Some late night musings
Apr. 17th, 2004 12:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swatkatI was just thinking about the question by our curious friend on the FFMB, and wondering how I would feel about a Section-skewed story with Michael/Terry instead of Michael/Nikita; or a story (Section-skewed, totally AU, whatever) where they would be brother and sister. The only reaction was "Ewww! No way!" That got me thinking more (er, sometimes I think too much) about the widely different fannish reactions regarding canon deviation in the two fandoms I'm mostly associated with.
HP, with all its characters and very little canon romance (thank you JKR, and please keep it that way) allows all kinds of pairings that actually fit in canon. Simplest example would be all the Hermione pairings – Harry/Hermione, Ron/Hermione, Draco/Hermione, Snape/Hermione, Remus/Hermione (too little), and Krum/Hermione (the oddest thing is – this is the only pairing confirmed in canon, and I've seen this in what? – two fics). And I haven't even touched upon the rarer pairings or femmeslash (OT – I have never, ever seen Lockhart/Hermione, and that is so canon *eg*). But even when the pairing isn't canon, and can no way ever be canon, there is always *some* interest about it. And talented authors can make the characters act IC even as they deviate from canon. Even some of the popular slash pairings can fall in this category *coughHarryDracocough* (okay, so I can't read Harry/Draco). LFN OTOH has pretty limited scope in this aspect, because canon has very specific pairings and centres around them – you can do pairings, but in most cases it would make the characters act OOC.
However, I'm always surprised at the lack of experimental fics of any form in LFN. We chatted about the lack of sex – but that's not the only thing here. I think I'll have to give an example again – Sirius/Remus is canon (yes, it is). There are many devoted S/R shippers who love the two characters and can't bear the thought of them paired with anyone else. But there are also people who don't particularly care for any one of them, and therefore pair them with other characters, and make it work. They do it by accepting Sirius/Remus in their plots. But it always surprises me that there is no LFN story (Mary Sues don't count) pairing Michael successfully with any other character, male or female. I mean, there are plenty of people who couldn't care less about Nikita and would happily see him paired forever with Elena. And canon does give some opportunities – even if they're small. I won't buy the small fandom argument, because back in the days the fandom may not have been as big as HP, but it wasn't too small either. (IMO, it's still not as small we think it is. It's just that there is a sudden dearth of good writers – almost all the authors I care about are here, in my flist *sigh*)
Again coming back to totally fantastic pairings. HP – and LOTR too – has abundance of pairings that are not canon and will never be canon. Except for those few strangely OOC Michael/Davenport fics, I haven't seen any such pairings in LFN. The general fannish reaction will always be "Ewww!" (except with Mary Sue, perhaps *snerk*)![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nell65 talked about the incestfic that never happened (not that I'm disappointed really). In HP, it would happen. And it would work.
I'm sure none of the above made any sense, so I'll just sum up echoing Curious: Why aren't there any different pairings in LFN (hang canon)? How come they never became popular? Why is our reaction so different?
And that said, Michael/Nikita is still my OTP. So there. *vbeg*
I did think of posting this on the FFMB for opinions, but there's no point in spamming the board with my vague ramblings. So, you all will have to read this instead.
~
Good thing: I just received news that my dear kitty (she lives at my grandfather's place in the small town where I come from) has given birth to four lovely kittens. They all seem quite healthy so far, and she is currently bringing down the house demanding food. Bad thing: I have no idea when I'll get to meet them, seeing that I can't visit too often. By the time I do, they'll probably be all grown-up and running wild.
HP, with all its characters and very little canon romance (thank you JKR, and please keep it that way) allows all kinds of pairings that actually fit in canon. Simplest example would be all the Hermione pairings – Harry/Hermione, Ron/Hermione, Draco/Hermione, Snape/Hermione, Remus/Hermione (too little), and Krum/Hermione (the oddest thing is – this is the only pairing confirmed in canon, and I've seen this in what? – two fics). And I haven't even touched upon the rarer pairings or femmeslash (OT – I have never, ever seen Lockhart/Hermione, and that is so canon *eg*). But even when the pairing isn't canon, and can no way ever be canon, there is always *some* interest about it. And talented authors can make the characters act IC even as they deviate from canon. Even some of the popular slash pairings can fall in this category *coughHarryDracocough* (okay, so I can't read Harry/Draco). LFN OTOH has pretty limited scope in this aspect, because canon has very specific pairings and centres around them – you can do pairings, but in most cases it would make the characters act OOC.
However, I'm always surprised at the lack of experimental fics of any form in LFN. We chatted about the lack of sex – but that's not the only thing here. I think I'll have to give an example again – Sirius/Remus is canon (yes, it is). There are many devoted S/R shippers who love the two characters and can't bear the thought of them paired with anyone else. But there are also people who don't particularly care for any one of them, and therefore pair them with other characters, and make it work. They do it by accepting Sirius/Remus in their plots. But it always surprises me that there is no LFN story (Mary Sues don't count) pairing Michael successfully with any other character, male or female. I mean, there are plenty of people who couldn't care less about Nikita and would happily see him paired forever with Elena. And canon does give some opportunities – even if they're small. I won't buy the small fandom argument, because back in the days the fandom may not have been as big as HP, but it wasn't too small either. (IMO, it's still not as small we think it is. It's just that there is a sudden dearth of good writers – almost all the authors I care about are here, in my flist *sigh*)
Again coming back to totally fantastic pairings. HP – and LOTR too – has abundance of pairings that are not canon and will never be canon. Except for those few strangely OOC Michael/Davenport fics, I haven't seen any such pairings in LFN. The general fannish reaction will always be "Ewww!" (except with Mary Sue, perhaps *snerk*)
nell65 talked about the incestfic that never happened (not that I'm disappointed really). In HP, it would happen. And it would work. I'm sure none of the above made any sense, so I'll just sum up echoing Curious: Why aren't there any different pairings in LFN (hang canon)? How come they never became popular? Why is our reaction so different?
