![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You know, two separate things were annoying me, but then I realized that they actually kind of related.
This is totally stating the absolutely fucking obvious, but you all know I'm into the fanfic and write the fanfic and the thing I'm anticipating most in the world at this current point in time IS fanfic. So you can assume that I'm cool with taking stuff apart and putting it back together and sometimes will even like a fanfic as much or maybe even more the original, right? You know, like Gallant is aroused; Goofus is Horny. That's way better than the original. Okay, so the bar was really low on that one, but STILL.
Anyway, it can happen. It usually doesn't. But it can happen. I want to talk about two instances where IT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
Okay, first off, this Pride & Prejudice & Zombies thing. I haven't read it yet. It might be great. It's the only professionally-published P&P fanfic I would ever WANT to read at this point, so it's got that going for it. And I really can understand and respect people who would find this more to their interest than the original.
But, man this review chafes my ass. She admits she hasn't read the original (that's okay -- I remember so little of the original it's like I haven't read it either). But statements like this piss me off.
In all seriousness, the zombie-battling probably made the book less annoying to my 21st-century sensibilities. After all, who wants to read a book where the heroines’ sole employment is wafting around annoying men and being annoyed by them? Zombie-killing gives them something to DO, while not removing the still-compelling love story across class lines. Grahame-Smith inserted a background of Shaolin kung fu into the Bennet sisters’ backstory and for laughs, plays up the class/racial discrimination against the Chinese training from the more posh neighbors, who prefer Japanese fighting styles. It oddly serves to make the snobbery more apparent and understandable.
[headdesk]
Okay, like I said, I haven't read the original. I have, however, read Sense & Sensibility. Let me tell you something about Jane Austen: she is well aware that her female characters are restricted. The whole conflict in S&S stems from the fact that the Dashwood family are the patriarch's second family and all female. You know what that means? That means the son from the first family is basically able to figuratively screw them out of everything. And you know what? At the urging of his wife -- HE DOES. And you know what they can do about it? NOTHING. Because society is OKAY WITH THAT.
Can you maybe see how writing a whole book saying "Hey, check this out. This is not okay!" is sort of MAYBE a bigger and braver feminist statement than letting chicks in skirts fight zombies?
This part is also ridiculous:
Maybe if I’d read Austen before, I’d have had an easier time knowing exactly what Grahame-Smith added, but it’s to his credit that sometimes the seams in the story were hard to pick up–obviously, the zombies, vows to eat a rival’s heart, etc. But he’s good enough at mimicing [sic] Austen’s style to make this literary mash-up really flow.
If you haven't read Austen, HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Look, I know people don't like her and that's fine. But she does have a distinct style and mimicking it takes a lot more than using SAT words and having everyone speak politely. I know this because I've seen people SUCK at imitating Austen and it's painful. (Hi there Pride and Promiscuity.) I'm not saying the reviewer's wrong, but if you haven't read Austen, you don't have the knowledge to make that claim. Period.
Okay, shifting gears. This Rule 63 Watchmen thing. I do like it. I want to try it someday very, very soon. I really, really like what most of the people who've used it have come up with (specifically the Nite Owl art and![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
conceptofzero's female Rorschach fanfic), but statements like this have started to annoy me.
Danielle Dreiberg, the female Nite Owl, who thus far exists only in fan art and fanfic, but is nonetheless one of the best characters in Watchmen, in spite of not actually being a character in Watchmen
Same guy said this here.
In many ways, Watchmen becomes an even more fascinating work if you reverse the genders of the main fictional characters. For example, instead of being one of countless stories about an older guy past his prime regaining his masculine vigor by hooking up with a hot younger gal, Rule 63 Dan and Laurie becomes the story of an intelligent, insecure middle-aged woman with a non-model-perfect body being loved unconditionally by a physically gorgeous younger man. And the power dynamics involved in the rape scene between a gender-swapped Comedian and Silk Spectre become even richer and more compelling.
You know, I would have less problems with this if:
1.) If the same guy who said these things didn't also give approval to that fanfic where Danielle gets raped and Rorschach has to save her. I know that's petty, but Jesus Christ, strong feminist statement THAT WAS NOT.
2.) If I'd seen anyone who had actually MANAGED to convincingly do the Comedian/Silk Spectre genderswap thing. Or had managed to blow me away with a female Nite Owl story. Or done that weird thing he wants with a young female Silk Spectre later in the story.
