Work Text:
I was given two questions to answer that most wouldn't answer honestly," which are:
• "Do you think meta ranks on a par" with fanfic/art?" and
• "Do fanfic readers 'count' for as much as the writers?"
First I want to lay out the grounds of discussion. For example:
1) When we say "fandom" what we mean is "creative fandom," that is, the part that spends at least as much time on creating auxiliary fanworks as discussing the canon, and
2) We're talking primarily about the fandoms that can be found on LiveJournal. I think every fandom has its areas of uniqueness that makes talking about different ones tricky. I do think though, that the interlinked and overlapping groups on LJ have enough in common that we can generalize a bit. Also the question of time is important, because there was a time when fandom did not exist on LJ, and the way fandoms have developed since may differ from the way they did before.
"Do you think meta ranks on a par with fanfic/art?"
If by "rank" we mean get the same amount of readership or attention in "creative fandom", then no. I'd also add that I think the amount of meta writing going on varies a great deal from fandom to fandom, and at least some of that springs from the canon itself. Some canon is designed to be discussed, some is not. In fact, I suspect there is an inverse proportion of fic writing to meta depending on how well written and complex the canon is. For example, I'd bet there's a lot less fic for Mad Men than Leverage (if we compare the first seasons of both). I think it's also true that there's much more vidding and artwork for certain canons and not others. Certainly HP is a behemoth fandom and contains multitudes, but I don't know as it can be considered a blueprint for all others exactly because it's so large and its canon has gone on for quite some time.
I also think, though, that meta travels much better than fic. There are many parts of non-creative fandom that will read meta but not fic, just as there are people who want to read only fic and are not interested in meta. Meta can also be published, fic is much harder. People do write tie-in novels, although these days they seem to be produced on such an assembly line with so many strictures that they don't resemble fanfic much at all (however like fanfic, authors who write them do not get a lot of respect). Artwork can also eke out a space in the marketplace. Someone is currently selling posters that include a nude drawing of Joss Whedon. Also, while vidders face the highest obstacles in commercializing their work, they are more likely to gain an audience than fic writers. Look at all the work posted on YouTube. Wider parts of fandom will watch a vid than read a fic. So it's all relative.
"Do fanfic readers 'count' for as much as the writers?"
Do they have the same hierarchical ranking and name recognition as writers? No. However this question also presumes that fic writers do not also read meta, that vidders do not also write, that readers do not also beta, that mods do not also create icons, etc. To some degree I think the recognition of any given individual is a matter of happenstance and can vary from one fandom to the next. These days fandom moves as fast as anything else on the Internet. One of the best markers of recognition, I'd think, would be the amount of time one has and the amount of effort one is willing to put in to becoming recognized in a given circle (of course, people in that circle are always coming and going as well).
One thing I found rather interesting to read about in the recent discussions post-Vividcon was how many participants that I would consider quite well known, felt themselves to be on the fringes of the LJ vidding group. And that, in fact, a central argument of the whole discussion was what a tiny puddle the LJ group is in the larger online pond of vidders, and that efforts at inclusion were bound to fail because the group is built around a practice of exclusion. So, again, it's all relative.
What I usually see is writers really wanting readers to engage with their fic and give more thoughtful, involved feedback. But doing that is involving and time consuming, and I think most readers really aren't interested in doing so. Everyone's always ready to see someone else doing the work, so getting to just read the writer discuss things in depth is a lot easier!
Plus, I think writers discussing their own work (such as in a DVD commentary) and readers talking about stories are different things. It's the same thing as fans discussing a show and, say, the actors discussing it. Each group has a totally different focus. For the writer it's, of course, quite specific, but for the readers it might be very broad. For example, I did a series of posts which look at stories and genres in a very general sense. I see creators talking about their work as a part of that, but I'm thinking about commentary in a more collective sense, where there's a more general discussion about interpretations and where people are coming from and what they're trying to say. And I'm assuming that given the question that there's a suggestion no one would pay attention to readers talking about their particular observations and experiences. Which could be true, but I think there's also just disinterest there in doing so.
Going back to what I mentioned earlier about people generally being more willing to watch a vid than read a fic, I think there's a general law that convenience wins out over quality. The general population is more likely to watch vids than read and they are also more likely to watch certain vids. And that's where accessibility comes in. I think a lot of stuff such as vids or meta or certain kinds of fic that would probably be very useful discussion fodder are not all that accessible, and I think as a general rule people don't like to feel stupid. Or bored. I have definitely seen stuff posted from vids, to fic, to art to meta that I would have been glad to slap with the label "artistically pretentious" yet I'm sure there would also be people out there who would be ready to discuss in detail how very clever the particular work was. I might be interested in reading it, too, since I'd be curious to know what I was supposed to get out of it, but I could see why people might not. I think that to many people fannish stuff is like candy -- it's fun and colorful but why bother examining it?
I do tend to post reflective comments both to authors and artists directly, and in my account or through meta discussions. Occasionally an author or artist says they're delighted by the thought and detail; more often, there's no response beyond the usual perfunctory "Thank you, I'm glad you liked it!"
I can understand why that's disappointing, because if someone spent a lot of time composing a thoughtful response, it doesn't seem to be worth the trouble for that kind of reply. On the other hand, I can also understand why writers who are pressed for time want to acknowledge the comment but can't think of a suitable reply then, or are maybe even unsure whether they should say more (just a thank you is always a safe reply).
I think it just comes down to timing and personality. I've sometimes had people give wonderful responses with tidbits about the story to my usually simple comments, and sometimes just a standard one when I expected them to say more. Sometimes I've wanted to reply to their replies but either didn't have the time to get into a conversation then, or wasn't sure if they wanted a further conversation either. Maybe by not doing so, I've left them feeling they said too much? I think it's just the nature of online communication that it's tough to know what the other person wants out of the transaction.