On the Packaging of Fiction
Friday, July 3rd, 2009 11:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charmianWas thinking recently on fiction, and how it's presented and packaged:
We nowadays call this packaging "metadata" or paratext, or maybe even "marketing."
Firstly, I was recalling how back in the days when I read a lot of fanfic, how I wished it would be labeled:
*If the story is about, or features prominently, a couple, it should be labeled with that, or mentioned in the summary.
*I'd like any non-canonical couples to be labeled. (Obviously, I have no problem with people enjoying such pairings, though.) I have no expectation of being able to avoid canonical pairings I don't like, but a) if it's a story about a couple I don't like getting together, obviously I don't want to read that, and b) if the story simply presents the couple together out of the blue, then really, that's even MORE annoying, because I'm blindsided. (essentially this is because I wish to able to avoid fanon I dislike.)
*Instead of het, slash, femslash, and gen, people should characterize by plot-line-based genres, such as romance, erotica, adventure, mystery, horror, slice-of-life, realism, coming-of-age, family drama, soap opera, etc.
*If a story is pr0n/erotica, this should be communicated somehow.
*A good summary will communicate the premise of the story, hint at its intended audience, its themes, style, tone, the emotions it attempts to provoke, in short, give us a bit on what manner of beast it is, but if the rest is too hard, to explain the premise is sufficient.
All of this is supposed to substitute for the paratext/metadata of published works: What are the more important forms of metadata there?
*the publisher and the "brand": Obviously not available to any self-published authors, or authors who are new, or presses which are not established
*the cover: personally speaking, I really dislike seeing art which realistically depicts the characters, because I feel it interferes with my own interpretation. I much prefer abstract or stylized covers.
*the summary on the back of the cover/flyleaf
*quotations from reviewers/other authors/awards
The one which is personally the most important for me is the last: external "validation." However, it's important to note that I rarely go into a book "blind" and relying solely on the metadata within the book. Usually I read reviews beforehand. This is because it's not enough for me to simply like a premise, unless it's really unusual; I need confirmation that it's pulled off. In other words, I'm looking for "quality," not "description." We establish that something is a rabbit, but how good of a rabbit is it? Also, a lot of this metadata is not in the hands of the author: published writers frequently complain about covers and such, which indicates probably that a lot of that sort of thing is in the hands of the editors. The author is not in control of the "paratext," the frame in which their work will be read.
However, in an odd way, for the purposes of the "metadata" I am seeking and actually find helpful, the author is a totally unreliable source. Obviously no author is going to say their work is bad, right? And in another sense, the author can simply not have the perspective of a reader, since they wrote the thing.
We nowadays call this packaging "metadata" or paratext, or maybe even "marketing."
Firstly, I was recalling how back in the days when I read a lot of fanfic, how I wished it would be labeled:
*If the story is about, or features prominently, a couple, it should be labeled with that, or mentioned in the summary.
*I'd like any non-canonical couples to be labeled. (Obviously, I have no problem with people enjoying such pairings, though.) I have no expectation of being able to avoid canonical pairings I don't like, but a) if it's a story about a couple I don't like getting together, obviously I don't want to read that, and b) if the story simply presents the couple together out of the blue, then really, that's even MORE annoying, because I'm blindsided. (essentially this is because I wish to able to avoid fanon I dislike.)
*Instead of het, slash, femslash, and gen, people should characterize by plot-line-based genres, such as romance, erotica, adventure, mystery, horror, slice-of-life, realism, coming-of-age, family drama, soap opera, etc.
*If a story is pr0n/erotica, this should be communicated somehow.
*A good summary will communicate the premise of the story, hint at its intended audience, its themes, style, tone, the emotions it attempts to provoke, in short, give us a bit on what manner of beast it is, but if the rest is too hard, to explain the premise is sufficient.
All of this is supposed to substitute for the paratext/metadata of published works: What are the more important forms of metadata there?
*the publisher and the "brand": Obviously not available to any self-published authors, or authors who are new, or presses which are not established
*the cover: personally speaking, I really dislike seeing art which realistically depicts the characters, because I feel it interferes with my own interpretation. I much prefer abstract or stylized covers.
*the summary on the back of the cover/flyleaf
*quotations from reviewers/other authors/awards
The one which is personally the most important for me is the last: external "validation." However, it's important to note that I rarely go into a book "blind" and relying solely on the metadata within the book. Usually I read reviews beforehand. This is because it's not enough for me to simply like a premise, unless it's really unusual; I need confirmation that it's pulled off. In other words, I'm looking for "quality," not "description." We establish that something is a rabbit, but how good of a rabbit is it? Also, a lot of this metadata is not in the hands of the author: published writers frequently complain about covers and such, which indicates probably that a lot of that sort of thing is in the hands of the editors. The author is not in control of the "paratext," the frame in which their work will be read.
However, in an odd way, for the purposes of the "metadata" I am seeking and actually find helpful, the author is a totally unreliable source. Obviously no author is going to say their work is bad, right? And in another sense, the author can simply not have the perspective of a reader, since they wrote the thing.
