Now for a blast from the past
Apr. 26th, 2005 08:35 pmBack in 1999, I published "You Big Bully! The Dynamics of Fan Created Power Imbalances." This was before having a rant page was popular and before the symposium, so
sherrold hosted it, as she had more traffic to her site than I did.
(Later on that year, I did the fannish potlatch, and posted it at the symposium, where it still exists today.)
Well, the fannish world has changed between 1999 and today, and yet many of the core thoughts in the column still hold true. So I asked
cereta if she would mind putting it on the symposium, as everyone looking for it expected it to be there.
And now, it is.
You Big Bully
Three point characterization is now up on the symposium as well.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
(Later on that year, I did the fannish potlatch, and posted it at the symposium, where it still exists today.)
Well, the fannish world has changed between 1999 and today, and yet many of the core thoughts in the column still hold true. So I asked
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
And now, it is.
You Big Bully
Three point characterization is now up on the symposium as well.
3 Point Characterization
Mar. 5th, 2005 03:23 pmNote: This rant brought to you from Highlander's ancient past, but it seemed appropriate given the current discussion going on in Atlantis. I figured some people hadn't heard my theory of three point characterization.
( 3 points make a line )
( 3 points make a line )
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
At that point, all the energy went out of us. If you didn't have a strong background in the character and his history, you couldn't get the vid. It was a confusion of images and sounds that just didn't make sense. The vid seemed to work fine for those who knew Duncan's history and his character, but as that was only about a third of the Highlander slashers at the time, it was a little disheartening. It meant that the audience for the vid would never be that big, as it required too much detailed knowledge of characters and canon to be truly accessible.
So, when Melina made a statement about how
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
And that seemed to be about the level of most of the Escapade audience: a passing familiarity with a lot of fandoms, but wide-spread, detailed knowledge of only a few. Graduate level vids are gonna be a hard sell in that environment, for more than a handful of fans with the specialized education required, and if there's a mismatch between what a first grade/literal interpretation of a scene would be in comparison to a graduate level/metaphorical interpretation -- well, the audience is likely to react to it en masse at grade level one. I think that graduate level vids can and should be shown at cons, but if you want to prevent misunderstood viewings, they should be reviewed by a fan who is somewhat unfamiliar with the fandom prior to the showing to make sure that there's no grade one level joke or perception that would interfere with the more "educated" reading.
An example of this: we used the occasional shot of fire or heat vision on some of our lyric lines, so the grade one read has the audience going "Oh! Fire. Hot. I get it." If you're saying anything more complicated along with that, it may be completely missed. The literal interpretation is the grade one interpretation, and if there is nothing else that the grade one reader can tie into, then they will spend the whole vid reacting to that.
For us, it worked great. For someone else trying to say something complex about the fandom or the relationship or character, it might not.
So beware the cheese.
On OTPs and Experience
Jan. 23rd, 2002 06:39 amWhen I first get into a fandom, I have one of two reactions. Either I read everything that 'my guy' is in -- if the fandom is small enough and no one else I know is reading it -- or, if the fandom is big, I hang back and watch everyone talk, reading only on recommendation, not really getting involved. Again, though, I read everything given to me, though I don't actually seek it out.
Over time, though, I become fascinated by a single relationship. It's not just one guy who is important to me, it's that other guy, and how they interact together. I become an OTP fan, and those are the only stories that interest me. I no longer want to read stories with one guy doing it with someone I could give a rip about; I want to know in great and glorious detail how it is that these two guys affect and change each other. M. Fae Glasgow used to call her stories 'claustrophobic', in part, because so frequent the action was all a psychological portrait of two guys in a single room talking. Those stories had an incredible impact on me; I don't think you have to have big action, big emotion, and a cast of thousands to tell a really good tale. I think detail work can be exciting as well.
I want internal variety, not external. I want to see complexity and change within the guys form story to story. I don't care if you change the cast of characters or not. I *love* a big complicated story with a lot of action, too, but I'm still primarily interested in the characters and their relationship. I very seldom get truly attached to an OC.
But I don't talk about that on lists. When people start whining about how OTPs are ruining their fandom, I don't say anything at all. I've found that it's just too easy to piss on other people's fun, and really, I don't think I need to do that. Just because I'm a jaded harpy doesn't mean that anyone else really needs to hear me whine about how the way they enjoy fandom is all wrong -- even if I do think that. I prefer to keep my whining in private. So, play on McDuff, and I will cringe in my corner as my beloved OTP lists become filled with OCs and crossovers and beloved character/alternate character pairings -- things that are *different* externally, but are internally just the same ol' story over and over again -- and fret.
But get me on a critique list, and I'll talk a little about it. Unfortunately, I won't be able to read past the beginning of most of those stories, because there is no internal hook for me, but I can talk beginnings with the best of 'em. I don't care how unfair that is -- if the writer wanted me as a reader, they need a different hook -- and I'm okay with being labeled insular and unwilling to experiment. I already put in my experimental time, I learned what I liked, and I'm happy to go with that. I know what works for me. On a list, I want someone to show me *why* I should finish a story that doesn't hook me in at the beginning; I want to know what makes the story special. I want facts and details and story quotes -- but most people just prefer to say that I should read the darn thing first. It's a catch-22.
Over time, though, I become fascinated by a single relationship. It's not just one guy who is important to me, it's that other guy, and how they interact together. I become an OTP fan, and those are the only stories that interest me. I no longer want to read stories with one guy doing it with someone I could give a rip about; I want to know in great and glorious detail how it is that these two guys affect and change each other. M. Fae Glasgow used to call her stories 'claustrophobic', in part, because so frequent the action was all a psychological portrait of two guys in a single room talking. Those stories had an incredible impact on me; I don't think you have to have big action, big emotion, and a cast of thousands to tell a really good tale. I think detail work can be exciting as well.
I want internal variety, not external. I want to see complexity and change within the guys form story to story. I don't care if you change the cast of characters or not. I *love* a big complicated story with a lot of action, too, but I'm still primarily interested in the characters and their relationship. I very seldom get truly attached to an OC.
But I don't talk about that on lists. When people start whining about how OTPs are ruining their fandom, I don't say anything at all. I've found that it's just too easy to piss on other people's fun, and really, I don't think I need to do that. Just because I'm a jaded harpy doesn't mean that anyone else really needs to hear me whine about how the way they enjoy fandom is all wrong -- even if I do think that. I prefer to keep my whining in private. So, play on McDuff, and I will cringe in my corner as my beloved OTP lists become filled with OCs and crossovers and beloved character/alternate character pairings -- things that are *different* externally, but are internally just the same ol' story over and over again -- and fret.
But get me on a critique list, and I'll talk a little about it. Unfortunately, I won't be able to read past the beginning of most of those stories, because there is no internal hook for me, but I can talk beginnings with the best of 'em. I don't care how unfair that is -- if the writer wanted me as a reader, they need a different hook -- and I'm okay with being labeled insular and unwilling to experiment. I already put in my experimental time, I learned what I liked, and I'm happy to go with that. I know what works for me. On a list, I want someone to show me *why* I should finish a story that doesn't hook me in at the beginning; I want to know what makes the story special. I want facts and details and story quotes -- but most people just prefer to say that I should read the darn thing first. It's a catch-22.