What is this human thing called crackfic? by Carolyn Claire

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

*waves* Hello, all, it's me--CC, the absentee landlord. I've been kind of busy, RL kind of busy, but I've wanted to talk about crackfic for a couple of months, and now here I am to do it. Thenk yew for your patience and/or your poking.

So, what the heck is crackfic? Where'd the term originate? Who calls crackfic on a story? Is crackfic a new genre, a renaming of an old one, or just a state of mind? Does labeling a silly story crackfic confer some kind of legitimacy on it that wasn't there before? What about humor? Kink? AU? Have those labels been assimilated under the crackfic label? Does 'crackfic' cover a multitude of sins? Does it mean never having to say you're sorry? I wonder about these things. Do you? Tell me what you think about crackfic.



So, crackfic. The first time I really noticed the term, it was being called on one of my own stories. Hrm, I thought, yes, appropriate, interesting, kinda cute. And then I started noticing the term being used everywhere--writers were labeling their stories as cracked, readers were calling crack on others' stories--crackfic was abounding, apparently. And people were talking about it, asking each other what it was, having discussions and sharing their interpretations, but I never saw anyone come up with anything definitive, though that didn't seem to bother anyone. Crackfic, it seems, is all about the fun, and I stand firmly behind the having of fun. But the gears in my head won't stop turning, and crackfic continues to proliferate, so I want to talk about it some more.

Is it a fad, or is crackfic here to stay? In SGA fandom, crackfic seems to be running rampant, enough so that people are commenting on it. Are there really more stories being labeled crackfic in SGA fandom than in others? If that's true, why? Is it the nature of the show? SGA is fairly standard-issue television SF fare, no more bizarre than Trek or Farscape or SG-1. Is it the characters? Are John and Rodney more fun to place in wacky situations than characters from other fandoms? Is it the influx of new writers? SGA fandom is steadily growing, with writers from other fandoms pouring in and first time fans and/or writers eager to contribute stories. Is there some greater sense of security in starting out in a new fandom with a less serious story? Could the term confer some sort of perceived legitimacy on less serious efforts? And did the term begin in SGA fandom, or is it another bit of fannish culture with roots in venerable old fandoms like XF or Trek? Did SGA invent crackfic, or just embrace it wholeheartedly?

I've collected some thoughts about what crackfic is and what it's about from discussions I've observed all over the fandom. Here are a couple of them:

- Crackfic is any story with a cracked premise, a wildly AU setting or wacky characterizations. You can't define it, but you'll know it when you see it, and readers can call it on a story. Interesting, but...what if the author wasn't feeling cracked when she wrote it? Is crackfic really in the eye of the beholder? I, personally, would rather whack an elf with a stick than read about one, and I might call both a writer of an SGA elf story and the story itself cracked, but maybe that's just me. What about the elf lovers? What about the writer who worked long and hard on her story, carefully crafting her prose, researching elf lore through the ages and generally taking it all very seriously? What if she wasn't feeling the least bit cracked when she wrote it? Here's another example--centaur stories. Yes, I'm a big centaur fan (okay, it's kind of a kink) and James' and Leah's centaur stories are terrific, IMO, well written stories about the characters and their relationships and trials and triumphs...and some of them just happen to be centaurs. They're AU stories, definitely, and, as a reader, they push a definite kink button for me, but are they crackfic? I can't speak for the writers, but I certainly wouldn't call them that. But YOU might. Would you, to the writers? If writers don't say, in their notes, "I was on crack when I wrote this," would you point and call crack in their comments? Would they mind if you did, if that hadn't been their intention? I didn't mind, but that had been my intention. What about you? Would you mind if someone called crackfic on your story, and you hadn't meant it that way?

Which leads us to...

- Crackfic is as the author does; the author calls crack on her own story, and her intent defines it. We talked about this a few posts back concerning one of Ces's stories, which was a nifty little "aliens made them do it" sort of slave-kink thing, hot and sweet and well characterized and a very satisfying read. A number of us couldn't figure out why she'd called it cracked; it's no more out there than lots of similar stories, and a lot better written than many. From her notes, we deduced that maybe she felt cracked when she wrote it, felt silly and crack-headed as she was creating it. Authors do sometimes seem to want to distance themselves a little from some of their stories, to say, in effect, "I wasn't being serious, here, this isn't really me" or "this isn't my best, I just threw it out there" or "I don't know where this came from, I think I have an evil twin." We used to just say 'silly' when we were feeling silly; now we say 'cracked.' Is it the same thing? Is saying "this is crackfic" just another way to say "this is just something silly I tossed out there, so don't take it seriously?" What if the reader doesn't think it's cracked? What if they enjoy it thoroughly and rate it above more serious efforts by other writers--is the reader cracked for taking it seriously? If a majority of readers look at a story and say, "I don't think that's crackfic," what then? Do we take a vote, make a poll? Or does the author have the ultimate say in whether it is or isn't? I didn't use the term 'crackfic' on my story, but others did. It was, but I hadn't said so. Were the readers usurping my labeling authority?

And what about AU, humor, kink? Where we would have once said "humorous AU" or "strange kinky thing," are we now saying "crackfic?" And did we ever really figure out what constitutes an AU, where and how far the departure from canon has to be? My story was a definite AU, transplanting the characters to Atlanta and turning their commute into a wacky parody of a mission. Not that long ago, it would have been pointed to as a humorous AU, and, now, it's crackfic. Since when? Why? I'm working on the definition, now. When is it an AU and when is it crackfic? Can it be both, or need it only be one or the other? We seem to have taken a shortcut and dropped some identifying labels along the way to creating the new term. And, here's a thought; would more or fewer people feel inclined to read a story if it was labeled as crackfic rather than as humor/AU? Those of you who avoid AUs (and I used to be one of you), what difference, if any, would the label make to you in your decision to read? And do readers in general prefer more identifying info than just 'crackfic'--do they want to know more about what kind of story it is, beyond slash/het/gen, before they'll read? Do you ever dismiss a story that an author labels as crackfic without reading, because of the label?

And, speaking of dismissing, about that distance I was talking about--just how far can an author distance herself from her story by using the crackfic label? Does anything really go, if it's crackfic? Is there such a thing as too cracked? What about badfic? There's deliberate badfic, of course, where the writer is parodying clichés or poor technique or failure to spellcheck, that kind of thing, and then there's plain old poorly written. Can a writer who doesn't want to get a beta or use spellcheck or learn a few elements of style slap a crackfic label on her story and relax? Do we hold crackfic to the same standards that we do 'serious' stories? I'm not talking about non-humor vs. humor stories, because one can certainly take writing a humorous story very seriously and craft it just as carefully as one does a story that makes the reader weep or gnash her teeth. Do we judge crackfic by different standards? Is it more acceptable to us if an author "lets herself go" in any area of her writing if she calls the story crack? Part of the humor in a certain type of silly AU, for instance, can be created by skewing characterizations a bit. Do we define whether or not it's crack by the degree of skew? When does it become just bad characterization? How much can we blame on or excuse with the crackfic label?

