the_comfy_chair | Quality vs. popularity in fiction by summerfling

paradise-city.livejournal.com posting in

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. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

aka-arduinna.livejournal.com

Perhaps belatedly, I've come to realize that being a well-known author in other fandoms takes one far in this fandom.

Well... yeah. Of course. Authors don't start completely cold in each new fandom, with no history or reputation. They have the same opportunity as anyone else to be discovered by new readers, but yeah, people who enjoyed reading them in other fandoms are likely to go "yay!" and give them a shot in SGA, as well.

I've been absolutely overjoyed to see how many authors whose work I've loved in other fandoms have shown up in SGA. Yay!

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.

One of the things that utterly boggles me about this fandom is that it has a number of authors who can write what is absolutely a piece of absurd crackfic -- and yet keep it in character, and keep the writing tight and solid. Which in my terms, makes it a silly, totally enjoyable story that's good in terms of characterization and quality. It isn't true across the board, but when I find something that's completely whacked where I can get sucked in, and where I can recognize the characters no matter how strange the situation I'm in? I grin the whole day long for the sheer delight of it all.

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's weak logic on the face of it. You're assuming based on lack of recs (that you have seen) that people aren't reading widely enough to suit your preferences. It could just be that the people who are currently doing the recs pages have read, and simply don't like, the authors you think they're totally ignoring. Or that a story may be fabulously well-written but not have a strong enough emotional impact or some other factor that a reccer is looking for, and thus not be worth a re-read (which for me is one of the key points behind a rec -- would I want to re-read this story?).

You're also assuming (faultily) that the bigger the fandom, the higher the willingness to try new authors, which -- no.

Small fandoms are the ones where every new author's work gets read by pretty much everyone in the fandom. Fandoms where people are starved for stories and happy to get their hands on anything that shows up, even if they know that they're only actually going to like one or two stories a year. Not a week, a year.

Large fandoms, of which SGA is most definitely one, have to deal with the opposite situation -- tons and tons of stories to choose from, but then having to actually choose which to read, because who has time to read them all? Wraithbait has had at least 80 stories added in the last week, and a whole lotta authors don't bother putting their stories in the archive. I'm in fandoms where in five years, the fandom hasn't managed to generate 80 stories. Hell, in *25* years, one of my fandoms hasn't managed to generate 80 stories.

Large fandoms provide more opportunity to read a wider variety of authors, yes, and in terms of sheer numbers, I've read more unknown-to-me authors in SGA than in any other fandom in a long time -- but given a choice between an author I know and trust, and an author I've never heard of, I'm going to take the author I trust if I'm on a half-hour lunch break. I want to read something I'm reasonably sure I'll like during my scant free time, not make sure I'm careful to engage in socially correct behavior of providing every SGA author equal access to my time and energy (which, again... no. It's my time, my attention, my energy. My choice where it goes.)

(continued...)

From:

aka-arduinna.livejournal.com

(...continued)

I do SGA recs as well as recs in dozens of other fandoms (here (http://trickster.org/arduinna/recs)). I can't begin to keep up with everything posted; I have limited time and wide-ranging tastes, both in shows and in types of fiction. I do the best I can, reading what comes my way and noting which things appeal to me particularly.

My recs page has nothing to do with what anyone else in fandom thinks. I don't care if the stories have been recced before, or how often, or by whom; I just wanted to make a nice big list of stories that I knew I'd be happy to re-read, and that I thought people who share my tastes to some degree would also enjoy. It's not about popularity, it's about my own personal taste in fanfiction.

I'm reccing across as wide a spectrum as I can. I don't know 80% of the authors whose work I rec (I don't just mean personally, I mean "wow, I've never heard of this person before, yay! new good author to read!"), and I look for anything from crack to coulda-been-an-ep, porn to pure gen, fluff to dripping with angst. If that range isn't good enough for you, there's nothing else I can do about it.

I usually lose all patience at people who say "if you don't like the [story] [vid] [fanart], do it yourself, don't bitch about how other people are doing an inadequate job". Crit is its own contribution to fandom, separate from the things that get critted, and I'm all for it. If you want to crit my work, I'm totally willing to hear it.

This is one case, though, where I have to say: if you think people's stories are being ignored, rec them yourself. This isn't like writing fiction, or making vids, or drawing art or making icons. Anyone can rec stories. All you have to do is say "Hey, I really liked this, and I think you will, too! Here's a link." and you're done. You can go into more detail if you want to, but -- that's it. That's a rec. If you have an opinion and a keyboard and a place to state said opinion, you're a reccer in the rough. Post the opinion, and you're a reccer. It really is just that simple.