And that said, Michael/Nikita is still my OTP. So there. *vbeg*
I did think of posting this on the FFMB for opinions, but there's no point in spamming the board with my vague ramblings. So, you all will have to read this instead.
~
Good thing: I just received news that my dear kitty (she lives at my grandfather's place in the small town where I come from) has given birth to four lovely kittens. They all seem quite healthy so far, and she is currently bringing down the house demanding food. Bad thing: I have no idea when I'll get to meet them, seeing that I can't visit too often. By the time I do, they'll probably be all grown-up and running wild.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I wish I knew the answer!
Date: 2004-04-16 08:32 pm (UTC)Now, I haven't read HP (yet! I know I've promised you to look at at least one book, and I shall), but I get the impression that although Harry is the main character and the focus of the books, the "universe" JKR created and its various denizens is just as much an important part of the draw for people.
With LFN, although it certainly has its own very interesting universe, most fans seem to have been drawn to it because of the romance element of the plot. Michael/Nikita *is* the series to them, and everything else really is secondary at best, and maybe even completely uninteresting.
You could think of it in terms of fiction genres -- HP is squarely in the fantasy realm, where the setting and universe and entire cast of characters is a major part of the attraction for readers. LFN -- although I don't know that the creators really intended this -- could be argued to be in the romance genre, where the pairing is the whole point of the story, and the "universe" merely a colorful backdrop that provides dramatic obstacles for the couple to overcome in their quest to be together. While *I* don't approach LFN in that way (it's action/adventure or a thriller to me, I guess, if I had to pick a genre I would want to conceive of it as), I think the majority of fans respond to it that way.
Yeah, but....
Date: 2004-04-16 09:05 pm (UTC)It isn't just high fanatsy vs. 'the rest'.
It's like - Section story telling is through a microscope while others are 16mm wide screen.
So if you mess with the canon pairings, you aren't just alternate reality versions of canon, you totally screw with canon. As I understand it, in HP for example, all the best noncanon pairing stories take pains to set them into the overall context of the story of Voldemort vs. the world. They can do that *because* there is that overarching story.
There is no 'overarching' story in LFN that all the characters are merely players in. If you decide for example, and I think this has plenty of canon hints, to write Michael/Madeline (which I don't think anyone but BetsyG ever has and she did it AU) - it completely blows every single canon situation and event out of the water - you can't 'slip it into' canon - you have to warp canon to do it, essentially creating your own, new OOC Sectionverse as you go.
I couldn't do it because I don't feel at all sure enough of the Section!verse to mess with playing with it just enough to make that pairing work.
So - it is something about the canon story itself that limits the canon story telling possibilities; I think the AU world just reflects that.
Nell
But..but...!
Date: 2004-04-16 09:23 pm (UTC)The contrast I was making was more Romance Genre versus the rest. HP happens to be Fantasy (as does LOTR); Star Trek (which also generates 8 billion pairing varieties) would be SciFi; other genres such as Thrillers, Action/Adventure, Cop Shows, or even traditional dramas, etc., would all behave differently from Romance.
In Romance, the pairing *is* the point. Mess with the pairing and you no longer have the story.
LFN may have been created as an Espionage/Action drama, but it came to function in most of its characteristics as a Romance. And I think that fanfic arising out of any canon source in the Romance genre is going to be similar to LFN in terms of having a paucity of pairing varieties.
There *are* romance works where the settings/universes are vividly detailed -- but I'm willing to bet that if there's any fanfic associated with it, there is *still* very little in the way of pairing experimentation.
True -
Date: 2004-04-16 09:48 pm (UTC)There is Austen fanfic - and I think it *does* experiment with noncanon pairings. Because her canvas is big enough for it, hell her stories are many of them mix and match efforts in the first place, so re mixing and re matching is as easy as breathing in those universes.
I don't think the Romance genre is necessarily limited to small canvas stories - I think LFN was small canvas, and then fell back on romance because TPTB had very limited immaginations.
Nell
LOL, it's the chicken and egg question, isn't it?
Date: 2004-04-16 09:59 pm (UTC)I will admit that I'm not very familiar with Austen, much less Austen fanfic (I tried reading Pride and Prejudice many years ago, and couldn't get through it, LOL). Perhaps it does have some experimentation (so does LFN, for that matter), but is it at the same level of frequency as fanfic in non-romance genres? If so, I would be very surprised.
I think TPTB turned LFN into a romance because they found themselves with a largely female audience drooling over the male lead, rather than because they had a small canvas.