And, riddle me this, Batman: are we better or worse off as a fandom for adopting and adapting to the crackfic label? Or does it matter at all? Are we seeing more good stories, or fewer? Are we just swapping out one or two labels for another, with no net change in the types of stories we're reading/writing, or has the label spawned a silly story frenzy? Or is it the fandom itself, something inherent in the show/fen/water? Is there a silly story frenzy at all, or are we just taking more notice? Will we even care about any of this in six months time? Do we care about it now? Do you? I do, but I haven't made up my mind exactly how.



Since this topic is about larger ficcish issues--genre, style, direction, etc.--than a single author's story, it's okay to respond to this post from the perspective of a writer as well as a reader, but please do also respond as a reader if you're responding as a writer. Specific stories can be cited as examples, that's fine, but let's discuss crackfic as a whole rather than do in-depth discussion of specific stories, in this post.

Comments

[snoopygirll.livejournal.com]

Great post CC and I'm looking forward to reading other responses.

I think with crackfic, conscientious writers feel the pressure is off to ensure their story, or some aspect of their story, is not the subject of LJ's latest 'What I Hate in Fanfic' post. It allows more lattitude than other labels (AU, for example, doesn't permit skewing of character or reality) which means greater artistic license. I think crackfic in the hands of a good writer could be an awesome, magical thing.

The downside is it's also an excuse to be lazy in the name of fun. So I think crackfic in the hands of careless or inexperienced writer could be a painful, ugly thing.

Would the crackfic label stop me reading a story? I thought the first crackfic I read was silly and was amazed so many liked it. The second crackfic I read, I enjoyed, but would have labelled it AU. So it's possible I just don't get crackfic. But then I don't enjoy intentional badfic either. Or humor just for the sake of humor. So taking into account personal taste, when I weigh the good with the bad, I think for me there's going to be way more bad. So the answer is YES - I will avoid crackfic unless I really like the author, or it's a popular story.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I think with crackfic, conscientious writers feel the pressure is off to ensure their story, or some aspect of their story, is not the subject of LJ's latest 'What I Hate in Fanfic' post.

Sort of like shouting "I'm not racing! I'm not racing!" when you're a kid, you know? *g* Takes some of the pressure off. I think that's true.

It allows more lattitude than other labels (AU, for example, doesn't permit skewing of character or reality) which means greater artistic license.

Well, some AU does play some with characterization or reality, yeah, but, like I said, it's that degree of skew that I think makes the difference. A little, and it's AU, but a lot and it's badfic. But wait, no! Now it's crackfic! I'm not racing! *g*

I think crackfic in the hands of a good writer could be an awesome, magical thing.

And has been. Shallott's Harlequin AU is one I meant to mention, but forgot to--would you call that crackfic? The premise, John as mail-order bride, the idea of creating a Harlequinesqe romance feel, would maybe indicate that yes, it is, but it's just a terrific story, absolutely brilliant with the relationship angst, and so well written. So, is it crackfic? To me, it's an AU with a premise that could have been ridiculous but was so well executed, it's not. So, good writer, good hands, good story. (But is it crackfic? I just don't know.)

The downside is it's also an excuse to be lazy in the name of fun. So I think crackfic in the hands of careless or inexperienced writer could be a painful, ugly thing.

That's my concern, that writers who don't want to work at it will think they don't have to, that anything with the crackfic label is outside the box, and nothing counts. If it's going to be a good story, crackfic or not, everything still counts. My reading standards don't change because something's labeled crack, and my writing standards don't either, though the ultimate success of that isn't up to me to decide.

Would the crackfic label stop me reading a story? I thought the first crackfic I read was silly and was amazed so many liked it. The second crackfic I read, I enjoyed, but would have labelled it AU. So it's possible I just don't get crackfic.

That's why I'm wondering if crackfic is really just a state of mind, after all. Can it be defined? Is one woman's crackfic another's AU?

So the answer is YES - I will avoid crackfic unless I really like the author, or it's a popular story.

Who the author is always influences me to read or not--I'm always so afraid that I'm going to end up wanting to spork my eyes out, so I rely on recs or author name, and I think that probably applies doubly to crackfic. Not everything is funny. Crackfic, like humor, can fall flat, be more sad (in the 'ohmigosh, this is bad' sense) than funny, so I usually go with people I trust and flee from names I don't know with crackfic, as well. Just...not everything is funny. Humor and whimsey need skillful handling, like any other style. A "wheee, this is just crack!" approach from any author makes me skittish.

[mmmchelle.livejournal.com]

Shallott's Harlequin AU ... it's just a terrific story, absolutely brilliant with the relationship angst, and so well written. So, is it crackfic? To me, it's an AU with a premise that could have been ridiculous but was so well executed, it's not.

I enjoyed that story immensely as well. But I can easily see how someone would label it crackfic. And to me it wasn't crack; it was an extremely good story.

I'm not sure the label communicates anything useful. It seems to me that it often gets used in a "this is the good crack" way by readers, as a shorthand way of describing a story that pushed particular buttons for them. The kind of story that's like a Lay's potato chip where one makes you want more.

When authors use it though, unless I know the author I tend to assume it's a way of ducking responsibility for the story, of saying "don't take this seriously because it isn't my best work." On one level I completely understand it. It's good to have the freedom to write and post things that you wrote on a whim. On another it bothers me, perhaps because of my own instinctive rejection of labels. Hell, I hate the term literary. And I dislike crackfic for the same reason. It establishes a hierarchy of stories. These are the serious, meaningful stories, and these are the crackfic.

Except the hierarchy is purely in the eyes of the beholder, because as you pointed out with Shallot's fic stories which would seem to fit the crackfic label can be well-written, well thought out stories.

In my own head I tend to divide fic into three groups. The good stuff which is technically sound (more than just grammar and spelling, it has to have other things like pacing, structure, style) and the characters are shown in a way I identify with. These stories cross genres and can be AUs, first times, established relationships, sometimes even gen.

Then there are the mediocre stories, the ones which could have been good, if only the pacing had been better, or John hadn't been so passive, or... They're good enough to get me to read them, but not good enough to satisfy.

Finally, there is the badfic.

For me there isn't any category of story that qualifies as 'crackfic,' nothing I would regard as addictive, or that I would smoke just for the hit, no matter how good or bad it was. Which is the imagery that the term crack conjures.

I am now officially too tired to think and so am off to bed. Maybe I'll have clearer thoughts tomorrow. Good-night.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that it often gets used in a "this is the good crack" way by readers, as a shorthand way of describing a story that pushed particular buttons for them.

That, or extreme wackiness--"what kind of crack was SHE on when she wrote that?" etc. I hadn't thought about it, but, yeah, I use the term in different ways, for different reactions. Stories I could lose myself in for days if I had enough of them are 'the good crack', while stories that are kind of outlandish and wacky, maybe wildly original or sort of insane, are 'cracked'. Two definitions? More, maybe?

