When searching my old Usenet posts on Google Groups, I found a felicitous scrap of thought -- playing on Isaac Newton, alluding to comic books, but applicable elsewhere, perhaps to almost any serial story:

For every shortcoming of a comics character, there is an equal and opposite piece of rationalization.

I called this "Levitz' Law," in facetious allusion to a "Pocket Universe" that the "Legion of Super-Heroes" writer created. It was used to explain how Superboy could die heroically in the 30th Century, but we could still see Superman in the 20th. (Yeah, it was nearly as preposterous as it sounds ...)

That alternate continuum was done to satisfy "continuity" concerns at DC Comics, with their reducing matters to having only one Superman (no AUs, in other words) after a mega-crossover.

But doesn't fan fiction often work this way, as well, amigos y amigas?

Many tales are spun to bring those we've seen on screen closer to our heart's desire, or to the "better" romantic partner, or just toward less inconsistency.

The best fan fiction may well be that which hides this motive. I believe that it's more of a sign of respect to the original creators of the source material to keep this in check.

Yet I'm sure -- from earmarks of it, after reading over 50 MB of Dariafics in the past year -- that it's more widespread than any of us want to admit. Many "realistic" fanfics get Daria made over, literally with contacts and lipstick, figuratively with a change of demeanor.

Food for thought, maybe. Is this a proper motive for writers, admitted or not? Does it help in becoming motivated to tell a tale? Should it be prominent, or even visible, in a tale?

§    §    §

Scissors, yesterday in comments on James's post, mentioned a painted-wood Daria figurine that he'd seen. I think this may be it, but I didn't store the URL for it, either. (Please claim credit as the creator, if you're reading.)



What's she standing on, though? A piece of cheese? That much would catch any squirrel ...