Okay, this is basically the thing. I think Rule 63 is great as an intellectual exercise, but if you have a great idea, you have to execute that great idea.conceptofzero did it. A lot of the female!Nite Owl stuff looks really professional and great.
But I'm sorry, you don't get to declare your (or others) work greater than a comic book that re-defined a medium and got on the TIME list of best novels and everything else JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE REALLY COOL CONCEPT ART. Because trust me, I've read works based solely on really cool concept art and sometimes they're just fucking SHIT.
And, by the by, if female!Nite Owl brings people the "I don't need to be thin to be successful" inspiration well ... I'm happy for you, really. But the character she's based on is ... um, kind of a canonical failure whose weight isn't seen as a good thing.
I'm just saying.
This is totally stating the absolutely fucking obvious, but you all know I'm into the fanfic and write the fanfic and the thing I'm anticipating most in the world at this current point in time IS fanfic. So you can assume that I'm cool with taking stuff apart and putting it back together and sometimes will even like a fanfic as much or maybe even more the original, right? You know, like Gallant is aroused; Goofus is Horny. That's way better than the original. Okay, so the bar was really low on that one, but STILL.
Anyway, it can happen. It usually doesn't. But it can happen. I want to talk about two instances where IT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
Okay, first off, this Pride & Prejudice & Zombies thing. I haven't read it yet. It might be great. It's the only professionally-published P&P fanfic I would ever WANT to read at this point, so it's got that going for it. And I really can understand and respect people who would find this more to their interest than the original.
But, man this review chafes my ass. She admits she hasn't read the original (that's okay -- I remember so little of the original it's like I haven't read it either). But statements like this piss me off.
In all seriousness, the zombie-battling probably made the book less annoying to my 21st-century sensibilities. After all, who wants to read a book where the heroines’ sole employment is wafting around annoying men and being annoyed by them? Zombie-killing gives them something to DO, while not removing the still-compelling love story across class lines. Grahame-Smith inserted a background of Shaolin kung fu into the Bennet sisters’ backstory and for laughs, plays up the class/racial discrimination against the Chinese training from the more posh neighbors, who prefer Japanese fighting styles. It oddly serves to make the snobbery more apparent and understandable.
[headdesk]
Okay, like I said, I haven't read the original. I have, however, read Sense & Sensibility. Let me tell you something about Jane Austen: she is well aware that her female characters are restricted. The whole conflict in S&S stems from the fact that the Dashwood family are the patriarch's second family and all female. You know what that means? That means the son from the first family is basically able to figuratively screw them out of everything. And you know what? At the urging of his wife -- HE DOES. And you know what they can do about it? NOTHING. Because society is OKAY WITH THAT.
Can you maybe see how writing a whole book saying "Hey, check this out. This is not okay!" is sort of MAYBE a bigger and braver feminist statement than letting chicks in skirts fight zombies?
This part is also ridiculous:
Maybe if I’d read Austen before, I’d have had an easier time knowing exactly what Grahame-Smith added, but it’s to his credit that sometimes the seams in the story were hard to pick up–obviously, the zombies, vows to eat a rival’s heart, etc. But he’s good enough at mimicing [sic] Austen’s style to make this literary mash-up really flow.
If you haven't read Austen, HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Look, I know people don't like her and that's fine. But she does have a distinct style and mimicking it takes a lot more than using SAT words and having everyone speak politely. I know this because I've seen people SUCK at imitating Austen and it's painful. (Hi there Pride and Promiscuity.) I'm not saying the reviewer's wrong, but if you haven't read Austen, you don't have the knowledge to make that claim. Period.
Okay, shifting gears. This Rule 63 Watchmen thing. I do like it. I want to try it someday very, very soon. I really, really like what most of the people who've used it have come up with (specifically the Nite Owl art and
conceptofzero's female Rorschach fanfic), but statements like this have started to annoy me.Danielle Dreiberg, the female Nite Owl, who thus far exists only in fan art and fanfic, but is nonetheless one of the best characters in Watchmen, in spite of not actually being a character in Watchmen
Same guy said this here.
In many ways, Watchmen becomes an even more fascinating work if you reverse the genders of the main fictional characters. For example, instead of being one of countless stories about an older guy past his prime regaining his masculine vigor by hooking up with a hot younger gal, Rule 63 Dan and Laurie becomes the story of an intelligent, insecure middle-aged woman with a non-model-perfect body being loved unconditionally by a physically gorgeous younger man. And the power dynamics involved in the rape scene between a gender-swapped Comedian and Silk Spectre become even richer and more compelling.