On another it bothers me, perhaps because of my own instinctive rejection of labels. Hell, I hate the term literary. And I dislike crackfic for the same reason. It establishes a hierarchy of stories. These are the serious, meaningful stories, and these are the crackfic.

I'm with you on that. And that's why it bothers me, sometimes, when an author labels a story crackfic--she's doing the thinking for me, telling me how to judge the story, where to rank it. But I want to do that, myself. And it is, I'm sure, about the writer's feelings about her story and her own process while writing it, but it still bugs me some to be told that I shouldn't be taking this story seriously. What if I do? Does that mean my judgement is off? I don't think it is, and, anyway, all that is so subjective, so dont' tell me what to think about your story. But it's a silly thing to be bothered by, when it's really about what the writer is feeling, not about me, the reader.

For me there isn't any category of story that qualifies as 'crackfic,' nothing I would regard as addictive, or that I would smoke just for the hit, no matter how good or bad it was. Which is the imagery that the term crack conjures.

For me, there are--stories that hit my kinks (another dodgy and difficult word, definition-wise) will work on me any time, will make me crave more. But I would never have thought to classify those as crackfic; I've always thought of those as kinkfic, especially when the author is writing to hit those particular buttons and says so up front. Has kinkfic been subsumed under the crackfic label, too?

*tucks you in* Night. :)

[snoopygirll.livejournal.com]

After reading the comments so far it appears to me:

1. Crackfic is all in the eye of the beholder. A het reader, for example, could be excused for considering a slash story crackfic. So we're just chasing our tails trying to pin down a definition for crackfic.

2. While it's possible for an entire story to be labelled a crackfic by the majority of readers (for me personally: badfic), the better the author/execution/etc., the more likely it is that only parts of their story are crackfic. Although 1 makes this shakey reasoning.

3. The acceptance of crackfic, whole story or part, by the majority of readers (which currently appears to be the case) has to have writers toying with ideas they normally wouldn't have considered, or would have thought unwelcome by the majority of readers. For whether or not this is a good thing: see 1. *g*

+++

Shallott's Harlequin...would you call that crackfic?

AU, with elements of crackfic - see 2. John a mail-order bride, the romance novel formula, the storm-in-a-teacup ending *facepalm* but it works because it's a Harlequin challenge. Readers may call it crackfic but for clarity the author should label it 'Harlequin Challenge', which she did. (Enjoyed it too, btw)

So I've revised my opinion. While I still like that crackfic has writers writing what they might not normally have considered writing, I've decided labelling a story a crackfic is like labelling a Lotus, a Mazda and a tricycle, 'cars'. A label that does that needs to be ignored.

And I reserve the right to revise my opinion again as more opinions come to light. :P

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

So, crackfic really is a state of mind, then--the readers', the writers', the critiquers', everyone who encounters a story can call crack from their point of view, which makes everyone, and no one, right. It's a descriptor, not a genre label, and also a blankie of safety in a critical fannish world. Yes, I'm leaning in your direction, here. It's the most workable way of thinking about it that can be assembled from all the input so far, I think.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I think that that's simply a way of labeling a story that tackles themes that have been frequently badly handled or that are outlandish without triggering an eye roll response. People see that in headers and say, "Oh, she's not really serious about this premise, so it's not going to be bad!fic angst and overwrought emotions surrounding ludicrous situations. It's safe to read."

Because, sometimes, those themes are fun to play with. And writers feel a little funny about that, a little self-conscious, and, now, here's a label that lets them do that, one that says, of course this isn't serious, it's just some wacky fun, go ahead and hoot. That's freeing, yeah.

Sometimes I like to play with different concepts in my writing, but I think that sometimes doing that can make a person appear distant or snobbish or pretensious. I guess you could say I use the crack label as a way of saying that I don't care how people take what I write and that though I may be serious about writing I'm not insanely serious about fandom.

Now, there's a thought--crackfic as permission to experiment with things writers might have felt a little hesitant about, before. Experimentation is good, it lets one stretch and try something new and then get feedback that tells the writer how well the experiment worked, but not everyone is interested in being experimented on, maybe aren't so open to what the writer wants to do. So, call it crackfic and make it 'okay' for both the writer and the reader. But, then, does the applying the crackfic label predispose readers to not take it seriously, not judge it as a serious effort, on its own merits? Does the feedback reflect how well the new style or format or edgy characterization or whatever really worked, or will everyone just say, hey, good crack, and not address this new thing the author was trying to do? Hmm.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I don't want to put people off, and I know my communication style can be off-putting. Calling some material crack may well limit responses, but... it also saves me from worrying about how people perceive me, the loon who writes the stuff.

Another way that the crackfic label can be used--very interesting. I'm really enjoying hearing about all these different usages and meanings.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I think that in our effort to keep fandom inclusive and open, we’ve created an environment in which it’s a sign of pretension or ego to indicate that one takes ones writing seriously at all or even thinks in literary terms. Hell, just saying ‘literary’ can make eyes roll.

That bothers me, too, because there's nothing wrong with wanting to better yourself as a writer, take risks, experiment, reach for any writing goal or level that you want. And it's something I love about online fandom, that I can do that, and I've never felt the need to hide my goal of becoming a better writer or been wary of appearing to take myself too seriously. Fandom's a big place, and people enjoy stories on many levels; I like creating something that's purely entertaining for some, while others pick apart the craft and teach me things while doing it. I've learned so much from writing in fandom, while still having fun, and I take the learning part of it pretty seriously. It doesn't bother me if anyone has a problem with that, and it makes me a little sad that it does bother others, that they feel they have to hide their more serious efforts under a cloak of silly in order to be accepted. But if it works from them, as I said, then more power to them--there's not a thing wrong with that. Not everyone is blessed *ahem* with an ego the size of mine. Fortunately. *g*

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

Crack!fic, to me, is a way to represent stories that the author and/or the reader enjoys where somewhere in the back of the lizard brain, there's this little tiny voice that says "you shouldn't enjoy this." Doesn't matter how it gets there -- it could be genre (mpreg for example is considered crack!fic), it could be characterization (ZOMG! John *cries* big weeping bucketfulls in this, and Rodney has a self-esteem smaller than a gnat!), it could be set up (this story has holes so big antartica fits through it) -- somewhere along the way, someone said "anyone who reads and/or writes something like that has to be dealing with controlled substances."

So everything you've said is true. It's all crack!fic. Fanfic, by its very nature, invites it and embraces it. Praises it even. If you like that sort of thing, then write that sort of thing; it you read something you like, then say that you liked it. Chances are someone else will say 'hey, I like it too!'

