As a writer, I'd consider my biggest weakness to be fight scenes, and
I know I'm not the only one. It's one of the reasons I like to write
scripts and screenplays, where you can describe the fight itself in a
couple of lines, and leave the detailed scuffle up to the storyboard
artists, directors and cinematographers as and when it's needed.
However, as I write short stories and novels, too, it is a necessary
part of what I do. So this post is a bit of a brief how to, for myself
and other writers out there who struggle with this.
First
of all, the basics of sentence structure. This is vital. Short, sharp
sentences give the immediate feel of every impact, whereas longer,
bloated sentences will drag out the action. At best, sentence structure
will serve to enhance a fight scene, but at worst, it will confuse and
disorient the reader.
Research is a must. To make your
universe credible, it must follow it's own internal logic. If swords are
used, research different types of swords and the styles of combat they
are used in. If a character has trained with a specific type of weapon,
improvising with a different weapon will put them at a disadvantage. If
they have sustained injuries, that will also impact the fight. If magic
is a force, what are the rules around it and how easy/difficult is it to
wield in a combat situation?
A tavern brawl will be
very different to a duel. The brawl will be chaotic, people are unlikely
to be seasoned fighters, there will be little to no concept of 'fair'
fighting. People might not know the initial cause, but stuck in the
middle of the fray, they have no choice to fight back to escape or
survive. In a duel, the fight will likely be more organised, with a form
of judge ensuring some form of rules. The stakes will be more personal,
and more complex than simply 'fighting to survive'.
Every
fight should feel unique and different. You wouldn't repeat the same
section of dialogue for no reason, so why should you write the same type
of fight scene twice? What would be the point?
Different
characters will respond differently to battle. The character who is
willing to survive at any cost would have no qualms taking the easiest
route out of a fight, even if that is to avoid it completely. The
character who values personal honour over pragmatism may rush into
ridiculous situations without really considering the outcome of their
actions.
Do not disorient the reader. Fight scenes
can easily become a blur and make it difficult to work out what exactly
is going on. Many readers will skip them if they become too challenging
to follow. Make sure that the fight is easy to read.
Alternatively,
consider deliberately making it disorienting. Battle can be
overwhelming, especially if the characters aren't trained for combat.
Reflect that in the characters. Make them confused. What are the
consequences? Injury? Losing a character or important item behind in the
chaos?
Above all, practise. If you are aware that
fight scenes are a weakness for you, go out of your way to write a few
fight scenes. Writing, like any art, is a craft you hone over time and
hours of practise. There's no shame in admitting that this element of
your craft needs more work.
A few extra resources for additional reading:
Vary your sentence length to make your writing more interesting:
A good primer on how and why to vary sentence length with some specific
examples in both text and audio, talking about the musicality of the
written word.
Here's how to write a damn good fight scene: More about the specifics of language used in a fight scene and specific techniques to try out.
Writing Fight Scenes:
Specifically for fantasy writers, and covers a little bit of
everything, including suspense and build-up before the fight has truly
begun and how to develop characters through fight scenes.
5 Essential Tips for Writing Killer Fight Scenes:
More about the motivations behind specific fight scenes - understanding
why they are (or aren't!) necessary for your plot is the first step to
tackling them.
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 November 2015
Monday, 19 October 2015
Digital Revolutions
I'm always irrationally angry every time I see an article about a 'new media' killing a more traditional form of media. Partially because it's usually just another way of the writer saying "the world is changing and I don't like it" and partly because it's simply untrue, and their argument is based on a very shallow understanding of the media in question.
Back in the 1950s and 60s, the increasing popularity of television began to scare the film industry - if people have access to entertainment in their own homes, why would they pay to see a film in theatres? Later, in the 70s and 80s, Betamax and Videocassette Recorders meant that people could record television to watch and rewatch at any time - including films that had been broadcast. Again, the film industry were concerned that people would simply record films off the television and would not buy a copy for themselves.
Why am I mentioning this? Well, six decades after their initial concerns, the film industry is still alive and producing content. Thriving, even. Now, however, their big concerns are over digital streaming, downloads and pirating media.
