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.
no subject
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.