Lumos report #2: The crack panel

[emmagrant01]

I had hoped that this would be a fun panel, and it was -- for me, certainly, and it seemed for everyone else. The idea for the panel came about during The Witching Hour, actually, when I was going to lots of great panels and trying to think of something that hadn't been discussed yet but would make an interesting topic. I had just started seeing the term "crack" used a lot on my flist, and I started playing with the idea of putting together a panel discussion about it.

Frankly, I was surprised that the proposal was accepted, because I thought it might be a little to "inside" a thing for such a large symposium. And maybe that's why they put us in the smallest possible room in the Marriott? But of course, at least a quarter of the people who wanted to come were turned away at the door, so we could have gone a little bigger. On the bright side, our panel didn't get any anti-slash shit from Emerson. (On second thought, that would have been fun to watch.) Yay for the recording, though -- I can't wait to get that CD in the mail!

The makeup of the panel was originally quite different, but due to people having to cancel their trips to Lumos, in the end it was furiosity, geoviki, and scarah2. And they were, all three of them, amazing. I can't thank them enough for doing such a great job! They were witty and thoughtful and even occasionally brilliant, which considering the topic, is pretty damn cool.

It was so much fun that I thought I'd give those of you who didn't get to go to Lumos (or those of you who did, for that matter) join in the discussion.

But It’s Just Crack! The Role of Crack Fiction and Art in Subverting and Contributing to Fanon

Here is my opening opinion, which I read at the start in an attempt to focus the discussion:

In the last few years, a new genre of fan creations has emerged: crack. It is difficult to characterize precisely what “crack” fiction and art are; definitions vary from “all fan creations are crack” to “crack is good writers writing ‘bad’ fic”. Crack fiction and art are usually humorous and often tongue-in-cheek. These works may be parodies of common fanon tropes, or they may contain bizarre situations which the author or artist thought would be fun to explore. The work may be the result of a challenge, or it may have been a spontaneous creation.

One interesting facet of crack fiction and art is that the writers and artists label their own work as crack, and thus signal to the audience that this work is not to be taken entirely seriously; it will deviate from canon and perhaps even logic, but it will most likely be entertaining. The need for such a label is surprising, considering the tremendous variety of fan works on the internet. Why do writers and artists feel compelled to distinguish these works from mainstream fan fiction and art? There is a sense in which labeling one’s work as crack is a signal that the writer or artist does not consider the work serious enough for close critical examination. In fact, the practice is criticized in some fandom circles as an excuse for laziness on the part of the writer/artist.

However, many who create crack works will argue that they put as much effort into them as they do their more mainstream fiction and art. Some assert that crack is a means of subverting fanon, just as fanon itself is a subversion of canon; that is, labeling one’s work as crack can be considered a way of breaking away from the hegemonic standards of the larger fandom and still creating fan works that are considered legitimate by the community. Labeling one’s work as crack enables the writer or artist to continue to be taken seriously as someone who contributes to the fandom, but also allows her to deviate from the creative norms of the community whenever she likes, without fear of losing her status as a legitimate fan fiction writer or fan artist.

In this panel, three writers and one artist will discuss their own experiences of creating crack works. Each has a different perspective on the genre and different motivations for creating crack works. To begin, each one will introduce herself and read or show an excerpt from her work.
~~~

Following that, scarah2 started us off by showing some examples of crack art she had drawn the night before. geoviki read an excerpt from Never Mind The Bollocks, It's Draco/Harry, giving it quite a poignant introduction. furiosity read from My Big Phat Hogwarts, and I followed that up with an excerpt from phaballa's The Death of a Soul, A Blowjob Beneath a Table, and the Rain of Toads That Followed. And then we all wiped our eyes, picked our asses up from the floor, and settled in for a surprisingly meaningful discussion about crack fic.

I don't think a consensus was really reached, and I didn't expect that to happen. The original idea for the panel was to put together people whom I knew would have very different opinions on crack and get them to argue with each other. And that's pretty much what happened, with great commentary from Scarah along the way! Rather than rehash the discussion here, I thought I would try to get some of y'all involved and see what you think about crack.


