![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Here's my thing. It seems like the argument I'm seeing most consistently aimed at people who are publically unhappy with "Arcana's" longlisting for the Tiptree Award goes a little something like this:
Fandom is different from other people. We have certain standards and expectations and conventions and we judge quality differently from the way people who give out "literary awards" do, and therefore to talk about whether "Arcana" is up to standard misses and distorts the most important question, which is "Whose standards?"
And this isn't an unreasonable thing to say. But I think it's fucking the debate on two different fronts.
A) Fandom isn't giving this award. Why would it even occur to us that our standards are the ones that apply here? A nominator basically invited fandom to a party at someone else's house, and even if we always shoot guns in the air or say grace before meals or whatever it is we do at our family parties, it's absurd to suggest that now the hosts of this party and their other guests must do so or risk offending or marginalizing us. Fandom has *lots* of chances -- daily! hourly! -- to promote what we as fans think expresses the best examples of fanfic in its proper context. Even if I were only to read stories that someone on lj has recced, I would never in a billion years get through all of them. That's the fan community saying, "Here's what I suggest you look at as an example of terrific work" -- by the fannish standards of the reccer and her anticipated audience. To nominate something for a NON-FAN, worldwide award I think quite fairly carries the implicit meaning of "Here's what I suggest you look at as an example of terrific work" -- by the standards of the audience you're offering it up to. I don't think it's then unreasonable for people to, as members of *that* audience (which for these purposes I think we can define as readers of science fiction and fantasy with a particular interest in gender issues), speak from that perspective. That's the perspective that some of us are coming from when we talk about the story not "deserving" a Tiptree award -- it doesn't invalidate the idea that there are also fandom-standards, or that fandom-standards are meaningful, too. It just says, right now the debate is happening in this context, on this turf, so let's talk about it in terms of these people's house rules. Which are, btw, also my house rules at certain times, since I *am* a reader of science fiction and fantasy with a particular interest in gender issues. I'm speaking from the inside on both fronts, and it's really awkward to have it suggested, or flat out stated, that my loyalty to either group depends on my always choosing to privilege it over my membership in the other.
2) Some of the criticism of "Arcana" HAS BEEN from within the context of fandom. A lot of people think it's out of character. What could possibly be more fannish than that? That term doesn't even have any really secure meaning outside of fandom; an original fiction character can't *be* "OOC," because OOC refers, the way we use it, to the perceived gap between canon characterization and fic characterization. There's only one character in original fiction, ergo, no gap to deal with. A lot of people feel like it feminizes Nick's character, and for the NINE YEARS I'VE BEEN IN FANDOM, nobody has fucking *stopped* debating whether it's okay, *within* fandom, by *our* standards, to make a character's behavior in a story more archetypally feminine than it is in canon. We have that conversation all the time! Blair wants his dick back, remember? That's *our* version of a literary debate, and this is absolutely no different, except that instead of people saying "All y'all who do this in your writing MUST STOP because it irks us for x, y, and z reasons" are now saying "for x, y, and z reasons, Emily Brunson's 'Arcana' is the kind of fanfic I've never liked." All we've done is reiterated this old chestnut of fannish in-conversation with a single example to hand.
My problem with "Arcana" isn't, strictly speaking, that I don't think the literary quality is high. As one of the judges pointed out (you can find the link on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
metafandom), that just makes "Arcana" a lot like a lot of other things on the longlist. My problem with it is that the Tiptree Award is supposed to be for genre fiction that "explores or expands gender roles," and while this story may do that from a totally outside perspective (he's a man! and he's pregnant!), from *inside fandom,* mpreg is thick on the ground, and from *inside fandom,* I don't think this story does explore or expand gender roles BY OUR COMMUNITY STANDARDS. Our community, by and large, has consistently been that what we perceive to be OOC "feminization" of a male character is trite, cliche, and reactionary. That's not new, and that's not imposed from the outside. That's what I've been hearing "Fandom" say overwhelmingly for as long as I've been around. This *is* a debate from the inside, and it is a debate about our standards.
