Bit of a rant here. I suspect you're right that the politics of colonialism are a good model for the system. For example: author/agent/editor-art director/publisher/advance man: large chain bookbuyer/media reviewers/store manager/store clerk/reader. In my set of associations there, nearly all the power is in the pinch point of distribution there in the middle, with the publisher and the large chain book buyer. Or I could agree there are two different chains of power coupled in the center. Each of those chains looks very like the classes of a colonial power structure. When the Rajah declaims to his Vizier what shall be done to please the English Queen, it may be twirled around quite fantastically and totally subverted by the time it gets down to the guy selling oranges, but the guy at the gate taking delivery has no way of distinguishing how this happened, somewhere between the orders of the housekeeper vs. the Vizier. I'm thinking particularly here of the decisions made about book covers. All kinds of pragmatic details go into making that cover happen, and they ain't all pretty. ("Yeah, Darryl Sweet would be great, but we don't have the $$ for him, and besides, his style doesn't suit the tone of this work at all.") If somebody hasn't workshopped their writing extensively, that cover is often the first shock for a newly published writer about how other people may "misinterpret" their work. In my own case, back in the 80's, the publisher had the artist totally cover up the hero's face so you couldn't tell what he looked like, largely because they were very sure from their own in-house stats that a brown person on the cover would sell fewer books, and they were trying hard to retain *some* integrity, so at least they avoided the cover-art lie of making him blonde and blue-eyed. Yes, really. I was happy to get that much deference to my wishes, as opposed to the market biases of the time, or editorial perception of it. There's another aspect to this too. I've read articles where authors are basically screaming at their readers, "No, you're getting it all wrong, you idjiots!!" Besides being oddly annoying, to me, it seems unprofessional. What do you think critics will do to it? The most strict of genre critics don't all agree to a conventional interpretation, either. Yes, I get that writers are (in old skool theory) supposed to discourage fanfic. Dumb, I think, given that it's free and extra PR. And flattering. Yeah, yeah, small-time here, I take it as a great compliment. But the weird shrill tone of those writers sounds like an authorial control-freak losing it. I have never had this particular reaction to a piece of fanfic, but then I haven't had enough readers out there writing back at me, in enough volume, that inevitably somebody is going to hit the PANIC button tucked under there. (Yeah, you see the big red thing? Kinda awkward to get to, usually, but dayuuum, it's got a helluva klaxon on it, don't it?) Given enough people doing fanfic, maybe a few of them just find that chink in the armor and crawl into unexpected places and make authors start running about with the flapping muppet arms in panic. They sound like they'e screaming about roaches. Never say never--I certainly can't say it couldn't happen to me. (I know there are some distortions I would object to mightily, for political reasons, and I'm sure this is what some folks mean by 'Yeah, Hollywood got hold of it.') If you think readers are bad, how trusting are you about how a movie director and various actors will hash it up? Just look a skeptical actor in the eye, and try saying that kind of silly business again. The idea of owning your characters well enough to try to control all the readers' interpretation of them? About as practical as trying to stop a kid in rubber boots from splashing in puddles. And it can be so happy and creative! I happen to like fanfic. I like seeing other people's interpretations of characters. I like multiple readings of the same source material, the same way as I read my own meanings into other people's ambiguous song lyrics. I like seeing kaleidoscopic reflections on things I didn't think about before.
At the risk of sounding privileged...
Date: 23 Feb 2011 04:54 am (UTC)For example:
author/agent/editor-art director/publisher/advance man: large chain bookbuyer/media reviewers/store manager/store clerk/reader. In my set of associations there, nearly all the power is in the pinch point of distribution there in the middle, with the publisher and the large chain book buyer. Or I could agree there are two different chains of power coupled in the center.
Each of those chains looks very like the classes of a colonial power structure.
When the Rajah declaims to his Vizier what shall be done to please the English Queen, it may be twirled around quite fantastically and totally subverted by the time it gets down to the guy selling oranges, but the guy at the gate taking delivery has no way of distinguishing how this happened, somewhere between the orders of the housekeeper vs. the Vizier.
I'm thinking particularly here of the decisions made about book covers. All kinds of pragmatic details go into making that cover happen, and they ain't all pretty. ("Yeah, Darryl Sweet would be great, but we don't have the $$ for him, and besides, his style doesn't suit the tone of this work at all.")
If somebody hasn't workshopped their writing extensively, that cover is often the first shock for a newly published writer about how other people may "misinterpret" their work.
In my own case, back in the 80's, the publisher had the artist totally cover up the hero's face so you couldn't tell what he looked like, largely because they were very sure from their own in-house stats that a brown person on the cover would sell fewer books, and they were trying hard to retain *some* integrity, so at least they avoided the cover-art lie of making him blonde and blue-eyed. Yes, really. I was happy to get that much deference to my wishes, as opposed to the market biases of the time, or editorial perception of it.
There's another aspect to this too. I've read articles where authors are basically screaming at their readers, "No, you're getting it all wrong, you idjiots!!" Besides being oddly annoying, to me, it seems unprofessional. What do you think critics will do to it? The most strict of genre critics don't all agree to a conventional interpretation, either.
Yes, I get that writers are (in old skool theory) supposed to discourage fanfic. Dumb, I think, given that it's free and extra PR. And flattering. Yeah, yeah, small-time here, I take it as a great compliment.
But the weird shrill tone of those writers sounds like an authorial control-freak losing it.
I have never had this particular reaction to a piece of fanfic, but then I haven't had enough readers out there writing back at me, in enough volume, that inevitably somebody is going to hit the PANIC button tucked under there. (Yeah, you see the big red thing? Kinda awkward to get to, usually, but dayuuum, it's got a helluva klaxon on it, don't it?)
Given enough people doing fanfic, maybe a few of them just find that chink in the armor and crawl into unexpected places and make authors start running about with the flapping muppet arms in panic. They sound like they'e screaming about roaches.
Never say never--I certainly can't say it couldn't happen to me. (I know there are some distortions I would object to mightily, for political reasons, and I'm sure this is what some folks mean by 'Yeah, Hollywood got hold of it.')
If you think readers are bad, how trusting are you about how a movie director and various actors will hash it up? Just look a skeptical actor in the eye, and try saying that kind of silly business again.
The idea of owning your characters well enough to try to control all the readers' interpretation of them?
About as practical as trying to stop a kid in rubber boots from splashing in puddles. And it can be so happy and creative!
I happen to like fanfic. I like seeing other people's interpretations of characters. I like multiple readings of the same source material, the same way as I read my own meanings into other people's ambiguous song lyrics. I like seeing kaleidoscopic reflections on things I didn't think about before.