10.29.2012

Fanfiction as Archonic Literature

Over the past two years, I have been interested in fan communities. As a writer, I have been particularly interested in fanfiction and how the formation of the fiction archive is a type of community that has a stake in the text it contains.  I think I would like to treat the community functions and mechanics of specific archives as a "text" for analysis. The texts that I will be examining in comparison are fanfiction.net and archiveofourown.org.

What follows are my journal response to the reading I've done of Abigail Derecho "Archontic Literature":
Derecho, Abigail. "Archonic Literature: A Definition, a History, and Several Theories of Fan Fiction." 
Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet. Hellekson, Karen, and Kristina Busse, eds. Jefferson, NC: McFarland &, 2006. 61-78. 

     To some extent the presence of fanwork has more or less been present in culture for a long, long time (Derecho 62).  The taxonomy of fanwork seems like a debate that periodically resurfaces. The degree that this debate resurfaces in pop culture seems to depend on the popularity of the fanwork in question. The newest discussion seems to center on Fifty Shades of Grey. I have not read it, but popular knowledge claims that it originated as Twilight fanfiction. It is interesting that a quick search to confirm this (through the hive mind of google) brings up the automatic search terms: "rip off", "parody" and "plagiarism". The idea that this work could be based on a known literary icon seems to have scandalized certain bastions of internet pop culture. Not only is this interesting, but it seems to support Derecho's observation of fanwork as associated with derivative quality. In the "flame wars" that ensue over the legitimacy of Fifty Shades of Grey, the debate over fanwork is particularly contemporary and prominent. I'm sure there has got to be Fifty Shades fanfiction now. Augmentation of the archive is unstoppable!

     Derecho's 3rd category of fanfic taxonomy is a useful, if not readily apparent, way to think about classification (32).  I think there is a tendency to vacillate between the broad and narrow in these types of discussions. The golden ideal is usually somewhere in the middle. I sometimes trend toward's Oblomskaya's middle position: acknowledging the broad connectivity of text while considering what features might be "distinguishing particularities" for further discussion (Derecho 62). I recognize the need for classification in order to discuss a field, but I'd also trend more liberal and inclusive. Also the emphasis on "intertextuality" in the arguments preceding Derecho's categories don't seem to account for the framing, grouping, or paratextual elements of a body of text and seem limited by their emphasis on cross references.

     The framing device of the physical and ideal archive is an ultimate catalyst of relations between text. The paratext of the archive also tries to have a mission statement or rules for publication distinguishing its contents from other archives. In fanfiction, distinguishing statements are claims of quality, peer review, theme, content rating system. . . This is all paratext that dictates how fanfic relates to the system of the archive and similar stories. Archive guidelines are a type of "constraint based writing" imposed on archive authors. To study fanfiction without the symbiotic relationship between its archive and its community, is to miss a large part of it. Therefore, just focusing on Intertextuality seems short sighted. I appreciate how Derecho tries to move beyond this.

     Derecho talks about fanfic as not defined by "a relatively recent trend in audience response" (63). I think this observation is correct for several reasons. It is not a "recent trend" and reader response is NOT the one defining aspect.  However, it is interesting how the process of live, instant and constant reader reviews shape the direction of a story as it is published serially. Although this is an ideal often toted in utopian visions of equality in reader/author control, the online fanfic review and comment process seems to have been largely ignored in these arguments. 

     Derecho's reference to Derrida's notion of the archive on pg. 64 is a great way to think about archives and the functioning of fanfic sites. On a related note, there recently was a big censor war at fanfiction.netthat contributed to the splintering of communities, taking down of stories, and traffic at other sites. Despite how moderators and admins sought to control and censor the archive, the archive was still a thing of itself that had ultimate control of its own censorship. Admins don't have the ultimate control of material: both content and quality. It all goes to the monster of the archive, admin's rules then become part of the archive along with the various subversions.  The archive is in dialog with itself because the more material admins generate, the more material becomes part of the archive.  It is a never ending and always open loop.

   One of my former students presents a good example of how an archonic text might function and the power of fan communities to turn the potential into the actual. Derecho writes, "An archontic text allows, or even invites, writers to enter it, select specific items they find useful, make new artifacts using those found objects . . ." (65). My student joined a fanfic community on fanfiction.net that centered around another author's fanfiction. The job of the community was to take specific items from the existing fanfiction and make new artifacts, or new fanfictions, based on these items. This practice was at least at a second remove from the reality of the media. However, an argument sprung up in the community about which fanfictions were more "true" to the canon of the story.  The canon of the story in this case was a fanfiction reinterpreted from the original media. Thus the original fanfic, became the "actual" work referenced. The arguments eventually got so derisive that actual feelings were hurt and my student eventually swore off online communities. 

     On page 65 I appreciate Derecho's use of soft archive. The soft archive isn't just the framing or the paratext, but a archive of story elements and associations that can go into a fan community's tool box. This is interesting.  I have never thought of an archive in these terms.
From page 65 on, it seems that Derecho is defining textual relations from intertextuality by calling on terms of "intention" to separate the two. Fan work is more relational than intertextual because it indicates a very specific positioning as "fan work". There are all sorts of funny disclaimers author's make about how they don't "really" own the work and they can't make profit off of it. This positioning is about the intention of the writer to cross the bounds of hermetically sealed industry media and add their own sense of wish fulfillment to the media's universe or soft archive. 

Fanfics tie themselves overtly to preexisting texts; this annunciation is a
convention of the fan fiction genre, performed either in the identifying
headers that precede and categorize individual fics, or by the location of
each fanfic in fandom-specific zines or Web sites. (66). 

It seems that part of a fanfic author's intention on how to situate his writing is also in what communities he decides to join, what tags he decides to use, and how he decides on headers/titles. This is an archive within an archive. Choosing an archive category, heading, tag, etc. is a way for some authors to purposely announce that they are in dialog with the archive.

No comments:

Post a Comment