[Poll #784859]


Please feel free to add any comments below. Let's pretend we're all still at Lumos and talking about fun things (instead of wanking about meaningless things)!

Thanks again to the panel and to everyone who attended for making it a fantastic time. And hey -- how many panels generated their own icons (courtesy of coffeejunkii and fiona_fawkes) and FANFIC (courtesy of mijan)? *grins*

Comments

[fatale.livejournal.com]

Does crack have to be intentional and labeled as such by the author/artist? That is, can you write or draw crack without meaning to?

To me, crack requires more skill than most give it credit because I think it's a type of parody and to parody something well, you must understand the canon. Or rather in this case, the fanon. And to be truly clever or well done, there must be an awareness - if the writer isn't aware they're playing to fandom, then it's just bad writing. The awareness makes the difference to me, so I don't believe a writer can unintentionally create crack. Then again, I suppose it would depend on how you define crack fic. If you think it's merely a deviation from the text, then most of what fandom churns out is crack.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

The issue of awareness definitely came up in the panel, though people offered examples like Ed Wood's films as things that are possibly very cracky, even though the the creator intended them to be serious works. As you said, it comes down to how you define crack.

If you think it's merely a deviation from the text, then most of what fandom churns out is crack.

Right, and the vast majority of people seem to think crack is something more than just "deviates from canon".

[wendy.livejournal.com]

That panel was totally one of my most favorite things at Lumos. Freaking hyterical.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Hee! It was one of mine too, actually. And all I had to do was stand back and watch. :-D

[phaballa.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiosity (and total excitement, omg), which part of that fic did you read??

Also, just generally on crack... I think because I tend to write a lot of RPS, which doesn't HAVE canon because, like... it's basically fictionalizing real people to the point that only the IMDB vitals really matter, there tends to be a lot of crackiness. You're already writing without canon, so to take it a step farther, ie the boyband AU, or like in popslash, there's a lot of "and then a unicorn appeared in JC's living room and he had to have lots of sex with Chris until it went away"--really that's not a big leap. It's almost like writing original fiction.

I've written a couple HP crack fics, and generally when I do it, it's to mock or parody fanfic and fanon, or canon itself. I wrote one about Hermione being a sex slave for the erotic elves fantasy fest, which I think the prompt was given in seriousness, but then I just couldn't make it serious and I ended up totally mocking the entire sex slave fanon genre. I don't think crack fic should be taken any less seriously or looked at less critically than straight fic. I mean, the Daily Show is a good comparison--it's parody news. Crack news. But it's doing more than actual news sometimes because it's telling us stuff about the real world as well as how that information gets to us in the first place.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I read an excerpt from the beginning, ending with the part about Harry not wanting to wind up a broken-down has-been with a big gut. :-D

I mean, the Daily Show is a good comparison--it's parody news. Crack news. But it's doing more than actual news sometimes because it's telling us stuff about the real world as well as how that information gets to us in the first place.

Interesting example! So where so you think is the line between crack and parody? That came up during the panel, and some folks were insistent that they were different things (because otherwise, why not just call it all "parody"?). But we never really decided what the distinction really was.

[phaballa.livejournal.com]

I guess I sort of think they can sometimes be the same thing. Crack, to me, always has some level of parody in it, but also some part craziness to really emphasize the parody aspect of it. But then parody has a specific agenda, maybe? It's a really hard line to define. Almost like one of those things you can just tell instinctively.

Like sometimes I'll write a fic that I don't intend to be parody at all, and people will comment with how cracked out it is. To me, theres just a level of the ridiculous or crazy that straight parody doesn't have. I guess I'd take the difference between Draco Malfoy's Diary by the Morning Starr, and my parody of it, in which Draco turns into a girl and is also the long lost daughter of Voldemort. The first is clearly a parody done in the style of Bridget Jones's Diary, but sticks to canon facts while still making fun of it. Whereas my fic takes that set up and uses it to mock fanon cliches with, basically, crazy ass shit going down.