And from that inside perspective, as a fan talking about fanfiction without trying to bring in any alien standards, there are at least two other things that concern me fannishly, and they are thus:
-- who defines "crackfic" and what does it mean? I admit I kind of have a dog in this fight, since the term was, as far as I've been able to tell, invented here under my own roof, by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
marythefan -- so I'm a little resistant to using it in ways I happen to know it was never meant to be used, but on the other hand, welcome to language, right? Anyway, that possible bias admitted up front, I have to say that I *love* crackfic, and I *love* that we have a fandom community that believes in and likes and values our crackfic. I don't love that there's now a tendency to use the label as a way to shut down discussion, so that if somebody says "I don't like this about the story," other people can answer, "well, it was written for a crackfic challenge." You can still like and not like crackfic, as a story. There's still room for conversation. Crackfic is just a particular type of writing, somewhat akin to surrealism or magical realism (except not exactly, but somewhat), and that means some of it works and some of it doesn't. "Well, it's surrealism" isn't a defense for every criticism of a story, and neither is "Crackfic! Crackfic!" I'm sad that it's been deployed that way, because then what grounds do we have left to call something *really great* crackfic, if all of it doesn't matter and wasn't serious anyway?
-- what are the limits and benefits of the fandom "pleasure principle"? If we accept that our Fandom Community Standard is "if it worked for you, it's all good!" then by what rights do we criticize any story, ever, as long as one person popped up in comments to say they loved it? There *has* to be some kind of middle ground that allows us to love and respect our PWPs and our kinkfic and our 200k h/c epics and our high school AUs and our Everyone Is Gay! and all the things we love and cherish so much about fandom, but also allows us to do criticism for ourselves. Sometimes all of us want to say, "I know you may have loved that story, but it totally fell down for me" or even "it offended and angered me." Because if we can't do that, then what we've created is a space that is completely safe and welcoming for any kind of fiction, and completely closed-off and inaccessible to anyone's direct expression of their reactions to fiction. And for what it's worth, the *entire reason* I'm in fandom is that I like to react to fiction and to express it in both emotional and intellectual ways. Talking back to stories IS fandom for me, so if I can't talk back to another fan's story (because nothing matters except that it made someone, somewhere go "Woohoo!")...it's not fandom for me. It's not a place where I can do what I want to do, what I love doing. It's a community that no longer is willing to make itself open to my needs.
Fortunately, we're not at all there. I think there's been a lot of good discussion and criticism to come out of this -- and some obnoxious stuff, but that's the way it goes. The day there's no obnoxiousness to be found anywhere in fandom, I'll probably have a coronary and die of the shock. Fandom is still, for me, the best place in the world to get good conversations going about what people like and don't like, what they want and don't want, what turns them on and pisses them off. All of that stuff is relevant to the idea of pleasure, but it's inclusive of the fact that people get pleasure in different ways. For some of us, some of those things that get lumped in as "literary quality" issues are *precisely* how we get pleasure, at least some of the time. Which makes quality and pleasure interpenetrating (heh, she said *penetrating*) categories; I can't necessarily own and champion my pleasure as a reader without also being able to say certain things about what quality means to me. I grind to a halt if I'm asked to speak always about my pleasures and never about what I admire. It's not two different conversations.
As for Em, I will say that I empathize with her greatly, because I very much doubt she's having any fun. I know I wouldn't be, in her position. All I can say is, what we do in fandom is, we talk about what we like and don't like and why. A *lot* of people like Em Brunson's work. A lot of people admire her as a writer. At least one person wanted to publically honor this particular story. If this were happening to some newbie who'd just posted her first story ever, I'd probably feel even worse. At the end of the day, Em will always be able to say that she's written a ton of fanfic that really worked for a ton of fans, that she's had career longevity, that people have come forward to say that she's one of their favorites or one of their formative influences, etc. That's all good news. A lot of people didn't like "Arcana," and that's the bad news. I know it's not easy to hear that your work displeased some people -- been there myself, trust me, *zero fun* -- but all you can say is, win some, lose some, and feel grateful for all your supporters and how grateful they are for you and your body of work. That's not nothing, you know? I'm not exactly trying to give Em life wisdom, here, I'm just saying...the issue came up of how would I respond if it were happening to me, and I'm saying, I very much hope that's how I would respond. (In between the bouts of wild, cathartic ranting to my friends. And the alcohol. Oh, yes, there would be alcohol.)
Anyway, to sum up. It's easy to say you're for critical discussion in the abstract. Now it's concrete, now it's real, now the chips are down, and we have to decide if we meant it, and if we're only for critical discussion if nobody catches us at it. There are those people who feel that's a "betrayal" of Em as a person and as a member of my community, and I'm really sorry they feel that way, but hopefully at least some of this has gone toward carving out a position where questioning what this story does and how can be seen as something other than a personal betrayal. It's coming directly out of everything I love and value about fandom; I can't love and value fandom without saying exactly this.