Digital streaming will not kill television or film. In fact, Netflix and Amazon have gone beyond simply being a content streamer, and have become substantial producers of new content. Pirating won't even kill media, despite the scaremongering. Figures used to show massive losses to the film and television industry work under the impression that every pirated copy is a loss of one legitimate sale. Yet many people pirate things they have no intention of buying, or intend to buy at a later date but cannot currently afford. Many people also pirate media that is unavailable for a legal purchase in their own country.
A small example using the long-running CW show, Supernatural. At the time of writing, the 11th season has just begun to air in the US. In the UK, season 9 has been airing on Freeview television stations (stations that require no additional subscription service, such as cable or satellite to view), and season 10 will be made available at roughly the same time for Brits as season 11 will be for Americans. Previously, it was only televised by Sky, requiring an additional costly subscription to view. Season 9 was only made available in the UK on DVD and Blu-Ray in June 2015, and there is no release date for season 10, despite being released in the US on DVD and Blu-Ray. In short, there has not been a legal way to catch up to the current season of the show in the UK, unless you have an extremely expensive subscription to satellite television. This is just one of many television programmes, from the perspective of just one country.
In a similar way, eBooks will not kill physical books and even if they did, stories would still be told. Authors will still write, novels will still be published and people will still read it. Digital music isn't killing the music industry, either - if anything, the ability to buy single tracks instead of entire albums has boosted music sales, not diminished them.
Essentially, my argument is that new technology will never change the media being created, only the way of consuming that media. Digital downloads don't require physical space, and are easily portable. I can carry a library of books, a few dozen films and many hours of music in my pocket, and entertain myself literally anywhere - how is that a bad thing? It's an amazing sign of how quickly we've developed technology; twenty years ago, we could only just send short text messages from phone to phone; now we can stream media from anywhere with a semi-decent signal or internet access.
If anything, digital media of all forms is diversifying media as a whole. Digital publishing has made self-publishing obtainable for the vast majority of writers; streaming services have made it possible for musicians to record and release music independently of a recording label; film makers can release their work on video streaming sites. If anything, the digital revolution has cut out the middle man - the producers, the distributors, the publishing houses and the record labels. This is what large companies should be more afraid of; technology giving artists the tools to produce and distribute their own work on their own terms. As more and more independent success stories happen, how long will traditional media cling to their current business models? Will they adapt with the times or become relics of the past?
The truth is, things are always going to change. Technology doesn't remain stagnant for long, and with technological advances come cultural shifts. People and companies need to adapt to and embrace these developments, not shun them simply because they are new.
Back in the 1950s and 60s, the increasing popularity of television began to scare the film industry - if people have access to entertainment in their own homes, why would they pay to see a film in theatres? Later, in the 70s and 80s, Betamax and Videocassette Recorders meant that people could record television to watch and rewatch at any time - including films that had been broadcast. Again, the film industry were concerned that people would simply record films off the television and would not buy a copy for themselves.
Why am I mentioning this? Well, six decades after their initial concerns, the film industry is still alive and producing content. Thriving, even. Now, however, their big concerns are over digital streaming, downloads and pirating media.
Digital streaming will not kill television or film. In fact, Netflix and Amazon have gone beyond simply being a content streamer, and have become substantial producers of new content. Pirating won't even kill media, despite the scaremongering. Figures used to show massive losses to the film and television industry work under the impression that every pirated copy is a loss of one legitimate sale. Yet many people pirate things they have no intention of buying, or intend to buy at a later date but cannot currently afford. Many people also pirate media that is unavailable for a legal purchase in their own country.
A small example using the long-running CW show, Supernatural. At the time of writing, the 11th season has just begun to air in the US. In the UK, season 9 has been airing on Freeview television stations (stations that require no additional subscription service, such as cable or satellite to view), and season 10 will be made available at roughly the same time for Brits as season 11 will be for Americans. Previously, it was only televised by Sky, requiring an additional costly subscription to view. Season 9 was only made available in the UK on DVD and Blu-Ray in June 2015, and there is no release date for season 10, despite being released in the US on DVD and Blu-Ray. In short, there has not been a legal way to catch up to the current season of the show in the UK, unless you have an extremely expensive subscription to satellite television. This is just one of many television programmes, from the perspective of just one country.
In a similar way, eBooks will not kill physical books and even if they did, stories would still be told. Authors will still write, novels will still be published and people will still read it. Digital music isn't killing the music industry, either - if anything, the ability to buy single tracks instead of entire albums has boosted music sales, not diminished them.