Except they NEVER admitted that -
Date: 2004-04-16 10:55 pm (UTC)They insisted, all the way practically to the bitter end that their primary audience for LFN was males 18-35 - that the WWW and LFN appealed to the same dynamic. Idiots.
Besides, if they'd paid attention to the bulk of the RD drooling audience, they would have written Michael a bloody haram and pushed Nikita off a cliff.
I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on romance as a genre - but I really don't think it as limiting story-wise as you make it out to be. I'm not a huge fan of bodice ripers myself, I never picked one up until about six years ago...but I've loved Austen since I was a kid, and Heyer as soon as I read her - because they write in hugely complex worlds.
I'm not so sure but that the entire category of regency romance, to take an example, isn't *all* Austen/Heyer fanfic in one way or another - once they established that the Regency period had endless possibilities, hundreds of writers have played there, writing thousands of new pairings and variations on the old.
There is also endless possibility in canon Austen or Heyer, or their many immitators, for slash - and I suspect it is being written.
In fact, I'd bet there is a fair amount of slash fic for AE's most recent Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth.
I think the challenge - and to some degree the appeal - of LFN as a story writing universe is that it is limited, and that Section isn't fleshed out, forcing a almost all fic into studies of characters in claustrophobic situations. Situations where the canon interpersonal dynamics *are* the most fleshed out part of the universe - making them very difficult to play with in the same way that you can with other material.
Hmmmm
Date: 2004-04-17 12:00 am (UTC)I have always thought that the defining characteristic of "Romance" as a genre is that it involves a storyline where the primary focus is the relationship between a couple. The limitation of the plot is thus inherent in the genre -- if it isn't first and foremost "about" a relationship, then it isn't romance at all -- once it gets more complex than that, it becomes something else: maybe historical fiction, but not romance. But perhaps I'm jumping to the wrong conclusions out of a lack of knowledge.
The other thing that I guess I have trouble with is the idea of the "small canvas" -- to me, the fact that lots of things about Section's world were left undefined doesn't make the canvas small -- it makes it blank -- that is, very tempting to fill in. We know enough to make it tantalizing to think about, but not so much that it's set in stone and thus constricting creatively. So, to me, the lack of details about the setting doesn't lead to an inability to focus on anything but the main canon relationships. That's why I find myself searching for another explanation.
I don't know. Now I think I have even *less* of an idea about why it's like it is! LOL.
OMG! The fanfic!
Date: 2004-04-17 01:08 am (UTC)These labors of love are extraordinary - and many - and while I didn't sign on to any of the 'Racier' sites - which all require it out of interest in protecting 'younger readers' - but there is clearly much racy fic, especially on the 'firthness' fansite. LOL!
Hard to find many open references to slash - what with the whole awarness of young readers issue, but I'd lay money it's there. Also while most stories were canon couples - it wasn't all the main ones, other couples made appearences, and yes - I saw some highschool AUs. They are everywhere. Be afraid. Very afraid. LOL!
As for romance as a category/genre? Well - I did some quick googling on that too; and the definition you're using (focus on a single pair falling in love) is closer to that than mine was, because basically the defintions leave out my two favorites Austen and Heyer - both of whom I've always thought of as writing romance.
I thought it was a genre about courtship as much as love, and about the issue of getting men and women paired off so they can get on to the business of living, ie producing and raising children, as much as individual passion.
One of the sites also dismissed 'regency romance' as 'sweet' - apparently meaning no sex scenes or violence. My favorite Heyer's aren't 'sweet' at all; she has a very sharp and witty tongue and almost everyone in her best stories is wonderfully, imperfectly human, and many of hte secondary characters are cruelly described buffoons. Austen, writing contemproary fic inher own time, had a wicked eye and tongue too. The 'sweet' thing mystifies me altogether. So I'm guessing they're talking about something else? That I haven't read?
On the other hand, LFN doesn't really fit the category either as the "Romance" stressors (for marketing purposes) are all on happy endings, 'taming' the wild man, and no moral ambituities. LOL!
So I don't know what Austen is, or what LFN was once it made the Nikita/Michael story central rather than secondary.
Back to the original topic: I think (though I could be wrong!) that I meant 'blank' as much as I meant 'small' - that the world of Section was not well described or filled in. I know you've enjoyed filling it in. And that others have. But - not everyone does, or can.
I've been very frustrated by the blankness anyway, especially in comparison to some of my other favorite stories....which may also be because I wasn't a taper, and transcripts aren't enough to work from to get a 'sense' of the envrionment, which I really need to be able to write.
Wow, consider me educated!
Date: 2004-04-17 01:35 am (UTC)And what is Heyer's full name? If her stuff is good, I'd be willing to take a look. I suppose I should even give Austen another try -- she bored me senseless when I tried to read her in high school, but it's always possible my tastes have changed given how long ago *that* was. LOL.
On the other hand, LFN doesn't really fit the category either as the "Romance" stressors (for marketing purposes) are all on happy endings, 'taming' the wild man, and no moral ambituities. LOL!
I always assumed that was one of the reasons the fans seemed to feel *so* betrayed by the ending: they thought of the series as a Romance, and did *not* get the conclusion they felt they were owed.
Re: Wow, consider me educated!
Date: 2004-04-17 02:11 am (UTC)Try Austin again. I found I could read (and love) Austin after seeing it and I highly recommend the A&E version of Pride and Prejudice and the Emma Thompson version of Sense and Sensibility.