Fandom is different from other people. We have certain standards and expectations and conventions and we judge quality differently from the way people who give out "literary awards" do, and therefore to talk about whether "Arcana" is up to standard misses and distorts the most important question, which is "Whose standards?"
And this isn't an unreasonable thing to say. But I think it's fucking the debate on two different fronts.
A) Fandom isn't giving this award. Why would it even occur to us that our standards are the ones that apply here? A nominator basically invited fandom to a party at someone else's house, and even if we always shoot guns in the air or say grace before meals or whatever it is we do at our family parties, it's absurd to suggest that now the hosts of this party and their other guests must do so or risk offending or marginalizing us. Fandom has *lots* of chances -- daily! hourly! -- to promote what we as fans think expresses the best examples of fanfic in its proper context. Even if I were only to read stories that someone on lj has recced, I would never in a billion years get through all of them. That's the fan community saying, "Here's what I suggest you look at as an example of terrific work" -- by the fannish standards of the reccer and her anticipated audience. To nominate something for a NON-FAN, worldwide award I think quite fairly carries the implicit meaning of "Here's what I suggest you look at as an example of terrific work" -- by the standards of the audience you're offering it up to. I don't think it's then unreasonable for people to, as members of *that* audience (which for these purposes I think we can define as readers of science fiction and fantasy with a particular interest in gender issues), speak from that perspective. That's the perspective that some of us are coming from when we talk about the story not "deserving" a Tiptree award -- it doesn't invalidate the idea that there are also fandom-standards, or that fandom-standards are meaningful, too. It just says, right now the debate is happening in this context, on this turf, so let's talk about it in terms of these people's house rules. Which are, btw, also my house rules at certain times, since I *am* a reader of science fiction and fantasy with a particular interest in gender issues. I'm speaking from the inside on both fronts, and it's really awkward to have it suggested, or flat out stated, that my loyalty to either group depends on my always choosing to privilege it over my membership in the other.
2) Some of the criticism of "Arcana" HAS BEEN from within the context of fandom. A lot of people think it's out of character. What could possibly be more fannish than that? That term doesn't even have any really secure meaning outside of fandom; an original fiction character can't *be* "OOC," because OOC refers, the way we use it, to the perceived gap between canon characterization and fic characterization. There's only one character in original fiction, ergo, no gap to deal with. A lot of people feel like it feminizes Nick's character, and for the NINE YEARS I'VE BEEN IN FANDOM, nobody has fucking *stopped* debating whether it's okay, *within* fandom, by *our* standards, to make a character's behavior in a story more archetypally feminine than it is in canon. We have that conversation all the time! Blair wants his dick back, remember? That's *our* version of a literary debate, and this is absolutely no different, except that instead of people saying "All y'all who do this in your writing MUST STOP because it irks us for x, y, and z reasons" are now saying "for x, y, and z reasons, Emily Brunson's 'Arcana' is the kind of fanfic I've never liked." All we've done is reiterated this old chestnut of fannish in-conversation with a single example to hand.
My problem with "Arcana" isn't, strictly speaking, that I don't think the literary quality is high. As one of the judges pointed out (you can find the link on
metafandom), that just makes "Arcana" a lot like a lot of other things on the longlist. My problem with it is that the Tiptree Award is supposed to be for genre fiction that "explores or expands gender roles," and while this story may do that from a totally outside perspective (he's a man! and he's pregnant!), from *inside fandom,* mpreg is thick on the ground, and from *inside fandom,* I don't think this story does explore or expand gender roles BY OUR COMMUNITY STANDARDS. Our community, by and large, has consistently been that what we perceive to be OOC "feminization" of a male character is trite, cliche, and reactionary. That's not new, and that's not imposed from the outside. That's what I've been hearing "Fandom" say overwhelmingly for as long as I've been around. This *is* a debate from the inside, and it is a debate about our standards.And from that inside perspective, as a fan talking about fanfiction without trying to bring in any alien standards, there are at least two other things that concern me fannishly, and they are thus:
-- who defines "crackfic" and what does it mean? I admit I kind of have a dog in this fight, since the term was, as far as I've been able to tell, invented here under my own roof, by
