Ages and sometimes for the medieval era; Elizabeth Chadwick for the High Middle Ages). Even more realistic still would be works of non-fiction like The Great Mortality by John Kelly or A Distant Mirror: The Calmatious Fourteenth Century by Barbara Tuchman.So, again, if someone is seeking realism, I wouldn't recommend A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones. It simply isn't realistic. It's grim dark fantasy. Which is fine but an entirely different kettle of fish than realism in my opinion.

I do think that in general many readers of fiction want likable characters, but people's definitions of likable characters may differ. Some may love the classic hero archetype and find those types of characters very likable. Others might found those types of characters very boring. Some will prefer the Han Solo to the Luke Skywalker.

What people will want in fantasy world building will also differ. Some will want a world they long to live in or visit. Others will want a world that frightens or disturbs them. Some will want a world with a richly developed history. Others won't want to hear or read so much lore. Some will want a complex magic system. Others might prefer only a little sprinkling of magic in their fantasy. All have their fans and devotees, and some people will appreciate different types of fantasy world building depending on the story being told or on their mood, etc.

Moments of joy can be moving to see on screen or read about on the page, but I also think other moments and moods are worthwhile and important.

I guess I wouldn't want joy or hope forced on creators or audiences (is it really joy or hope if it's forced, anyway?) but I also don't think that "grim, dark" is the only meaningful or important art, and certainly I have my qualms about equating realism with "grim, dark" because "grim, dark" is often not very realistic at all. There's nothing inherently wrong with "grim, dark" or realism or happily ever after or anything in between. I can appreciate them all depending on my mood and the story or art.

I think the biggest thing I like to celebrate in art and writing is just the difference and range of what is being created. The huge variety of emotions and experiences captured.

That being said, I do like the exercises suggested in that article in terms of writing likable but flawed characters who have friends and creating a world where you'd want to live is good advice for many who might be interested in writing in science fiction or fantasy genres.

Bottom line is I don't suppose I agree with everything in the article or the perspective/position of the writer, but I do think that there is some good writing advice at least for certain writers in there.

Basically, I am just like, "Give me mush, but also give me tragedy. Don't make me choose between them. I want both depending on my mood."

Thank you for listening to my incoherent ramblings.

 

@brodiew, I'm sorry to hear about your struggle transitioning from exposition to action/dialogue and about feeling the wind is being taken out of your sails for the story after that initial burst of exposition! Transitioning from exposition to action/dialogue can be super difficult, and it is so frustrating when inspiration for a fic just seems to vanish.

I do think there can be a real barrier and struggle to pivot as it were from exposition to action/dialogue even for published, professional authors. I also think whenever a struggle like that occurs it can easily create a feeling of writer's block or a feeling of being uninspired or frustrated. So I definitely think you are not alone and in good company when it comes to facing this problem, though, of course, when confronted with the problem in one's own stories, it can be hard not to feel very alone in the fight to write.

If I could offer some ideas, I might suggest the following options and techniques you could try to see if any are helpful to you and your situation:

1.If you feel that you might be leaning too far into exposition to start your stories, you could try to start the story in media res with an action sequence or bit of dialogue that you might have planned for later on in the story if it is a oneshot or that you envision happening in the first chapter for a multi-chapter fic. You could then provide more exposition after that initial action/dialogue, or you might even find that some of the exposition came through in the dialogue and the action itself. Sometimes I just find it helpful to shake things up in my writing and try a totally different approach if my usual approach isn't working with a particular story.

2. You could always write your exposition as part of a story outline/notes or as a character-building exercise to get into the mind of the character and keep that as a separate document that you could always integrate into your story once you've written more of the action/dialogue that is giving you trouble, and since they are in separate documents, the challenge of integrating them can come later on in the writing process, once all the words are out and things can more easily be deleted or re-arranged.

3. You can also always try turning off your inner editor and inner critic while you write the beginning of your stories. Maybe don't worry too much if you are writing too much exposition and not enough dialogue/action. If you want to write the exposition, write the exposition, because it is better to have too much of it than too little. You can much more easily delete the exposition if you decide that you don't want it than write it later when the inspiration to write the exposition may be gone. So if you feel inspired to write the exposition, write exposition without guilt or shame.

