![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kat_lairI need an icon that says GIANT DORK! However... During the course of my thesis reading I came across the following theory:
In *Aesthetics and Biopsychology, Berlyne (1971) attempts to explain the essential ingredients that make something aesthetically appealing to us. In addition to ‘psychophysical variables’ (size, colour, pitch etc.) and ‘ecological properties’ (those that describe the meaning of the stimulus), he outlined something called ‘collative variables’. These ‘collative variables’ seem to go beyond features inherent to the stimulus itself and tap instead into the interaction between the stimulus and the individual perceiving it. They also appear to combine the other characteristics and allow for comparison of the stimulus with prior experiences and expectations. Berlyne’s ‘collative variables’ are:
1. Novelty
2. Uncertainty and surprisingness
3. (Subjective) Complexity
4. Relationships between 1-3, especially between novelty and perceived complexity.
So, as soon as I read this, my fandom-warped brain piped up with RARE PAIRS! (come to think of it, this framework might also be used to explain the appeal of small fandoms...) It seems to fit so well… Let’s elaborate:
1. Novelty – A rare pairing is also usually the new pairing. No one’s though to write it before, or it’s the first time you’re reading it. How exciting! Something new besides the same-old, same-old of *insert any of the big OTPs here*
2. Uncertainty and surprisingness – Sometimes I read a rare pair fic just for the sheer boggle-factor, also known as the “ahaha omg the author is on drugs, how the fuck are they going to pull that off?” reaction. There’s the uncertainty of “will I really regret clicking on this link or…?” and the sometimes the surprise of “by all the laws of the universe this really shouldn’t work but holy shit, it so does!”
3. (Subjective) Complexity – I would argue that writing rare pairings requires more imagination and creativity than writing the big fandom OTP. It takes a more complex plot to make it plausible for person A and person Z to develop a relationship. After all, the pairing is considered rare because there is no or little canon support for it, and therefore fewer obvious storylines to utilise. A and Z just don’t hang out together or get into joint adventures nearly as much as that big A/B OTP. Or maybe they’ve never even met in canon (case study:![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
anywhere_road ). Ergo; complexity!
4. Relationships between 1-3 – Self-evident. Put all of the above together and in the hands of a talented author, their interaction can lead to some amazing fic. Or it can be the most scarring fanfic-experience of your life… But that’s the risk you take.
Anyway… DISCUSS! Or, you know, slowly back away from the crazy woman…
*Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and Biopsychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
In *Aesthetics and Biopsychology, Berlyne (1971) attempts to explain the essential ingredients that make something aesthetically appealing to us. In addition to ‘psychophysical variables’ (size, colour, pitch etc.) and ‘ecological properties’ (those that describe the meaning of the stimulus), he outlined something called ‘collative variables’. These ‘collative variables’ seem to go beyond features inherent to the stimulus itself and tap instead into the interaction between the stimulus and the individual perceiving it. They also appear to combine the other characteristics and allow for comparison of the stimulus with prior experiences and expectations. Berlyne’s ‘collative variables’ are:
1. Novelty
2. Uncertainty and surprisingness
3. (Subjective) Complexity
4. Relationships between 1-3, especially between novelty and perceived complexity.
So, as soon as I read this, my fandom-warped brain piped up with RARE PAIRS! (come to think of it, this framework might also be used to explain the appeal of small fandoms...) It seems to fit so well… Let’s elaborate:
1. Novelty – A rare pairing is also usually the new pairing. No one’s though to write it before, or it’s the first time you’re reading it. How exciting! Something new besides the same-old, same-old of *insert any of the big OTPs here*
2. Uncertainty and surprisingness – Sometimes I read a rare pair fic just for the sheer boggle-factor, also known as the “ahaha omg the author is on drugs, how the fuck are they going to pull that off?” reaction. There’s the uncertainty of “will I really regret clicking on this link or…?” and the sometimes the surprise of “by all the laws of the universe this really shouldn’t work but holy shit, it so does!”
3. (Subjective) Complexity – I would argue that writing rare pairings requires more imagination and creativity than writing the big fandom OTP. It takes a more complex plot to make it plausible for person A and person Z to develop a relationship. After all, the pairing is considered rare because there is no or little canon support for it, and therefore fewer obvious storylines to utilise. A and Z just don’t hang out together or get into joint adventures nearly as much as that big A/B OTP. Or maybe they’ve never even met in canon (case study:
anywhere_road ). Ergo; complexity!4. Relationships between 1-3 – Self-evident. Put all of the above together and in the hands of a talented author, their interaction can lead to some amazing fic. Or it can be the most scarring fanfic-experience of your life… But that’s the risk you take.
Anyway… DISCUSS! Or, you know, slowly back away from the crazy woman…
*Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and Biopsychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
no subject
on 2009-03-20 03:13 am (UTC)I like his 'collative variables'. I now want to read Berlyne, just to get more of the interesting ideas.
I agree with everything you say about rare pairings. I think you could expand his principles outwards, too, and apply them to the wider appeal of fanfiction:
1. the way it shows us novel things we wouldn't see in canon; 2. surprising ideas and the uncertainty that comes from a fanfic authors' lack of corporate/generic limitations;
3. the layers of complexity you can get as an author by using fans' existing knowledge, working with the intertextuality, playing with canon and fanon, crossing and comparing different media;
4. the relationship between all of the above, which is what can make fanfic so successful and so addictive. /geekiness
I love your brain. You show me beautiful ideas like this, and then in the comment thread you make talk about damn nasty showmakers, killing off both your OTP (who'd never even met in canon) because it makes things a bit awkward for you to write - but you haven't little minor details like that stop you! *laughs* I love that; it's so fandom. Never change! *G*
no subject
on 2009-03-20 11:59 pm (UTC)I think you could expand his principles outwards, too, and apply them to the wider appeal of fanfiction - Oh I like the ideas you've outlined here, very true. Especially the bit about how fanfic writers can offer an almost subversive interpretation of the text, precisely because they are not constrained by politics/funding etc. And yes, with shared canon knowledge you can be very subtle with the writing and trust the reader to get it without extensive explanations.
And hee! My brain loves you right back! It's so awesome to have people on my f-list who see geekery such as this and go "oooh shiny!" instead of "omg what a loser!" And heh yeah, killing off my OTP will only spur me on...
Thank you for commenting, it's always fascinating to read other people's take on things!