And then the third person will say 'you both are on crack.' Calling it crack!fic just cuts out the middleman, and we go on from there.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

Is labeling your mpreg or your elf story as crackfic giving in, then? Should we be standing on our mpreg soapboxes and shouting to the fandom, "I like pregnant men and I don't care who knows it!" *g* Are we handing it all over to the mockers, saying, 'Okay, yes, I agree, this is a stupid thing to like and I'm ashamed that I do, so I'll make fun of it with you and not take it seriously, too! Let's all laugh at it together! sob' Because, yes, it's somewhat freeing to say, 'Oh, no, I don't really fantasize about this, I just find it funny and thought you would, too, ha ha,' in that it allows one to go ahead and write and post that fantasy, if one wouldn't have dared to before, but...how kind of sad. We don't get to own our little eccentricities and kinks, but instead slap a dismissive label on them and pretend we don't take them seriously, either. There's something kind of not-empowered about that.

Not that writing and posting stories isn't already a nervous-making enough thing. I guess if it helps to wrap ourselves up in the blankie of a reassuring label, then, whatever gets us through the night. It is supposed to be fun, after all.

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

'giving in' -- to what, exactly? The term has positive connotations, in that it indicates that there is some sort of emotional payoff in it for the people that like those sorts of things, and is a warning to those that want to avoid it. To me, it is the flip side of a story labeled experimental, which to me is something sort of pretentious -- weighty and heavy, obscuring the story, and intending to be considered a 'serious' work. Whereas crack!fic is what it is, without pretentions. If the point of the story is to make Rodney cry, then by god, you wrote the best Rodney crying story you could and in a completely balls-to-the-wall, no-appologies, and no prisoners way.

That doesn't mean it's not well-written. It doesn't mean it's simple light and froth. It means that the author (or the reader or the reccer -- whoever is applying the label) felt that it was the essence of that kind of story, and that particular kind of pay off.

Intellectual appeal =experimental, emotional appeal =crack!fic

Or so I feel at this moment. Ask me what I think tomorrow.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

'giving in' -- to what, exactly?

To the idea that certain types of stories are less acceptable, mockable or lightweight, not worthy of serious reading or writing consideration. Mpreg, wingfic, stories that have been fairly widely laughed at, snarked about, pooped on or otherwise classed as 'lesser.' Are some people labeling their secret kinks 'crackfic' as camouflage, so that they won't be tarred with the 'unworthy' brush, rather than saying, 'hell, yes, I like this, wanna make something of it?' I'm not really worried about the potential repression of the elf-lovers so much as I'm just pondering the idea. It's a new thought, for me.

To me, it is the flip side of a story labeled experimental, which to me is something sort of pretentious -- weighty and heavy, obscuring the story, and intending to be considered a 'serious' work. Whereas crack!fic is what it is, without pretentions....intellectual appeal =experimental, emotional appeal =crack!fic

I love what's coming out about how the term strikes different people in different ways. No wonder there's no consensus on a definition. How cool.

Or so I feel at this moment. Ask me what I think tomorrow.

Yeah, tell me about it. *g* My views are changing with every response.

[jadelennox]

I think crackfic indicates that the story is intended to make the reader sporfle. Centaur stories are a great example. They ought to be crack, the premise is crack, but in James' hands, they're not (though she's perfectly capable of writing crack, it's just more likely to have penguins than centaurs). The premise is "these people are centaurs" and it's treated as a serious jumping off point for drama, plot, and character. Crack is more "look! I can make Ronon into the Hamburglar! Whee!"

What's always weird is when crackfic becomes non-crack. Sometimes it works (the entire Sith Academy was crack, but it had non-crack entries near the end, and the entire Hell Series spinoff was non-crack (drama and character development) spun off from crack (Obi-Wan and Darth Maul live in the same apartment building). Other times, it doesn't work as smoothly, and badifc tropes that were games in the crack get taken seriously in the sequels to the detriment of the fic.

On the other hand, it's a nice safety net for risk taking and writing guilty pleasure fic (When in Haldoria comes to mind).

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I think crackfic indicates that the story is intended to make the reader sporfle.

That's always been my thought, too, that another word for it would be 'wacky'. But that's not how everyone's using the term, apparently.

Centaur stories are a great example. They ought to be crack, the premise is crack, but in James' hands, they're not (though she's perfectly capable of writing crack, it's just more likely to have penguins than centaurs).

I adore those stories. But who decides that centaurs in general are crack-fodder? I mean, yeah, mythology, wild stuff, completely outside of canon...until the producers of the SG universe (who've already given us Merlin) decide to throw some centaur lore into the show. Who's cracked then, huh? (Heh.) And I'm sure that James could write something equally gripping and poignant with penguins--a good writer could. Who decides which premise is cracked and which isn't? What might look like an easy crackfic call to some, maybe isn't. Not that I really disagree with anything you said, I'm just contemplating this stuff, here. I lean toward thinking that including mythological creatures in fanfiction (where they aren't part of the canon) is crackish, as much as I love the centaurs. I think that, a little, but I don't feel it, if you get what I mean. And, hey, consider what we've seen on the show--how crackish would life-force-sucking, Marilyn Manson-ish space vampires seem if a fanfic writer had come up with them, rather than the show's writers? I ask you.

On the other hand, it's a nice safety net for risk taking and writing guilty pleasure fic (When in Haldoria comes to mind).

I was just wondering, above, do they really need to be guilty pleasures? There's an audience for nearly everything. Can we just be a little more tolerant of each other's kinks, and skip the guilt? *ponders* Probably not. *g* Having the crackfic label to use for those stories is probably a good thing, if it gets us the stories.

Your Hamburgler line made me snerk Coke with lime through my nose. Thanks for that. *bg*

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

(though she's perfectly capable of writing crack, it's just more likely to have penguins than centaurs)

And I'm sure that James could write something equally gripping and poignant with penguins--a good writer could.

And she did! *bg* And very heart-tugging it was, too. :)

[terrie01.livejournal.com]

Crack!fic, for me, is an AU that is so... out there, that you start singing "Which of these things is not like the others?" It has nothing to do quality. The best example I can think of is the story James did where John was a penguin and Rodney was a unicorn. (James is the archtype of the crack writer).

People crying crack for a lower standard is like people claiming that their story is humor, so it doesn't matter if the characters are completely OOC. It's an excuse and should not be seen as a reflection of the genre. For me, crack is not a bad term. It's simply a certain genre.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

But it's a genre that's really hard to pin down--the definitions are so fluid, and everyone seems to be using the term in a different way. Slash, as a genre, is pretty easy to define. How does one define crack? There's no real consensus, there, and it becomes an eye of the beholder thing--you say James is an archetypal crack writer, I say she's a good writer who writes stories around what some might see as cracked themes, but turns them into workable, serious stories. And she, herself, seems to take them quite seriously. So, crackfic or not? You say yes, she might say no, and she's the author. That's the difficulty with pointing to a crackfic genre; people don't agree on what constitutes crackfic, or what the term means.