I dunno about the theory of why fans felt betrayed at the end of S5... I do NOT consider myself an HR at all and I hated the end. But, more accurately, I hated all of Season Five. I hated what they did to the show, to the characters I loved so much. I *did* rather like the way they ended 4LYF, although most fans (HRs?) didn't.
Re: Wow, consider me educated!
Date: 2004-04-17 02:54 am (UTC)But as for the ending, most of hte HR's I know who were still there at the end of S5 *did* like the ending with M/N acknowledging their love, then being pulled apart, not put together. Or at least, found it satisfying in the context of LFN.
Not that they haven't been equally happy to play with post S5 reuniting fic...but in a sense, it was nice that canon left that open ended for more story telling.
The outrage I remember was over the end of S4 and the whole mole/never-loved-you bit. But, after my intial shock over the 'I never loved you' line, I like FLYF - and I liked it just fine right up until that moment, then something like twenty minutes of 'whaaaa///?????', then - oh yeah. Cool.
And I'm about as HR as you can get.
What I think the 'fans' who howled didn't like was the idea that Nikita had secrets from Michael, and turned out to be just as good at playing her own game as he was at playing his. Feh on them.
~~~~~~~~~~
And yes, it's Georgette Heyer. Regency Romance is the category for fiction set, roughly, during the Regency period in England - more or less 1800 to 1825ish - think high-wasted dresses and Napoleonic Wars and you're in the right time zone. Heyer (pronouced hair if you're feeling very British) actually wrote a fair amount of historical fic for the period just before the Regency - more Georgian England - but the make-up on the men hasn't been a big hit in the late twentieth century. LOL!
Who knows - with the rise of 'metropoltian' men - it may make a big comeback soon. ;)
Did I mention I found an entire slash archive (also requiring a sign in) devoted to novels set in the regency/Napoleonic period but focused on all the various naval series/authors/stories? Austen - who wrote about handsome Naval officers more than once, is listed as one of hte authors whose stories are fair game...though of course its more Hornblower/latest Russel Crowe sailing film series (which MrNell and my father have both read *every single volume of*) whose name I can't remember.
After some more thinking/googling I realized that Austen, and to some degree Heyer, are more generally considered 'comedy of manners' novelists, and not romance novelists at all.
Which sheds precisely no light at all on the issue of why LFN canon is so resistent to alternative pairings, especially given that Michael and Niktia both had relationships with other people, forced *and* willing, and so did Madeline and Operations. Color me still completely baffled on that front.
Nell
Yes, I've read all your posts...
Date: 2004-04-17 06:36 am (UTC)This is waaay OT, but I'd like to ask you a few questions about these Regency romances, and historical romances in general. You'll be shocked to know how little romance fiction I've read (long story *g*), and most of it was, well, crap. So I'd like to know a few things about good historical fiction for a change. *g* So, how far do you think these stories succeed in portraying the society of that period? While I'm sure most modern authors are smart enough to avoid anachronisms, do they also manage to portray their characters as convincing members of, say, early 19th century England? I'll give you an exmaple - take Elizabeth. She's as 'universal' as it gets (and that's why we still love her so much), but she's also very much a early 19th century girl. And so is everyone else in the novel. Now, it must've been easier for Austen because it was her society, but the little modern fiction I've read left me pretty disillusioned because the characters, for all the affectations and careful use of language, seemed like 20th century women placed in the early 19th century. *sigh*
After some more thinking/googling I realized that Austen, and to some degree Heyer, are more generally considered 'comedy of manners' novelists, and not romance novelists at all.
Actually, that's true about Austen. Austen is as anti-romantic as it gets (funny that a part of writing career overlapped with the 'Romantic' age), especially when compared to your typical romance fiction. Her novels, although centering around the romantic relationships (which are always very warm and sincere), are primarily comedies of manners. She's always more concerned about the social behaviour of her characters rather than their love affairs. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's almost no passionate romantic avowals in her novels. She reports those parts, skipping to the next part in the story.
On topic: What I think the 'fans' who howled didn't like was the idea that Nikita had secrets from Michael, and turned out to be just as good at playing her own game as he was at playing his. Feh on them.
They still howl, and 'word'. *g*
Swatkat
Well, now that I'm a little clearer on the
Date: 2004-04-17 03:48 pm (UTC)What confused me is that Heyer is located in the 'romance' section of the bookstore; and while her heroes usually do get to actually say "I love you" and sound like they really mean it (of course, Darcy gets to say that too, LOL!), her books are much closer to Austen than say, your standard bodice ripper.
I can't abide 'modern romance' - the characters never seem very real to me, and their problems are always too silly, or too real, either way - it isn't enough of an escape from my daily routine. I do occasionally read historical romance - mostly to be taken to a different place from my regular life - though if hte history sucks I can't.
But research is easier and easier to do well, so the history is usually pretty solid, especially for the better known writers. The problem, as you say, is that the heroine usually ends up seeming like a late twentieth century American chick plunked down via a time machine in some other setting. And honestly, so do the rest of the characters. The bulk of the romantic conflict is usually of the 'women can't do that/yes they can' variety.
