![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
valarltdWe're all thoroughly modern folks. We expect a certain level of intertextuality from our media. Everyone does, and always has. See all the allusions in Shakespeare or the political commentary of Dante. So we chuckle along, getting the joke when Wolverine is asked "Would you prefer yellow spandex" or when Dr. Declan Gage (played by John Glover) enters on the line "Speak of the Devil." (Law & Order:Criminal Intent. 2006, ep: Blind Spot) As times change, the allusions are relegated to footnotes.
As fans, this is doubly true. Quotes, inside jokes and allusions are how we communicate.
But lately in my reading, I've noticed a distressing level of meta/intertextuality/Undue Outside Influence. I feel, when I can point to this, that and the other and say "well, that's from this and that's from that," when the objects in question are supposed to be new and novel ideas, that maybe, just maybe, we're running out of ideas. At the very least, the story feels cobbled together or like a retread. As one friend said of a novel and as I said of "Fear Itself", "Nothing we haven't seen elsewhere, and better, dozens of times."
Some would fault me for this as well. After all, a Robin Hood novel? Where you quoted Men in Tights? Seriously? And you want US to feel bad about borrowing a demonic nurse or a child-molesting villain or a clan of inbred cannibals from the Uncanny Valley and dropping them into ordinary lives?
No, not "feel bad." Be aware of what you've done and ask yourself what new twist am I bringing to this? What purpose does this story serve and what am I gaining by telling it in this way? (money is a perfectly valid gain, never think otherwise)
When I research, I read until the experts start repeating each other. When I read novels, I read until the author starts repeating zirself.
As fans, this is doubly true. Quotes, inside jokes and allusions are how we communicate.
But lately in my reading, I've noticed a distressing level of meta/intertextuality/Undue Outside Influence. I feel, when I can point to this, that and the other and say "well, that's from this and that's from that," when the objects in question are supposed to be new and novel ideas, that maybe, just maybe, we're running out of ideas. At the very least, the story feels cobbled together or like a retread. As one friend said of a novel and as I said of "Fear Itself", "Nothing we haven't seen elsewhere, and better, dozens of times."
Some would fault me for this as well. After all, a Robin Hood novel? Where you quoted Men in Tights? Seriously? And you want US to feel bad about borrowing a demonic nurse or a child-molesting villain or a clan of inbred cannibals from the Uncanny Valley and dropping them into ordinary lives?
No, not "feel bad." Be aware of what you've done and ask yourself what new twist am I bringing to this? What purpose does this story serve and what am I gaining by telling it in this way? (money is a perfectly valid gain, never think otherwise)
When I research, I read until the experts start repeating each other. When I read novels, I read until the author starts repeating zirself.