Certainly there are very excellent stories that the authors have called crackfic, themselves--crackfic doesn't necessarily mean low quality, but my concern is that writers sometimes apply the label to poorly-written stories and try to excuse a lack of effort by calling it cracked--nothing matters, it's crackfic! Anything goes! When the label is used as a CYA for laziness, it annoys me. It's why I don't read anything labeled crackfic by any author I don't know and trust.

[terrie01.livejournal.com]

I see no conflict with calling a "serious" story crack!fic. But, for me, it goes back to a quote from E.B. White. "Genius is more often found in a cracked pot than a whole one." For me, crack is mainly about juxtaposition, putting two seemingly conflicting things together.

In the end, I think the term is too new for there to be a solid defn. yet. And, like some, the edges will probably always be fuzzy, but it'll settle down. My defn. may never catch on (sigh). It seems to be moving away to the new "sugar high" which is too bad.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

For me, crack is mainly about juxtaposition, putting two seemingly conflicting things together.

Some is, but sometimes that's just AU, too. It's a very fine line, I think. And, yes, that sugar-high attitude about crackfic is pretty prevelant, I think--it's become the cheap champagne of fanfic, complete with the wheeeee! and the bubbles and the giggling. I think I'd rather the definition slid that way, though, and left AU as the label of choice for more seriously experimental things. That's probably snobbish of me, but I'd like that fine line between them to be a little more substantial. I'd like to see the seriously experimental recognized and appreciated as being something apart from crackfic.

[stellahobbit.livejournal.com]

To my mind (and thanks for bringing this up, because I've been wondering about it lately) -

Not all humorous stories are crack!fic, but all crack!fic are humorous.

Hmm. I think that's working for me.

As a reader, I wouldn't want the term crack!fic to be used as an excuse for shoddy writing (ridiculous premise, OOC-edness, impossible to read because of errors). As a writer, I've used the term once to describe one of my fics, and it could just as easily have been labelled 'humour' or 'silly'.

I don't think any crack!fic can be angsty or dark. It is a property of crack!fic that it be funny or so completely out there that you're laughing at the bizarreness of it.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with you, here, because now I'm trying to imagine dark, angsty crackfic...and I can't. If it was 'out there' enough to seem crackish, and it was trying to be dark and angsty, it would probably come across as funny, too, in a wacked-out way. Funny dark angst? This is breaking my brain. I'm picturing a parody of a dark, angsty story, or a story so extreme with the darkness and angst that it becomes ridiculous, or...I don't know. I don't think it can be done, making crackfic without the funny. I hope someone tries; I'd be really interested in seeing the attempt. What a challenge.

[thepouncer.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about this, and trying to come up with an answer to what crackfic is. And it's hard! To me, crackfic is a kind of dividing line - on one side is badfic and on the other is a story delving into improbable or even ridiculous situations and characterization.

So, for instance, we have eliade's story extrapolating from Conversion, where John turns into a bug. And for me, that story worked beautifully. It was short, it was surreal, but Rodney and John were still Rodney and John. I'd call that a story that lurks on the edge of crackfic, but doesn't go over because of the quality.

Then there are some of the entries to svmadelyn's Badfic Summary Challenge. The ones that parodied badfic were priceless to me - I haven't laughed that much in a long, long time. But other authors took a more serious approach and attempted to create a good story out of these whacked prompts. Some succeeded (I'm thinking of astolat and eliade) and some didn't (although I admit I haven't read everything produced as a result of that challenge).

As a writer, I think my SGA Regency AU is cracked - I mean, my god! John as an English lord? Rodney as a brothel servent/chemist? When I started to write the idea, I had to send it to friends for another opinion, for fear that it was too cracked out to bear the light of day. But it's the story that's gotten the most feedback of anything I've ever posted, so.

I wonder if part of this crackfic moment isn't the desire for something new and novel? The old saw about there only being twelve plots in the universe and all that, so to add originality writers create more and more bizarre events. And SGA has those magical Ancients to allow for plot permutations - they made a device that turns you into penguins! They have cloning technology! - as well as the entire Pegasus galaxy for greeting rituals and the like.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

So maybe it is the show's premise, the fact that it's SF and that we were given those all-powerful Ancients with their wacky devices to work with? The show itself gives us so much room to move around in that we can't help moving, going for something completely different? And badfic parody is always fun, so an opportunity to play with the badfic will always draw interested writers. So, it's the lure of infinite possibilities, maybe. Even in a universe where the wild and wacky already happens in canon, we need permission to get even wilder and wacker. Hmmm.

I've heard a number of writers express what you felt over your Regency--"Is this so insane I'm embarrassing myself?" There seems to be an element of (at least perceived) self-revelation with crackfic, a display of not only one's kinks but also...I'm not sure what to call it. That little voice in our heads that says, very quietly, so no one else can hear, "But I LIKE wingfic," or whatever the premise that tends to draw smirks and eye-rolls. I can write my wingfic now! It's crackfic! I know it's cracked, so you can't poke fun at me! If it's not crackfic in our own hearts, but only to those who call wingfic cracked, are we really writing crackfic, or just hiding behind the lable? Hmmm.

[marythefan.livejournal.com]

I call shenanigans on the definitions that imply a get-out-of-jail-free card as regards technique or storytelling ability or characterization work. "Crackfic" is not a measure of skill or tone or even of execution. There's bad crackfic. There's good crackfic. There's more bad than good - that's because Sturgeon's Law applies just as it does in any case of fanfic. And good crackfic doesn't become not-crackfic.

Crackfic is, IMO, a matter of premise. Crackfic implies an initial premise that is implausible, if not impossible, a premise that's surrealist, even absurdist. Someone turns into a girl. Or a badger. Or a penguin. Or they sprout wings. Or lay eggs. Or get pregnant, despite being a man. They get set down in a historical context outside the limits of accepted behavior, without being called on it - a man is "cast" as a schoolmarm, complete with skirts and petticoats.

It's not simply AU. It's something beyond normal AU.

What the writer then does with it is what distinguishes good from bad crackfic. Good crackfic asks "what if?" and traces the plausible fallout of the implausible premise. Ideally, it sticks the characterization so hard it squeaks. It leaves you saying "Well, of course. That's absolutely how Character X would act if he turned into a girl. (or a penguin. or a badger. or whatever.)" Good crackfic uses good characterization and good storytelling and good plotting and good relationship dynamics and good writing to say something, just as much as any non-crackfic does. It may end up being whimsical. It may not. Sometimes, despite the fact of the implausible premise or of whimsical writing, it has something serious to say about the characters or the world they move in or even about the real world.

Upthread, you say "it still bugs me some to be told that I shouldn't be taking this story seriously." That carries an assumption about what a writer is saying when she calls her story crackfic that I - someone who's written crackfic - object to. It assumes the message is "This is not to be taken seriously." I want my crackfic taken seriously, as seriously as any other fiction I write. When I turn a male character into a girl, or give someone wings, I don't want the reader to judge my writing or story-telling ability or characterization work any differently than they would a story set within the regular milieu of the source material. Good crackfic is, in some ways, more of a coup than good "normal" fic, because if you can convince a reader of your story and characterization work in crackfic ...

