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.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-01-20 12:12 pm (UTC)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.