marythefan -- so I'm a little resistant to using it in ways I happen to know it was never meant to be used, but on the other hand, welcome to language, right? Anyway, that possible bias admitted up front, I have to say that I *love* crackfic, and I *love* that we have a fandom community that believes in and likes and values our crackfic. I don't love that there's now a tendency to use the label as a way to shut down discussion, so that if somebody says "I don't like this about the story," other people can answer, "well, it was written for a crackfic challenge." You can still like and not like crackfic, as a story. There's still room for conversation. Crackfic is just a particular type of writing, somewhat akin to surrealism or magical realism (except not exactly, but somewhat), and that means some of it works and some of it doesn't. "Well, it's surrealism" isn't a defense for every criticism of a story, and neither is "Crackfic! Crackfic!" I'm sad that it's been deployed that way, because then what grounds do we have left to call something *really great* crackfic, if all of it doesn't matter and wasn't serious anyway?-- what are the limits and benefits of the fandom "pleasure principle"? If we accept that our Fandom Community Standard is "if it worked for you, it's all good!" then by what rights do we criticize any story, ever, as long as one person popped up in comments to say they loved it? There *has* to be some kind of middle ground that allows us to love and respect our PWPs and our kinkfic and our 200k h/c epics and our high school AUs and our Everyone Is Gay! and all the things we love and cherish so much about fandom, but also allows us to do criticism for ourselves. Sometimes all of us want to say, "I know you may have loved that story, but it totally fell down for me" or even "it offended and angered me." Because if we can't do that, then what we've created is a space that is completely safe and welcoming for any kind of fiction, and completely closed-off and inaccessible to anyone's direct expression of their reactions to fiction. And for what it's worth, the *entire reason* I'm in fandom is that I like to react to fiction and to express it in both emotional and intellectual ways. Talking back to stories IS fandom for me, so if I can't talk back to another fan's story (because nothing matters except that it made someone, somewhere go "Woohoo!")...it's not fandom for me. It's not a place where I can do what I want to do, what I love doing. It's a community that no longer is willing to make itself open to my needs.
Fortunately, we're not at all there. I think there's been a lot of good discussion and criticism to come out of this -- and some obnoxious stuff, but that's the way it goes. The day there's no obnoxiousness to be found anywhere in fandom, I'll probably have a coronary and die of the shock. Fandom is still, for me, the best place in the world to get good conversations going about what people like and don't like, what they want and don't want, what turns them on and pisses them off. All of that stuff is relevant to the idea of pleasure, but it's inclusive of the fact that people get pleasure in different ways. For some of us, some of those things that get lumped in as "literary quality" issues are *precisely* how we get pleasure, at least some of the time. Which makes quality and pleasure interpenetrating (heh, she said *penetrating*) categories; I can't necessarily own and champion my pleasure as a reader without also being able to say certain things about what quality means to me. I grind to a halt if I'm asked to speak always about my pleasures and never about what I admire. It's not two different conversations.
As for Em, I will say that I empathize with her greatly, because I very much doubt she's having any fun. I know I wouldn't be, in her position. All I can say is, what we do in fandom is, we talk about what we like and don't like and why. A *lot* of people like Em Brunson's work. A lot of people admire her as a writer. At least one person wanted to publically honor this particular story. If this were happening to some newbie who'd just posted her first story ever, I'd probably feel even worse. At the end of the day, Em will always be able to say that she's written a ton of fanfic that really worked for a ton of fans, that she's had career longevity, that people have come forward to say that she's one of their favorites or one of their formative influences, etc. That's all good news. A lot of people didn't like "Arcana," and that's the bad news. I know it's not easy to hear that your work displeased some people -- been there myself, trust me, *zero fun* -- but all you can say is, win some, lose some, and feel grateful for all your supporters and how grateful they are for you and your body of work. That's not nothing, you know? I'm not exactly trying to give Em life wisdom, here, I'm just saying...the issue came up of how would I respond if it were happening to me, and I'm saying, I very much hope that's how I would respond. (In between the bouts of wild, cathartic ranting to my friends. And the alcohol. Oh, yes, there would be alcohol.)
Anyway, to sum up. It's easy to say you're for critical discussion in the abstract. Now it's concrete, now it's real, now the chips are down, and we have to decide if we meant it, and if we're only for critical discussion if nobody catches us at it. There are those people who feel that's a "betrayal" of Em as a person and as a member of my community, and I'm really sorry they feel that way, but hopefully at least some of this has gone toward carving out a position where questioning what this story does and how can be seen as something other than a personal betrayal. It's coming directly out of everything I love and value about fandom; I can't love and value fandom without saying exactly this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 03:38 pm (UTC)From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 03:44 pm (UTC)From:Vis a vis crackfic: I agree with you that it shouldn't be used as a catch all disclaimer, but I still can't help feeling sympathy when somebody wearing a bikini (totally legal public attire) is suddenly dragged to a fancy dress party, stared at, mocked, and then told she's fat. I understand the judges' position that "posted on the internet is published," and I agree, actually--we don't call it the world wide web for nothing!--but you still do feel obliged to point out that, uh, guys, she's wearing a bikini. She clearly wasn't dressed for this particular party, and moreover, not everybody who wears a bikini is signifiying that they're prepared to be entered in a beauty pageant, even if they were out in public wearing that bikini and playing volleyball. So I don't think you have to be a crackfic apologist to see a little gray here, is all I'm saying. There are degrees of public. The beach isn't the opera house.