The writers who actually aspire to create historically accurate mental universes for their characters aren't usually considered romance writers at all, just historical novelists. There the issue is the same as with any other novelist - have they created compelling characters in interesting situations that you can come to care about?
For me, the answer is often 'no' - but then, like I said, I'm really picky these days about what I'll read. I didn't like 'Girl with a Pearl Earing' - because honestly I didn't warm to Gerta, or whatever her name was, so I didn't in the end care very much what happened to her - as a result, I didn't finish the book. I thought the artist's wife and mother in law were both much more interesting women and would rather have read books about them.
MrNell gave me a novel about Eleanor of Acquataine - a historical figure I'm fascinated by - and I HATED it. Though I haven't told him so. It reduced this woman who ran a quarter of France in her own right, who married two kings and gave birth to several more and through her daughters created alliances from Spain to Germany, to a woman who never had a chance to be with her 'one true love.' It also turned Henry into a toad of the first order from the moment he walked onto the scene. Louis didn't come off all that well either. I wanted to read about a woman with a will to power who played the game with the best minds of her time; not a normal, if smart, woman with homely desires for love, hearth and home thrust into difficult situations by an accident of birth.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-17 05:10 pm (UTC)Are these the same bookstores where the assisstants stare when you ask about Philip Pullman (although they've a rack full of his works), and you have to spell out the names (P-U-L-L, yes, it's PULLman) so that they can look in the computer? *g*
But research is easier and easier to do well, so the history is usually pretty solid, especially for the better known writers. The problem, as you say, is that the heroine usually ends up seeming like a late twentieth century American chick plunked down via a time machine in some other setting. And honestly, so do the rest of the characters. The bulk of the romantic conflict is usually of the 'women can't do that/yes they can' variety.
Just as I was afraid. I'm not sure why genre is so popular, but I really can't read a book if the characters are so skewed.
MrNell gave me a novel about Eleanor of Acquataine - a historical figure I'm fascinated by - and I HATED it. Though I haven't told him so. It reduced this woman who ran a quarter of France in her own right, who married two kings and gave birth to several more and through her daughters created alliances from Spain to Germany, to a woman who never had a chance to be with her 'one true love.' It also turned Henry into a toad of the first order from the moment he walked onto the scene. Louis didn't come off all that well either. I wanted to read about a woman with a will to power who played the game with the best minds of her time; not a normal, if smart, woman with homely desires for love, hearth and home thrust into difficult situations by an accident of birth.
I generally avoid reading fictional stories about great historical characters, simply because they skew the characters so much.
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-04-16 08:40 pm (UTC)I think there is something about the canon source, TV LFN itself that limits the scope of stories as well as pairings, though I'm only dimly begining to see the story telling reasons why.
I'm not a major HP fan, and have read only snatches of bad HP fic on Pottersues/Deleterious so I can't speak to more than being aware of the vast range of pairings - with the bizzare absence of the actual canon Hermonie/Krum.
But I am a big Farscape fan, and have been watching my way through the season one DVD's this winter (bless netflix). Now, I am a John/Aryn fangirl of the first order, being hopelessly romantic and quite het focused just by personality and taste in RL as well as all my fanish sensibilities. However, 3/4 through S1 I can see potential stories featuring any of the regulars with just about any other regular as well with as several one or two shot guest players.
So - what is the difference?
I think - and I'm feeling my way to this - that it is scale. Farscape (and HP and LOTR and BtVS/Angel....) are all written on huge canvases, lots of plots and subplots, many subplots wholly independent of the main story arc, but they can be there because the story universes are just so darn BIG! Lots of people, and this is important, that we know by name and have a place and obvious stories of their own that weave in and out and through the main character's lives. There is a sense of, for lack of a better word right now, contingency in those story telling worlds, where anything might have happened at any point to set the stories intermingling in different ways.
Not so in LFN. LFN was/is an oddly minaturist universe in story telling scope by comparison, despite being a 'global' force. The story focuses very tightly on Nikita and Michael, then Madeline and Operations, with Birkoff and Walter in very secondary roles. There are very few recurring characters of significance and virtually all of them die as a result of tangling with Section. Those that don't, like Mick, end up with such bizzare stories it's hard to work with them at all.
The universe they operate in, Section, rather than being a fully fleshed out world that we can easily imagine lots of different stories in, is instead a very shadowy backdrop for the single story arc of the world of Section slowly breaking Nikita to its harness.
We've had lots of go rounds about Section - its size, its operations, its purpose - and we can have them *because* it wasn't clearly fixed in canon, rather it shifted around all the time.
Hogwarts has solid reality and deep history in its walls, Middle earth is huge and ancient and alive, Moya and her crew travel a richly detailed Universe with clearly drawn political and cultural alliances and conflicts. Joss Wheadon's universe - by all reports - was extremely consistent and rationally folded into the world the rest of us know.
Section? Has none of these things. It dosen't (in canon) have a rich history, or a complex view of terrorism and its causes. Despite the ethnic nature of terrorism in the world, the terrorism that Section fought was this bizzarely neutered 'bad thing'. You can't write a story, from canon, about Leon in Red Cell - because we know crap all about Red Cell. But you can write stories about Saruman, or Crais, or Scorpious, Tom Riddle and Lucious Malfoy - we *know* where they came from and can guess at their motivations, see where they might be fodder for other things.