So get out there and point people at the stories that you think they should read, instead of moaning about how the stories you like best don't get any attention. Give them the attention they deserve. Spread the word, share the joy -- deepen the pool of recommended stories to appeal to readers along a wider spectrum. There's nothing but good there, if you do that. Just don't expect other people to it for you; they're busy sharing their own joy.

Who knows; maybe someone will read a story you rec, and go "wow!", and rec it themselves, to other people who go "wow!", and rec it themselves, to other people who go "wow!"... and then you'll have recced one of the popular stories that gets all the attention.

a comparison of fandom's social norms and mores to the norms and mores of professional published fiction.

I have no idea what this means. "Fandom" is a subculture, a societal structure. "Professionally published fiction" is a physical body of work. This isn't even apples and oranges; at least with those, you can say "they're both fruits".

I also don't understand how or why you're making this about "norms and mores". Sometimes opinions overlap, and a particular story gets widely recced, or doesn't get recced at all. Sometimes they don't, and a story gets recced in one place alone. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the moral fiber of SGA fandom in particular, or the moral fiber of fandom as a whole, or on what "the group" thinks is appropriate behavior. It's just opinion and taste.

If your tastes are different, say so. Let people know what great stories they're missing. Give us examples. I guarantee you there will be someone out there with tastes like yours, who'll be delighted to be pointed at a story she didn't know about before.

From:

paradise-city.livejournal.com

Which in my terms, makes it a silly, totally enjoyable story that's good in terms of characterization and quality.

Reading your opinions on crack fic, I realized it's likely that I have a general distate for crack fic that causes me to dismiss any assessment of a piece's quality simply by being a member of the genre. Thanks for pointing that out in a roundabout way; I like to be aware of my biases.

That's weak logic on the face of it. You're assuming based on lack of recs (that you have seen) that people aren't reading widely enough to suit your preferences.

For one, I wasn't asking anyone to utilize my defintions of quality or variety. Rather, I was pointing that I'd noticed (a) repeated patterns in terms of what gets recced from reccer to reccer and (b) a lack of variety within each reccers recs. It wasn't the lack of my preferred variety that was the issue, but rather a lack of variety at all (in this instance, "variety" being defined as a significant number of recs outside the group of core authors).

For two, I don't think my logic was faulty, but that I was applying the wrong model. I was thinking in terms of free market and open competition, in that a wide variety of authors and fics to choose from would inherently encourage readers to sample outside the most popular name brands. As

sweetvalleyslut pointed out upthread, an overabundance of choices can have the opposite effect, wherein people stick closer to what they know, remaining with those already familiar name brands. I find that type of reader behavior counterintuitive, though it does make much more practical sense. Along with that, it also explains why smaller fandoms are more embracing of off-brand sampling than larger fandoms.

Large fandoms provide more opportunity to read a wider variety of authors, yes, and in terms of sheer numbers, I've read more unknown-to-me authors in SGA than in any other fandom in a long time... I want to read something I'm reasonably sure I'll like during my scant free time...

So if I may ask, what convinces you to try the unknown-to-you authors? Does that happen via a trusted rec or some other means?

...not make sure I'm careful to engage in socially correct behavior of providing every SGA author equal access to my time and energy...

As I pointed out in the original post, I wasn't in any way advocating for socially correct behavior in giving attention to lesser known authors. I was looking to discuss reader and reccer behavior the way it is, not the way I or anyone else believes it should be.

You're also assuming (faultily) that the bigger the fandom, the higher the willingness to try new authors, which -- no.

I'm still not entirely sure about that. I would think that different niches of interest would increase in direct proportion with fandom size. The more readers in a fandom, the more likely someone will enjoy non-con or wingfic or genderplay or dialogue-only pieces. If a reader is not finding her niche needs met with what mainstream and popular authors, it seems likely that, if the size of fandom makes it possible to seek out those niche authors, that she will do so.

I just wanted to make a nice big list of stories that I knew I'd be happy to re-read, and that I thought people who share my tastes to some degree would also enjoy. It's not about popularity, it's aboutmy own personal taste in fanfiction.