[zully.livejournal.com]

Does crack have to be intentional and labeled as such by the author/artist? That is, can you write or draw crack without meaning to?

I think something not intended to be crack can come across as cracky, and taken as such by a fandom, but unless the creator intended it as crack it's more... fan-created crack. The comments on the work become the crack itself. If the creator did not intend for it to be taken as anything other than a serious story, then that's what it is. Of course, once it hits fandom, who knows what they'll make of it? :)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

And this begs the question, "Who gets to decide if something is crack?" That's one of the things I find interesting about the phenomenon, that people generally self-label their work as crack. There was a fantastic crack fic posted early during merry_smutmas last year, and I read about a third of it in horror before I realized it was intended to be crack. (The author hadn't labeled it as crack in any way.) That changed my whole perspective of the fic and made me see the skill that had been put into writing it in a way I wouldn't have before.

[zully.livejournal.com]

I suppose originally, it's the author's call. Like you said, typically an author will label it as such in order to avoid horror-enduced confusion such as the one you experienced. :) Or occasionally, if there are several "Oh my god what did you DO?" responses an author will pop up and say "You took that seriously? It was just crack!" This happened in a previous fandom of mine.

Though if the fanbase doesn't think a fic works particularly well as crack, or doesn't believe it was written as crack, the author's claims are pretty well useless. It boils down to fan interpretation of the work combined with how "convincing" the author's writing is, I think.

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

That reminds me: My dad first saw "The Princess Bride" by himself on cable, and thought it was just a stupid movie. Then he heard people talk about how hilarious it was, and next time he saw it, he watched it with that in mind, and thought it was indeed hilarious.

"The Princess Bride." It's not really a parody. I think it's crack. It's absurd: Princess Buttercup. I mean, honestly!

[paper-tzipporah.livejournal.com]

Does crack have to be intentional and labeled as such by the author/artist? That is, can you write or draw crack without meaning to?

If I answer yes to the first, I would want to answer no the second. Which question did you want the bubble ticked for?

I ticked maybe, since this was confusing, but I mean that crack DOES have to be intentional, but all of my current examples of why are from Stargate Atlantis fandom, since I'm on temporary leave from HP fandom. Basically, one of the biggest elements of crackfic for me is that it contains something that is patently absurd (like the nice doctor trying to turn everyone into dinosaurs), and such an element is intentionally written as absurd, and plausibility is taken equally lightly. I think this is a bigger thing in science fiction than fantasy, actually, because there's usually more of an attempt to explain how things work in sci-fi, whereas in fantasy (and HP), you can wave your wand or just concentrate and use wandless magic and the laws of physics don't really have any bearing on what's happening.

So many tangents I want to go off on here. Fuck.

Basically, I think the definition and parameters for crack vary by fandom. An absurd premise in one fandom could be totally logical in another, since you're working in a set context -- all fandoms having the context of their canon, which is what everything ultimately branches off of. Weird Al is frequently cracky because his context is reality and in reality people aren't attacked by weasels in Albuquerque, if I'm remembering that song correctly. HP fandom has an entirely different context, not just the reality of a world with magic, but the characters and their specific traits and histories.

This is turning into an essay. Stopping now.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Which question did you want the bubble ticked for?

LOL! The second was intended to be an explanation of the first, actually. ;-)

An absurd premise in one fandom could be totally logical in another, since you're working in a set context -- all fandoms having the context of their canon

This is an excellent point, and one that I remember coming up in the panel discussion. Context is indeed important, and there is an extent to which something like Viki's fic (which I consider more of a parody of H/D than crack) would be utterly meaningless outside of this circle of fandom. You really have to know that every line in that fic is a reference to something else to fully appreciate it.

[alchemy]

Dude, I friended you! In spite of being totally lame and exclaiming, "Why don't I know you?!" when we talked. *facepalm* I swear, I meant it in a nice way, as in, "You seem cool, I wish I knew you, but I am teh lame and don't keep up with fandom so much anymore."