On Moya, all the crew have different agendas, dreams, hopes, issues, enemies. Not in conflict with each other (though often over resources) just, different.
Section, in contrast, never felt like it existed in any space but it's own. All characters inside Section, major and minor, have the same situation to face, the same moral issues to settle, the same imperative to do what Section demands or die. They don't really *have* different, contingent stories that happen to intersect in comm. They all have the same story, survive in a world they hate, or die.
Part Two. My conclusion - such as it is. LOL!
Date: 2004-04-16 08:52 pm (UTC)I KNOW the major reason I'm drawn to writing as well as reading AU is that the insubstantial nature of Section frustrates the hell out of me, so by choosing my own, more substantial, terrain I can imagine characters with lots of different, contengent story lines in a way that canon Section defeats for me.
As for the OTP pairing thing, I think that is actually a symptom of the larger issue of the smallness of the Section universe, and not the cause.
Nell
no subject
Date: 2004-04-17 03:29 pm (UTC)Now, speaking about the nature of the Wizarding World and Section - actually, I find them very similar in a way, which is the reason why I asked this question. Potterverse is *not* that rich or impeccable. There are very few things that are concretely defined in canon - everything else is for us to imagine. Like Sectionverse, there are quite a number of holes - to JKR's credit though, she tries to be consistent. And her writing is vivid. But then, so is Section, because we got to *see* things. It's very difficult to work out everything - and yet there are numerous fics, from fics that deal with the era of the founding fathers of Hogwarts, to futurefics set after the 'War' (there are different sections in the fandom). And surely out of a fairly large fandom like LFN was back then, a *few* fans would be interesting in working out things from scratch and explain Section to us? Like JayBee did?
Because the outside world wasn't imagined in Section at all, and Section itself was a shadowy uncertain quantity, the stories in canon, and most of the fic, is very inward focused - that is, how will character x respond to situation y. It's all about navigating the internal world of section and its missions, either to survive romantically or professionally.
Yes, but why would character x always be Michael, Nikita, Paul and Madeline? How come there weren't others interested *at all* in the other characters? While I agree with you everyone in Section faces the same pressure, the situation for no two operatives could be the exact same thing, and neither could be their reaction. Nikita and Madeline wouldn't react to the same situation in the same manner. Didn't you mention Leon? We couldn't write a story from canon maybe, but we could make things up. No one knows what Grindelwald is, except that he/it was a Dark Wizard whom Dumbledore defeated once. That doesn't stop authors from writing stories about him.
I KNOW the major reason I'm drawn to writing as well as reading AU is that the insubstantial nature of Section frustrates the hell out of me, so by choosing my own, more substantial, terrain I can imagine characters with lots of different, contengent story lines in a way that canon Section defeats for me.
But that's just you, right? *g*
Swatkat
I don't think this is an answer to your question, but
Date: 2004-04-17 03:32 am (UTC)I don't think a story that posited an alternate pairing, where the other person *wasn't* demonized, would bother me at all. In fact, I've even considered writing Madeline/Charles stuff. (To a degree, that pairing is an inpportant part of my current WIP, although I haven't quite gotten to that part of the plot yet.) But if I ever do, I'm *not* going to make Paul a two-dimensional raging maniac in order to justify it.
Oh, same here, same here.
Date: 2004-04-17 03:18 pm (UTC)On the other hand, in the overwhelming majoring of MarySues - Niktia, where she simply hasn't inexplicably vanished - is writen off as a spoilded brat, a super bitch, or both - of if later on, as a cruelly manipulative witch who will do anything to get Michael into her bed.
I only know of one Marysue, AMW's first story, that treats Niktia with respect, and plausibly posits that Michael and Niktia *were* able to get together, but decided a la Elaine and Jerry Seinfeld, that they were better off friends and colleagues than lovers. The problem with that story was that the Mary Sue was so perfect, with such perfectly rough edges, and all her strengths were themselves implicit criticisms of Nikita - that AMW herself added an epilogue where the Mary Sue was revealed as a space alien who was trying to control Michael via mind-meld. LOL!
The problem with trying to create new pairings set in canon timelines, at least with Michael adn Nikita - whom I've obviously thought about a great deal, LOL - is that for pretty much all of canon their relationship, good, bad, happening or not, is intensely good or intensely bad or intensely happening or intensely not happening. Even when Niktia isn't talking to him, she is mostly very much "Not Talking To Michael" rather than simply letting him slip to the periphery of her life because she got busy with something else. And on the rare occassions that she was possibly slipping away out of sheer exhaustion, Michael made a major play to real her back in.
You have to break their connection to fit someone else in - and that is very hard to do. Not impossible - but really hard. And then question is, with who? There just aren't that many candidates in canon, especially given what we know happened.
For example, I could see Nikita/Mick - but only if Mick is *really Mick*. Nikita and Mick/Jones/Martin? No. For one thing, MJM wouldn't have the time. For another, Nikita wouldn't find the whole mislead-her-about-his-identity thing very attractive.
Nell
Firing away more questions...
Date: 2004-04-17 04:46 pm (UTC)That the keyword: 'canon timelines'. Why are we, as a fandom, so focused in canon when it comes to pairings, but when it comes to characterisation, canon can go to hell? Our use of AU is also very different. Why do you think the Nikita-haters never used AU to pair Michael with Elena/Simone/Madeline/Mary Sue? In HP I've read a few Lily/Remus AUs (did I just confess that? *g*), although Lily and James were very much in love in canon - they even got married, had a baby, and were living happily together until Voldie killed them.
