Author Defense

[sistermagpie]

Since there's been some recent author attacks and author defenses I thought I'd set down, just for my own reference, what, to me, constitutes

By which I mean things that sound, logically, like a defense of the author. Something that makes the author look good, justifies them, guards them accusations of being unworthy etc. The type of thing that, if I were the author, I'd consider a defense.

So here are some things that are, to me, good defenses of the author:

• Making a mistake about a canon detail in an interview does not mean the author doesn't care about her work or is lazy. She just has a lot of things to remember and doesn't focus on all of them at once. Every author would probably make this kind of mistake, even ones with less complicated universes.
  
  I'm very sympathetic on this one. Fans sometimes thing it should be easier for an author to remember details than it is for them, but it seems to me it's harder. We, as readers, got our information in handy, organized book form. For the author it all came from scratch and it's got to be more difficult to remember which thing made it all the way to the book and which thing is just in your head. When JRR Tolkien switched Bingo to Frodo, it's not like Bingo moved out of his head completely. Susan Cooper, whom I love, has a sentence in her book where someone named Margaret suddenly appears in Will's house in the early morning. Presumably this is Barbara, with her original name. Not only did Susan Cooper make the mistake, I guess, but her editors didn't catch it. And that's in the book, not in some off-the-cuff interview--as far as I'm concerned, interviews really mean nothing. If the author puts something wrong in the book it's a flint. A slip of the tongue in an interview means nothing.



• The author isn't wrong for not writing the story you wanted.
  
  Uh, yeah. I'd think this would be obvious. Tangents and fancies you have while reading the books are not an ideal the author should be expected to work towards. In fact, most of the time if an author actually did what fans wanted, they'd hate it. If the story started out as a mystery/fantasy about character X, it's not unreasonable for it to end up as a mystery/fantasy story about character X and not a romance about characters Y and Z.
  
  Of course, this should not be confused with the idea that there is nothing readers can reasonably expect from the author because of course there is. If Voldemort was never mentioned in Book 7 fans would have good reason to say, "WTF?" after all the build-up. Similarly, somebody pointing out something they see in canon and thinking it should be resolved is not the same as their demanding the author to write the story to their taste. Bringing something up while having nothing to say can be honestly considered a flaw.



• Another defense that works for me: Don't say you could do better just because you write good fanfic.
  
  This is just a non-issue. Sure there are plenty of writers who write better than any number of authors, but what gets you the copyright is you created the universe and the characters. Writing a good fanfic that's popular really doesn't mean the books written by you would be just as popular on a global scale. Fanfic does take key issues out of fiction writing, after all. So yeah, maybe there are fanfic authors who could do better, but it's a non-issue because they didn't write this better version years ago before somebody else gave them the idea. Creating original fiction is rewarded more in publishing than doing good work with someone else's characters.



• Sometimes things come across differently in print or when taken out of context.
  
  Another reasonable defense. Yeah, they can.

So those, to me, are good author defenses. These defenses, however, confuse me:

• The books center around about three main characters. Supporting characters are as cardboard and should not interest you.
  
  Um, is that really what an author shoots for when populating a complex world? That nobody seem real except the main characters? Isn't that more often a criticism?



• If the author is dealing with controversial topic like bigotry or racism, it's stupid to suggest she's saying anything subtle about bigotry or racism.
  
  So the author should be applauded for having characters use made-up slurs and advocate genocide or constraining laws against certain other characters, but it's offensive to suggest the author would do something so daring and wise as to use a good character to say something about how insidious bigotry can be. To me this sounds like telling people to stop giving the author too much credit, which I, myself, usually consider a criticism and not a defense.



• If the story is centered around a complex, historical political situation with a terrorist organization and a leader that takes advantages of tensions within his society, you should NEVER take an interest in those tensions and where they come from because there is no reason. It just is cause they're bad bad bad.
  
  Um, again, how does this make the author look good? Didn't you just tell me that the whole story is built around a giant plot hole? That there's no meaning to this whole big war you keep leading up to and using to teach me Important Lessons? Does the idea the whole thing is arbitrary sound like a reason to admire the author or think less of her? I know what I think!



• The author created a flat, one-dimensional character. Stop seeing depth in him. Even the slightest shade is offensive.
  
  So anything in canon that seems interesting to me is actually a mistake on the author's part, or my giving her too much credit, even if it seems right there in the text. Good to know.



• And finally, It's really insulting to the author of a series of mysteries to suggest she might be planning any plot twists or surprises.
  
  So apparently she's a mystery writer, but I should remember she's a bad mystery writer if I want to be polite. Even speculating that there might be more than meets the eye that will later come to light is terribly rude. In a mystery, there's no room for anything that is not fully understood at first glance. Just think if Agatha Christie's fans had made such unseemly suggestions. Roger Ackroyd might have actually been murdered!

Like I said, I get the first defenses. The second ones, not so much. I can see them as arguments, certainly, like when some people just, for instance, disagree about whether or not it's bigotry for wizards to treat muggles like clever monkeys and screw around with their heads for their own good, but why would the author need defending from the idea that her presentation of bigotry was complex enough to include good guys? That I don't see so much as a defense.

Comments

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

not a fanfic idea, but a theory

I always see these theories people post (some of which are so completely cracked out you wonder how they even think this is going to be canon) and wonder why they don't just write a fic instead...

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

What drives me insane is when they pretend it's a theory. I once went to the community that's supposed to be for theories and there was somebody posting something like, "What if Dudley had kids and went to jail, and then Harry would come in and adopted his kids?" WTF? How is that a theory? I think people said it was fanfic, but she just got snotty and ranted about how wuuuuunderful a father Harry would be because he was sooooo thoughtful and kind and Dudley was soooo mean and therefore was going to end up in jail for assault and would never be able to have a life. Needless to say, I didn't join the community!

[alula-auburn.livejournal.com]

oh my goodness, I think this might be the same person who thought Harry was memory charmed and locked down in Madam Pomfrey's equivalent of a psych ward in OotP because he was soooo sensitive and grief-stricken and hysterical!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It may be--I got the feeling she was sort of the resident nutcase of the group, with a disturbing over-identification with the Harry Sue that lived in her head. I remember she kept talking about how he was so much more sensitive than other students, and more compassionate. She also seemed to be very insistent about the idea that he was suffering from depression. She really seemed to prefer the teenie-angst Harry of the worst fanfics to the real thing, but anybody who pointed out where she was wrong got yelled at.