Old Guard and Avant Guard

[hagsrus.livejournal.com]

I understand somebody commented that The Gift of the Moggy and my other writing is "old guard" -- which I take to be descriptive, not negative -- but it's not something I'd ever thought about. "Old guard" seems generally to be used to describe attitudes toward the fandom rather than its content, but it's quite likely I've missed something.

I assume the opposite is avant guard.

I'd be very interested to know what might put a story into one category or the other.

Comments

[londonronnie.livejournal.com]

"Old guard" is a description that I've used myself in describing Pros fic. I certainly don't use it any derogatory way - to me it merely means those writers who've been around a lot longer than those of us who are relative newcomers. I suppose I'd use the term "classic" in the same way.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

That was me ::waves:: and you're correct, it's not a negative, it's descriptive. It sounds negative, though, which was not my intention. I guess I tend to divide fanfic (and yes, fandom itself, that is true) into various styles -- "old guard" I suppose might better be called "traditional format and story-telling." This is not a scientific demarcation -- it's purely subjective; if story is domestic in nature, id the writing style is solid but not inventive (not a slam, again, just an observation), if the humor is standard and a bit jokey, if there is a certain "awwwww" factor or hint of cuteness (not schmoopy, not syrupy, no, I do not find that in your writing) to the story, if there are pets or children, to me that's old guard.

I find such stories in Starsky and Hutch and Man From UNCLE, too, and they are quite readable -- just not my favorite type of story. I confess to being attracted to edgier style, more danger, less humor, no cats or small animals figuring prominently in any way, no children. I also like to read stories where the author experiments with style, with language, with POV, second person, future tense, etc. etc. etc. I like a bit of bitter with my sweet.

As I say, it's all subjective. I will read a story by you any day -- whereas I do not willingly read Olympian Heights or any of the authors whose language I find impenetrable, and whose humor baffles me. I know certain folk on the lists took a bit of exception to my comment; that happens, but it perhaps assumes some sort of agenda on my part that does not exist. Some like chocolate ice cream, some like butter pecan. I like bitter chocolate-almond-butter pecan-mint-with-coffee chips and whipped cream. As I said in my original comment to this journal, I appreciated hearing the rec anyway -- it is interesting to see how fans' tastes diverge.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

Shall I sign this "Shedhead?"

[blktauna.livejournal.com]

I tend to think of Old Guard as people who were writing before the net boom and Avant Guard as something I'm probably uninterested in reading as it's more concerned with sytle, artificial edginess or some manner of experimentation that bears only a peripheral relation to Pros (or the show in question).

YMMV

[hagsrus.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry to have been the totally unwitting cause of that!

[hagsrus.livejournal.com]

Well, I've been around for eight years, which I guess makes me fairly new in such an old (and wonderful) fandom, and I'm certainly very net-positive.

Interim guard, perhaps?

[blktauna.livejournal.com]

lol!

just not mediocre guard!

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

:)

No worries. I chuckled.

Old Guard and Avant Guard

[(Anonymous)]

I think of the Old Guard as those authors that were zine writers before online availability and Avant as internet start to fandom.

I've never used when someone started writing as a clue to their ability. There are tons of older stories that I love and equal number of new that I love as well. The same could be said for those I dislike.

Humour is different, one has to get it to find it humourous. It took a few years to get most all of Brit humour, but now I laugh when I'm watching Brit shows and my family don't get why I laugh. I'm pretty sure the reverse would be true for a Brit watching a US comedy for the first time.

krisser

[franciskerst.livejournal.com]

I feel a little baffled by the whole debate and still more by the attempts of a definition for "Old Guard". I am quite new in the fandom (though I dared to write two months recs in crack_van), but by mere chance, or maybe through the previous recs in the same community, I started my readings with the oldest authors which, I suppose, may be called "classic", like Sebastian and M. Fae Glasgow (and a few others the name escape my mind just now) and, certainly, I wouldn't say they lack edginess or originality in style or topics. On the contrary, my vision of the first "Pros" writers is that, as a rule, they seem to be darker and grittier than the later ones. But that's just a subjective impression based on a short experience.