4. I also wouldn't obsess too much over finding the perfect balance for action/dialogue v.s. exposition because I feel like individual readers will differ about what is the perfect amount of exposition v.s. action/dialogue. Plus, how much exposition v.s. action/dialogue is appropriate can depend on a variety of factors like the length of the story, genre of the story, and style of the author. So I would just ultimately advise approaching each story as unique and finding the best way for you to tell it as an author in your own voice and with your own style. Whatever amount of exposition you ultimately find working for the story you want to tell is really the perfect balance for that story, at least as determined by you the author. So at the end of the day, don't sweat things too much and trust in your instincts as a writer. They will guide you into telling the story you want to tell how you want to tell it.

I think the key is just having faith in yourself and finding the method that works for you and gives you confidence and inspiration from story to story.

Best of luck with all aspects of your writing!

 

Ooh. Some great topics for discussion so thank you for that, @Briannakin!

My two cents (or two dollars worth as it were since I love to babble as I'm sure everyone on this site knows by now):

1. My main fandoms that I've written for are Star Wars (I will count that as movie series because it's first and primary media format is movies though I draw inspiration from books and TV shows as well), Narnia (I will count as books since its first and primary media is books though I draw inspiration from the movies as well), Harry Potter (I will count as books since it was first published as books and I really only draw inspiration from the books in terms of fanfic), Tamora Pierce (book series of YA fantasy), and Avatar the Last Airbender (TV show though sometimes I draw inspiration from the comics/graphic novels for fanfic purposes). So, based on that data, I'd say that I have a preference for writing based on material from books. However, I do feel like that result might be a bit skewed because I tend to be a very book-obsessed person in general. I normally average about an hour or two spent reading across multiple formats a day (I'm currently at 164 books read this year) and don't tend to watch as many movies and TV shows so it could simply be that because I read so much, I am more likely to end up writing about books that have been long time favorites of mine and where I feel like I know both the source material and the overall fandom culture like the back of my hand. Because I don't tend to approach the process of writing fanfic inspired by a TV show or movie much differently than fanfic inspired by a book series. It tends to be a similar process either way (and maybe calling it a process is elevating it too much and being very generous with the terminology since it is mostly a product of the random inspirations of my very fickle and flighty muse who does not like to be pegged down on anything). So equally random and prone to mess regardless of the original source material is maybe the perfect way to describe the situation for me.

So, I think as far as a preference goes for me it's not so much about the form of media as it is about the genre. In that I tend to lean heavily toward what can be classified in the fantasy genre. Star Wars could be defined as space fantasy as much as it could be considered sci-fi in my opinion. Narnia is classic portal fantasy. Harry Potter and Tamora Pierce are YA/middle grade fantasy. And Avatar the Last Airbender is an animated fantasy TV show with a variety of Asian and Inuit influences that I appreciate. The fact that I'm drawn to writing fantasy fanfic is notable to me because I read and consume media in a lot of other genres. Such as non-fiction/documentaries/memoirs, historical fiction, historical dramas, etc. Yet it only seems to be fantasy that I'm drawn to writing fanfic about even if I definitely do borrow from real world history and culture for inspiration for my fanfic. Fantasy seems to light my imagination and spark my creativity in a way that other genres don't. Like I don't know if I've ever written a fanfic that wasn't for a book, movie, or TV show that couldn't be classified under the fantasy genre. Unless we are being very determined to classify Star Wars as sci-fi and not space fantasy. In that case, I branch out to sci-fi as well, which is like the sister genre of fantasy and often gets filed with fantasy in libraries and bookstores anyway. So not exactly roaming too far from my fantasy comfort zone if at all.

2. I think there are a number of factors that can influence how likely I am to write a fanfic inspired by a particular work (whether book, TV series, movie, etc.) and a lot of them are really more rooted in the subjectivity of my fickle muse than in anything objective and concrete.Apart from the genre consideration of me apparently being drawn to writing fantasy like a moth to flame that I discussed in the above paragraph, I think that there absolutely has to be something in the world building and setting that draws me in and makes me want to explore the nuances and richness of that setting in more depth. It has to to a world that I want to engage with in my own mind and writing. It has to really hook me and make me feel like there are some complex elements for me to delve into because as a writer I seem to thrive off complicated. It could be the world through the wardrobe of Narnia or the magical boarding school of Harry Potter or the different cultures and types of bending in Avatar or the Jedi/Force and galaxy far, far away of Star Wars. Different cultures, places, and philosophies can also help pull me into the world and give me something to sink my teeth into when it comes to fanfic writing.