Essentially, my argument is that new technology will never change the media being created, only the way of consuming that media. Digital downloads don't require physical space, and are easily portable. I can carry a library of books, a few dozen films and many hours of music in my pocket, and entertain myself literally anywhere - how is that a bad thing? It's an amazing sign of how quickly we've developed technology; twenty years ago, we could only just send short text messages from phone to phone; now we can stream media from anywhere with a semi-decent signal or internet access.
If anything, digital media of all forms is diversifying media as a whole. Digital publishing has made self-publishing obtainable for the vast majority of writers; streaming services have made it possible for musicians to record and release music independently of a recording label; film makers can release their work on video streaming sites. If anything, the digital revolution has cut out the middle man - the producers, the distributors, the publishing houses and the record labels. This is what large companies should be more afraid of; technology giving artists the tools to produce and distribute their own work on their own terms. As more and more independent success stories happen, how long will traditional media cling to their current business models? Will they adapt with the times or become relics of the past?
The truth is, things are always going to change. Technology doesn't remain stagnant for long, and with technological advances come cultural shifts. People and companies need to adapt to and embrace these developments, not shun them simply because they are new.
Saturday, 3 October 2015
How Not To Adapt Books to Films: The Golden Compass
I may have mentioned a few posts ago that I prefer to focus on positives over negatives in media. But every once in a while, there comes a film so terrible, so badly thought out and so insulting to its viewers that it sends me into a frothing rage just thinking about what could have been, yet sadly wasn't. So, with that in mind, let's talk about The Golden Compass.
In 2007, New Line Cinema took a stab at adapting Phillip Pullman's epic children's fantasy 'The Northern Lights' for cinema. What it achieved, like so many book-to-film adaptations, was a mediocre family blockbuster. It lacks the controversial and darker tones of the books in order to maintain both funding and a PG rating. That's not to say there weren't things I enjoyed in the film.
Dæmons were handled particularly well, both in the way actors reacted/didn't react to them and the meticulous CGI used throughout - in fact, the film's only Oscar was for Best Achievement in Visual Effects. My only nitpick is the occasional use of real animals, presumably to cut down costs, which jarred me out of the world a little bit. I'd prefer one method or the other, not a mixture.
Dakota Blue Richards as an actress deserves high praise, and indeed many of the awards the film has received have been specifically for her. She is a pitch perfect Lyra; gifted liar, often proud, yet selfless and brave despite being convincingly terrified. Given how difficult it is to find gifted child actors and to work with them around schooling and ethical concerns, this was no easy feat, and they deserve the credit that is due for this.
What a shame it is, then, to contrast that with Nicole Kidman's bland performance. Every single line she delivered felt obviously 'acted' and lacked all the subtlety of her character. Since when can you get Nicole Kidman to fail at being a simmering, manipulative seductress? She was, however, let down by some of the scripting, but I felt as though she almost anticipated how the film was go and was distancing herself from it as soon as she could.
I winced every time a character said 'Golden Compass' as an obvious name drop, usually immediately before or after the device's real name - alethiometer. I was all ready to go into a rant about American publishers/producers changing names to make it simpler for American audiences, too (like Harry Potter's Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone), but apparently it's a very subtle reference to Paradise Lost (let's not argue that it refers to 'golden compasses' as in the geometric tool instead of the navigation one). The fact that it just happens to be easier to remember than alethiometer is a coincidence...anyway, in this particular case, I am willing to give them a pass. This is the only one they're getting.
I'm aware that this is such a minor thing to be irritated over, but the music is so bland I've already forgotten it. I love collecting and recognizing various movie soundtracks, but if you were to play me any part of that soundtrack, I wouldn't be able to remember where it was from. It doesn't have anything instantly recognizable about it, in the same way that The Lord Of The Ring's score would instantly link you to Middleearth, or Harry Potter's score takes you to Hogwarts. This is a shame, mostly because a lot of care has been taken to give Lyra's world a very distinct visual feel which is so different to our world, but it's not supported by the music. It's just incredibly generic and of no consequence, good or bad.
The small exposition scene with Lord Asriel in the Arctic honestly adds nothing to the plot, and only serves to show off Daniel Craig's action movie credentials. The book didn't need it, so I'd have preferred the screentime and budget to have been spent on...almost literally anything else.