For reference, I come initially from a popslash background when it comes to crackfic - it's the first place I saw the term used and the first place I really found myself open to reading surrealist and absurdist premises in fic. It tended to be, in general, very smart and pretty innovative and intimidatingly well-written. I typically think of girl!fic and wingfic as the most prominent examples, and generally those stories had some kind of character insight and often relationship dynamics included. And while many of the girl!stories, in particular, were written in a style I call "hijinks-ensue," it was more common than uncommon for them to contain some fairly serious looks, if you parsed them, at the nature of being a woman vs. being female, sometimes of the nature of celebrity, and a look at how both of those affected how characters interacted with the world and how people viewed them.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

Crackfic is, IMO, a matter of premise. Crackfic implies an initial premise that is implausible, if not impossible, a premise that's surrealist, even absurdist.

But, who decides what that is? Who says, "this premise is cracked, and this one, but not that one, that's just AU?" That's the issue that's come up whenever I've seen this definition discussed (as per my second 'point' in my post), that one woman's crackfic is another's AU. You say wingfic, for example, is, by definition, crack, but there are those who don't think so, who think it's AU, yes, but perfectly plausible in a SF universe where wild things happen in canon. Where's the list of crackfic themes? What committee decided which ideas belong on the list, and which don't? The "I know it when I see it" definition presumes that we all agree on what's cracked, and we don't. I know of a couple of writers who write what some might call crackfic, but to them, it's not crack, it's AU, and many of the fans of their stories think so, too. There are writers of 'out there' stories, those that you might class as crackfic rather than AU, who wouldn't thank you for labeling their story that way. Who calls it? Where's the stone tablet with the list of cracfic topics? The problem is, there isn't one. There are too many eyes in too many beholders to make that work.

There are also writers who very much intend for anything they label as crackfic not to be taken seriously, and they say so, in their notes--it's the reason they used the crackfic label. Their intent was what made the story crackfic, in their minds--Ces' story 'Haladoria', as previously mentioned, was one of those. The readers didn't see anything particularly cracked about the 'aliens made us pretend a master/slave relationship and have sex' premise; it's actually pretty common, and she wrote it really well. But she felt cracked, apparently, wrote it with that 'whee, crack! *blush*' feeling that some have brought up in comments, so she labeled it crack. The premise isn't out there, at all, for SF/SG-uni fandom--in fact, it's cliched. But the writer herself called it crackfic.

And I think execution can very much make a difference in what is crack and what is AU, because a premise that might originally seem cracked to some might be worked by the author into a story that's so spot-on in terms of characterization and plot that she turns the cracked into the plausible, makes a workable AU out of a wacky idea--was Shallot's mail-order bride story crackfic, or AU? You might say crackfic, but I say AU, when I consider the care she took to create a universe where this kind of thing could plausibly happen, and then gave us characters that fit both what we know and her, literally, alternate universe. So, if it's really a judgment call, if there is no consensus, then a definition that narrows it down to only "very out-there premise" doesn't really work.

That's where the difficulty comes in, because, for some, the definition seems simple, but, on further examination of discussions and writer practices and reader reactions--not so simple. Is the line somewhere between crackfic and badfic, or crackfic and AU? If it's about state of mind, then whose--the writer's, or the reader's? I think the whole concept is much too fluid to really pin down; I think it's one of those terms that's going to mean whatever the user wants it to mean.

[marythefan.livejournal.com]

Pt. 1, because I got long-winded ...

But, who decides what that is?

Not who, what: the rules of the characters' reality. Is the premise actually possible within the reality the characters inhabit? Then it's plausible. Is it absurd or impossible by the rules that govern their reality? Then it's implausible. If the characters are in a reality where waking up a girl or sprouting wings or having men run around in white eyelet and petticoats without anyone taking notice of it or insert-premise-here is against the rules of biology or physics or society - then it's implausible.

And once you make it plausible - or at least start trying to explain and legitimize it - it ceases to be crackfic. A story with a winged character who's from a canon in which people can have wings, that isn't crackfic because it's possible within the reality of that character's universe. A story in which you have Carson messing about, splicing DNA to try to create a winged Wraith, that isn't crackfic (although it may be further evidence of his cracked-in-the-headness, not to mention his lack of medical ethics), because you're attempting to provide a scientific explanation for the wings. A story in which Rodney wakes up one day on Atlantis to discover he's sprouted wings - that's contrary to basic biology, and it's crackfic, it doesn't matter how well it may be written or how stunningly it may illuminate Rodney's character or his relationship with John, because Rodney doesn't live in a reality where people from Earth can or do suddenly sprout wings.

Of course, one of the reasons I think this line gets so mushy in SGA is because of the handwavey "new Ancient device" fallback, and the question's come up of whether that provides enough explanation and legitimacy - enough plausibility - to make some of these tropes not-crackfic. I'm hesitant to say that a simple mention of some new Ancient device that turned someone into a girl is enough to make it not crackfic, just as a throwaway vague reference to some odd family genetics isn't enough to make some of the pop girl! stories or mpreg not crackfic.

There are also writers who very much intend for anything they label as crackfic not to be taken seriously, and they say so, in their notes--it's the reason they used the crackfic label.

Reading back over this, I suspect I sound much more "It's SERIOUS BUSINESS" about crackfic - and fanfic in general - than I really want to. One of the appealing things about crackfic is the absurdity and the ability to be all "Whee! Shiny!" But again, though, tone isn't what makes it crackfic or not. If someone is writing zany crackfic that they don't intend to be taken seriously, that's not any more crackfic than the story about McKay sprouting wings that's written by a writer who uses them as, oh, I don't know, a manifested metaphor for his artistic creativity that's been suppressed but is finally starting to show itself. (Ugh. That's a horrible example, and I only use it because I'm trying to find an SGA-appropriate idea that’s similar to a winged!Britney story about how she lost her wings as she got older and more jaded by her work and celebrity).

[marythefan.livejournal.com]

Pt. 2

Re: Haldoria
The premise isn't out there, at all, for SF/SG-uni fandom--in fact, it's cliched.

But just because something's been done enough to make it a cliché in fandom doesn't mean it can't be crackfic. Aliens making people do it may be so normal as to be mundane in our fandom reality, but is it normal within the reality of the characters?

I could try to build an argument that in the case of "aliens make them do it" the implausible premise is not that aliens make them do it … although, you know, I'm not sure I can take myself at all seriously after typing that, because aliens making them do it as a premise that isn't absurd? I soooo have to take it back. That's an absurd premise, even if it is one of my bulletproof kinks. What I was going to say, though, was that it might be argued that there are other things about that fanfic trope that create the absurdity - I feel fairly sure that if the AF had an SOP for a situation in which aliens try to make you do it, there'd be a lot more paperwork involved than what we usually see.

