This was a fascinating read. I have been pondering similar questions myself, with especial interest in what can happen to make me stop writing about characters that formerly were a source of inspiration.
Your distinction between closed and live canon had entered my thinking, too, because my two main fandoms have been Man from UNCLE and Sherlock (with a side of ACD's original stories, which provides a mix of closed and open canon informing the series, thus blurring the distinction somewhat). I've dabbled in a couple others, mainly due to a fix-it impulse, although one (Skyfall, with emphasis on Q's character) was due to having read cross-over fic rather than the source material. As you may already deduce, I haven't come up with any clear guidelines from my ruminations, but I think I have found some clues.
Man from UNCLE, like the ACD Holmes stories, was episodic. Little in terms of backstory or relationship arcs were provided, although there were a few hints here and there. This creates, I believe, a desire to expand on the hints, or create backstory from whole cloth for the characters. Thus, I wondered, whether sufficient backstory and emotional development arcs in the source material might forestall the impulse to write about the characters and their relationship. (Perhaps that is what is going on in The Rivers of London series, which I've also enjoyed reading enormously and felt no desire to write about.) This thought regarding backstory and so on was mainly sparked by developments in Sherlock, which have recently supplied much more in that area than in the first two series of the show. I found the first two series, especially the second, much more inspiring than those that followed.
Taking my two main fandoms together, I have considered whether there has to be a certain relationship dynamic between two characters, at least one of whom I find very appealing, for me to want to write. As you point out, however, there are many such duos (or trios, etc) that one finds sufficiently entertaining to watch/read. What's the difference between the entertaining and inspiring ones? Is it setting? Does the whole universe also have to have a strong appeal, which then enhances the characters in them? Considering all the AUs I like to write and read, I don't think this can be a big factor. If the characters appeal enough, their universe can be changed in the writing. However, I don't rule it out totally. Perhaps the presence of an appealing setting at the outset helps ignite the spark. And that might have to do with calling to mind other stories that one has enjoyed, archetypal ones perhaps, and that the 'background' of those remembered pleasures, enhances the characters and relationships found in those settings. (Possibly, that is just re-stating what appeals in genre fiction.)
Another element I pondered was the presence or absence of desire in the characters. I have nearly decided that this is more likely to come across in visual media, despite books having so much more room to describe or expand on it. (This could certainly be one of those YMMV situations, as indeed, most of it is.) This may be precisely because we are likely to know more about what is happening in a character's mind and heart in a book, whereas on screen, the character may be doing one thing and longing for another, or even unbeknownst to the character, a longing may be developing. I think actors may throw this into the mix on several levels: they add early signs of an attraction because they know that is where the story is going or where they think it is likely to go; they have an attraction to the actor playing the other character; they have an attraction to the character the other actor is playing whether their own character does or not; they feel it will add appeal to their character; it's a personal habit that is bleeding into their acting. How this desire manifests itself, whether deliberately portrayed or not, may be pleasing to watch. Or it may involve looks and gestures that call to mind, consciously or not, memories in the viewer's mind, both positive and negative. Depending on which, a viewer will be repulsed or attracted or even inspired.
These are some of my thoughts at the moment. I must stop, I've already written far more than I intended to impose in a comment! I hope something in it is useful.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
carisma_sensei
no subject
Date: 2017-04-17 12:20 pm (UTC)Your distinction between closed and live canon had entered my thinking, too, because my two main fandoms have been Man from UNCLE and Sherlock (with a side of ACD's original stories, which provides a mix of closed and open canon informing the series, thus blurring the distinction somewhat). I've dabbled in a couple others, mainly due to a fix-it impulse, although one (Skyfall, with emphasis on Q's character) was due to having read cross-over fic rather than the source material. As you may already deduce, I haven't come up with any clear guidelines from my ruminations, but I think I have found some clues.
Man from UNCLE, like the ACD Holmes stories, was episodic. Little in terms of backstory or relationship arcs were provided, although there were a few hints here and there. This creates, I believe, a desire to expand on the hints, or create backstory from whole cloth for the characters. Thus, I wondered, whether sufficient backstory and emotional development arcs in the source material might forestall the impulse to write about the characters and their relationship. (Perhaps that is what is going on in The Rivers of London series, which I've also enjoyed reading enormously and felt no desire to write about.) This thought regarding backstory and so on was mainly sparked by developments in Sherlock, which have recently supplied much more in that area than in the first two series of the show. I found the first two series, especially the second, much more inspiring than those that followed.
Taking my two main fandoms together, I have considered whether there has to be a certain relationship dynamic between two characters, at least one of whom I find very appealing, for me to want to write. As you point out, however, there are many such duos (or trios, etc) that one finds sufficiently entertaining to watch/read. What's the difference between the entertaining and inspiring ones? Is it setting? Does the whole universe also have to have a strong appeal, which then enhances the characters in them? Considering all the AUs I like to write and read, I don't think this can be a big factor. If the characters appeal enough, their universe can be changed in the writing. However, I don't rule it out totally. Perhaps the presence of an appealing setting at the outset helps ignite the spark. And that might have to do with calling to mind other stories that one has enjoyed, archetypal ones perhaps, and that the 'background' of those remembered pleasures, enhances the characters and relationships found in those settings. (Possibly, that is just re-stating what appeals in genre fiction.)
Another element I pondered was the presence or absence of desire in the characters. I have nearly decided that this is more likely to come across in visual media, despite books having so much more room to describe or expand on it. (This could certainly be one of those YMMV situations, as indeed, most of it is.) This may be precisely because we are likely to know more about what is happening in a character's mind and heart in a book, whereas on screen, the character may be doing one thing and longing for another, or even unbeknownst to the character, a longing may be developing. I think actors may throw this into the mix on several levels: they add early signs of an attraction because they know that is where the story is going or where they think it is likely to go; they have an attraction to the actor playing the other character; they have an attraction to the character the other actor is playing whether their own character does or not; they feel it will add appeal to their character; it's a personal habit that is bleeding into their acting. How this desire manifests itself, whether deliberately portrayed or not, may be pleasing to watch. Or it may involve looks and gestures that call to mind, consciously or not, memories in the viewer's mind, both positive and negative. Depending on which, a viewer will be repulsed or attracted or even inspired.
These are some of my thoughts at the moment. I must stop, I've already written far more than I intended to impose in a comment! I hope something in it is useful.
Thank you again for this interesting analysis!