There's one line: "the alethiometer says they'll hurt Roger" added purely to add suspense. Apart from being very lazy writing, if it was asked about anything in relation to Roger, the whole 'being sacrificed to form a gateway between worlds' would definitely have come up, even in vague terms. Of course, in the film, they never actually get to that point, which makes me wonder how they were planning to tackle the second and third books without covering Roger's death. Or, indeed, any of the darker themes of the books in general.
There is exactly no mention of Stannislaus Grumman (AKA Jopari, AKA John Parry, AKA Will's father) at all, most notably in the retiring room. I can understand why they wouldn't want to whip out a frozen decapitated head in the opening sequence of a family film, but not even hinting at his existence would have made things problematic come the second film. It would have made things seem far more coincidental than they already were. "Oh, so Will's father was missing because he was in Lyra's world? Didn't see that coming. And Lee Scoresby just happens to be bringing him to the right place to be reunited with his son? Pft."
All the complex characters who had complex motivations or situations had them changed to either paint them as wholly good or wholly evil. Iorek gets his own section below, but off the top of my head: Lord Asriel does terrible things in the books, but here he's painted as a heroic adventurer capable of no wrong. Similarly, the Master at Jordan College no longer has any part in Asriel's attempted poisoning, blackmailed or otherwise. Mrs. Coulter is just a straight up villain, now, whereas the book portrayed her in more shades of grey - doing villainous things, certainly, but there are some hints about more complex reasons as to why. Her motivations are something that is completely glossed over in the film.
Oh, Iorek. Poor, proud warrior king, what did they do to you? You were exiled for being beaten by another bear? (for non-book readers, or those in need of the refresher, he was exiled because he killed another bear by accident - while fights are common to establish hierarchy, murder is against their laws. More specifically, Iofur drugged the other bear, so he didn't give in where he would have done normally. Resulting in Iorek – the rightful ruler of Svalbard, but that got glossed over in the movie – being exiled and Iofur taking control) Aside from being an insult to his very character, it makes no logical sense. If 50% of all bears who have ever been in a fight get exiled, why aren't more of them wandering lonely around the Arctic? How is Svalbard still populated, what with them being a proud warrior race where fights are fairly frequent? And of course, it makes armored talking bears a lot less cool. All this, presumably for the sake of the PG rating. Again, I wonder how they would have handled such themes as death, all out war between worlds, killing God, original sin, etc. in the later films...it's almost lucky this film was as bad as it was, because the films could only diverge more from the books from here on out.
In the vein of panserbjørne, how did Iofur (now name changed to Ragnar) gain power as a bear king? By poisoning the previous king. Let's not think about the fact that panserbjørne cannot be tricked unless they're acting like a human. Between this and the way the circumstances behind the exile changed, Iorek has no more claim to rule the bears than any of the nameless bears of Svalbard.
Many things have been sacrificed in order to keep the PG rating as low as it is. Here's some things that weren't: Iorek punching off Iofur's/Ragnar's lower jaw, Iorek ripping Iofur's/Ragnar's throat out, Lyra almost having her soul cut away, Mrs Coulter being violent and abusive, and Lyra's dæmon being touched without consent. Oh, and the massive fight with the gyptians, witches, bears and kids verses the Bolvangar guards.
Changing the order of events in the plot isn't necessarily a bad thing. When done well, it's seemless. This was decidedly not. Essentially, when Lyra is kidnapped, she is taken to Svalbard instead of Bolvangar (which makes no sense; at Bolvangar, they would have been greatly rewarded, whereas at Svalbard, she's merely 'a gift for the king'), the events happen sort of similarly to the book, then Iorek takes Lyra over to Bolvangar. This means the bears get involved in Bolvangar in a way they didn't in the book, and weren't holding Asriel captive as per Iofur's agreement with Coulter, and so, essentially, the bears aren't part of the film's plot in any meaningful way. They could have been removed entirely, if they weren't the best selling point of the film.
The whole thing is a mess, really. It boils down a thoughtful, intricate children's series with layers of complex themes, imagery and symbolism to the most basic of storylines, relying on beautiful imagery over a well-thought out script. It's nothing short of an insult to the books and the people who love them. I can't help but be thankful that they never got around to butchering the entire trilogy.