Swatkat
Re: Firing away more questions...
Date: 2004-04-17 06:20 pm (UTC)Though least one writer I know of did pair Michael with Madeline in an AU (Betsy G and it looked great before silk angel forced her into hiding), and there may very well be more in some of the places I never looked - like the Alberta Watson board??
Elena - well, I think Elena is boring. And I don't see being with Elena making Michael particularly interesting, or revealing something interesting or new about him either. Though I have read a few stories about Elena *after* Michael's death where she does get interesting.....
In contrast, I think Remus and Lily would be interesting, just on their own, and then the way that would change the war would also be interesting. And I haven't even read the fifth HP book.
N
Heh
Date: 2004-04-17 07:24 pm (UTC)I quite like Elena - although she is boring compared to Nikita or Madeline or even Simone. Maybe it's her ordinariness that attracts me (the actress was annoying, though). But the question is again, you don't see her. Why wasn't anyone else even remotely interested in her? In HP, even the characters who make the briefest of appearances - like Angelina Jordan or Alicia Spinnet (the Gryffindor Quidditch girls) have someone to write about them. There are authors focused on writing about obscure, insignificant characters. I'm asking a lot of questions tonight. *g*
And I haven't even read the fifth HP book.
Anything I can say to convince you to read it? I'm good at convincing. *eg*
Swatkat
I'm waiting for the paperback - or to borrow one from a friend.
Date: 2004-04-18 12:53 am (UTC)quite like Elena - although she is boring compared to Nikita or Madeline or even Simone. Maybe it's her ordinariness that attracts me (the actress was annoying, though).
Oh, I like Elena well enough. I suspect that one big problem with Elena is that she *isn't* in Section. To write a story about Elena before we met her in canon is to basically write original fic about the daughter of a creepy terrorist/creepy whatever if you make it AU. There's no 'Section' there, or any overlap with the other characters besides Michael and Nikita - and then you're right back to the Michael and Nikita issue. Elena doesn't live with Section constraining her choices (or at least, not that she is aware of it). So - writing about her, again before we met her, doesn't bring us into the rest of the Section world.
In contrast even the minorist of wizarding characters *are* witches and wizzards and go to Hogwarts or teach at Hogwarts or had some role to play in the events we know about in the war with Voldemort...to write about them is also to write about the world JKR has created.
To write about canon Elena is to write about surburbia - not section. (though there is that excellent story about Elena's neighbor - to mention a completely obscure character who never even got a name, but has a good fic about her.....).
But the question is again, you don't see her. Why wasn't anyone else even remotely interested in her?
Well - to be fair, there *are* some good, or at least interesting, fics about Elena out there. Just because the bulk of the fanficdom hasn't been drawn to writing about her doesn't mean no one has.
I've imagined a lot of Michael backstory with Elena for several of my stories - but it is just that, backstory. Same with Michael/Peruze brothers, Michael/Terry, Nikita/Jurgen, Nikita/Gray, Michael/random fangirl....pairings I've alluded to or shown briefly, but haven't ever been the center of my attention.
N
The paperback's not out yet?
Date: 2004-04-18 05:39 am (UTC)Well - to be fair, there *are* some good, or at least interesting, fics about Elena out there. Just because the bulk of the fanficdom hasn't been drawn to writing about her doesn't mean no one has.
Hmm, actually I think I've seen some Elena stories too. But that makes her an exception, I guess, because none of the other characters ever got the amount of attention she got. And it's odd, because I agree with you when you say that she's not Section, which makes her sufficiently less interesting.
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-04-17 04:58 pm (UTC)you got me thinking about why I often gnash my teeth in disgust when I come across a story that pairs up one of *my* pair with someone else: it's because almost every story I've read that does so, accomplishes this by making the excluded member of the pair evil or insane or something.
Now that I think about it, Paul and Madeline *have* been paired with different people in different stories. But they are not successful pairings - they are stories written by HR authors who don't give a fig about Paul and Madeline as characters and use them as tools or background machinery. Do you think your reaction would've been different if someone did Madeline/George while keeping the characters straight? With the initial "Ewww! They broke my OTP!" of course. *g*
Swatkat
Good points
Date: 2004-04-17 05:44 pm (UTC)Well, I have my own ideas, and we'll see (if I ever finish) if you buy them. LOL.
Now that I think about it, Paul and Madeline *have* been paired with different people in different stories.
Yes, in quite a few, in fact. It's not uncommon at all.
But they are not successful pairings - they are stories written by HR authors who don't give a fig about Paul and Madeline as characters and use them as tools or background machinery.
That's exactly my gripe with most (not all) of these stories. They seem to randomly decide, "OK, one of these characters gets redeemed and decides to side with M&N in this one, so since now they're one of the good guys we'll pair them off with so-and-so, while the other one gets to be the crazed villain who gets killed/humiliated in the end." Or they bear no resemblance to the canon characters at all and get paired off with whoever, because it simply doesn't matter!
