(no subject)
Aug. 6th, 2008 10:44 am![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
I am perhaps not the only one who, spurred by the histories ficathon, is looking forward to this year's Yuletide Treasure.
This post is intended to point histories fans in its direction, because the more of us there are the more likely it is there will be histories!fic, and that is a good thing.
But it's also intended to suggest we get some kind of consensus about how our fandoms are categorised. Last year there was only 'the Henry plays', which seems to me to be a bit unsatisfactory. But how should it be done?
- One big 'Shakespeare - Histories' category?
- 'first tetralogy' and 'second tetralogy'? But what about people who get them mixed up - it's a bit confusing that the second one comes first in historical terms, and what about people who don't know what a tetralogy is but are fans of R3 or H5 or whatever?
- 'Richard II', 'the Henry IV plays', 'Henry V', 'the Henry VI plays', 'Richard III'?
- individual plays?
It seems to me that when it gets to the fandom requesting part of the schedule, in September, it would be better if we could all agree and ask for the same things so as not to confuse the organisers.*
* Although more histories-esque if we could have a giant schism over it, split into Team Whiterose and Team Redrose, and then maybe get assassinated by a bunch of Henry VIII and King John fans incensed at not getting included at all.
This post is intended to point histories fans in its direction, because the more of us there are the more likely it is there will be histories!fic, and that is a good thing.
But it's also intended to suggest we get some kind of consensus about how our fandoms are categorised. Last year there was only 'the Henry plays', which seems to me to be a bit unsatisfactory. But how should it be done?
- One big 'Shakespeare - Histories' category?
- 'first tetralogy' and 'second tetralogy'? But what about people who get them mixed up - it's a bit confusing that the second one comes first in historical terms, and what about people who don't know what a tetralogy is but are fans of R3 or H5 or whatever?
- 'Richard II', 'the Henry IV plays', 'Henry V', 'the Henry VI plays', 'Richard III'?
- individual plays?
It seems to me that when it gets to the fandom requesting part of the schedule, in September, it would be better if we could all agree and ask for the same things so as not to confuse the organisers.*
* Although more histories-esque if we could have a giant schism over it, split into Team Whiterose and Team Redrose, and then maybe get assassinated by a bunch of Henry VIII and King John fans incensed at not getting included at all.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 10:17 am (UTC)I think that we are probably stuck with "The Henry Plays" as a category because it already exists, although if I were in charge of these things, I would count the individual plays individually but consider the multipart plays one play for categorization purposes. I suppose that the Richard plays would probably each get their own category if anyone wrote anything about them for Yuletide; other Shakespeare plays get listed individually...
no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 10:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 10:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 11:49 am (UTC)And ever since I discovered Yuletide a few months ago, I'm dying to join in. Is the sign-up process incredibly complicated?
no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 04:30 am (UTC)Announcements are on the lj community. Actual signups and nominations are on the website. You can still see the unfilled requests from last year up on the website.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 04:36 pm (UTC)But I like the third option you've suggested--currently, Yuletide appears to be going by play, but I'd feel silly asking for 'a 2 Henry VI fic, plzkthx.'
no subject
Date: 2008-08-07 01:32 pm (UTC)(ME TOO. Repeat next year, yes?)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-07 01:51 pm (UTC)Additionally, I'm thinking of doing a Greeks'n'Romans ficathon, possibly for March--would you be up for something like that?
no subject
Date: 2008-08-07 01:55 pm (UTC)(A bit! I'm Gil. You write lovely things.)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-07 02:13 pm (UTC)(Not creepy! I've been poking about yours, as well. >_>;; And, yes, I appear to have a monopoly on Very Small Fandoms. Still need to get around to writing Kalevala fic.)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-07 02:25 pm (UTC)Exactly! No fandom cliches yet. Which is, as far as I am concerned, just how it should be.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-07 02:58 pm (UTC)Well. My lady wants me to write her Ivan/Alyosha, and the Brothers K fandom seems like it's all about the Dmitri/Alyosha, so it's not like small fandoms are exempt from the taboo-busting. But I agree about the kids on the music. XD
no subject
Date: 2008-08-08 12:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-08 05:53 am (UTC)Although I have seen Tennant/John Barrowman, but it was crackfic where fangirls paid them to. I'm not sure crackfic counts. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-08 12:20 am (UTC)Maybe I should write a NYR fic anyway, just to be on the safe side. There is an unfilled request for Richard II/Henry IV (or maybe it is Richard II&Henry IV, I'm not sure). Surely I could manage that.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-07 02:40 pm (UTC)You mean Shakespeare Greeks'n'Romans, or Greeks'n'Romans in general? I'm keen the idea either way!
no subject
Date: 2008-08-07 02:49 pm (UTC)And, rather transparently, I want more Coriolanus fic.no subject
Date: 2008-08-08 12:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-08 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-08 12:02 am (UTC)Oh hell yes. Because I had a complete blast. Plus it made me get off my ass and finish something!
no subject
Date: 2008-08-08 12:04 am (UTC)