In 2007, New Line Cinema took a stab at adapting Phillip Pullman's epic children's fantasy 'The Northern Lights' for cinema. What it achieved, like so many book-to-film adaptations, was a mediocre family blockbuster. It lacks the controversial and darker tones of the books in order to maintain both funding and a PG rating. That's not to say there weren't things I enjoyed in the film.
Dæmons were handled particularly well, both in the way actors reacted/didn't react to them and the meticulous CGI used throughout - in fact, the film's only Oscar was for Best Achievement in Visual Effects. My only nitpick is the occasional use of real animals, presumably to cut down costs, which jarred me out of the world a little bit. I'd prefer one method or the other, not a mixture.
Dakota Blue Richards as an actress deserves high praise, and indeed many of the awards the film has received have been specifically for her. She is a pitch perfect Lyra; gifted liar, often proud, yet selfless and brave despite being convincingly terrified. Given how difficult it is to find gifted child actors and to work with them around schooling and ethical concerns, this was no easy feat, and they deserve the credit that is due for this.
What a shame it is, then, to contrast that with Nicole Kidman's bland performance. Every single line she delivered felt obviously 'acted' and lacked all the subtlety of her character. Since when can you get Nicole Kidman to fail at being a simmering, manipulative seductress? She was, however, let down by some of the scripting, but I felt as though she almost anticipated how the film was go and was distancing herself from it as soon as she could.
I winced every time a character said 'Golden Compass' as an obvious name drop, usually immediately before or after the device's real name - alethiometer. I was all ready to go into a rant about American publishers/producers changing names to make it simpler for American audiences, too (like Harry Potter's Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone), but apparently it's a very subtle reference to Paradise Lost (let's not argue that it refers to 'golden compasses' as in the geometric tool instead of the navigation one). The fact that it just happens to be easier to remember than alethiometer is a coincidence...anyway, in this particular case, I am willing to give them a pass. This is the only one they're getting.
I'm aware that this is such a minor thing to be irritated over, but the music is so bland I've already forgotten it. I love collecting and recognizing various movie soundtracks, but if you were to play me any part of that soundtrack, I wouldn't be able to remember where it was from. It doesn't have anything instantly recognizable about it, in the same way that The Lord Of The Ring's score would instantly link you to Middleearth, or Harry Potter's score takes you to Hogwarts. This is a shame, mostly because a lot of care has been taken to give Lyra's world a very distinct visual feel which is so different to our world, but it's not supported by the music. It's just incredibly generic and of no consequence, good or bad.
The small exposition scene with Lord Asriel in the Arctic honestly adds nothing to the plot, and only serves to show off Daniel Craig's action movie credentials. The book didn't need it, so I'd have preferred the screentime and budget to have been spent on...almost literally anything else.
There's one line: "the alethiometer says they'll hurt Roger" added purely to add suspense. Apart from being very lazy writing, if it was asked about anything in relation to Roger, the whole 'being sacrificed to form a gateway between worlds' would definitely have come up, even in vague terms. Of course, in the film, they never actually get to that point, which makes me wonder how they were planning to tackle the second and third books without covering Roger's death. Or, indeed, any of the darker themes of the books in general.
There is exactly no mention of Stannislaus Grumman (AKA Jopari, AKA John Parry, AKA Will's father) at all, most notably in the retiring room. I can understand why they wouldn't want to whip out a frozen decapitated head in the opening sequence of a family film, but not even hinting at his existence would have made things problematic come the second film. It would have made things seem far more coincidental than they already were. "Oh, so Will's father was missing because he was in Lyra's world? Didn't see that coming. And Lee Scoresby just happens to be bringing him to the right place to be reunited with his son? Pft."
All the complex characters who had complex motivations or situations had them changed to either paint them as wholly good or wholly evil. Iorek gets his own section below, but off the top of my head: Lord Asriel does terrible things in the books, but here he's painted as a heroic adventurer capable of no wrong. Similarly, the Master at Jordan College no longer has any part in Asriel's attempted poisoning, blackmailed or otherwise. Mrs. Coulter is just a straight up villain, now, whereas the book portrayed her in more shades of grey - doing villainous things, certainly, but there are some hints about more complex reasons as to why. Her motivations are something that is completely glossed over in the film.
