Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Fan Fiction & Poetry

Fan Fiction Acronyms and Shorthand - a glossary

(1/2) > >>

Ellemeno:
Hi FanFicFolk,

There is a lingo to discussing fan fiction, and I don't know it.  Do you think you could compile a glossary?  What is AU?

Thanks from those of us not in the know,

Clarissa

MaineWriter:

--- Quote from: Ellemeno on August 01, 2006, 01:44:44 am ---Hi FanFicFolk,

There is a lingo to discussing fan fiction, and I don't know it.  Do you think you could compile a glossary?  What is AU?

Thanks from those of us not in the know,

Clarissa

--- End quote ---

AU: alternate universe. My story is AU, Elle, in that I took the original and changed the ending. Compare to canon, which is what Louise is writing with the Laramie Saga. That storys begins after the movie/story ended and the sad reality is that Jack is dead. In canon, the author tries to be very true to all elements of the original characters as presented in the story. This may be the case is in AU, too.

People often abbreviate the names of stories, too, and it can be a challenge keeping track of them. My story is ALBFS (sometimes LBFS).

Other things you will see are expressions like moving on!Ennis (or mo!Ennis), which would be a story with Ennis moving on after Jack. You may see dead!Jack, too, which would be a story in which Jack is dead (or will die). dom!Ennis describes his sexual personality (dominant). Ennis is very much dom!Ennis in the Laramie Saga and people begged and pleaded for bottom!Ennis to show up. He eventually did.

Leslie

nakymaton:
Also:

OC: original character (a character not in the source, but created by the fanfic author)

OTP: one true pairing (a reader or writer's favorite pairing of characters; many people have these, and arguments over what is "canon" (I find that a rather, ummm, loaded term ;) ) often boil down to whether a writer strays from the fandom's dominant OTP

Marge_Innavera:

--- Quote from: nakymaton on August 01, 2006, 10:14:40 am ---arguments over what is "canon" (I find that a rather, ummm, loaded term ;) ) often boil down to whether a writer strays from the fandom's dominant OTP

--- End quote ---

I must admit that the term "canon" kinds of weirds me out; it always makes me think of the Council of Nicea deciding what books should go in the Bible.  ::)  But that's just a quirk.

And yeah, 'canon' is a loaded term with some disagreements about where it begins and ends. I've seen some stories referred to as 'not canon' even though the author didn't change anything from the original; with the reasoning that, according to the speaker's POV, some character (usually Ennis, sometimes Jack) has been changed enough that the character isn't the same. 

"AU" can get into some pretty alternate universes, too. "Human Interest" and "Two Crows Joy" change the ending of the original but pretty much keep to Ennis and Jack as we know them in the story and movie. But others put Ennis and Jack on the Titanic, in Paris, Ennis as a New York cop, Jack as a slutty truck stop whore, etc., etc. 

That brings up the question as to whether these are the same characters at all, or original ones inspired by the Brokeback principals.  IMO, when stories of this type are well-written, it would sometimes be a good idea for the author to just change the names: under those circumstances the story could be published for profit without any copyright issues.

MaineWriter:
You know, Marge, I have wondered that very thing (stories that are so AU the only connection to BBM are the names Ennis and Jack). The story that is taking place in Germany in 1933 (links are on this site)...I haven't read it carefully but it seems the only connection to the original are the name of the characters and the fact that Jack and Ennis have a homosexual and somewhat forbidden love affair. Why not just write that as an original story? It puzzles me.

Leslie

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page