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

LOL! I thought that was cool, actually. I used it as an example the rest of the weekend when someone accused me of being a BNF. I was all, "Hey, I have met other HP slashers this weekend who didn't have a clue who I was, so knock that shit off!" ;-)

[alchemy]

It was hilarious. The whole I-don't-know-you-but-let's-hug-yayz!!! thing. You were kind of smiling at me knowingly while I was talking, too, and I thought, "Oh Christ, I've said something wrong." Haaaaaa. ♥

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was grinning because my inner fangirl was going "OMG Halogirl!!!" But I didn't want to come across as a major idiot or anything. ;-)

[cleito.livejournal.com]

One of my hypotheses is that labeling a fic as crack is a way for a good writer to write what she wants, no matter how bizarre, and still be considered a good writer. Do you agree?

Just as canon has a certain style and range, so do many authors find a 'groove' in their voice. As many of the authors considered above-average or great in fandom tend to be those who devote many (excellent) words to their favorite universe(s), a certain level and style (and near-professionalism) becomes expected from their work. Crack can be a way for an author to write as she wishes, and by labeling it crack she can avoids the 'but it's not like story X' from comments, permitting new avenues of exploration without abandoning previously walked paths.

Also, crack is damn fun! I don't follow HP as closely as some, but over in SGA, crack can sometimes out-weigh the 'regular' fic. It makes me happy when I read it, and in the end, that's all the matters.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I agree with this comment! :-D Seriously, this is pretty much exactly what I was thinking, so that's very cool.

[paper-tzipporah.livejournal.com]

I honestly believe that the BEST fic in SGA fandom is crackfic. Mostly because of the one with the dinosaurs, where Sheppard is a skateboarding botanist. And the one with the disco ball.

But seriously, SGA fandom's best stories tend to be ABSURD.

Thought: crackfic in general, in any fandom, frequently involves the mockery of a cliche (sometimes parody, yes, but not always), so in HP fandom that would be the excessive amount of veela!Draco fic, and in SGA fandom that would be the Ancient device or aliens make them do it fic. Because there are plenty of (perfectly good) fics where aliens or an Ancient device make them do it, but that aren't crackfics. And I was going somewhere with this a minute ago, and now I'm completely off-track. Oh. Crack, when it's the mockery of a cliche without being parody. Is this making sense? It goes back to the issue of plausibility not being taken seriously, I think. Whether there's a disco ball helping Sheppard's sex life or Draco suddenly needing to marry Harry Potter because of his veela heritage. Whatever.

[rubymiene.livejournal.com]

The writers of SG1 and SGA *canon* are crack-y. Especially every single time-travel eps.

[jamoche]

Oh yeah. That's what I love about it - and Farscape, too - the way they take SF cliches (time travel, body swap, groundhog day) and manage to both play it straight and recognise that it's cracky. But it's not parody.

The Onion or Landover Baptist are parody, but not crack (took me several pages to work out that Landover was parody because they're so like the real thing, and of course all HP fans know how people take the Onion seriously at times).

The movie Airplane is both (despite lifting their plot and much of their script almost verbatim from a movie that was meant to be taken seriously).

Hmm. Parody is making fun of something to point out its absurdities, while crack is absurd in and of itself?

[elzybub.livejournal.com]

*Does crack have to be intentional and labeled as such by the author/artist? That is, can you write or draw crack without meaning to?*

To me crack fiction needs to be promoted as such. Otherwise I just read it as being a bad fic. Don't get me wrong. I love crack when its written well, but most crack can be read as just ridiculously bad if you don't go into it with the right frame of mind.

[florahart]

I think you can write or draw crack without meaning to, in that you start on something, initially fail to realize you have a gaping hole, fix the gaping hole by means of absurd premise, and go back and adjust the fic to work that way. So by then it's intentional, but it didn't start that way. Mostly, though, I think it grows out of the (known) absurd premise.