Oh, Iorek. Poor, proud warrior king, what did they do to you? You were exiled for being beaten by another bear? (for non-book readers, or those in need of the refresher, he was exiled because he killed another bear by accident - while fights are common to establish hierarchy, murder is against their laws. More specifically, Iofur drugged the other bear, so he didn't give in where he would have done normally. Resulting in Iorek – the rightful ruler of Svalbard, but that got glossed over in the movie – being exiled and Iofur taking control) Aside from being an insult to his very character, it makes no logical sense. If 50% of all bears who have ever been in a fight get exiled, why aren't more of them wandering lonely around the Arctic? How is Svalbard still populated, what with them being a proud warrior race where fights are fairly frequent? And of course, it makes armored talking bears a lot less cool. All this, presumably for the sake of the PG rating. Again, I wonder how they would have handled such themes as death, all out war between worlds, killing God, original sin, etc. in the later films...it's almost lucky this film was as bad as it was, because the films could only diverge more from the books from here on out.
In the vein of panserbjørne, how did Iofur (now name changed to Ragnar) gain power as a bear king? By poisoning the previous king. Let's not think about the fact that panserbjørne cannot be tricked unless they're acting like a human. Between this and the way the circumstances behind the exile changed, Iorek has no more claim to rule the bears than any of the nameless bears of Svalbard.
Many things have been sacrificed in order to keep the PG rating as low as it is. Here's some things that weren't: Iorek punching off Iofur's/Ragnar's lower jaw, Iorek ripping Iofur's/Ragnar's throat out, Lyra almost having her soul cut away, Mrs Coulter being violent and abusive, and Lyra's dæmon being touched without consent. Oh, and the massive fight with the gyptians, witches, bears and kids verses the Bolvangar guards.
Changing the order of events in the plot isn't necessarily a bad thing. When done well, it's seemless. This was decidedly not. Essentially, when Lyra is kidnapped, she is taken to Svalbard instead of Bolvangar (which makes no sense; at Bolvangar, they would have been greatly rewarded, whereas at Svalbard, she's merely 'a gift for the king'), the events happen sort of similarly to the book, then Iorek takes Lyra over to Bolvangar. This means the bears get involved in Bolvangar in a way they didn't in the book, and weren't holding Asriel captive as per Iofur's agreement with Coulter, and so, essentially, the bears aren't part of the film's plot in any meaningful way. They could have been removed entirely, if they weren't the best selling point of the film.
The whole thing is a mess, really. It boils down a thoughtful, intricate children's series with layers of complex themes, imagery and symbolism to the most basic of storylines, relying on beautiful imagery over a well-thought out script. It's nothing short of an insult to the books and the people who love them. I can't help but be thankful that they never got around to butchering the entire trilogy.
Saturday, 19 September 2015
Fanfiction and Fanart: What is 'Real' Art, Anyway?
Every fan-artist or fanfiction writer has heard a variation of this at least once: "Why don't you do real art instead?" Sometimes it's phrased more like concern: "You're really talented, and you'd be successful if you only stopped drawing/writing 'x'" or "You'll never make a career out of fanworks".
I don't like this at all. It devalues not only creative endeavours, but the people who create them. It's a a social problem, and it needs to stop. You probably think I'm overreacting, and right now, that's fine. Just read on a bit before you make up your mind completely.
Fanart is seen as 'lesser' because it draws on existing work and doesn't require the artist's own imagination or creativity.
If anything, people are more critical of fanfiction and fanart because it draws from an existing work, one that people admire enough to find and read fanworks of. Characters are judged against the standard of the original - if they are too different, works easily become out of character and unappealing to fans.
It takes a lot of close analysis to truly understand complex characters - to not only understand what they do, but why. This 'why' is essential to fanworks, to understand how a character may react in circumstances they aren't shown in in the original media.
Original art and writing has the privilege of being judged on it's own merit, outside of a pre-existing idea of setting, tone and character. It's far easier to work out the motivations of your characters - you should know them intimately, having created them - than the motivations of another's characters, where you only have what limited knowledge the creator has made public about them.
If fanart was somehow a 'lesser' art form, you would be writing off a vast proportion of art through the ages. Every biblical and mythological painting would be inferior, because it's just fanart (often commissioned fanart) of the Bible and classical myths. Not to mention the wealth of literature you'd be passing up. Tolkien was inspired by Shakespeare, Shakespeare was inspired by Chaucer and Plutarch. All classical literature were inspired by word of mouth tales, embellished over years of oral storytelling tradition, before writing and reading were commonplace.
