On the value of fluff.
Jun. 23rd, 2004 04:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusTime and again I see fluff maligned, and it is time to put a stop to this.
Why does fluff persist? Why do people seem to enjoy it so much?
Because "fluffy" or "happy" stories are inherently satisfying. Even though, like any happy situation, you're left wanting more. It works because of that sense of satisfaction; fluff has a "tonic note" where it all works out in the end and the plot's resolved.
But calling an interesting, complex plot with a happy ending "fluff" is like calling a compelling erotic story "porn." There's a world of difference between the two.
The classic "fluff" can be icky-sweet because:
1) there's never any doubt how it will end, and
2) the plot twists are predictable.
Now a story clearly moving towards a happy ending, which has devious plot twists, clearly does not deserve this disdain.
The best sort of "fluff" has an interesting plot that in the end strikes a chord within the reader. It can have a powerful resolution even without a tremendous amount of angst. The strength of "fluff" is just like the strength of a fairy tale: by the end, in a good story, you've managed to say something that's true.
Truth doesn't have to be dark or unhappy. Happy doesn't mean shallow.
The Old English tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight has a happy ending, but it's powerful, because Sir Gawain passes a test of character. Even if we know, as Sir Gawain is approached by the Green Knight's wife again and again, that he was likely to pass. At the resolution, you have the same respect the Green Knight has for Gawain.
Tolkien called this sense of resolution or satisfaction the "eucatastrophe," where for a moment you can see beyond the story.
I believe that "fluff" can have a lot of meaning and go beyond the superficial emotional torrent of many angst stories. It's the underlying meaning that gives any story its strength.
Icarus
While I do not accuse Prillalar's drabble of being fluffy, it is kissing, and quite lovely
Why does fluff persist? Why do people seem to enjoy it so much?
Because "fluffy" or "happy" stories are inherently satisfying. Even though, like any happy situation, you're left wanting more. It works because of that sense of satisfaction; fluff has a "tonic note" where it all works out in the end and the plot's resolved.
But calling an interesting, complex plot with a happy ending "fluff" is like calling a compelling erotic story "porn." There's a world of difference between the two.
The classic "fluff" can be icky-sweet because:
1) there's never any doubt how it will end, and
2) the plot twists are predictable.
Now a story clearly moving towards a happy ending, which has devious plot twists, clearly does not deserve this disdain.
The best sort of "fluff" has an interesting plot that in the end strikes a chord within the reader. It can have a powerful resolution even without a tremendous amount of angst. The strength of "fluff" is just like the strength of a fairy tale: by the end, in a good story, you've managed to say something that's true.
Truth doesn't have to be dark or unhappy. Happy doesn't mean shallow.
The Old English tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight has a happy ending, but it's powerful, because Sir Gawain passes a test of character. Even if we know, as Sir Gawain is approached by the Green Knight's wife again and again, that he was likely to pass. At the resolution, you have the same respect the Green Knight has for Gawain.
Tolkien called this sense of resolution or satisfaction the "eucatastrophe," where for a moment you can see beyond the story.
I believe that "fluff" can have a lot of meaning and go beyond the superficial emotional torrent of many angst stories. It's the underlying meaning that gives any story its strength.
Icarus
While I do not accuse Prillalar's drabble of being fluffy, it is kissing, and quite lovely
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 05:21 pm (UTC)Sometimes I am completely speechless at how well you use language to explain your thoughts.
This is one of those times.
although you wouldn't know it to see the length of this comment...
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 07:23 pm (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 07:02 pm (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 07:07 pm (UTC)much as I adore sweet fluff, there's no need to give short angsty fics any more status
because of the painful ending. - especially when the the fic's need for pain supercedes all other concerns in terms of structure or character, when the assumption that
a tragedy will make it automatically better.
Personally, I want all fics to have a smashing good happy ending, but only if it fits.
And smooches and kisses to the writer who can invent plausible, lovely ways for the characters to resolve the crisis, instead of carry on the angst, for angst sake.
Thanks for writing this-
I needed a bit of meta-plot speculation to get away from my current lapse in H/D faith.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 07:20 pm (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 07:51 pm (UTC)I think there's a time and place for even "classic fluff", judging by the feedback when I post some. But if you're *only* producing fluff, then there's a problem. It's like only eating candy.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 10:47 pm (UTC)Yes. You end up with no teeth. ;) Heh.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 11:10 pm (UTC)If you're a writer who's both capable of and interested in writing multiple genres, then sure, focusing solely on one genre would be limiting. But if you don't want to write dramas or tragedies or what have you, or if you write excellent fluff but craptacular everything else, then I think it's fine to accept your limitations and do the best with the talents and/or interests you possess.
There's definitely something to be said for challenging yourself to grow as a writer, and when I say that fanfiction is only a hobby, I don't mean to imply that therefore it's not worthy of sincere effort or an attempt at improvement. But I do think that because it's only a hobby, an author shouldn't feel as though she has to write a particular type of story if the emotional and physical effort of writing that story vastly outweighs her pleasure and satisfaction at its completion.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 11:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-24 02:41 am (UTC)I wouldn't necessarily label a story fluff just because it was happy. To me, fluff is a bit like a PWP only it doesn't necessarily contain smut.
You are right that happy doesn't necessarily mean shallow. I suspect that some of the reason that fluff is denigrated is because there does seem to be a lot of saccharinely sweet stories that lack that underlying meaning written in some circles.