gabbydwg | Purists?

I find that I am coming to really dislike the word purist.

It's not that I necessarily dislike so-called purists, either. Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that I used to call myself a purist, around the time that one Mansfield Park movie came out.

The thing is, I like faithfulness to the books. I really do. It's just that when people try to apply the concept of "purism" to fanfiction that I get a little twitchy.

What does it mean, anyway? Usually, what someone means when they say "I guess I'm just too much of a purist," is that they really think theirs is the right view, but who are they to flout popular opinion? It's a passive-aggressive way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'm going to humor you. But I'm still right. Nanny nanny poo poo."

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it's one thing to be faithful to the book when you're doing a retelling, like a movie or a play, or whatever. But fanfiction is a whole different kettle of fish. The very point of fanfiction is to stray from the text, in whatever way we like. To explore this possibility or that plot hole. To poke fun, when it's merited. The people who want nothing but retellings in this way or that way are really missing the point of it all. I'd feel sorry for them, if they didn't aggravate me so much.

In conclusion: people who say "I guess I'm just too much of a purist" probably aren't really that big on purism as long as the changes made don't mess with their own sacred cows. "Anything goes..... except that" seems to be the prevailing attitude. And it's that hypocrisy that's the really annoying part.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It would be less aggravating if they weren't often wrong, or focusing on a single aspect or dimension of the original they want to keep pure, but forgetting about the rest.

For instance, some of those so-called purists have forgotten about the humour in JA's books. They think it's all about the Mother Of All Romances, so that if a story keeps the wit but not the pairing, it's impure, whereas a romance that takes itself too seriously (cf. MOAR) with the right pairing is acceptable to them.

I wonder how big the self-identification factor is for self-declared purists: all the MaryBennets who think they are Elizabeth.

it's probably the largest factor there is.

It somehow hits them in the core of their own being if Darcy marries another, or if Lizzy settles for second best. I wonder what would happen if Lizzy married Darcy's superior for once.

I really don't understand how they can be so emotionally attached to the couple in that way, though -- none of them would blink if the character names were changed. But most of the time, the names are the only thing linking them to the original. So what's the difference, really?

Argh, the lack of logic, it hurts.

>It's just that when people try to apply the concept of "purism" to fanfiction that I get a little twitchy.

I actually laughed out loud at this. Do people actually do this? It seems ridiculous, because for me fanfiction is like the opposite of purism.

>Usually, what someone means when they say "I guess I'm just too much of a purist," is that they really think theirs is the right view, but who are they to flout popular opinion? It's a passive-aggressive way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'm going to humor you. But I'm still right. Nanny nanny poo poo."

That and also: JA totally agrees with me. What they really should say is: I don't see things quite the same way as you do instead of the purism idiocy, but I suppose most of these people aren't honest enough to admit it (or even smart enough to realise it).

They just can't bring themselves to admit that there might be more than one "right" view, as happens with literary interpretation.

I keep wanting to ask: If they really are "purists," why on earth are they even looking at a fanfiction site instead of rereading the original book? After all, the only thing that is pure in the world of JAFF is the source material; everything else takes liberties (and that includes their sacred cow: P&P2).

Exactly! It's like they use the word purist to reassert their belief that they are right.

So true! Being a purist would necessarily mean that JA, and ONLY JA, can write JA's books, so the mere existence of fanfic must upset a purist.

Those calling themselves purists are quite happy to read FF, as long as it includes L&D and LOADS of mush (maybe a little angst too). But, people, wake up - that's not what "purism" is about.

LOL - there's not even mush in the book

It's interesting that in reviews for the recent adaptions on the "Jane Austen Season", I saw a lot of people making it a point of superiority that they were NOT purists. As in, "I know the Austen fans will hate this, but I'm no purist, so I was able to appreciate the angst in Sally Hawkin's portrayal of Anne Elliot." Implying that not being a purist gave a higher and more sophisticated insight into the artsiness of the adaptation.

I always called myself a purist too, but now thinking about it, there is a difference between adaptations and fanfic. I am a purist when it comes to adaptations. (What is the point of adapting the novel if you're going to ignore characterization and miss the entire point of the plot?) On the other hand, I expect fanfic to play with the original in creative ways. But in a way, I'm also a purist when it comes to fanfic, in that I expect characterizations to be consistent. Maybe that's not really purism, though. It might just be good writing. I don't agree with the shy!Darcy theory for the book, but I don't care if you want to make him shy in your fanfic, as long as you explain it in a logical and believable way.

yeah, I've heard it both ways, too, and both ways are equally irritating. However, while I can concede that a lack of purism when it comes to adaptations can make the filmgoing experience more enjoyable, if the movie itself is good, I fail to see how any enjoyment can come from reading the same story over and over, with only the same variations.

I wonder if anyone really uses the word "purist" in a positive sense, regardless of which side they're taking.

if anyone really uses the word "purist" in a positive sense, regardless of which side they're taking
[
Mostly just in the "see me know my stuff" way ;-)

thank you, guy

I'm not a guy, but you're welcome anyway......

Purists?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

well done

Re: well done