Hola mi compadres!
I have resorted to six hour dosings of Motrin 800 because the pain ... she is a bitch. Although, my x-rays came back all clear and 100% normal, there's enough pain in my back to warrant a trip to the neruologist. Oh, fun!
tkp, I owe you email, but I've been avoidy because of the pain and I barely manage to sit up right at work. Although now that the Motrin has begun to really sink in, hopefully we'll be pain free by the weekend.
Oh, but woe!! Hank (my beautiful, gorgeous laptop) may have died and is currently in the arms of the computer doctors. OMG!! I haven't back-ed up a damned thing and if they need to put Hank down then my life may well be over. Oh, shit!!!!!!!
Ok. But other than all that ...
I have a question (of course I do).
diachrony asked me to define the term meta as used by fandom. She needed to explain to someone who was not of fandom. My answer was this:
Meta is a sort of umbrella term used by fandom, I think, to categorize discussions of the text. If meta, as a prefix, is meant to identify something that is "about, behind or beyond" something, then meta in fandom is simply discussions about the canon or show.
Perhaps because there are different fandoms and different types of discussions within fandom about a variety of concepts, characters, themes, etc, (or maybe because we so dearly love to abbreviate things) meta has been adopted, as a term and not a prefix, to encompass everything that is a discussion of the canon, characters, etc. Usually, it implies a more academic discussion, but not always and not necessarily.
For the meta-thon we're talking about our personal canons and/or about specific fic, I guess if I used the correct terminology it would be a meta-text-a-thon (text about text).
Now, my question to you guys is:
If you had to explain meta, what would you say?
(x-posted to IJ)
I have resorted to six hour dosings of Motrin 800 because the pain ... she is a bitch. Although, my x-rays came back all clear and 100% normal, there's enough pain in my back to warrant a trip to the neruologist. Oh, fun!
Oh, but woe!! Hank (my beautiful, gorgeous laptop) may have died and is currently in the arms of the computer doctors. OMG!! I haven't back-ed up a damned thing and if they need to put Hank down then my life may well be over. Oh, shit!!!!!!!
Ok. But other than all that ...
I have a question (of course I do).
Meta is a sort of umbrella term used by fandom, I think, to categorize discussions of the text. If meta, as a prefix, is meant to identify something that is "about, behind or beyond" something, then meta in fandom is simply discussions about the canon or show.
Perhaps because there are different fandoms and different types of discussions within fandom about a variety of concepts, characters, themes, etc, (or maybe because we so dearly love to abbreviate things) meta has been adopted, as a term and not a prefix, to encompass everything that is a discussion of the canon, characters, etc. Usually, it implies a more academic discussion, but not always and not necessarily.
For the meta-thon we're talking about our personal canons and/or about specific fic, I guess if I used the correct terminology it would be a meta-text-a-thon (text about text).
Now, my question to you guys is:
If you had to explain meta, what would you say?
(x-posted to IJ)
no subject
Date: 2007-09-27 03:06 am (UTC)From:If I were to explain meta, I would begin with the definition of the prefix, as you did (with the added definition of 'meta' as something that refers to itself). Then I would say, something like, "Fanfiction exists within the 'universe' of the text. Meta exists outside the universe. It is commentary on the universe, dissection of the 'verse, discourse on the 'verse." Then I'd point out as you do that meta tends to be academic in nature, and usually either a. sets forth a theory, or b. sets forth particular questions. I would differentiate it from other forms of "commentary on the 'verse", by using the example of squee. Squee comments on the 'verse from the outside, but does neither a. nor b. This is very similar to your definition.
But I would go on to say that meta can keep going further and further outside of itself. There is meta commentary on canon text. We could say that together, all commentary on the text equals fandom. But then there is also meta on fandom itself--which exists outside of fandom because it is a commentary of fandom, observation of it, rather then an inner ring of fandom which is commenting solely on the text. But this meta is part of fandom too, because part of fandom is about looking at fandom itself (thus meta as something which references itself). And there can be meta about meta on fandom, and so on.
My definition would be very confusing. You could probably do it better, but I think what your definition lacks is the fact that meta is not always a commentary on the text, sometimes it is a comment on itself, and can be self referential.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-28 01:26 am (UTC)From:I really like your description of meta, you finesse it well. I had totally forgotten about Squee and I think that's an important differentiation to make about the kinds of conversation occuring in fandom. I think part of my problem with the definition that I gave is that I partially assumed that the person understood the meaning of meta as a prefix, the self-referential part that you mention being key to that understanding. Although, in hindsight, I think it's very important to make the distinction as you do in your definition.
As for the last part of your definition, I think we still agree. You made it explicit about the layers of discourse and remove while I didn't. What you're saying there is what I was trying to get at with the "umbrella term". But again, I think that where my definition fails is that I'm still assuming that there is a level of understanding of fandom. I think that I was thinking of explaining it to Dio, who is part of fandom and not to her non-fandom friend.
You know when I posted this question, I knew you'd have an awesome answer!