You know, I would have less problems with this if:
1.) If the same guy who said these things didn't also give approval to that fanfic where Danielle gets raped and Rorschach has to save her. I know that's petty, but Jesus Christ, strong feminist statement THAT WAS NOT.
2.) If I'd seen anyone who had actually MANAGED to convincingly do the Comedian/Silk Spectre genderswap thing. Or had managed to blow me away with a female Nite Owl story. Or done that weird thing he wants with a young female Silk Spectre later in the story.
Okay, this is basically the thing. I think Rule 63 is great as an intellectual exercise, but if you have a great idea, you have to execute that great idea.
conceptofzero did it. A lot of the female!Nite Owl stuff looks really professional and great.But I'm sorry, you don't get to declare your (or others) work greater than a comic book that re-defined a medium and got on the TIME list of best novels and everything else JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE REALLY COOL CONCEPT ART. Because trust me, I've read works based solely on really cool concept art and sometimes they're just fucking SHIT.
And, by the by, if female!Nite Owl brings people the "I don't need to be thin to be successful" inspiration well ... I'm happy for you, really. But the character she's based on is ... um, kind of a canonical failure whose weight isn't seen as a good thing.
I'm just saying.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Re Rule 63 Watchmen stuff: I find myself vastly preferring the art over the fic in this fandom. It lets me pretend that people aren't reading Watchmen as shallowly as they are.
From:
no subject
Yeah, most of her fans do not do her any favors.
(haven't started on the juvenilia yet - where to find?)
Penguin Classics tends to release famous writers' obscure stuff. Check their Web site, maybe? Heck, Gutenberg might have it.
There's a critic who likes to say that Austen writes about/with 'managed hatred' for her world, and I think he's dead right.
Word. That is totally awesome.
I also get annoyed at the "She's just like chick lit book X" schtick that critics are applying to classic works by women. I don't like chick lit/genre romance, but I can get why people might like them -- for escapist entertainment. To compare the great works of literature to that really sells it short.
I find myself vastly preferring the art over the fic in this fandom. It lets me pretend that people aren't reading Watchmen as shallowly as they are.
Ehhh, I've found just as much stupid from fanartists as from fanwriters re: Watchmen. (The pretty Walter Kovacs-es and the Mary Sues are really, really annoying.) I don't expect fanfic writers to give me the same experience as the graphic novel, necessarily. I mean, some of this stuff CAN just be fun/porn.
Not that I don't wank, though. It's just that essays on how Rorschach really, really never compromised annoy me more than badly-characterized Rorschachs in a fanfic ... if that makes any sense.
From:
no subject
I don't expect fanfic writers to give me the same experience as the graphic novel, necessarily. I mean, some of this stuff CAN just be fun/porn.
Oh, for sure! It's just that Watchmen has a lot of in-built squick that's treated by the fans with a lighter hand than I would like. I can't, for example, reduce Eddie/Sally to *fun*. Whereas when it comes to Dan/Laurie, I'm able to handwave more, and imagine them having a happily ever after, or good superheroing times during the Crimebusters era. It's not in line with canon, but. *shrug*
From:
no subject
And, by the by, if female!Nite Owl brings people the "I don't need to be thin to be successful" inspiration well ... I'm happy for you, really. But the character she's based on is ... um, kind of a canonical failure whose weight isn't seen as a good thing.
Yeah, this. No one in Watchmen is inspirational material, whatever their gender is. Have fun and all, but any time someone starts talking about how their personal AU version of a character is better than the canon character I'm reminded of the whole "Draco in Leather Pants" thing.
From:
no subject
Have fun and all, but any time someone starts talking about how their personal AU version of a character is better than the canon character I'm reminded of the whole "Draco in Leather Pants" thing.
Yeah, really.
Also, I know this has no basis in reality, but I'm going to say it anyway. NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF GERT HADN'T DIED! [is selfish]
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Oh, bitch away. I kind of know that guy, too. I never had any explicitly bad experiences with him, but he's given me the creep vibes before and what he's been saying lately ... eh, it doesn't help.
And, this is a personal thing, but even though I have a boyfriend who is bigger-than-Nite Owl-size, fat fetishism kind of skeeves me out. It's just objectification of a different body type to me -- you're still not into somebody for how they're like on the inside, you know?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject