I often find myself in the position of trying to tell people why some part of a fanfic is bad. This can be problematic, as it can run into "matter of taste" arguments, where each side is trying to say their subjective preference is superior. I try to avoid this situation as far as possible, which means trying to find objective reasons to support my fanfiction preferences.

Example:

Evil Dumbledore

Subjective reasons why I don't like it: I like Dumbledore as a character, I think it's completely contrary to canon.

These reasons will not do anything to convince someone who dislikes Dumbledore as a character, or who has no care for canon compatibility. If I want to persuade someone not to write evil Dumbledore, I have to use other reasons -- reasons that anyone must accept, so long as they are trying to be a better writer.

Objective reasons to dislike it: complex characters are superior to simple ones, and evil Dumbledore is much simpler than the complexity of his canon character; well-written characters must have motivations for their actions, and evil Dumbledore's motivations are unclear; there can be no conflict in a fic with evil Dumbledore, as he is far beyond Harry's intelligence, skill and resources; the only way to create conflict is to make evil Dumbledore an idiot, which is just token conflict, not genuine conflict, and therefore not interesting.

Your turn.

 

I disagree that you can't make an intelligent evil Dumbledore and not have it ruin the story. It's just very hard and far beyond most writers.

 

What are intelligent evil Dumbledore's goals? Surely he has already achieved them all.

 

Any story wherein the conflict is artificial because the characters are idiotic for no reason is bad. This can just as easily apply to a good Dumbledore. The difference is that good Dumbledore is canon and we do not need to be told why he is the way he is.

An evil Dumbledore however is OOC and, if his motivation is not explained (or logical), it sours the story.

The fact that you accept your actual reasoning as subjective Taure is commendable, but your try to fabricate an objective reasoning to pull out in debates falls flat. The simle fact is that evil Dumbledore is a statistical implication of a bad story (correlation, not causation). Your reasoning regarding the skill disparity between Harry and Dumbledore is correct, but it doesn't mean that it is necessarily so.

You could, for example, devise checks and balances against him. If you have an evil Dumbledore and want to keep him as Headmaster (which alone is improbable, but certainly doable), you could have him hindered by the Ministry, some Professors, Tom Riddle, Grindelwald or Aberforth, depending on the background changes you make.

If you want to keep someone from writing an evil Dumbledore, just tell him to make his reasoning and actions believeable. In your case, just wall-of-text them and they'll give up soon enough.

 

The same thing everyone with power does — To keep the power.

 

My only real preference nowadays as far as fan fiction is concerned is good writing, which I believe is more objective than not. Or at least objective up to a certain threshold---up to a certain level of technical and narrative proficiency---beyond which subjective considerations begin to weigh more heavily.

Of course, from this preference a lot of other preferences follow naturally. It's unlikely that an Evil!Dumbledore story is going to be well-written, for reasons already spelled out. Similarly with the usual suspects: Draco/Harry slash, soul-bonds, veela![character], etc.

However, I won't refuse to check out a fic with any of the aforementioned objectionable features, if I trust the aesthetic sensibilities of the person making the recommendation. In truth, I've been considering making a thread inquiring about good stories with a bad premise (such as Draco/Harry slash, or pick whatever anathema you prefer), the reasoning being that there's so many to choose from, that just by virtue of the law of large numbers, there ought to be one or two good ones out there.

 

I actually think a more morally ambiguous Dumbledore or an antagonistic Dumbledore can be really interesting if done well and for logically sound reasons. For instance, I like Dumbledore's characterizations in stories like Harry Potter and the Greater Good (Dumbledore and Grindelwald remain partners) or Prince of the Dark Kingdom(A more ruthless "Terrorist" Dumbledore who is against a Harry supported Voldemort's regime). What rankles me is the incompetent!Dumbledore trope. There is absolutely no logical reason to make Dumbledore incompetent, and this kind of Dumbledore only exists to act like an idiot and then get steamrolled by Harry, which is.... ugh.

Subject : Character Bashing

Subjective Reasons to dislike it : I think it's lazy writing. If you don't like a character for whatever reason, rant about it somewhere I don't have to see. Don't ruin what may otherwise be good stories with its presence.

Plus, I like all of the characters who are generally bashed : Dumbledore, Ron, Ginny, Molly. As such, bashing fics give me too much of a headache to continue reading.

Objective Reasons to dislike it : Because reducing the more complicated canon characters to zero dimensional caricatures of themselves can never be considered good writing. Because having your characters walk all over the bashed characters does not make them look impressive in the least. Because it completely alienates any readers who like the character in question, while pleasing a bunch of immature shits who have no logical ground to complain if you keep to canon characterizations. Because most bashing tropes are tired and overdone. Because it makes no sense whatsoever, and good stories should make sense. Take your pick.

 

Man, where do I start?

Subject: Reductive Character Caricatures
By which I mean the Weasley Twins twinspeaking constantly, Luna constantly referencing imaginary animals, etc. This also applies to such concepts as Sociopath Ron, Ice Queen Daphne Greengrass, or Evil Molly Weasley.

Subjective Reasons to dislike it : Really it's either very annoying to read (twinspeak) or seems weirdly off (Luna). As for the for the other reductive ideas, it's one thing to come up with a new angle on a character, it's quite another to make it impossible to believe that such a person could exist. I despise such stories.

Objective Reasons to dislike it : Harder to justify, but similar reasoning. The twinspeak angle takes an amusing quirk and makes characters that are not simple caricatures into caricatures with dialogue that is actually hard to read. The Luna one is a problem because it's a flagrant misunderstanding of her character, and the fake names people come up with are just not believable in the context.

The Sociopath Ron or Evil Molly are certainly close to the bashing ideas Stan mentioned above, but this isn't a matter of bashing. It's about the concept of taking what in canon are interesting and complex characters and making them uninteresting. There are intriguing possibilities in such ideas if done well, but...

As for Icequeen Daphne, again, there are interesting possibilities there, but it tends to become flat and uninteresting characterization, meaning that she doesn't really have any character to speak of.

 

Seeing this shortly after you published an attempt at the definitive list of great smut... :facepalm

On topic, I feel that this is a situation where you can only lead the horse to water. Objective reasons will never convince someone who is too committed to their subjective views. Which is nearly everyone. From what I have seen those precious few who are willing to listen to advise, listen indiscriminately. They fail to separate the good from the bad.

The path you are on Taure will not lead you to success. You will probably have the best luck using objective reasoning in hyper-specialized situations not general cliche's like evil Dumbledore.

If you really want to help authors, write a guide about writing, fanfiction specifically. Let those who are willing to learn come to you rather than correcting them after they have written it.