The Arthurian tales are a good example of this: Celtic folkstories were passed down by word of mouth over hundreds of years, finally being written down in the Mabinogion. These tales were later embellished by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and framed in a way to be more appealing to French audiences. These chivalrous tales became reinterpreted time and time again - Thomas Malory, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Mark Twain, Marion Zimmer Bradley - they've all had a hand, big or small in changing the way we perceive the Arthurian legends. This is of course, without mentioning the many film and television adaptations of the myths; from Disney to Monty Python, so many people have reworked and re-imagined the tales. It is a truly successful fanwork, in it's current state. It bears little resemblance to the original Celtic myths, barring a few recognisable details, and yet it's known internationally.
Of course, delve a little deeper, and you'd see that there aren't many 'original' works of art, anyway, even in modern media. Films are predominantly sequels and adaptations of other media. Any long running television show has to employ writers to carry on the existing story, as it is too much work for one writer to do alone. Long running comics and graphics novels are in a constant cycle of renewing artists and writers to carry on the story as previous artists and writers move on to different projects. Even games are often sequels or remakes of existing games. In fact, if you wanted to eschew any unoriginal ideas, you'd have to search for obscure content creators - independent film festivals, small press books, small art shows - it'd be a huge boost for independent media, until you noticed the reoccurring tropes in all these things, even as original as they are.
The thing is, art doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's meant to ask questions, to be explored and responded to. The problem is, the people who are against fanworks aren't really against the idea of fanworks. They want their favourite series to continue, and they want to keep enjoying film adaptations even if they aren't aware of the original media it came from. If they were against the idea of fanworks, these logical arguments would have won out against them a long time ago - I'm certainly not the first to make these points. The world would also be much poorer for the amount of art that got spurned as they rejected anything that could be feasibly termed a fanwork.
No, they're really against the people who make fanworks. Fanfiction and fanart is primarily a term applied to female artists within fandoms. It's certainly not to say that male don't create fanworks - they do, and face a lot of the same criticisms, but the problem is caused by the way society sees and codes fandom as female. There is a long history of bias towards work that is coded as 'feminine' as being valued less than work coded as 'masculine'. Fandom creators become seen as amateurs, creating work for free - ignoring the fact that some creators are professionals, and dabble in fanworks as exercise, for publicity or even just because it's fun - and further devaluing the idea of fanart in capitalism (the argument being that if creators are so talented, why aren't they making money from it, which implies that money is the materialistic end goal for all creative endeavours).
When a caricaturist draws a celebrity, it's not fanart, it's just art. When a woman does the same, it's fanart. When a screenwriter writes the script for the latest book adaptation, it's not fanfiction, it's just a script. When a storyboard artist or a concept artist or a digital painter is doing the work that makes any movie possible, often referencing earlier designs or movies or media, they are creating art, not fanart. All of these positions are male-dominated, where female artists are the exception, not the norm. There are social, economic and cultural barriers in order to limit the amount of women in these jobs (and this is not limited to the art world and creative jobs, either). It's not the fault of any one person, but a system of exclusion that is upheld to maintain the status quo as much as possible. Disregarding fandom and fanworks as 'not real' art helps maintain that status quo.
While I have many issues with '50 Shades of Grey', it's undeniable that it is an example of fanwork that has become successful. It's far from an isolated incident, either; many authors have been discovered through fanfiction, many fanartists have gained work through their fanart. I only hope this becomes more usual, and that the stigma around fanworks ceases for good. It helps no one to put down fanworks - not the artist creating them, nor the established artists making a name for themselves through 'original' works.
I don't like this at all. It devalues not only creative endeavours, but the people who create them. It's a a social problem, and it needs to stop. You probably think I'm overreacting, and right now, that's fine. Just read on a bit before you make up your mind completely.
Fanart is seen as 'lesser' because it draws on existing work and doesn't require the artist's own imagination or creativity.
If anything, people are more critical of fanfiction and fanart because it draws from an existing work, one that people admire enough to find and read fanworks of. Characters are judged against the standard of the original - if they are too different, works easily become out of character and unappealing to fans.
It takes a lot of close analysis to truly understand complex characters - to not only understand what they do, but why. This 'why' is essential to fanworks, to understand how a character may react in circumstances they aren't shown in in the original media.
