Post by christhecynic on Mar 19, 2016 20:58:38 GMT -5
If you never read/enjoy fan fiction than this topic is not for you. If you do get enjoyment out of it, what are things that you like and/or what are things that you don't like? And yes, I chose to put this in the general section so that it can't be KP specific.
For myself... the biggest thing I like is just to be able to get more. More of the thing I was a fan of. That's kind of what it's for.
I especially like when people take the time to make sure they're getting the characters right instead of plowing through characterization to get to plot. So Homer over Hesiod and definitely not *shudders* Apollonius of Rhodes. I can still enjoy what the Theogony has to teach us, but in this modern world that kind of overview with sparse up-close detail is what a wiki is for, traditional fiction isn't for learning abstractly from the distance of an encyclopedia, it's for a more up close experience of feeling things with the characters. At least that's how I feel. There are some times, though, that kind of wish people would adopt a Wikipedia style of storytelling. It tends to be people with really strong world and history building, but less strong characterization and dramatic voice.
I don't like it when a character is made into a jerk, incompetent, or otherwise much worse than canon either as part of sinking a 'ship or because the author has a peeve. Usually I see it used to sink a relationship the author doesn't like. If X is with Y in canon I have no problem with an author putting X and Z together, but I do have a problem if it's done by making Y an out of character jerk.
I do like when an author has put thought into their world-building, which can be really hard and often times the original work the fandom is built around didn't actually put forth that solid of an effort. Still, when the author does the work it shows and I like it.
I'm not a fan of things that get dark and gritty, if I want a depressing world where happy endings are rare, apparent heroes turn out to be monsters, trusted people turn out to be betrayers, and things always feel like they're getting worse (even when plodding progress is made), hopes die, and so forth ... that's what the news is for. I can tune in any time. In my fiction I want something else.
I like it when an author finds some overlooked thing in the original and is able to take it and spin a new story not by blowing canon thing out or proportion but instead by taking it, whatever it is, to a logical (or at least plausible) conclusion.
Enough me, I know other people have opinions on such things.
- - -
For myself... the biggest thing I like is just to be able to get more. More of the thing I was a fan of. That's kind of what it's for.
I especially like when people take the time to make sure they're getting the characters right instead of plowing through characterization to get to plot. So Homer over Hesiod and definitely not *shudders* Apollonius of Rhodes. I can still enjoy what the Theogony has to teach us, but in this modern world that kind of overview with sparse up-close detail is what a wiki is for, traditional fiction isn't for learning abstractly from the distance of an encyclopedia, it's for a more up close experience of feeling things with the characters. At least that's how I feel. There are some times, though, that kind of wish people would adopt a Wikipedia style of storytelling. It tends to be people with really strong world and history building, but less strong characterization and dramatic voice.
I don't like it when a character is made into a jerk, incompetent, or otherwise much worse than canon either as part of sinking a 'ship or because the author has a peeve. Usually I see it used to sink a relationship the author doesn't like. If X is with Y in canon I have no problem with an author putting X and Z together, but I do have a problem if it's done by making Y an out of character jerk.
I do like when an author has put thought into their world-building, which can be really hard and often times the original work the fandom is built around didn't actually put forth that solid of an effort. Still, when the author does the work it shows and I like it.
I'm not a fan of things that get dark and gritty, if I want a depressing world where happy endings are rare, apparent heroes turn out to be monsters, trusted people turn out to be betrayers, and things always feel like they're getting worse (even when plodding progress is made), hopes die, and so forth ... that's what the news is for. I can tune in any time. In my fiction I want something else.
I like it when an author finds some overlooked thing in the original and is able to take it and spin a new story not by blowing canon thing out or proportion but instead by taking it, whatever it is, to a logical (or at least plausible) conclusion.
Enough me, I know other people have opinions on such things.