So you're not looking to rec objectively, then, you're instead looking to rec for those who share your tastes? And there's no value judgment in that statement. I suppose I was under the impression that the majority of reccers are looking to rec objectively (though it's impossible to do so fully, of course; people will likely only read something they'll enjoy in some way), not just to what suits their tastes. SGA is the first fandom I've been involved in that's had such extensive reccing so again, this could be a function of my own incorrect assumptions.

This is one case, though, where I have to say: if you think people's stories are being ignored, rec them yourself.

Just to reiterate, I wasn't complaining. I was simply looking to explore the dynamics of fandom as it currently is.

From:

paradise-city.livejournal.com

I also don't understand how or why you're making this about "norms and mores".

That was likely my fault for being unclear. My line of thinking there was that there's something more intimate about fandom that I think discourages objectivity and crit and that that may play a role in what is read and recced. For example, I enjoy Stephen King's writing. As a professional, published author, I feel comfortable discussing his writing objectively and critically: technically, I think he's a very poor writer and he would be well served to pay more attention to the editorial process in terms of streamlining his work. However, he's a hell of a storyteller and that often makes up for any of his technical shortcomings.

However, I wouldn't feel nearly as comfortable saying that about a writer in fandom. For example, there's a particular writer whose work I enjoy. She's not particularly proficient technically and many of her stories seem to be the same, but there's no denying that, like Stephen King, she tells a good story. Even though I don't know her any more than I know Stephen King, I wouldn't feel nearly as comfortable naming her simply because we both share the same fandom space. My mention of norms and mores was related to this phenomenon, in wondering if there was a relationship between sharing this fandom space and reading and reccing. Do the core authors expect to be read and recced? Do readers and reccers feel on obligation to do so? How does this all play into crit?

As an illustration,

cimorene111's recs page (http://cimorene.net/cimorene/recssg.html). Hers is the only one of its sort I've come across, wherein she discusses fics objectively (this worked, this didn't work, I'd like to have seen this done differently) and this, I think, is a much more useful recs page than

ship_recs, which just lists fic, or

seperis's recs page (http://seperis.illuminatedtext.com/sgarecs.html), which full of squee. That is not, of course, to say that

ship_recs or

seperis's recs are less valid, but simply that they're presented, presumably, with a different aim and that

cimorene111's recs somehow seem braver because they're not the norm. (Again to disclaim, I don't know any of the aforementioned reccers and I hope I'm breaching any etiquette; all their recs are publicly available, so it didn't seem inappropriate to bring them into the discussion.)

Thank you for your comment. There were points I disagreed with, of course, but I often find these exchanges to be the ones that are more helpful in firming up my own opinions and clarifying my own positions. Thanks for that.

From:

aka-arduinna.livejournal.com

Even though I don't know her any more than I know Stephen King, I wouldn't feel nearly as comfortable naming her simply because we both share the same fandom space.

But that's a personal comfort-level thing for you, not something that's universal throughout fandom.

I cut my teeth in fandoms where people most emphatically do talk about stories, and name names, and discuss what does and doesn't work. There's usually also a part of the fandom that prefers not to hear any of that in favor of protecting the author's ego above all, giving everyone a place to go where they're most comfortable, whichever attitude they prefer.

Fic discussion is a part of fandom, as much as discussing the source itself. Once the author has written and posted her story, she's said her part of it; from there, readers can and should react to it however (and wherever, and whenever) they choose, and if that involves public crit, so be it.

Do the core authors expect to be read and recced? Do readers and reccers feel on obligation to do so? How does this all play into crit?

I imagine that if you get recced a lot, it's not a surprise to be recced again, but I doubt anyone expects it in the sense that they'd pitch fits if it didn't happen. (Or I hope not, anyway - if they do, that's a reflection on them, not on fandom or fannish culture.)

I can't speak for anyone else, but as both a reader and a reccer, I don't feel an obligation to do a damn thing.

As for how writer, reader, and reccer expectations affect crit -- who knows? Crit is an entirely separate thing from reccing, and will always be a contentious thing in fandom, because fandom will always be in two general camps about it: 1) "Yay, crit! Fic discussion that is totally impersonal and all about the stories! It's all good!" and 2) "OMG, those mean-ass bitches are at it *again*, picking on perfectly nice authors! They should all die!! Why can't they be nice like us??"

That divide is never going to be bridged. People will either crit, or not crit, depending on their own temperament - and their temperament will lead them to hang out with people of similar temperaments, forming a localized expectation one way or the other, but never a universal, fandom-wide one. One or the other may have more precendence in a given fandom because its proponents are louder, but there are *always* people in the other camp, grumbling in corners.