I would also say that I am like you, @Briannakin, in terms of being inspired to write fanfic for a fandom by the characters in the source material. For me, I could fall in love with the personality of a major character and want to explore that character and personality in more depth or just go on more adventures with that character. Or it could be something in that character's backstory that is really relatable or moving to me, and I just want to dive into it more than canon could and create a story about that. Or it could be a minor character who has a neat little detail given about them that I feel the urge to write a story about or a minor character that seems to have a cool personality and I want to write a whole story where they can be the center of attention and get some time in the spotlight. Or the characters in canon could be dealing with a ton of drama, tragedy, or trauma, and I just want to engage with that drama, tragedy, or trauma. And there often tend to be certain characters in each fandom that I will focus a lot of attention on because I will tend to fall in love with certain characters or really want to explore certain characters more.

This probably connects to both world building and character, but I also have to have the sense of things going on off-screen or off-page that I can explore more. Something has to strike me as a story that needs to be told in connection to this original source material. There needs to be that lightning bolt of inspiration that makes me go, "Ah, there is a story there, and I just need to tell it!"

I think some of it is also a level of comfort. When I have been writing in certain fandoms for awhile (and often with certain favorite characters or elements of world building), I can feel like I know the characters and world really well, and so slipping into that world when I write can feel like sliding into a pair of shoes that fit just right rather than risking blisters by putting on a new pair of shoes. Basically, jumping into a new fandom does require some courage on my part, and some anxiety about not capturing the world or the characters well or wondering about how I might be received by readers and other writers in whatever new fandom I'm tackling.

Another element of it for me is I think the community aspects of fanfic writing. With some fandoms, I have become involved with fanfic communities in terms of writing for challenges, prompts, and gift exchanges and just gotten to know other members of the fandom as readers and authors, so writing fanfic for that community becomes a way of connecting with a community that I care about. Community is part of the appeal with fanfic for me, so when I am engaged with a particular fanfic community, that tends to keep me involved in writing fanfic about that fandom for years and years at a time. It becomes more than just a personal hobby and is transformed into something that I can share with others, and that is motivating for me. So writing for a new fandom can raise that question of, "Well, how will I be perceived by this community in this fandom? Will they welcome me as the new kid on the block or will they think my writing is terrible and offensive?" Whereas writing for a fandom I know, I feel like I have an established audience of readers with whom I have some street cred. So they won't be like, "What's devilinthedetails doing writing a Star Wars fic?" Which is probably my own insecurity as a writer and a person talkingSo for those with more confidence than me this may not be an issue at all.

3. I think that when I start writing fanfic in a particular fandom, it totally changes the way I interact with the source material (whether it is a book, TV show, or movie). It's almost like when I read or watch that book, show, or movie, that I put on my "creator" hat rather than my "consumer" hat if that makes sense. When I have my "consumer" hat on, the focus is very much on enjoying the story--including the world building and characters--and while some amount of analysis is part of that process for me (because I am just a very nerdy and cerebral person, haha), the thoughts I have will be more like, "Why did the author make that choice? What is the author trying to say here? What are the themes emerging? What are the nuances of that particular word choice?" Etc. Like the questions a student of literature would ask and answer in an English class. Whereas when my "creator" hat is on, I am more thinking about the stories I could spin involving the world and the characters and what details and drama could appear in my story. I'm on the hunt for inspiration in a way.

And when I write fanfic I do find that I start to think of the world in which I'm writing and the characters I'm writing about (even though they aren't often OC's) as "mine" in a way that I don't tend to with works that I haven't written fanfic about. Like if I haven't written fanfic about it, the authors are totally in control of that story. But if I write fanfic about that story, then I totally feel empowered to write AU's or fix-it fics or to ignore canon that doesn't align with my head canon. Basically, I feel more at liberty to tinker and toy with the canon of works where I write fanfic. Whereas the canon of works I don't write fanfic for is largely just accepted as the canon for me and not overridden by my sometimes elaborate personal head canons.

I also find that when I write fanfic for a particular fandom, I become very engaged in that world and those characters so even if I don't re-read or re-watch the original source material in awhile, it will remain quite fresh in my mind because I write so much in that fandom and read fanfic in that fandom and am immersed in the fandom community so that source material remains on my mind in a different way than stuff I consume but don't write fanfic for if that makes sense.

So I do think writing fanfic and generally being part of a larger fan community changes how I interact with source materials. It's interesting to think about and how my view of things changes based on if I am wearing a "creator" or "consumer" lens when engaging with that source material.

Thanks for sparking some excellent thought and discussion, @Briannakin!