an attempt of making sense of being a RPfan reconstructing an untold story
using this space as I intend to, to make sense of my own experience in writing
Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, way back when neither ao3 nor the Journal of Transformative Works yet existed, a dear friend of mine wrote a PhD in Fanfiction Studies under the advisorship of the very one and only Henry Jenkins.
The new notion that she was exploring in her work was the notion of “charactereme”, an invariant of a character description that makes the character easily recognisable. What makes a Snape? What makes a Hermione? She based her research on HP fandom, very strong and popular at that time.
As far as I understood her line of reasoning, the charactereme consists of the canon (books) core or expanded canon (books + movies + games + interviews by JKR) core, and of the fanon addenda, the conventional agreed info. Say, Snape’s title is the Master of Potions (canon), heretofore he has a Master’s degree and for that he would have had publications in peer-reviewed journals (fanon) (and from this we can infer that Hermione, being Hermione, probably read them).
Other than that, the individual traits, experiences etc. can be brought in, inferred by any given fanfiction author on the basis of their preferences and personal experience. For example, we do not know if Snape can sing or play a musical instrument, this is not mentioned in canon as far as I remember. Abiding by the charactereme makes the specific rendition of a Snape-in-a-fanfic either “in character” or “out of character”. The non-mentioned accidental traits (like singing) can become the plot-driving devices in some fanfiction stories (for example, “The Phantom of Hogwarts”).
In this particular fandom where I am currently in, the canon is still in the making, as well as fanon, as well as the individual reading-into in personal reconstructions of the untold story. I find it extremely fascinating, especially for myself to delineate the boundaries between canon, fanon and individual inferences. For me canon is first-person utterances and other performances of identity claims (taking into account that the narrators sometimes are unreliable, as in obfuscating or outright lying) and the unedited videos of not-playing-a-known-role, especially when something bursts through an established mask/ social or public persona; fanon is conventions on existing interpretations (non-washable candies + rumours that eventually got somewhat confirmed); the rest is individual readers’ inferences and preferences.
As a writer, I can totally understand the urge to reconstruct the untold story in writing, inferring and reading-into the motivations and inner experiences of the protagonists that make certain actions, however odd they may seem, inevitable, the only ones possible in the situation.
But here I am thinking also about the demarkation line between attempts at “unauthorised biography” — and true fanfiction, where we take the charactereme and put it in a “what-if” situation of somewhat different circumstances — and see how they, being themselves “in character”, would deal with it.
And also I am thinking about the difference between “imaginary character fanfiction” and “still alive real people fanfiction”, which for me is mainly an “ethics of perception/ ethics of publication” issue.
Am I capable in my mind to keep separating the “image of the protagonist(s)”, the characteremes that exist and keep developing in my mind along with the developing canon and fanon, from the fact that these protagonists are derived from real people whom I don’t know and most probably never will?
Say, the Hermione Granger that I know and love is not exactly the same Hermione that JKR presented to us, but this makes no difference whatsoever, in the wider scope of things. I know that I read-into the image of Hermione something that would make her more relevant to my own personal experience; she would be a perfect mould for the “self-insertion of the author” (me). As my friend wrote in her PhD, self-insertion of the author is needed either to "be the protagonist" or to "be with the protagonist". Very good for me, isn’t it? I can take the charactereme of an invented character and play with it to satisfy my own needs, no harm done to anyone. "In writing this piece of fanfiction, no Hermione Grangers were harmed".
But reading-into the images of real people something that I want them to be to satisfy some of my internal need? What being aware of this means to me? Can I keep separating and allowing to co-exist my playing with their images with genuine respect to them as people? What inner stance I need to take to keep witnessing something precious, to keep reconstructing the untold story, to be touched and transported by it, sometimes in a form of creative writing of attempts at unauthorised biography excerpts, never to be published, — and still maintain mindful awareness of this being what I am doing, no more, no less?..
29 notes
·
View notes
I have unwittingly witnessed a new level of the absurd. Behold, the AI-generated equine anatomy models.
Ah yes, my favourite parts of the equine body. Paster and... *looks at the smudged writing on hand* boob. At least this one looks purely decorative and the being actually looks like a horse. But don't worry, it gets worse.
If we completely ignore the hipopotamus musculature of this one, there's still a lot of things that don't make sense in this one, like a tail that ends in a series of bone spikes and a complete lack of molars. You could make a cool pokemon on the basis of this, but it's not even in the realm of being an actual anatomy help.
I'm firmly convinced this is not a horse, this is something that really, really wants you to think it is a horse. The more you look, the more things look... wrong. The more details turn out to be shifted, bones crammed in to fill in the familiar form, its shape merely implied so that the human mind fills the gap. Of course the text seems like gibberish, because its anatomy is incomprehensible. it's either a parasite or a monster and in each case, it's an eldtrich body horror. I'm kind of angry at how well this joke writes itself.
7K notes
·
View notes
love the priorities set in self-description
有趣的灵魂
"(has) an interested, curious, active, searching soul"
(...a kind reminder for the ones who don't know how to see past the surface without a reminder? ;) and pay an unbalanced amount of attention to the surface)
...I wonder if he knows that passage from Cyrano de Bergerac, when Christian asks Roxanne "and if a witch stole or withered my beauty, would you still love me?"
I wonder even more what equivalent stories they have in Chinese culture, that would be even more familiar and at hand
also funny that the automatic translator translates this sentence as "interesting soul", and not "interested soul", adding self-absorption and narcissism where it was not put in by the author. Figures.
10 notes
·
View notes