ext_807 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
paradise-city.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
the_comfy_chair2006-03-19 09:53 am
paradise-city.livejournal.com) wrote in the_comfy_chair2006-03-19 09:53 am
Quality vs. popularity in fiction by summerfling
Quality and popularity are two separate concepts that, in theory, are complementary. In practice, however, they are often intimately entwined and certainly play an important role in what gets read, watched, listened to, etc. That the same mechanism is at work in fandom and fan fiction is not surprising, though perhaps, with the independent community nature of fandom as opposed to professional published fiction, it should be.
What follows is a discussion on quality vs. popularity in SGA fan fiction, with the purpose of exploring the structural dynamics of fandom and the social norms and mores that contribute to those dynamics.
Fiction and its attendant trappings in the SGA fandom can be very frustrating, in that I've noticed the same authors get recced and acclaimed repeatedly, regardless of the quality of their work. There have been multiple instances where I've read a fic whose quality struck me as notably out of proportion to the amount of glowing feedback it received and I needed only to double check the author's name for the proportions to make sense. Perhaps belatedly, I've come to realize that being a well-known author in other fandoms takes one far in this fandom.
Of course, this isn't unique to the SGA fandom, but it is happening more often here than I've seen in other fandoms. This could be a function of the little black dress nature of the fandom as a whole: perhaps, as SGA is drawing many popular authors from other fandoms together, these effects are being multiplied to noticeable levels.
I find this problematic because (a) it implies a lack of objectivity on the part of readers and reccers, which likely means (b) less well-known authors with high quality work are left undiscovered (or at least unpublicized). Many rec pages look incredibly similar, with the same authors and the same works. That's to be expected, to an extent, but I've noticed many authors who have nearly all their SGA pieces recced. Now, there are many professional authors, musicians, etc. I enjoy, but I wouldn't rec 80% of their back catalog nearly as often as happens with SGA authors. Are all these authors' works really that good? Is it the quality that's driving the rec, the recognizability of the author's name, or some other factor?
Related to this is the proliferation of crack fic in the fandom (which, arguably, could be a different issue entirely). There are several crack fics I've enjoyed, but there are many more that left me scratching my head and wondering about authorial intent. Previous discussions have looked at authorial distance and the merit of the crack fic label, but I've been feeling a shift from considering crack fic to be good in terms of silly enjoyment to good in terms of characterization and quality, most often when a well-known name is associated with the piece. It was this phenomenon that led to me to question the depth of the relationship between popularity and quality.
I suppose the questions I'm trying to raise are those of perspective: this has been my experience with SGA, having come late to the fandom party (post-S1) and having been largely unfamiliar with the staple authors. However, from discussions I've had with others, it seems as though this has become a trend. If that is indeed true, it then becomes a question of extent and, relatedly, fandom norms and mores and how they create fandom homeostasis.
Of course, this is the same lament seen in many other fandoms likely since the dawn of fandom. I had, however, anticipated SGA being different because of the aforementioned little black dress nature of the fandom as a whole. With many authors being brought in from many other fandoms, I had expected there to be more open and experimental air in terms of reading new authors. That doesn't seem to have happened and I'm not entirely sure why that is.
I feel the need to disclaim this this is (a) nothing personal and (b) certainly isn't intended as wank against more popular authors in favor of less popular authors, but rather as an exploration of fandom dynamics and, perhaps, a comparison of fandom's social norms and mores to the norms and mores of professional published fiction. As such, I'd love to see any discussion this may prompt.
ETA 1: For any newcomers to the discussion, the issues I originally posted about are related to public crit and easily segue into a discussion on that topic. However, as per the admin's kind reminder, please keep your responses away from the topic of public crit and on topic with what was said in the original post. Thanks!
ETA 2: Thanks to everyone who's participated in this discussion. I benefited quite a bit from reading others' opinions and I hope some of y'all did, too. Kudos also for keeping the discussion friendly and polite; perhaps it was naive of me, but I hadn't realized how incendiary a topic this could be. Thanks for sharing your ideas and opinions. :)
What follows is a discussion on quality vs. popularity in SGA fan fiction, with the purpose of exploring the structural dynamics of fandom and the social norms and mores that contribute to those dynamics.
Fiction and its attendant trappings in the SGA fandom can be very frustrating, in that I've noticed the same authors get recced and acclaimed repeatedly, regardless of the quality of their work. There have been multiple instances where I've read a fic whose quality struck me as notably out of proportion to the amount of glowing feedback it received and I needed only to double check the author's name for the proportions to make sense. Perhaps belatedly, I've come to realize that being a well-known author in other fandoms takes one far in this fandom.
Of course, this isn't unique to the SGA fandom, but it is happening more often here than I've seen in other fandoms. This could be a function of the little black dress nature of the fandom as a whole: perhaps, as SGA is drawing many popular authors from other fandoms together, these effects are being multiplied to noticeable levels.
I find this problematic because (a) it implies a lack of objectivity on the part of readers and reccers, which likely means (b) less well-known authors with high quality work are left undiscovered (or at least unpublicized). Many rec pages look incredibly similar, with the same authors and the same works. That's to be expected, to an extent, but I've noticed many authors who have nearly all their SGA pieces recced. Now, there are many professional authors, musicians, etc. I enjoy, but I wouldn't rec 80% of their back catalog nearly as often as happens with SGA authors. Are all these authors' works really that good? Is it the quality that's driving the rec, the recognizability of the author's name, or some other factor?
Related to this is the proliferation of crack fic in the fandom (which, arguably, could be a different issue entirely). There are several crack fics I've enjoyed, but there are many more that left me scratching my head and wondering about authorial intent. Previous discussions have looked at authorial distance and the merit of the crack fic label, but I've been feeling a shift from considering crack fic to be good in terms of silly enjoyment to good in terms of characterization and quality, most often when a well-known name is associated with the piece. It was this phenomenon that led to me to question the depth of the relationship between popularity and quality.
I suppose the questions I'm trying to raise are those of perspective: this has been my experience with SGA, having come late to the fandom party (post-S1) and having been largely unfamiliar with the staple authors. However, from discussions I've had with others, it seems as though this has become a trend. If that is indeed true, it then becomes a question of extent and, relatedly, fandom norms and mores and how they create fandom homeostasis.
Of course, this is the same lament seen in many other fandoms likely since the dawn of fandom. I had, however, anticipated SGA being different because of the aforementioned little black dress nature of the fandom as a whole. With many authors being brought in from many other fandoms, I had expected there to be more open and experimental air in terms of reading new authors. That doesn't seem to have happened and I'm not entirely sure why that is.
I feel the need to disclaim this this is (a) nothing personal and (b) certainly isn't intended as wank against more popular authors in favor of less popular authors, but rather as an exploration of fandom dynamics and, perhaps, a comparison of fandom's social norms and mores to the norms and mores of professional published fiction. As such, I'd love to see any discussion this may prompt.
ETA 1: For any newcomers to the discussion, the issues I originally posted about are related to public crit and easily segue into a discussion on that topic. However, as per the admin's kind reminder, please keep your responses away from the topic of public crit and on topic with what was said in the original post. Thanks!
ETA 2: Thanks to everyone who's participated in this discussion. I benefited quite a bit from reading others' opinions and I hope some of y'all did, too. Kudos also for keeping the discussion friendly and polite; perhaps it was naive of me, but I hadn't realized how incendiary a topic this could be. Thanks for sharing your ideas and opinions. :)
aesthetic objectivity 2/2
I don't agree with Eliot when he declares that we can establish a canon based on what works are aesthetically superior to others and I can do so even less when it is in a context that is clearly much closer to the Id (to borrow ellen_fremedon's Id-Vortex concept), that is so much more personal than a lot of what we'd call Literature.
That is not to say that I do not feel with you on that sense that you're out of sync when the world and all your friends are praising a story you found mediocre at best or when you discover this gem and noone will read it. However, in my experience, good stories (or what I'd consider good) do find readers. And interestingly, they often do end up having been written by what you might consider BNFs. In other words, their popularity exists regardless of name (we see that every year in the anonymous holiday exchanges where there are few surprises in that the stories that get the most positive feedback tend to be by the writers you describe as overrated...)
This does not mean that you may not find these stories just as unpleasant or overrated. What it does mean, however, is that many readers love them *regardless* of who has written it. It means that these writers have their fangirls not in spite but because of the stories they write. You may like different stories (and I just posted a long complaint in my LJ about crackfic and have had plenty of WTF moments with various popular stories...), but I think it's highly problematic to try to introduce a supposedly objective quality judgment into something like aesthetic pleasure...
Re: aesthetic objectivity 2/2
In other words, their popularity exists regardless of name (we see that every year in the anonymous holiday exchanges where there are few surprises in that the stories that get the most positive feedback tend to be by the writers you describe as overrated...)
Yes. I read a bunch of the anon exchanges last Christmas, and most of the ones I loved were by authors I was already reading regularly; one of the exceptions (
I admit that I do rely on people like
Also, just as a general useful reference -
* Occasionally I try reading without following recs, and I almost always regret it. I'm not convinced that there's a huge talent pool out there being ignored...
PS Who is that in the icon, then? Eliot? Eliot who? *looks ignorant* Not Thomas Stearns?
Re: aesthetic objectivity 2/2
I do read without recs, and I've actually found one or two writers I enjoyed immensely...except I then realize they were BNFs in their previous fandoms, so my micro discovery really isn't. Mostly I read without recs b/c I need more to read, and if it hit my kink, I'll read stuff I'd never rec and that I don't consider "good," but that serves certain functions for me (Area 52 stuff specifically; I rarely venture to FFnet).
And yes, the one and only. The quote's from Tradition and the Individual Talent, and is where I see him argue against reader response criticism. As a passionate reception aestheticist, this is my ironic reader response icon...Eliot would hate what we're doing, wouldn't he??? :-)
Re: aesthetic objectivity 2/2
(That's a shame about the Eliot! I'm rather a fan (reading Four Quartets for the third or fourth time this year atm, actually). But I find that I enjoy sources most when I am able to engage with them and discuss them with others - frex, I'm very bad at sitting and watching TV, and often the only thing that keeps me going is knowing that there is lots of discussion about it for me to join. There's a reason why I really only watch fandom shows *g*)
Re: aesthetic objectivity 2/2
Re: aesthetic objectivity 2/2
Thus proving the point that well-known writers tend to get that way because they write good stories!
Re: aesthetic objectivity 2/2