I suppose to an extent the label allows writing what I want without worrying about how crazy it is; however, I don't think that A. I can write just ANYthing and call it crack and be okay, or B. that I can do so without awareness of the relevant surrounding conventions. So, if I decide I want to write, uh, what don't I usually write? Um. Sirius/Lucius watersports, even if I want the premise to be the fact that Sirius has peed on Lucius keeps him from falling all the way through the veil because Lucius is there and they have this magical connection and it pulls him back and requires fucking right there--that premise is cracked out, yes, but I still need to not suck at writing Sirius (and Lucius) and I still need to have some general notion of the watersports part.

I do think crack is a subversion of both fanon and canon (sometimes multiple ones--pastiches often work because they poke both canons and possibly both fanons a whole lot), and I know you say like fanon is to canon, but I still feel like it's worth saying: it's a loving subversion. I think it's rarely mean-spirited. I mean some fanon conventions have a version of, say, Harry, that the secion of fandom involved says is because the real Harry is a weenie or whatever, and I don't think I see that so much in crack fic. It might mock, but maybe not meanly. Or maybe it's that if it seemed to, I would be Very Inclined To Backbutton.

[penknife.livejournal.com]

See, I don't see crack as parody (or necessarily intended to be funny), I see it as deliberately starting with an absurd premise (absurd by the standards of your canon, which may vary) and not making an attempt to justify the premise as plausible. If you start with an absurd premise that you do think is plausible, then you're just writing a bad story, not writing crack.

To me, crack fic is like the teller of tall tales who can say with a straight face "So, there was this unicorn that walked into the grocery store. No, I swear," and keep you fascinated even though you know that, probably, no. Bad fic is the wild-eyed girl who pins you down at a party to tell you about how unicorns are real and there is a conspiracy to conceal the truth. Totally different vibe.

"crack fic is like the teller of tall tales..."

[verdenia.livejournal.com]

This completely reminded me of one time when I went River Rafting, and I just had to share.

The guide said, "Know what the difference between a Fairy Tale and a River Guide's story is?"

"A Fairy Tale starts out, 'Once upon a time...', and a river guide story starts out, 'So there I was, no shit...'"

;D

[physixxx.livejournal.com]

per furiosity's comment,


for you (http://bethbethbeth.livejournal.com/328781.html?thread=7410765#t7410765).


;)

[coffeejunkii.livejournal.com]

listening to the panel and talking about this during lunch afterwards, i realized that for me, it's important to distinguish between intentional and unintentional crack. for example, i'd call f's or geoviki's fic intentional crack, but then there are stories that are most likely written in all seriousness but i'd call them crack anyway because they are just that insane. in the latter case, i find the fic funny, but the author might not agree.

also, it was intersting to me that you picked phaballa's fic to read from because i don't think i was thinking of it as crack fic when i read it. i def. thought it was funny, but it didn't seem so over the top that i'd label it crack. although...maybe that was just because i didn't think there'd be any crack fic for the smutmas exchange. hmmm.

[starrysummer.livejournal.com]

I'm one of those people who thinks that crack has its basis in deliberate absurdism for effect, or stretching the boundaries of what we accept as fic of that canon, rather than in humor. Yet I still consider that, on some level, subversive of canon and of fanon in that it runs contrary to the premises and standards typical of HP fanfiction.

I think that most crack is humor, but there's is crack that's not. I'm a bit braindead and can only think of my own examples, but things like a Harry Potter/Crime and Punishment crossover, Bellatrix/Luna told in free verse through the eyes of River Tam, and Bellatrix/Squid angst fic... I consider these crack, but not humor or parody.

Which, of course, is a very inconvenient sub-genre, since it blows the lid off all the definitions we do have of crack, but if that's not crack, I'm not sure what to call it.

(and, as an aside, I didn't answer the movies since I fail at movies and have only seen a piece of Spaceballs and none of the other ones)

[paper-tzipporah.livejournal.com]

It's because absurdism isn't necessarily funny. Exactly. Crack relies on absurdism, not comedy. Although it's frequently funny, yes.

[incroyable.livejournal.com]

I think that this is an excellent discussion. I love talking about crack! I love the icons! Ahaha! *joy*

I think I agree with you completely - crack is a subversion of fanfic just as fanfic is of canon. And I think it's a kind of parody, and that it gives authors a way to label something so that they protect their "dignity" and can post crazy shit.

:D

[darksylvia.livejournal.com]

One of my hypotheses is that labeling a fic as crack is a way for a good writer to write what she wants, no matter how bizarre, and still be considered a good writer. Do you agree?

I think that people do do this, but the difference is, some people pull it off because they know they're good writers, and some people use the label to try and disguise the fact that they're really writing straight out bad!fic.

Another hypothesis is that crack is a subversion of fanon, much like fanon is a subversion of canon. Do you agree?

I agree with this for the most part. I know there are probably exceptions, but one of my favorites is basically taking a very badly abused fandom cliche and making it new, funny, and almost plausible.

[darksylvia.livejournal.com]

Oh, here is the fic I was using for reference: My Animal, by mcpofife, who supplies me with the purest, smiling-so-wide-it-hurts, crackfic for Queer as Folk.

[krissielee.livejournal.com]

So yes. I'm ignoring the whole entry, because you said you'd wanted to know when I posted that Seamus/Draco I'd done for sherant's picture...and I just did.

*loves on*

[rubymiene.livejournal.com]

Unintentional crack is possible, if someone is just doodling or writing without a Plan, but if someone tries to write a serious!fic and it ends up cracky, that's just bad.
And labeling I think is used as warning to the reader. Some people don't like or are not in the mood for crack. And it does prevent confusion and stupid comments from people who take the fic/art seriously.

[letmypidgeonsgo.livejournal.com]

crack, to me, is like the elephant in the room doing tricks: it's basically saying what we're all thinking (usually about fanon cliches & whatnot), whether we realise we're thinking it or not, in the most ingenious way

alas, this whole panel is yet another thing to make me weep over the fact that i was not at lumos :( damn my semi-newbie-ness!

and semi-OT: i think it should be said that, like all things in life, BNF status is relative. i've noticed those whom a lot of H/D and Snarry people consider BNFs may be all but unheard of amonst R/Hr, H/Hr etc people, and vice-versa. that said, for whatever reason you seem to have bridged that gap a bit (i probably wouldn't have found you otherwise), and i, personally, would consider you a BNF (but without the negative connotations), at least amongst us multi-shippers and/or those who read both het and slash

[/ramble]

[scarah2.livejournal.com]

Does crack have to be intentional and labeled as such by the author/artist? That is, can you write or draw crack without meaning to?

As I discussed a bit in the panel, I believe that crack is in the eye of the beholder. It's a genre like any other; just as it is possible to read a story labelled "Action/Adventure" and say "Dude, that's a good story but whatever about the labels, I thought it was a romance story," so is it possible for a reader/viewer to perceive crack where none is intended. Also, not only does the piece have to be "intentionally bad," it doesn't have to be bad at all. It can be of course, I mean my stuff just is what it is. But I can look at a perfectly executed Dali or Bosch and declare that I think it is crack, because it has people being shit out into a giant toilet in hell, or whatever.

One of my hypotheses is that labeling a fic as crack is a way for a good writer to write what she wants, no matter how bizarre, and still be considered a good writer. Do you agree?

I don't really feel qualified to answer. Alas, my poor technical ability just is what it is. I don't even label my drawings as crack, but I guess furiosity thinks so since she asked me if I wanted to do the panel. :D

Another hypothesis is that crack is a subversion of fanon, much like fanon is a subversion of canon. Do you agree?

Sometimes. Some of my ideas come straight from the books, no fanon necessary. Other times, the jokes are more of a commentary on stuff that's going on in the fan world.

Thanks for posting this! The fun never has to end!