For someone who actually cares about these characters, these stories are excruciating -- not because of the non-canon pairing per se, but because of the horrific OCC-ness or blatant demonization of it all. But I find all the stories that treat Paul or Madeline as background furniture excruciating, whether or not an alternate pairing is involved.
Do you think your reaction would've been different if someone did Madeline/George while keeping the characters straight? With the initial "Ewww! They broke my OTP!" of course. *g*
Yeah, it would definitely be different. If someone could write Madeline/George without having to demonize/kill/humiliate Paul in the process, and without being wildly OCC, I could read it without cringing. In fact, I could probably even *write* Madeline/George if I put my mind to it. Or Paul/Adrian, for that matter. Or hell, even Adrian/Madeline. Definitely as AU, and I think you could even make any of those pairings work very well as canon if you set them in the pre-series past. (Please don't ask me to contemplate Paul/George, though!)
Re: Good points
Date: 2004-04-17 06:25 pm (UTC)But I've never been siezed by the desire to do so, and such a story has never flited across my brain of its own accord, the way the other stories I'm trying to write have.
And the interesting quesion is - Why haven't they? I'm not strongly OTP for any of the other universes I occasionally peak into, even where I do actually have a prefered pairing or two.
Nell
Exactly
Date: 2004-04-17 07:12 pm (UTC)And Nell, I just realised that you have in fact written Michael/Karl/Simon Peruze. *vbeg*
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-04-17 07:34 pm (UTC)*If* you ever finish? Cyanide, are you listening to this? *vbeg*
They seem to randomly decide, "OK, one of these characters gets redeemed and decides to side with M&N in this one, so since now they're one of the good guys we'll pair them off with so-and-so, while the other one gets to be the crazed villain who gets killed/humiliated in the end." Or they bear no resemblance to the canon characters at all and get paired off with whoever, because it simply doesn't matter!
Word. In most cases, it just doesn't matter. The authors just feel that they have to include Paul and Madeline - they were in canon after all. But it's done carelessly and half-heartedly, and the result shows. They'd probably not care if someone paired Paul with Birkoff (NO!), but beware the wrath of fangirls if you *dare* to write Michael/Birkoff!
If someone could write Madeline/George without having to demonize/kill/humiliate Paul in the process, and without being wildly OCC, I could read it without cringing.
And that's what has never been done. Pity.
In fact, I could probably even *write* Madeline/George if I put my mind to it. Or Paul/Adrian, for that matter. Or hell, even Adrian/Madeline. Definitely as AU, and I think you could even make any of those pairings work very well as canon if you set them in the pre-series past.
*ahem* I happen to think of Madeline/George and Adrian/Madeline as very very canon. Haven't really thought about Paul/Adrian before, but now that I think about it, it does work. That could explain the Adrian-Madeline relationship in a way, although I'd prefer Adrian/Madeline. *g* (She is like a little black dress in a way, isn't she? LOL)
Please don't ask me to contemplate Paul/George, though!
Why not? That sounds pretty canon too. :p
Swatkat
There's that black dress again!
Date: 2004-04-17 07:59 pm (UTC)Honestly? So do I. I even deliberately included undertones of (unacted-upon) Madeline/George in one of my stories, which Cyanide at least picked up on and teased me about, LOL. It would be soooooo easy to take that farther, and just as easy to do the same with Adrian/Madeline -- which, god help us, I probably *will* write someday. (Plotbunnies are already hopping about, I'm afraid.)
As for the little black dress, I've seen more than one person pair her with Walter (although one was insanely OOC, and another just made me laugh, and not in a good way). I've even come across a sincere attempt at Madeline/Birkoff, although *THAT* pairing squicks me beyond belief. Someone even put her with Mick-as-Jones, although that one was just vile (the whole story was just one repulsive sex act after another, involving all sorts of weird character combinations, I think written just for the sake of being as weird as possible).
Did I have a point? I think I've lost it. LOLOL!
no subject
Date: 2004-04-18 05:31 am (UTC)You did? And it's still there? *heads to the archives*
It would be soooooo easy to take that farther, and just as easy to do the same with Adrian/Madeline -- which, god help us, I probably *will* write someday. (Plotbunnies are already hopping about, I'm afraid.)
Hehehe... gotta love those bunnies. *eg*
Madeline/Walter - I don't know, it might be possible. Set in canon past, though. I can't imagine any scenario set in the present. I love Birkoff, but I run away as soon as a story shows signs of Birkoffsex because for some reason it squicks me beyond belief (it's the same with Ron Weasley, I don't know why *sigh).
Swatkat
LOL, yep
Date: 2004-04-18 05:43 am (UTC)>>You did? And it's still there? *heads to the archives*<<
It's in that long one, called "Intersections." If you pay attention to the Madeline/George interactions, you'll see it. LOL.
>>I love Birkoff, but I run away as soon as a story shows signs of Birkoffsex because for some reason it squicks me beyond belief (it's the same with Ron Weasley, I don't know why *sigh).<<
Birkoffsex makes me hide my eyes. I really don't know why! LOL.
Yes
Date: 2004-04-18 05:47 am (UTC)I *was* thinking of that story (darn I love that story!). I'll check - I need to reread some of yours anyway. *g*
Birkoffsex makes me hide my eyes. I really don't know why! LOL.
Neither do I. Poor Birkoff! LOL
Swatkat