As an illustration, [info]cimorene111's recs page. Hers is the only one of its sort I've come across, wherein she discusses fics objectively (this worked, this didn't work, I'd like to have seen this done differently)

Hers is the sort of recs page I like most, with a little detail about why she liked something so I can get a feel for it ahead of time. I don't see it as objective, per se -- it's full of her reactions, her take on what worked for her, why she liked it. I don't come away from this thinking that she didn't like some of these stories but recced them anyway on some objective basis, but rather that she was able to articulate some of her reasons for liking the stories she listed. To me, that's just good reccing. I try to do the same, in my totally subjective recs.

From:

carolyn-claire.livejournal.com

As I said to Cupidsbow, below, I'd like to keep the focus of this thread on your original assertions surrounding reading and recs as they relate to quality and popularity, and not move toward public crit as a discussion topic. I realize that there's a relationship there, but it's been a powderkeg topic, in the past, especially where this comm is concerned--a very interesting topic, absolutely, but one that's already been thoroughly and extensively discussed off the comm, and I don't want to see a rekindling of the topic take over this thread and turn attention away from your original ideas. Not hand-slapping, here, just pointing out the avalanche potential. *g*

From:

paradise-city.livejournal.com

Sure. I'll stop this thread as it stands, and thanks for the very politely nudge. :)

From:

aka-arduinna.livejournal.com

that a wide variety of authors and fics to choose from would inherently encourage readers to sample outside the most popular name brands.

But you also say in your next comment that you enjoy Stephen King's writing, which I'm guessing means you've read more than one of his books. Why, if there are so many other pro authors out there whose works you could sample, rather than returning to an author you've already enjoyed? I mean, if ever there was an example of a "popular name brand" in fiction, it's Stephen King. But obviously, you continue to seek out his work because it resonates with you on some level, even though you could expand your horizons further by avoiding him and reaching for books by people you've never heard of.

It's the same thing with fanfic. Yes, there are lots of options, and I avail myself of them under the right circumstances, but I still want to read stuff I can be reasonably sure of liking. Known quantities are comforting and relaxing.

So if I may ask, what convinces you to try the unknown-to-you authors? Does that happen via a trusted rec or some other means?

A summary that looks intriguing, found randomly on Wraithbait or something like sga_flashfic. A particular pairing that appeals to me but doesn't get written much (which turns that pairing into a "small fandom", making me eager to read as much as possible written in it, as opposed to the "large fandom" of McKay/Sheppard, where there's too much to read exhaustively). Something that pops up in my del.icio.us subscriptions (other people's bookmarks, iow) that has an interesting description, reaction, or set of tags. Something a friend flings at me with "hey, you'd like this one". A period where I'm desperate for distraction and just click on the first story link I see, not caring what it is or who it's by.

So you're not looking to rec objectively, then, you're instead looking to rec for those who share your tastes? And there's no value judgment in that statement.

I can't imagine reccing something that didn't appeal to me very strongly. My baseline for adding something to the "possible recs" file is if my reaction on finishing it is to send the URL to a friend with a "you should try this!" note, and I'm unlikely to do that if I didn't like the story to begin with. (Of course, there are lots of perfectly good stories that I read and like that don't spark that impulse to share, as well, for whatever reason.)

If I didn't very much enjoy a story, I don't particularly want to take the time to think about it enough to make a rec for it that will be useful and helpful. They actually do take a fair amount of time to do, for me; I try to give reasons why people might enjoy the stories I rec, without giving any spoilers, and that's a difficult line to tread.

Most of the recs I make do include a basic objective standard in that the stories are well up on the competence scale when it comes to writing -- I dislike poor writing, and someone has to be an amazingly good storyteller to get me to look past that and rec a story anyway. But "it met my objective standards" isn't enough to make me rec a story.

Also, as as reader, I find that recs are most useful when they reflect the tastes of the reccers -- I can find someone whose tastes match mine relatively well, and know that I'll probably like anything they suggest. Or, conversely, if a reccer's taste *doesn't* match mine, I'll know that I'm likely *not* to like stories she recs, which is equally helpful. But a rec that's purely objective, with no reaction involved -- that's not much use to me. There are a lot of very well-written stories out there that leave me cold, just as there are badly-written stories that leave me cold. I want to have an idea if I'll *like* it, not just if I'd give it an A if I were teaching a class on writing fiction because it meets certain objective standards.