My way of critically engaging the inclusion of the story on the list has been to articulate context: who the writer is, what kind of work she typically does (angst, mpreg, and unfininished), what value that has in its normal contexts, that media fandom and SF&F fandom have had moments of cultural disconnect like this before. I don't think that's anti-critical discussion, and I hope it hasn't been taken as such.
**not because I think the story is so good (as I said, I wish they'd picked Cydonia even if they wanted an Em unfinished MPREG) but only because I was first horrified by the idea that the person who NOMINATED it wasn't willing to stand up and defend the story seriously; that just struck me as a cruel joke. But she has defended her choice of the story, so I feel much calmer on that front.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 04:19 pm (UTC)From:I myself mostly stay out of critical discussion of fanfiction, just because it's not why I, myself, am a part of fandom (in fact, I think it's probably why I didn't pursue an advanced degree in literature). But saying that it shouldn't exist, or that it's wrong, or anything else, is just...it's a negation of the plain and simple fact that people are in fandom for a multitude of reasons. And that fandom is this incredible place full of smart people, some of whom are going to discuss and analyze and take real joy out of that kind of interaction with the fiction.
On the flip side, it would be like someone telling me that I'm not a 'good' fan because I don't do the criticism thing. If one is permitted than so the other must be too. I'm not expressing this very well, it's too early, so I'm just going to go back to the top and say thank you for your clear and rational and concise explanation, which really helped me out, as a latecomer to the whole debate.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 06:18 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)no subject
Date: 2006-05-20 07:51 pm (UTC)From:I just had to stand on the back of the couch to retrieve my copy of Women Of Wonder, The Contemporary Years from the highest bookshelf I've got. One story in it, Bloodchild by Octavia Butler, takes Mpreg and runs with it, in unbelievably genderbending, queering ways. Interestingly, the anthology was longlisted for the Tiptree award in 1995.
Fandom isn't giving this award. Why would it even occur to us that our standards are the ones that apply here?
I expect I'd react in a similar way if someone nominated something by Asimov for a mainstream literary award and then criticised it for having robots in it. Plenty of things I could and do criticize those stories for (I don't even like the majority of robot stories!) but it seems to me to be missing the point to criticize a story on those grounds. To take that hypothetical opportunity to seethe about how much I don't like robot stories would be really uncool.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 07:45 am (UTC)From:For some of us, some of those things that get lumped in as "literary quality" issues are *precisely* how we get pleasure
Yes, yes, yes. I want to read stories whose prose blows me away. I want to write stories like that. It's not enough that a story have something I like in it (whether it be a favorite character, an OTP, a setting or sexual kink, etc.) if the writing doesn't impress me, if I'm not sitting there totally envious of the way they strung the words together.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 03:31 pm (UTC)From:On crackfic and criticism of fic
Date: 2006-05-21 03:47 pm (UTC)From:Yes on every level to your comments about being critical of fic. Of course we can like something and admit it's not perfect, but that it just did *it* for us. Just like we take in other media the same way. I mean, Smallville is NOT good, yet we (meaning me and others) watch it every week for the train wreck. The same goes for published fiction (Laurel K Hamiliton, looking at you) and music, whatever. The real issue with the criticism debate, I think, is that people get their feelings hurt and it's in everyone's face in a way it's not outside of fandom. So, I say I think all underaged fic is crap, or that X fic is not all that great for X, Y, and Z reasons and the shit hits the fan. *That*'s why people run around being defensive about not being "mean". No one wants to *be* the person whose fic is used as an exemplar as a guilty pleasure, therefore they are reactionary about the concept.
In a general way, I keep silent about the second topin in this comment because people just lose their entire minds.
Re: On crackfic and criticism of fic
From:Re: On crackfic and criticism of fic
From:no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 07:46 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2006-05-22 06:23 pm (UTC)From: