Rant about fanfiction writing

thelightningstreak:

greenappleeyes:

I was just informed by my brother (who thinks he’s a better writer than anyone else because he has some fancy degree in writing) that fanfiction “doesn’t count” as “real writing” because you aren’t using your own “ideas.”

He doesn’t know that I write fanfiction. He probably wouldn’t have admitted his opinion if her did. But it has pretty much solidified that I will never tell anyone I know in person what I write.

I’ve already been told by several family members that my obsession with a “stupid tv show” is ridiculous and that I’m “too old” to fangirl.

Sigh. /rant

In Defense of
Fanfiction

I am a professional writer and editor in real life. I have a
double degree in English and writing and am currently in school once more to
obtain a master’s degree. If your brother’s fancy writing degree was worth anything
at all, he should be able to admit that the vast majority of all literature is
in fact fanfiction of someone else’s story and its elements. In other words, no
one’s idea is, by definition, original.

Let’s take a look at just
a few
examples to support my theory that some of the most important or
well-known pieces of literature ever created qualify as fanfiction:

Ancient/Old Literature

·
Around
2000 BCE:
The Epic of Gilgamesh
was inspired as a fanfiction of a historical King of Uruk, mixed with
Mesopotamian mythology. The story includes the character Utnapishtim, who lives
through a world-wide flood by building a ship per the instructions of the god
Enki and ultimately landing on a mountain in the Middle East, similar to Noah’s
story from the Bible (dates for the book of Genesis vary anywhere from 1400 BCE
to 800 BCE). Many historians suggest that the story of Noah was directly
inspired by Gilgamesh’s story of
Utnapishtim. Other historians suggest the two were simply inspired by a similar
source. Either way, there’s too many startling overlaps to classify Utnapishtim
and Noah as only a coincidence.

·
20-ish
BCE:
The Roman author Virgil wrote The
Aeneid
, which is a direct sequel to the previously created epic The Iliad attributed to Greek bard Homer.
Virgil was also known for writing pastoral poems based off and inspired by the
work of the great poet Theocritus (280 BCE). As a fun addition, Theocritus
himself was known for rewriting the cyclops villain (Polyphemus) of Homer’s Odyssey into a love-sick idiot in his
work, Idyll XI.

Medieval Era (500-1500-ish CE)

·
700-1000:
The Alphabet of ben Sirach was an
anonymous Hebrew collection of satires that included a parody of the biblical
Genesis story of Adam and Eve. The story gave Adam a totally different wife by
the name of Lilith, the character of which was inspired by Babylonian
mythology. The whole of the collection is additionally wrapped in a fictional
account of telling the stories to the historical figure of the Babylonian king
Nebuchadnezzar—another real person fanfiction of a celebrity from that time.

·
Around
1000:
The world’s first novel, The
Tale of Genji
by Lady Murasaki Shikibu, inspired the massive outpouring of Japanese
Noh theater plays involving characters from the novel, such as Aoi no Ue (Lady Aoi), which has been
attributed to a few people (Zeami Motokiyo and Inuo). This play appropriates
the Lady Aoi from Shikibu’s psychological novel to explore her death and is
only one example of the available fanfictions of the novel.

·
1308-1320:
Dante’s Divine Comedy (known most
famously for the Inferno) is a
literal OC self-insertion of the Italian Dante Alighieri himself into the hell,
purgatory and heaven from Catholic / biblical texts. Its format is in an epic,
in an attempt to outdo the Aeneid and
Iliad before it. It also includes an insertion
of a ghostly Virgil, who copied the Iliad
to write the Aeneid. Furthermore,
Dante’s work includes insertions of real historical people that Dante didn’t
like. It’s possibly the most self-indulgent fanfiction ever created while also
being named one of the greatest poems in literature.

·
1392:
Geoffrey Chaucer (known as the father of English literature) wrote a  famous
collection called The Canterbury Tales.
The collection takes its basic format and inspiration from Italian author
Giovanni Boccaccio’s The Decameron (written
in 1351). It’s suggested that some of the tales Chaucer uses actually
originated from Boccaccio’s work.

Renaissance Era (1550-1660-ish CE)

·
1590:
English poet Edmund Spenser borrowed the legend of Arthur of the Round Table in
his epic poem, The Faerie Queene. In
it, Arthur is pretty love-sick over the fairy queen.

·
1597:
English playwright Shakespeare borrowed various mythologies and historical
figures and mixed them together. Not even his most popular play, Romeo and Juliet, was original. He took
the idea from a poem written by Arthur Brooke in 1562, called, “The Tragicall
Hystorye of Romeus and Iuliet.” Even more interesting, Brooke had taken his
idea from the 1554 Giulietta e Romeo
by Italian author Matteo Bandello. (Shakespeare repeatedly sourced other
people’s ideas or historical existence for his plays.)

Enlightenment Era (1660-1789)

·
1667:
English poet John Milton wrote Paradise
Lost
, a fanfiction epic of the biblical story in the book of Genesis about
the fall of creation and humankind into imperfection.

·
1712:
English poet Alexander Pope wrote a mock-heroic epic called the Rape of the Lock to make fun of all the
serious epic writers before him, borrowing such images as the way epic warriors
put on armor and connecting it to the way rich people put on rich clothing and
jewelry. He used other standard epic elements as repeated throughout The Iliad, Aeneid, and so forth.

·
1759:
French writer and inventor, Voltaire, wrote a satire Candide. It borrowed various elements from Tales from a Thousand and One Arabian Nights, a collection of
Middle Eastern folktales from the Islamic Golden Age.

Romantic Era (1789-1850)

·
1819:
In Don Juan, English poet Lord Byron
took the pre-dated legend of Don Juan, which was about a man who seduced a lot
of women, and reversed the original plot so that Don Juan ended up seduced by a
lot of women.

·
1820:
English poet John Keats wrote a poem as a retelling of the Greek mythological
creature called Lamia, which was a half-woman and half-monster (description
varies depending on the Greek source). A lot of his works borrowed heavily from
Greek mythology and literature, and he idolized the English Renaissance poet
Edmund Spenser, to a point where his first work was called, “Imitation of
Spenser” (1814). In it, he borrowed various images from Spenser’s epic, The Faerie Queene.

·
1843:
English writer Charles Dickens wrote A
Christmas Carol
, based off the various stories compiled in the 1841 and
1842 The Lowell Offering, a publication magazine written by a group of
intellectual but mostly anonymous women. He borrowed the certain pieces of plot,
language, and descriptions for Scrooge’s ghostly encounters from the stories “A
Visit from Hope” (anonymous), “Happiness” (anonymous), and “Memory and Hope”
(by someone named Ellen). A Christmas
Carol
is additionally littered with biblical allusions all over the place.

·
1844:
French writer Alexander Dumas borrowed The
Three Musketeers
, as well as many of the story’s side-characters, from The Memoirs of Monsieur d’Artagnan by
French author Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras. He didn’t even change the names or
who the villain, the Cardinal, was.

·
1845:
American author Edgar Allan Poe wrote The
Thousand and Second Tale of Scheherazade
, in which he has the mythical Scheherazade
from the Tales from a Thousand and One
Arabian Nights
telling another story about the legendary Sinbad the
Sailor.  

·
1861:
Hungarian author Imre Madach wrote The
Tragedy of Man
, which reverses the biblical moral principles of God and
Satan: In this story, God is the violent and evil ruler, and Satan is the jaded/trickster
victim just trying to open humanity’s eyes to the truth.  

Modern Era (1900ish-1950s)

·
1922:
Irish novelist James Joyce wrote his stream-of-consciousness novel Ulysses, which was based off of Homer’s Odyssey, to a point where he took the
characters and simply renamed them, as well as aligned the structure of his
book to the various episodes in Homer’s work.

·
1930:
The Nancy Drew series was created under
the penname Carolyn Keene, who did not exist. Instead, an American man named
Edward Stratemeyer would write three pages of a story, then send it to one of
several ghostwriters who wanted to write Nancy Drew. The ghostwriter would take
the story and expand it. The anonymous group of ghostwriters all writing about
the same character still exists today. Each individual ghostwriter has made
changes to Nancy’s personality, looks, and age, as well as the type of plots said
character engages in.

·
1937:
English writer JRR Tolkien wrote The Hobbit
and then Lord of the Rings in the
1950s. He borrowed the names of characters and places after those seen in the
Icelandic sagas Poetic Edda and Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson. Tolkien admitted
he based the physical appearance of Gandalf off of the Norse god Odin. He
modeled the character of Aragorn directly after Beowulf, from the old English epic
(700-1000 BCE) Beowulf. Aragorn himself
even paraphrases the Anglo-Saxon poem, “The Wanderer,” as an example of a verse
created by his people of Rohan. Another fun fact is that Tolkien specifically
borrowed the phrase “my precious,” from a Middle English poem called Pearl. Additionally,
Tolkien was a big fan of romantic prose/poetry writer William Morris and wanted
to write like him, so he borrowed a lot of phrases, aesthetics, and even names
from such works like the 1888 The House
of the Wolfings
by Morris, including the place called “Mirkwood.” Of
curious note is that Morris’s work was massively influenced by Virgil’s Aeneid.

·
1938:
African-American author Richard Wright wrote a collection of stories called Uncle Tom’s Children, with an obvious
borrowing of the title from Uncle Tom’s
Cabin
, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1852.

·
1930s-present:
DC and Marvel comics mostly just updated the mythological gods and goddesses
for a modern era, appropriating their names, special relics, and abilities for
their heroes, and then mixing them with some modern-day cover identifies. As an
example, Wonder Woman was originally a nod to the Greek goddess Diana, a nod to
the female Amazon warriors, and a redesigned image of Rosie the Riveter. As
another example, the Flash is a reproduction of the Greek god Hermes, his
winged helmet further clarifying the connection. Even the name Superman was not
entirely original. 1938 Illustrator of Superman, Joe Shuster, took the name
“Superman” from the German “Ubermensh,” a term coined by the philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche. As a final example, sometimes the appropriation from
mythology is incredibly obvious, as in the case of Thor.

·
1949:
English author George Orwell reviewed a book called We by Russian author Yevgeny Zamyatin. He wrote a rave review on it
and declared that he would try to write something similar, which ultimately
became 1984, sharing many similar
plot points and concepts while bringing the story of We into a more realistic environment. The novel We also inspired Ayn Rand’s Anthem and Kurt Vonnegut’s Player Piano, for which Vonnegut
admitted he also borrowed concepts from Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

·
1950s:
The Chronicles of Narnia by British author
C.S. Lewis was based on biblical stories conveyed through various mythological
elements as well.

Postmodern Era (1950s-Present, debatably)

·
1977: African-American
author, Toni Morrison, wrote a critically acclaimed novel called Song of Solomon, which took its title
name, as well as the names of several characters and plot points, from the
Bible.

·
1988:
British-Indian author Salman Rushdie’s The
Satanic Verses
was inspired by the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammed.
Its title is a direct reference to controversial verses once placed in the
Quran but then removed. These highly controversial and sensitive connections to
Islamic and Old Testament personalities of Gabriel and Satan resulted in the
banning of Rushdie’s book from several regions.  

·
1997-2007:
The Harry Potter series by British author
JK Rowling borrows heavily from historical alchemy, including the age-old
legend of the philosopher’s stone and the 1652 book Culpeper’s Complete Herbal, which was about the medicinal and
occult properties of plants, which helped her build how magic was used in her
stories. Rowling also admits the 1652 book inspired many of the character’s
names. She appropriates several historical figures as well for her own purposes
(as a sort
of real-person fanfiction), including references to alchemists Nicolas Flammel and
Paracelsus. She even admits to, while writing Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,
dreaming about Flammel showing her how to make a philosopher’s stone.

·
2003:
American author Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci
Code
and its twisting conspiracies are based almost entirely on the books
of Margaret Starbird, most of which were written between 1993 and 2003.

·
2009:  Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by American
author Seth Grahame-Smith, is a rehashing of Jane Austen’s 1813 Pride and Prejudice. But with zombies.

·
2015: American
writer of critically acclaimed The Outsiders,
S.E. Hinton, claims that she has posted anonymous fanfictions of her own novel,
as well as at least four Supernatural fanfics, being a huge fan of the show and
of the paranormal.

As a professionally educated and trained writer and editor
myself, I had to study the intertextualities of several of the pieces I
mentioned above. But this is not an exhaustive world list by any means and is missing some other fantastic and influential writers—I’ve included only
what has come to my mind in a short time. Plots and characters and ideas have
been largely passed around throughout the history of literature. Without
fanfiction, a solid portion of well-known literature would not exist.   

In fact, many authors and even inventors will say that there
is no such thing as an original idea. Certain pieces get touted as creative
because they combine previously suggested elements in a different or
thought-provoking way. (Don’t even get me started on how science fiction is a
driving force behind many scientific advancements today!)

If you’re writing fanfiction, then you’re participating in a
tradition that spans millennia. There is no piece of literature created in some
“original” vacuum. That is precisely why literary critics, and those who have professionally
studied fiction in an academic setting, use the word “intertextuality” to
describe how works of fiction are ultimately interrelated in some way or
another.

Therefore, fanfiction is the legacy of literature. If
Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Keats, Poe, Dickens, Tolkien, and Brown can
write fanfiction about and expand other people’s works, you can too. So the
next time someone tells you to stop writing fanfiction, or tells you that it’s
not a valid form of art, tell them that they obviously have never read the most
important historical works of fiction, or even many popular modern stories,
which are all rehashed fanfiction stories, borrowing characters and names and setting and even syntax. 

Rant written for @greenappleeyes and everyone else unfairly shamed for writing fanfiction. Content was retrieved from my own class notes, as well as publically available online interviews and articles. 

juliabohemian:

In light of THIS post:

First, I’d really like to write more about this, but free time is intermittent for me. Please, please don’t comment or share this just to argue with me. If you have well thought out points that are based on critical thinking, okay. Otherwise, that’s not why I come to this site. And I will probably just end up blocking you to save myself the stress.

That being said…


I think my issue with Thor fans is that they don’t analyze Loki’s relationship with him critically. Imagine that you just met these two guys. They weren’t gods. They were just two brothers. One wasn’t a hero and one wasn’t a villain. They were just regular guys. Their relationship would seem woefully imbalanced. Most people’s perception of these two characters is deeply colored by the fact that one is marketed to us as a hero and the other a villain.

I often seen people cite examples of how Thor loves Loki -but then they will list something that is actually an example of how their relationship is dysfunctional. Thor “trusting” Loki in TDW was not love. It was desperation to save Jane. It was about his infatuation for Jane. Thor’s relationship with Jane didn’t last -most likely because it was more about possessing her than actually being with her physically. 

Thor telling Loki “maybe you’re not so bad” or “maybe there’s still good in you” or “I thought the world of you” is not love. It’s manipulative and passive aggressive and once again, dysfunctional. 

Thor using Loki to do “get help” was not an example of how well they get along. It was an example of how Thor continually disregards Loki’s feelings, as long as it serves his purpose. 

Thor is nice to Loki when he needs something from him. The eagerness with which Loki responds to this is disturbing. They are both very messed up people. Loki’s eagerness to gain validation from someone is most likely what led to his entanglement with Thanos. 

Thor’s obsession with Earth is not love. It’s ego. He likes the idea of protecting someone who is smaller than he is. He likes that they adore and worship them there. And in his defense…who the hell wouldn’t like that?

Does that mean Thor isn’t capable of love? No way. It just means that because of his personalty, experience and maturity level, his concept of what it means to love someone is fairly skewed. Loki’s too, for that matter.

Now all of that being said, I don’t mind that this is their relationship. If they weren’t dysfunctional, they would likely be very boring. I continue to be confused as to why people want to defend Thor, as though the fact that he is a hero means he is supposed to be completely without flaws or questionable motives.

In classic literature, heroes are flawed by nature.

Here’s what Thor SHOULD have said to Fury in Avengers: “My brother tried to kill himself and I’m frankly relieved to find out that he’s still alive. He is unwell, I’m afraid. Please allow me to talk to him and reason with him and take him back home.” And then Thor would have done his best to return Loki to Asgard immediately, instead of dicking around on a hillside with Tony Stark and then dragging Loki off so SHIELD could put him in Bruce Banner’s cage. Those would have been the actions of someone who loved and cared for his brother. Unfortunately, they would also have made for a very boring movie, which is why we got something else.

I will add to this later, when I have time.

I have less of a problem with Thor’s lapses in sensitivity in The Avengers than in Thor: Ragnarok, because he’s still working on his process of maturation and we’re aware that he comes from a warrior culture steeped in toxic masculinity and completely lacking a compassionate understanding of mental illness. But we watch him growing up through the movies that follow… until Thor: Ragnarok, when all of that is more than reversed.

The other extremely problematic thing that I see people citing as an example of how much Thor loves Loki is “Thor didn’t kill Loki when he could have.” Like, what? That is such an incredibly low bar. No shit you don’t kill someone you love, even when they do something shitty to you. If you love them, you also don’t inflict unnecessary pain on them. Saying “Thor just immobilized him with the obedience disk instead of killing him for his betrayal” is like saying “You know that husband loves his wife because he only sprained her wrist when he found her cheating on him, he didn’t actually break it.”

And no, that is not comparable to arguing that Loki still cares about Thor even when he’s in villain mode because he only does things to incapacitate him, not kill him. What Loki does when he’s having a complete emotional and psychological breakdown in Thor or when he’s been manipulated, probably tortured, and severely coerced by Thanos (NOT brainwashed or mind-controlled, I didn’t say that) is NOT comparable to what Thor does when he’s completely in control of his rational faculties, as part of his “clever plan” to reform Loki. In my fanfiction, I’ve had to reinterpret that incident in Ragnarok as Thor reacting in irrational anger, because otherwise it’s unconscionable.

I know you talked about the elevator scene before, but what are your thoughts on Thor’s point of view? I thought he accepted Loki by choosing to let him go instead of chasing him and trying to force him to change or come home. That he was acknowledging who Loki wanted him to believe he was, and was choosing to do what was best for himself/his people despite loving Loki. It seemed like Thor chose to change first by stepping back from an unhealthy relationship instead of continuing to force it??

foundlingmother:

philosopherking1887:

When I first watched Ragnarok, I saw it much the way Anon did… mostly because I was trying to be optimistic. But the more I thought about it and discussed it with people (especially you and @illwynd), the more I realized that Thor is just trying to manipulate Loki into doing and being what he wants, and does not in any way “accept” him for who he is. It’s not only due to Loki that the relationship is unhealthy, and Thor completely fails to acknowledge any part he may have played in contributing to Loki’s unhappiness, or any way in which the relationship was perniciously unequal. His speeches to Loki, in the elevator and while electrocuting Loki, indicate that the only way he sees himself as being at fault is in continuing to extend Loki his trust and affection. He doesn’t seem to entertain the idea that Loki might have legitimate grievances that motivate his actions, even if they don’t excuse them. You’re quite right on this point:

What he sees is someone throwing a fit, baiting him to pay attention, and betraying and hurting him all over (and maybe he thinks that’s a bit his fault because he’s showing Loki love when he’s not being “good”).

Well, part of why the pat on the back seems knowing is that that’s when Thor puts the obedience disk on Loki. Of course he can’t suppress a smug little smile for his oh-so-clever scheme.

Oh, interesting point about Loki helping Thor by exiling Odin… and saying something nice to him when it doesn’t seem to have been necessary for maintaining the ruse. (Though maybe he thought buttering him up was the best way to keep Thor satisfied with his decision to abdicate?)

You may be right that Thor’s complete inability to see things from Loki’s perspective, understand his depth, or think of Loki as having motivations that aren’t centered around him (Thor) is actually not such a departure from Thor’s characterization in earlier films… but I guess I thought he had matured since Thor 1 and the beginning of The Avengers, and it was a real disappointment to see him regress that way. On the other hand, Thor is still pretty obtuse about Bruce’s feelings in AOU when he starts going on about the Hulk’s accomplishments in battle, even if he’s perceptive enough to get something out of his visions.

Regarding Thor’s “plans to bring Loki back to a planet that hates him and just force them to accept that’s what’s happening”: I don’t think that’s meant to be a sign of Thor’s affection or respect for Loki… the self-absorbed “Earth loves me,” plus the fatuous tone in which he delivers the line, makes me think he’s just being an arrogant moron again (as he has been for the entire film) and disregarding Loki’s legitimate concerns for his own well-being. Of course, when we’re trying desperately to make Ragnarok consistent with the rest of canon, we can say it’s because Thor cares so much about Loki that he’ll face down the rest of the Avengers and the International Criminal Court and what have you to protect him.

foundlingmother:

I see it very differently.

Thor wants his brother back. He wants to redeem Loki the Villain. He loves and misses Loki. We know this because he challenges Loki to be more than the God of Mischief (which is a challenge to follow him to save Asgard) and saving Asgard kind of hinges on Loki bring reinforcements (and I think Thor knows that), but I also get the vibe from the way he behaves in the elevator. That pat he gives Loki when he says “that’s what you always wanted” seems so knowing. He knows that he’s pissing Loki off. Well, he’s actually upsetting Loki, but he’s aiming for irritated. He’s really, really bad at seeing/accepting Loki’s side of things and emotions. That’s why Loki’s redemption has to happen on Thor’s terms in the end. When Loki reaches out to Thor, Thor doubts it’s genuine, or can’t conceptualize it as Loki reaching out. Often times the ways Loki ends up helping Thor, thereby showing how much he cares about his brother still, aren’t obvious or nice/affectionate. The obvious help he gives, sacrificing his life, Thor now believes to be a trick (it isn’t by the rules canon outlined for Loki’s magic). When Loki puts Odin in a care home, he saves Thor again (Thor expects Odin to banish him and take away Mjolnir). It’s not an affectionate or traditionally heroic action, but it’s hardly devoid of love. He even fucking tells Thor, as Odin, how proud he is of the man Thor became. You think Odin would ever have said anything like that? No.

Thor thinks his brother’s pretty petty. From his perspective, Loki attacks Midgard because of “imagined slights”. I imagine he also doesn’t get why discovering he was adopted upset Loki so much. If Odin hadn’t adopted Loki, he would have died. Loki betrays and hurts Thor. We know that Loki has reasons, and that it’s difficult to even classify everything he’s done as a betrayal (Thor probably sees Loki not letting anyone know he was alive the first time as a betrayal, but we know shit went down). Thor doesn’t know anything about Loki’s feelings or issues. He’s ignorant of Loki’s depth. What he sees is someone throwing a fit, baiting him to pay attention, and betraying and hurting him all over (and maybe he thinks that’s a bit his fault because he’s showing Loki love when he’s not being “good”).

Previously, Thor’s tried to entice Loki into returning home or to his side by expressing his love and how much he’s mourned him. He does so poorly, to be sure, and he’s a hothead who loses the plot quickly, but it’s genuine. I mean, he sneaks some affection into his elevator speech. He does think the world of Loki. At the end of Ragnarok, he essentially plans to bring Loki back to a planet that hates him and just force them to accept that’s what’s happening. That’s a big fuck you to Midgard. The affection approach doesn’t work on Loki, either because of Loki’s insecurities, or because he’s got to keep acting like an obedient servant to Thanos, since he fears him. From Thor’s perspective, it just doesn’t work. So, new plan. This time he’ll not give Loki attention. This time he’ll act disinterested and outsmart him, call him predictable, and then challenge him not to be. This forces Loki to do good, reminding him that he can, and allowing Thor to once more express his love and trust in response to Loki’s goodness. Some might think I’m giving Thor a lot of credit, but I don’t think it’s that brilliant a plan.

Here are the steps (according to Thor):

  1. Irritate Loki. Don’t give him attention. Just agree with him. Act like you’re fine that he does his own thing (though you’re not).
  2. Loki will try and betray you. That’s what Loki does (when he feels slighted).
  3. Stop him.
  4. Call him predictable (oh, the God of Mischief will really hate that).
  5. Challenge him not to be.
  6. Leave him on Sakaar.
  7. Pray he follows.

Truly, Thor Odinson is a mastermind.

(It should be noted, this causes Loki a lot of emotional pain (and physical pain… that’s the one of the reasons I would rewrite the scene to function differently), and it’s something that should have been addressed (and that I would address in fics, since I know the MCU never will). Thor, once again, unknowingly preys on Loki’s insecurities. However, since the director didn’t particularly care about/recognize Loki’s depth either, it’s all about Thor. Loki’s pretty shallow in Ragnarok. Also, it’s stupid/cruel and ooc for Thor that leaving him on Sakaar means that he leaves him defenseless.)

@philosopherking1887 This feels relevant to what we were discussing about Loki’s betrayal, so I’m @ing you. Also, if you haven’t, I’d be glad for you to read this and let me know your thoughts/how you’d do things.

You may be right that Thor’s complete inability to see things from Loki’s perspective, understand his depth, or think of Loki as having motivations that aren’t centered around him (Thor) is actually not such a departure from Thor’s characterization in earlier films… but I guess I thought he had matured since Thor 1 and the beginning of The Avengers, and it was a real disappointment to see him regress that way.

In one of TDW’s deleted scenes, the one with Frigga and Thor, he seems pretty unable to see Loki’s perspective. He doesn’t understand why Frigga even visits him. That, to me, resembles slash and burn justice. I love Thor, but he doesn’t get Loki. I think it’s less to do with immaturity, though that’s a part of it, and more to do with… how do I put it? Sometimes you’re so close to someone you don’t see them, just the idea you have of them. Thor’s idea of Loki is poorly conceptualized, and fed by Odin (and Loki, who never defends himself). Add Thor’s relative immaturity (he’s trying, but he’s not 100% by any means), and it’s just a mess. That’s why I always say I think Odin’s the biggest obstacle to their reconciliation. Thor needs to have the entire bedrock of his way of thinking shaken, and to stop idolizing his father. Ragnarok, at least, allows me to imagine that happened.

Also, all my meta should come with a warning that I’m completely disregarding the intentions of the director, and I’m going to fix the mess they made so that the characters are consistent.

Ugh, you’re right. P.S., “Sometimes you’re so close to someone you don’t see them, just the idea you have of them” is a very Proustian point, and one that he makes specifically about people you love/ are in love with 😛  Usually that’s a matter of idealizing them, but it also includes thinking that their entire world revolves around you and thinking that all their motivations must somehow be about you.

I was just thinking about interpretation and authorial intent recently, and it occurred to me that with a good work of art, you can explain all its features with reference wholly to reasons internal to the artwork itself, whereas bad works of art force you to look outside the work for explanations (in the mental state or external situation of the creator). It’s heroic of you to try to interpret Ragnarok in a way that’s consistent with the rest of the films, but I think that’s going to involve some really bizarre contortions because (at least as a successor/conclusion to the other films) it’s just so bad. Some people seemed to think the same of The Avengers with respect to Loki’s characterization; part of my goal with Abyss was to show that that wasn’t the case, not least because I trust Joss Whedon’s instincts as a writer (at least when it comes to male characters) and he seemed to genuinely appreciate what Branagh and Hiddleston had accomplished in Thor. So my task wasn’t/isn’t nearly as difficult as yours. In my fanfiction I’ve decided to be semi-selective in which parts of Ragnarok I even accept as canon, or anyway to present interpretations of Thor and Loki’s actions and character drastically different from the ones the film invites.

wafflediaries replied to your post “You know, it wasn’t until I was talking to someone in person about…”

Thor Ragnarok was the best portrayal of Loki we have ever seen in the MCU. Please stop being bitter just because he wasn’t lifted from your OOC Loki-centric fanfic. Taika Waititi did a fantastic job.

LOL, @wafflediaries, have you actually read any of my fanfiction? (Or were you talking to @studiokawaii, whose reblog of the post I gather you were directly replying to?) I can’t control who reblogs and adds to the original post (short of blocking everyone I disagree with, which is emphatically NOT my M.O.), and I’m sure many of the rebloggers are who you think I am: unconditional Loki justifiers (also known as “apologists,” which is a misleading use of the term) who claim that he is a pure, blameless cinnamon roll, all of whose apparently immoral actions in canon can be excused on the grounds of his victimization by various other characters, and many of whom also ship Loki with themselves and/or write fanfiction pairing him with the reader or a self-insert OFC. (Not that there’s anything in principle wrong with character/reader fic or self-insert OFCs; it’s just not my bag, and tends to be associated with the mischaracterization of Loki described above.)

It’s easy to dismiss criticism of Loki’s portrayal in Ragnarok if you dismiss all the critics as a particular type of uncreditable person. I have never been accused of writing an OOC Loki, and since I am also a Thor/Loki shipper, many of my readers consider themselves Thor fans in the first instance and usually defend Thor against the attacks launched by the Loki-justifiers (sometimes to the also unjustified extreme of claiming that Thor is a blameless cinnamon roll who has no flaws and has never done anything wrong in his life, but that’s another story…). Then again, perhaps the reason no one has called my Loki OOC is simply the very strong norm against any form of criticism of fanfiction, even constructive criticism, and even when it is explicitly solicited (as I do).

The first sentence of a possible fic in my fanfictional universe, which I may or may not ever write (considering how many merely notional fics I have floating around in my head):

“Frigga didn’t know exactly when her sons became lovers, but she flattered herself that she had figured it out within a year of when it started.”