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Beta comment. I think these questions actually contradict each other: Does crack have to be intentional and labeled as such by the author/artist? That is, can you write or draw crack without meaning to? Answering YES to the first question would necessitate a NO to the second.

[brumeux77.livejournal.com]

On the last question I didn't check many things that might be wonderful examples of crack. I'm still desperately trying to catch up on my flist from the week I was at a convention in Texas, so I don't have time just now to read the fics "linked above"; and most of the movies I hadn't seen.

But definitely, crack (good crack, of course) is a good thing.

[countryapple1x2.livejournal.com]

One of my hypotheses is that labeling a fic as crack is a way for a good writer to write what she wants, no matter how bizarre, and still be considered a good writer. Do you agree?
I said maybe so I guess I'll start here. I don't think that by saying something is crack!fic you're per-say using it to write whatever you want, because it can be used for that. I think though that more importantly Crack fic is just a way to poke fun at yourself. I'm a huge Hanson fan, (dooorked) so this is something I've been dealing with since I was like 12, and in every fandom I find myself in I get more and more upset when people can't make fun of themselves. I mean at the end of the day, it's all nuts. But you need to have fun with it and it's something you enjoy so it's okay. When it gets crazy and wanky I tend to step back and be like "WTF mate, start laughing because this is crazy!" (this is also why I'm not very far into the HP fandom at ALL, but there's others and they are ALL the same.) So what I guess I'm trying to say is that I think good Crack fic or art should really just let you Laugh. In some cases it might be a bit harsh, I could see certain girls reading Viki's fic (all I've had time to go and read because I'm a bad person) and being like "OMIGOSH!!!!!!!11 I wrote that!!! WTF!" They could get mad or whatever. I used to write the stereo-type (back when I wrote...at all.) in the Gundam Wing fandom, and if I were to find that online tucked away someplace or on an old computer or something...I would want to die. It was TRAGICALLY bad, and you look back and you know you've improved, or decided it wasn't your thing, whatever. THAT is when you can really appreciate Crack Fic, when you see the flaws, even if you still have them, and you just have fun with it anyhow. I think that was just a crazy run on sentence, and I don't know that I'm being at all clear here. But there you go. My thoughts on Crack. Since I didn't go to lumos and I had to jump in.

[qurinas.livejournal.com]

I haven't done the survey yet, but another example of a "crack fic" movie is: The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. Totally cracked out!!

Cracktastic!

[verdenia.livejournal.com]

I think crack and parody can often overlap, but aren't always subsumed by the other.

I chose most of the movies, but neither of the places, because, while I suppose that they are bizarre, I don't find them that amusing. Perhaps if I was going with the 'absurd' definition I would've chosen those.

LOVED the crack panel, OMG. ;D
I think you really had the right combo of panel time and audience time. Of course, it would've been even more fun with even more time... ;D

Hmm, my train of thought keeps rolling off the track [tryin' to act like somethin' else, tryin' to go where it's been uninvited...]

So, yeah. I'll post more if I think of more. Now is bedtime! ;P

[tamlane.livejournal.com]

You know, this panel alone makes me sorry I missed Lumos. I like all genres, but I am a HUGE fan of crackfic. The more ridiculous, the better. The best example I can think of, from the past few months, is The Completely Cracktastic MPREG Fic The Moste Potente Swore She'd Never Write (http://themostepotente.livejournal.com/147328.html). I laughed so hard I thought I might have permanently damaged an internal organ.

it will deviate from canon and perhaps even logic, but it will most likely be entertaining
That's an excellent definition of crackfic. :D

many who create crack works will argue that they put as much effort into them as they do their more mainstream fiction and art
And I stand behind this argument. Humour is very difficult to write. Any kind of humour is primarily dependent on timing, and this is espcially difficult to portray in the written word. Your pacing has to be spot-on. Also, one can be absurd without being funny. One can be satirical without being funny. (Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondents' Dinner is a good example. You laugh to keep from crying.) And everyone has a diffent idea of what makes something funny. How, therefore, can anyone call crackfic an effortless genre?