I'd have to really think about whether that's enough to make it crackfic, though. I think something can be crack-ish without being crackfic, the same way I think something can be slashy without being slash.

And I think execution can very much make a difference in what is crack and what is AU, because a premise that might originally seem cracked to some might be worked by the author into a story that's so spot-on in terms of characterization and plot that she turns the cracked into the plausible

But execution doesn't make a difference in whether an originating premise is plausible by the rules of the characters' reality. Characterization and plot work isn't what makes the difference. World-building is what makes the difference, what makes a premise plausible. Because …

was Shallot's mail-order bride story crackfic, or AU? You might say crackfic, but I say AU, when I consider the care she took to create a universe where this kind of thing could plausibly happen

If she did that, I probably wouldn't call it crackfic.
If you build a reality in which something is normalized, if you create the explanation and legitimize the premise, if you make it possible within the reality you've got your characters in - if you leach it of the absurdity - then it's plausible. And all of that can be done badly, or it can be done well. But the thing that makes the premise plausible or implausible is the normal rules of the reality the characters inhabit, and that's got to do with setup and worldbuilding, not with execution.

My biggest problem with tying the label of crackfic to execution, though, is that "if it's well-written, it isn't crackfic, it's AU" tells people that crackfic by definition isn't good, it isn't well-written, isn't well-characterized. That it's something a writer necessarily wants to distance herself from because she's embarrassed about it or ashamed of it in some way. And I've read too much good crackfic - and spent way too much time "embracing my shame" in pop fandom (heh) - to accept that.

[marythefan.livejournal.com]

(reposted, because my html skillz are weak, and to clarify something)

Back again. :g: It suddenly struck me that there was a whole set of connotations and associations to the word "crackfic" that I learned that a) influence how I see what crackfic is and b) make me resist the idea of tying execution to it, if it's going to connote lesser quality fare.

I mean, before this discussion, I never considered using "cracked" to describe the premises or stories that make up crackfic, maybe because of the possible connotations of "flawed" that the word can carry. Something was either straightforward "crack" - as in (as someone upthread said) "What kind were you smoking when you came up with that?" and hence the idea of absurdity as a defining characteristic - or, if there was an adjective form, it was "cracktastic."

And I think it's telling that the adjective form related to crackfic that I learned is a portmanteau of "crack" and "fantastic," because "crackfic," more often than not, also carried a connotation of fabulousness. Crackfic was something that people looked at and said "That is completely whacked out and should never, ever work - and yet it does."

The thing is, because of my intial experiences with the label of "crackfic" and the quality of the writers who were producing the surrealist and magical realist and absurdist stuff that lends itself to being crackfic ... if quality of execution is going to be tied to the label, I'm going to go into it expecting it to be the good stuff not the badfic.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I'm going to consolidate replies to all three sections, here, but I'm probably going to go over one comment, too. Also quite wordy, I am. *g*

Not who, what: the rules of the characters' reality. Is the premise actually possible within the reality the characters inhabit? Then it's plausible.

I like this, the definition you've created and all the reasoning behind it--in large part because it's very similar to my own thinking. *g* So, I think you're pretty much Right, with a capital R (as in True with a capitol T ;), insofar as this covers a lot of how I feel about crackfic and how it maybe should be defined, myself, but as far as the rest of fandom goes...possibly not. I mean, this is a great argument for the 'absolute values of crackfic' position, that anyone can call crackfic on anything if it fits certain criteria, but I do still have to ask, according to whom? I imagine quite a number of people could go along with this definition as a workable one, maybe with a few of their own adjustments, but there are so many people who I've seen discuss the idea of there being any sort of definitively cracked theme who reject that there is, for good reasons of their own. And so many people are using the term to mean so many different things that I can't look at this definition and say, yes, this is universal, this is what crackfic is. That's why, to me, it is a "who" and not a "what", because, though this definition works for me, there are others, and even other ways of looking at what constitutes a cracked theme, and that's where I think the "who" comes in.

It's certainly a good enough definition for me to use in my own reading/writing/commenting, but it won't be for some, and that's where it gets tricky--it becomes a whole 'who says?' kind of thing. Besides us, I mean--we can come up with a really great definition, but from whence did we pluck it? Do individuals define a new term for anyone besides themselves, or does the community that creates and uses it? When I'm interacting with someone for whom this is not THE definition, I'm still going to have to explain myself if I don't call crack the way they would. I think having a definition is good, and a well thought out one is even better, but I'm going to end up carrying my reasoning like a missionary with a Bible to those who feel that "crackfic = wheeeee!" or "it's only crackfic, so anything goes!" So, I want to find a definition that encompasses other folk's mindsets, as well--and can't, except for a fairly loose-limbed, eye-of-the-beholder approach that also allows for people just feeling cracked when they write, or not finding things cracked that I would, etc., because significant portions of the community see it that way. Crackfic is like a movement that contains multitudes, so maybe I'm being overly ambitious in trying to pin it down and should just stick to the definition that works for me. *g*

Reading back over this, I suspect I sound much more "It's SERIOUS BUSINESS" about crackfic - and fanfic in general - than I really want to. One of the appealing things about crackfic is the absurdity and the ability to be all "Whee! Shiny!"

Yeah, that's the thing. Sometimes, it's just fun to feel shiny. :)

(cont.)

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

But again, though, tone isn't what makes it crackfic or not. If someone is writing zany crackfic that they don't intend to be taken seriously, that's not any more crackfic than the story about McKay sprouting wings that's written by a writer who uses them as, oh, I don't know, a manifested metaphor for his artistic creativity that's been suppressed but is finally starting to show itself.

I get what you're saying, but there are a lot of people who think that it does, that crackfic is about tone, or intent, and, since this is an evolving term, a living sort of concept, maybe they're right, too. I think that however the majority of fandom decides to see/use the term, if there ever is any sort of consensus, will be considered the 'right' way (except by those of us who don't agree and like to argue.) But it may all stay as fractured and flexible as it is, too.

But just because something's been done enough to make it a cliché in fandom doesn't mean it can't be crackfic. Aliens making people do it may be so normal as to be mundane in our fandom reality, but is it normal within the reality of the characters?

This is another place where I think the definition may be too narrow, because I think there is very much a sense in fandom that those clichés that have become a sort of fanon, a default, "everybody's written one" premise, aren't crackish, or at least, not anymore. I think a definition should allow for what a fandom finds crackish or not. In some fandoms, having two characters encounter aliens and be forced to have sex would be crackfic, yes, but in a SF uni where the characters often encounter aliens--well, ST did it, and I certainly think the Goa'uld would be capable of making SG-1 do it, because they're freaky that way. *g* But, mostly, the fandom takes AMUDI stories pretty much in stride. They're not seen as being so 'out there', premise-wise, anymore, and I think that's meaningful to any inclusive definition. (Maybe aliens made Mulder and Scully do it?)