Original art and writing has the privilege of being judged on it's own merit, outside of a pre-existing idea of setting, tone and character. It's far easier to work out the motivations of your characters - you should know them intimately, having created them - than the motivations of another's characters, where you only have what limited knowledge the creator has made public about them.
If fanart was somehow a 'lesser' art form, you would be writing off a vast proportion of art through the ages. Every biblical and mythological painting would be inferior, because it's just fanart (often commissioned fanart) of the Bible and classical myths. Not to mention the wealth of literature you'd be passing up. Tolkien was inspired by Shakespeare, Shakespeare was inspired by Chaucer and Plutarch. All classical literature were inspired by word of mouth tales, embellished over years of oral storytelling tradition, before writing and reading were commonplace.
The Arthurian tales are a good example of this: Celtic folkstories were passed down by word of mouth over hundreds of years, finally being written down in the Mabinogion. These tales were later embellished by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and framed in a way to be more appealing to French audiences. These chivalrous tales became reinterpreted time and time again - Thomas Malory, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Mark Twain, Marion Zimmer Bradley - they've all had a hand, big or small in changing the way we perceive the Arthurian legends. This is of course, without mentioning the many film and television adaptations of the myths; from Disney to Monty Python, so many people have reworked and re-imagined the tales. It is a truly successful fanwork, in it's current state. It bears little resemblance to the original Celtic myths, barring a few recognisable details, and yet it's known internationally.
Of course, delve a little deeper, and you'd see that there aren't many 'original' works of art, anyway, even in modern media. Films are predominantly sequels and adaptations of other media. Any long running television show has to employ writers to carry on the existing story, as it is too much work for one writer to do alone. Long running comics and graphics novels are in a constant cycle of renewing artists and writers to carry on the story as previous artists and writers move on to different projects. Even games are often sequels or remakes of existing games. In fact, if you wanted to eschew any unoriginal ideas, you'd have to search for obscure content creators - independent film festivals, small press books, small art shows - it'd be a huge boost for independent media, until you noticed the reoccurring tropes in all these things, even as original as they are.
The thing is, art doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's meant to ask questions, to be explored and responded to. The problem is, the people who are against fanworks aren't really against the idea of fanworks. They want their favourite series to continue, and they want to keep enjoying film adaptations even if they aren't aware of the original media it came from. If they were against the idea of fanworks, these logical arguments would have won out against them a long time ago - I'm certainly not the first to make these points. The world would also be much poorer for the amount of art that got spurned as they rejected anything that could be feasibly termed a fanwork.
No, they're really against the people who make fanworks. Fanfiction and fanart is primarily a term applied to female artists within fandoms. It's certainly not to say that male don't create fanworks - they do, and face a lot of the same criticisms, but the problem is caused by the way society sees and codes fandom as female. There is a long history of bias towards work that is coded as 'feminine' as being valued less than work coded as 'masculine'. Fandom creators become seen as amateurs, creating work for free - ignoring the fact that some creators are professionals, and dabble in fanworks as exercise, for publicity or even just because it's fun - and further devaluing the idea of fanart in capitalism (the argument being that if creators are so talented, why aren't they making money from it, which implies that money is the materialistic end goal for all creative endeavours).
When a caricaturist draws a celebrity, it's not fanart, it's just art. When a woman does the same, it's fanart. When a screenwriter writes the script for the latest book adaptation, it's not fanfiction, it's just a script. When a storyboard artist or a concept artist or a digital painter is doing the work that makes any movie possible, often referencing earlier designs or movies or media, they are creating art, not fanart. All of these positions are male-dominated, where female artists are the exception, not the norm. There are social, economic and cultural barriers in order to limit the amount of women in these jobs (and this is not limited to the art world and creative jobs, either). It's not the fault of any one person, but a system of exclusion that is upheld to maintain the status quo as much as possible. Disregarding fandom and fanworks as 'not real' art helps maintain that status quo.
While I have many issues with '50 Shades of Grey', it's undeniable that it is an example of fanwork that has become successful. It's far from an isolated incident, either; many authors have been discovered through fanfiction, many fanartists have gained work through their fanart. I only hope this becomes more usual, and that the stigma around fanworks ceases for good. It helps no one to put down fanworks - not the artist creating them, nor the established artists making a name for themselves through 'original' works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)