![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
origfic, genfic, fanfic, literature
Jun. 16th, 2004 10:42 amI have at various times posed the question 'What is the difference between origfic and fanfic?' Mainly to find out why I seem to have lost all lust to write the former and would rather go to the lengths of learning an entire new fandom rather than depart into the arms of orig.
I'm starting to think that the question is possibly mis-posed. Because I have also asked the question 'What is the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction?' I still haven't completely gelled in my thinking about that one (and hope I never do!) but some things have crystallised into a sort of sense. And it's made me re-pose the first question.
I think the question is not 'What is the difference between origfic and fanfic?' but: 'What is the difference between literary fic and genre fic, incl. fanfic?' Because I'm starting to think there is actually no difference between fanfic and origfic if origfic is genre fic. Because fanfic is genre. I can't understand why I didn't see this before, seeing as I wrote an entire narratological analysis of fanfic which argued just that. Perhaps because I was a bit limited in my approach to fanfic, identifying it largely with rps. As I'm finding, fps is a whole 'nuther kettle o'fish.
So: What is the difference between literary fic and genre fic? Well, there is obviously not just one differences but many. But the ones that I find key are the ones involving rules and genre formation.
Genre has a set of rules. It works with reader expectations of these rules. The rules form a scaffold for the fic to hang itself on. They most often tend to involve a particular kind of world-creation, a particular style, certain generic conventional 'facts' that are entirely fanon (e.g. in sci-fi the existence of 'mother ships'; mother ships do not have to be explained to readers but they are a fact of fanon because they do not exist in the real world). In fanfic, the rules involve adherence to what is known as canon.
Genres also transcend their particular instances. The genre of the thriller, e.g., encompasses all thrillers. The reader who is most genre-competent is the one who has read most of the individual samples. The genre as a whole is changed with the appearance of every new example. In fanfic, this is, in effect, fanon formation. For want of a better word, I'm calling the phenomenon as a whole genre formation.
Literary fiction works differently in these two areas. There is no literature formation in the sense there is for genre. Each work stands much more on its own. It might be discussed in relation to other works (mostly other literary works but sometimes also to genres), 'influences' might be traced, and it is often discussed in relation to other works by the same author (auteur theory, as it is known in film studies). And I suppose, ideally, the competent reader knows her Homer, Dante and Mann by the time she gets to her Ann-Marie McDonald but that, I would argue, is not necessary. Each work can be read on its own. This is because of the different sets of rules that pertain.
Or rather, don't pertain. There are no rules for literary fiction. The world that is created is, for the most part, the real world we inhabit. The rules of the world are our rules, and if they are bent, they are bent in a unique way, not necessarily in a generic way.
Authors of literary fiction do play around with genres and draw on generic other-worlds, in a post-modern attitude of pastiche. Which, btw, I love, for it is not for nothing that Italo Calvino is one of my top five authors. But playing around and drawing on generic conventions does not make a work a genre. Calvino's If on a Winter's Night a Traveller is not genre fiction. It is literary fiction (unique, without rules) that plays around with generic rules. It plays around with these rules for literary effect. So I think that within literature there is also a strong formal current: attention to prose, words, sentences, grammar, language, the tools of writing is often great. And in Calvino, e.g., there is the sense that the worlds created and the stories told are primarily effects or functions of the words and sentences.
So, to return to my own difficulties with returning to origifc. Perhaps I ought to rephrase them: I find it difficult to return to literary fiction. I've not tried my hand at orig genre fic, so I don't know if I would find that as difficult. Rules are immensely comforting, helpful and enabling. It's like playing music: there is a system of conventional distances between notes, of rhythm, of tempo -- without this, you flounder. With it, you can do anything. It's the scaffolding that can be empowering. And I do like playing around with generic linguistic conventions a lot.
ETA: After tigging with Sartorias, I would now change my 'rules' to 'formulae' to avoid the implication that literary fiction has no rules. But literary fiction is not formula fiction; genre fiction is. See discussion in the comments.
I'm starting to think that the question is possibly mis-posed. Because I have also asked the question 'What is the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction?' I still haven't completely gelled in my thinking about that one (and hope I never do!) but some things have crystallised into a sort of sense. And it's made me re-pose the first question.
I think the question is not 'What is the difference between origfic and fanfic?' but: 'What is the difference between literary fic and genre fic, incl. fanfic?' Because I'm starting to think there is actually no difference between fanfic and origfic if origfic is genre fic. Because fanfic is genre. I can't understand why I didn't see this before, seeing as I wrote an entire narratological analysis of fanfic which argued just that. Perhaps because I was a bit limited in my approach to fanfic, identifying it largely with rps. As I'm finding, fps is a whole 'nuther kettle o'fish.
So: What is the difference between literary fic and genre fic? Well, there is obviously not just one differences but many. But the ones that I find key are the ones involving rules and genre formation.
Genre has a set of rules. It works with reader expectations of these rules. The rules form a scaffold for the fic to hang itself on. They most often tend to involve a particular kind of world-creation, a particular style, certain generic conventional 'facts' that are entirely fanon (e.g. in sci-fi the existence of 'mother ships'; mother ships do not have to be explained to readers but they are a fact of fanon because they do not exist in the real world). In fanfic, the rules involve adherence to what is known as canon.
Genres also transcend their particular instances. The genre of the thriller, e.g., encompasses all thrillers. The reader who is most genre-competent is the one who has read most of the individual samples. The genre as a whole is changed with the appearance of every new example. In fanfic, this is, in effect, fanon formation. For want of a better word, I'm calling the phenomenon as a whole genre formation.
Literary fiction works differently in these two areas. There is no literature formation in the sense there is for genre. Each work stands much more on its own. It might be discussed in relation to other works (mostly other literary works but sometimes also to genres), 'influences' might be traced, and it is often discussed in relation to other works by the same author (auteur theory, as it is known in film studies). And I suppose, ideally, the competent reader knows her Homer, Dante and Mann by the time she gets to her Ann-Marie McDonald but that, I would argue, is not necessary. Each work can be read on its own. This is because of the different sets of rules that pertain.
Or rather, don't pertain. There are no rules for literary fiction. The world that is created is, for the most part, the real world we inhabit. The rules of the world are our rules, and if they are bent, they are bent in a unique way, not necessarily in a generic way.
Authors of literary fiction do play around with genres and draw on generic other-worlds, in a post-modern attitude of pastiche. Which, btw, I love, for it is not for nothing that Italo Calvino is one of my top five authors. But playing around and drawing on generic conventions does not make a work a genre. Calvino's If on a Winter's Night a Traveller is not genre fiction. It is literary fiction (unique, without rules) that plays around with generic rules. It plays around with these rules for literary effect. So I think that within literature there is also a strong formal current: attention to prose, words, sentences, grammar, language, the tools of writing is often great. And in Calvino, e.g., there is the sense that the worlds created and the stories told are primarily effects or functions of the words and sentences.
So, to return to my own difficulties with returning to origifc. Perhaps I ought to rephrase them: I find it difficult to return to literary fiction. I've not tried my hand at orig genre fic, so I don't know if I would find that as difficult. Rules are immensely comforting, helpful and enabling. It's like playing music: there is a system of conventional distances between notes, of rhythm, of tempo -- without this, you flounder. With it, you can do anything. It's the scaffolding that can be empowering. And I do like playing around with generic linguistic conventions a lot.
ETA: After tigging with Sartorias, I would now change my 'rules' to 'formulae' to avoid the implication that literary fiction has no rules. But literary fiction is not formula fiction; genre fiction is. See discussion in the comments.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}