[brenk.livejournal.com]

Heh - doesn't this just show how different people give different connotations to things, and how easy it *could* be to get huffy *g*. And no, not saying anybody is - just feeling a little amazed by a few things in fandom at the mo, such as the new 'hate community' thing.

I see avant garde as something... new and different, experimental, out of the ordinary *at the time*. A different angle, or tense use (I saw very few present tense stories among the older ones, and then it got popular so is hardly new and different any more).

Old guard I see as people, not stories. Them as wot have been around a while - *not* in any way in a rut or as writing a certain type of story in a specific style.

In fact, I honestly don't think you can really lump the writing of the 'older' (in terms of time in the fandom) people together and say it's different to the 'newer' stuff, because I think you get all sorts of styles, angles, plotlines in both, although you do see fads come and go and cycles recur.

Maybe, just maybe there's one difference, though. The first Pros writers came up with some plotlines that since then have been done regularly (I nearly put 'done to death' *g*). Maybe some of the newer versions of 'Doyle gets kidnapped' - just for instance - are richer, quirkier, etc. either *because* the writer knows it's already been done or simply (at the risk of being lynched) because the newer writer simply writes differently, or in a way that's more widely appreciated (notice I am avoiding the word 'better' for a reason).

But, y'know, those who wrote that plot *first* (or during the early stages) weren't in constant fear of treading on toes or being compared. And also, those who have been around a while may remember that Very First Doyle-was-kidnapped story and remember it fondly... as being 'avant garde' for the time, perhaps, while being less inclined to read 137 other stories on that theme. So maybe the newbies have an advantage too - they can jump into stories not even realising whether one is 'old' and a 'classic' or brand new... and thus avoid all the preconceptions of 'oh, X did that years ago'.

And to stick my neck out, I really don't subscribe to the whole 'people just don't write Pros like they used to' philosophy. I often remember my first ever taste of certain dishes with fondness, even if in later years I've probably had better versions thereof, but that first discovery was so special and so memorable that a whole mood is wrapped up in it all. And if I taste something and *don't* like it, I'm less inclined to try it again, even if people insist that 'it's gorgeous when done well'. And again - as I said above - the first taste may be great but you get tired of it after a while, if you get it three times a week. However open-minded one can be, I think that's human nature.

Funnily enough, Francis - and I'm sure you'll take this as it's meant - my own experience was that some newer stories were darker and grittier than the first ones I read. Just goes to show that impressions can vary so much, eh? Maybe I just stumbled on the fluff first, and maybe statistics would prove that more earlier stories *were* in fact considered or labelled 'dark', but I think we all know how reliable statistic can be and how much depends on personal perception.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Hmmn - I also tend to think of "old guard" in fandom people terms, rather than to describe a specific "type" of fic. And then it's in a very impressed, respectful kind of way, cos these are the people who started it all for us, right? But I don't see it as a writing style as such...

And um, avant guard? Maybe I've not found the avant guard Prosfic yet... *g*

I know I've personally not been around very long at all, but I've got to agree with Brenk above, I've not noticed any great divide "light" or "dark"-wise between "old" and "new" fic...

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

That's kind of how I see it.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

I don't think "older" or "earlier" Pros writers are by definition old guard, just as the the newer waves of writers in the fandom are not all "avant garde." I certainly would never put Sebastian in that category, because she took serious risks, embraced angst, did not autimatically provide a happy ending, and wrote in a grittier style than some people who are newer to the fandom. It's pefectly true that some earlier writers were more inventive or edgier or more unusual in their style than some of those who have followed. It is, for me, about style of writing, subject matter, and risks taken, not length of time in the fandom.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

Aargh. That's "automatically." I can spell, sure I can.