I feel fairly sure that if the AF had an SOP for a situation in which aliens try to make you do it, there'd be a lot more paperwork involved than what we usually see.

I really like the stories in which aliens making them do it has become old hat. *g*

I'd have to really think about whether that's enough to make it crackfic, though. I think something can be crack-ish without being crackfic, the same way I think something can be slashy without being slash.

(And there's another foray into the land of tricky definitions. If slash means some sort of gayness between two characters not depicted in canon as being together, what's 'slashy'? Doesn't homoerotic work just fine as a term for it? But I digress. Unless you want to talk about it. :)

(cont. again....)

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

And I think execution can very much make a difference in what is crack and what is AU, because a premise that might originally seem cracked to some might be worked by the author into a story that's so spot-on in terms of characterization and plot that she turns the cracked into the plausible

But execution doesn't make a difference in whether an originating premise is plausible by the rules of the characters' reality. Characterization and plot work isn't what makes the difference. World-building is what makes the difference, what makes a premise plausible.

But that's what I mean by execution--what they did with it, how they handled it, how well they created a world where this premise works, including plot and character work; those are tools. If it all slots together, it becomes plausible. If any of those aspects aren't right, if the story is in any way shoddy, the whole attempt to convince the reader can break down.

My biggest problem with tying the label of crackfic to execution, though, is that "if it's well-written, it isn't crackfic, it's AU" tells people that crackfic by definition isn't good, it isn't well-written, isn't well-characterized.

To me, well written, in this case, means doing the work in every area of the story that allows me to suspend disbelief and buy into what she's doing, and, in my case, that includes everything from the tools for good world building to comma placement. A shoddily written story won't take me anywhere with it; the plausibility can't be achieved. So I do feel execution matters.

That it's something a writer necessarily wants to distance herself from because she's embarrassed about it or ashamed of it in some way. And I've read too much good crackfic - and spent way too much time "embracing my shame" in pop fandom (heh) - to accept that.

In the post on 'Haladoria', and in this post, a number of us talked about how we use the term to cover our asses, from time to time. Not all stories are labeled crackfic because the author feels somehow shy about them, of course, but some definitely are. And that's okay, I guess, if it helps them to put something out there that they otherwise wouldn't have. Kind of sad, IMO, but it happens.

Back again. :g:

All your thoughty stuff is very cool. :)

It suddenly struck me that there was a whole set of connotations and associations to the word "crackfic" that I learned that a) influence how I see what crackfic is and b) make me resist the idea of tying execution to it, if it's going to connote lesser quality fare.

Yes, I think that's true for all of us, that we all come at the term with a different mindset. I've seen thoughts about the terim shared in this post that never would have occurred to me.

I mean, before this discussion, I never considered using "cracked" to describe the premises or stories that make up crackfic, maybe because of the possible connotations of "flawed" that the word can carry.

That's one of the most touchy things about the whole question, I think, the value judgments people assign to different forms of the word and then assume others are, too.

The thing is, because of my intial experiences with the label of "crackfic" and the quality of the writers who were producing the surrealist and magical realist and absurdist stuff that lends itself to being crackfic ... if quality of execution is going to be tied to the label, I'm going to go into it expecting it to be the good stuff not the badfic.

What I've seen has been mixed, so I probably come to the term with less definite expectations. Kind of tentatively, peeking through my fingers, sometimes. Because I never know what I'm likely to get.

[wickedwords.livejournal.com]

I agree very strongly with what you've said here. And I do think that the pomo-fusion of SGA and Popslash is absolutly fascinating, with writers and readers bringing to it a whole 'nother sensibility than what came out of a traditional sci-fi background. Personally, I'm loving it, as I came out of yuletide last year knowing that the writers I liked that I had no experience with reading before, tended to be coming out of popslash. And that sense of being able to take the whackiest premise and derive realistic consequences from it is a wonderfully creative and fascinating thing. I think it's cool.

[marythefan.livejournal.com]

Popslash made me read things I thought I'd never ever read. And like them. :g:

[tingler.livejournal.com]

To me, it's an AU with a premise that could have been ridiculous but was so well executed, it's not. So, good writer, good hands, good story.

That, right there, is almost exactly what I was going to say. I think "crackfic" is a term that is bandied about fairly liberally right now, but my own personal definition is exactly that: a story premise that *should* have been ridiculous (I mean, c'mon, John's a *centaur*? Give me a *break*!) but then something works so well that it becomes more than a silly premise. (and for me, I think it comes down to the characterization, mostly) (I mean, John seems so, well, *John* in that story)

And then there are the parody stories, like the one where John's an elf, Rodney's a dragon and Beckett's a, well, I forget what Beckett was, but it was really silly, yet well-written and *meant* to be silly. But I don't think that's crackfic. Like in svmadelyn's recent badfic challenge, some of that was blatant badfic parody ("It's okay, John. I know you didn't *want* to rape me. I'm just glad the unicorns are okay.")('scuse me, I'll stop ROTF any second now....) and some of it was *trying* to parody badfic and yet, twisting and sprouting into something like eliade's stories of John turning into a giant Praying Mantis, or Rodney being not quite human (but still sexy as all get out). Some people just *can't* write a bad story and that, my friend, is the path to crackfic!

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

my own personal definition is exactly that: a story premise that *should* have been ridiculous (I mean, c'mon, John's a *centaur*? Give me a *break*!) but then something works so well that it becomes more than a silly premise.

So you look at the premise, decide whether or not you think it's crackworthy, then look at the execution, and, if it's good enough, it's crackfic. Why is that story crackfic, and not AU? Where's your dividing line for 'cracked' vs. 'non-cracked' story ideas? Do you have a list? *g* And, if you feel the execution is poor, it's no longer crackfic? Is it badfic, then? What if someone else thinks they did a wonderful job with it? What if the writer doesn't see the premise as cracked, but as AU? That's where I'm having difficulty. Who decides, and how?

I love the point about some people being unable to write a bad story (though, what they have hidden on their hard drives, we'll never know *g*) and that what could have been badfic, in another's hands, isn't. That's so true, and I love that they do it, that they're willing to get wacky but are able to do it so very well. I'm still having trouble, though, with the good/bad and cracked/uncracked lines for defining badfic/crackfic/AU, because there are so many ways of looking at stories. I'm really coming to believe that crackfic is defined for each individual, by each individual. Maybe it's the misuse of the term I'm most concerned about--the lazy writer slapping 'crackfic' on her story to avoid responsibility, or the writer who's been offended by having her baby called crackfic or by having been called cracked for writing her beloved story. And, yeah, I'm all for writers developing a skin, absolutely, but I think a better understanding of what people mean when they call crackfic might be helpful, there. There seem to be a lot of definitions, from the ridiculous to the sublime.