Does crack have to be intentional and labeled as such by the author/artist? That is, can you write or draw crack without meaning to?
Absolutely. Some of the best crack I've read isn't labeled as such. And it's always fun to read the comments to those fics. They're usually along the lines of "Wait a minute...." Talk about true tongue-in-cheek. XD

One of my hypotheses is that labeling a fic as crack is a way for a good writer to write what she wants, no matter how bizarre, and still be considered a good writer. Do you agree?
Yeah, unfortunately, I think that's a common view in fandom. It's also probably why there's just as much mediocrity in the crack genre as any other.

And, by the way, Blazing Saddles? I'm WAY surprised that one didn't get more votes. Mel Brooks was definitely "smoking something." XD

Re-posted comment because I fail at HTML.

[hlglne.livejournal.com]

I think that some badfic did not get written intentionally to be funny, but fandom in its mercy labels it crack and laughs. Only a few badfics can make the transmutation into crack. Prime example? Star Wars, the bad subtitled version.AKA "The Backstroke of the West"
http://winterson.com/2005/06/episode-iii-backstroke-of-west.html
which the fandom has fondly taken to its heart and quotes frequently.

[oddnari.livejournal.com]

Not taking poll, not sure how my own thoughts shall translate in the course of meandering.

I disagree that humour=crack=parody.
Parody and crack could overlap, I suppose (why can't I remember any examples when I need to trot them out!?), but the idea that an unusual premise could be considered cracky... um, not sure I agree. F'rinstance, this AU-fic of Nancy Maloy's Malfoy, P.I.... I don't consider it cracky. In fact, it's a lot of good writing set in non-Hogwarts circumstances. On the other hand, I consider Jennavere's fics to be cracky - though she didn't intend writing them that way. Erm. <.< >.> Erm again. There was some atrocious fic where Draco takes some weird potion and ogodspleasecanifuckoffanddiealready he, he, he, he ARGH performs "Like a Virgin" in the Great Hall and squeals his twu wub for Harry ... eesh.. that was like, the most seriously bad crack EVAH and that's because I consider it crack. The story (a multi-chaptered thingie) did not have any such warning, just "humour" and "fluff".


Continuing my vein, something as absurd as Geoviki's premise of model!Draco or even yours of Barista!Draco-thegayestgaywhoevergayed cannot be considered cracky because, well, it came across that both you and Geoviki believed thoroughly in your stories and your characterisations, and that belief translated into your writings so much that I as a reader believed in these tropes as well. Perhaps the writer's own voice is the deciding factor whether a story would qualify as crack or not - in Fu's big phat hwarts fic, her narrative is such that, well, you know she doesn't take it seriously. Edallia's Legacy's Fall has a crazy, cracky Narcissa but she works as a nutty unmommyish mother in the parameters of the fic, if not in and by herself.

Um.
So... I personally would think that crack can be a very good thing or a very bad thing - in the right hands, that is. F'rinstance, remember that fic called Queen of Hearts that was written for the first Big Bang? I believe much of slash fandom considers it cracky, but I just considered it pure WTF-in-a-seriously-bad-way. Dunno why.

I think most of your poll questions are answered in some vague way, but one more thing I can add and that is good crack - like good writing - has to work for you. Maybe that's why I don't consider QoH cracky - it didn't work for me, whereas Fu's bartending-in-the-dark!Draco did. So, I don't agree that crack writing is just an excuse to write anything you want. If that was the case, I as a reader may have appreciated Jennavere's LikeAVirgin!Draco.

Now, for some unknown reason I feel hugely tempted to do a cross-over sketch of H/D+assorted-HPverse-chars with Greek mythology... remember the scene when Hephaestos catches Aphrodite and Ares in his golden net and all the other gods (and godesses) leer at the naked duo and pass dirty comments? Yeah, that. Would that qualify as crack? What if someone does not know the context? Won't the toga-wearing, spear-carrying Hogwarts characters just make some people go HUH?WTF?

bah, am shutting up now. I've not said anything to the purpose. sorry.