I definitely agree! I think part of the attraction of fan fiction for me is that certain TV shows (I rarely read fanfic based on books just because the difference in authorial voice really throws me off) have become part of my own personal mythology. As such, it's horribly graitfying to find other people who share that same "mythology" and who are creating a dialogue/monologue/whatyouwill with it via LJ or mailing lists. So while Buffy or Angel may not be part of the greater public consciousness of the world, it is a large part of the greater public consciousness among many people whose LJ's I read... it's a little like sharing a secret language.
I think this is what stakebait is getting at as well; I just didn't catch it in quite the same way on the first read. My bad. I loved the show, and loved to bitch about the show, but I think much of early Buffy spoke to mythologies that were already present for me. So my reaction is slightly different; it's not better or worse, just different. I can pick up the language, I can talk about the show endlessly -- but it's not settled roots in me in a way that could make it part of my internal landscape.
If I do a riff on Beauty and the Beast, for instance, I can reconfigure it in so many ways it's not recognizeable to a vast majority of readers. Or I can stay close to its roots, and play it out in an entirely different context. I'm playing with what's already there. To do that with Buffy I'd have to be writing something that wasn't Buffy, if that makes any sense. Transfiguring the source wouldn't work in the same way as working with it. Retelling Buffy in an entirely different context wouldn't be Buffy for me.
It's partly because there's so much that's already mythic in the show; elements of Buffy that have already come from elsewhere. Not the character herself -- but she's a hero, worked into a modern context, with modern subtext.
If I retell B&B (the fairy tale, not the show), I can name Beauty anything I want; I can name the Beast anything I want; I can make his castle a penthouse; I can make his curse different; I can make the resolution different in a way that still speaks to the original.
If I retell Buffy, I don't have that leeway. Writing about an adolescent who is the chosen one and who has to come to terms with the responsibility of duty and power is already done all the time; I would have to turn it inside out, but still have it be recognizeable when it's been remade. I'm not sure if I'm stating this clearly -- does this make any sense to you?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 10:13 pm (UTC)I think this is what
If I do a riff on Beauty and the Beast, for instance, I can reconfigure it in so many ways it's not recognizeable to a vast majority of readers. Or I can stay close to its roots, and play it out in an entirely different context. I'm playing with what's already there. To do that with Buffy I'd have to be writing something that wasn't Buffy, if that makes any sense. Transfiguring the source wouldn't work in the same way as working with it. Retelling Buffy in an entirely different context wouldn't be Buffy for me.
It's partly because there's so much that's already mythic in the show; elements of Buffy that have already come from elsewhere. Not the character herself -- but she's a hero, worked into a modern context, with modern subtext.
If I retell B&B (the fairy tale, not the show), I can name Beauty anything I want; I can name the Beast anything I want; I can make his castle a penthouse; I can make his curse different; I can make the resolution different in a way that still speaks to the original.
If I retell Buffy, I don't have that leeway. Writing about an adolescent who is the chosen one and who has to come to terms with the responsibility of duty and power is already done all the time; I would have to turn it inside out, but still have it be recognizeable when it's been remade. I'm not sure if I'm stating this clearly -- does this make any sense to you?