the_wanlorn | Thoughts on the muse

I recently read a pair of rants on FanficRants regarding muses.

The first rant (FR) is against the idea of muses, saying that they don't exist and are a bullshit excuse for bad writing. There are people making various comments about their lack of the muse. Some highlights:

"I'm the same. I've never understood the appeal of claiming that I don't have any talent of my own and need fictional characters running around in my head to provide the needed talent."
~alsewherecw

"I don't have muses.

I get plotbunnies, but they aren't the same thing at all. "
~valarltd

The second rant (SR) is a response to the muse-hate going on in FR. The OP wants to know where it comes from and why muses are considered bad things. Some highlights:

"Incidentally, creativity, or creative impulses ARE NOT MUSES."
~sarahtheboring

Clearly, those are carefully selected quotes to lead into my issue with the whole think.

Isn't that what a muse is?

Sure, the Greeks gave a name to the flash of inspiration, the creative bit inside a writer*. The Greeks put faces and personalities and elevated creativity to a god-like status (which is a whole 'nother rambling). But it's always been my understanding that the "muse" that writers speak of is not an outside force. You're just putting a name to your creativity. You're giving an explanation for why there's something niggling you that won't go away until you wrote it.

I think that the issue between the two people who posted the rants is that they're speaking of a "muse" in a different sense. The FR is ranting about fanbrats using a "muse" to excuse their badfics and including lengthy conversation between the author and the "muse" in the fic. The SR is taking the FR to be about legitimate use of the word "muse" and questioning that. Sure, it's a simple misunderstanding and one that I made until I read the FR comment likening "My muse made me do it" to "I wrote this on a sugar high don't blame me!" It's the vitriol of some of the other commenters that confuses me. As is to be expected, the comments on FR are full of muse-hate and the comments on FR are full of muse-love.

But does everyone else hate muses because uneducated fanbrats have taken the term and warped it to suit their own needs? I find that similar to people saying sexual assault isn't rape** because of the fanbrats' horribly wrong portrayal of rape and its effects. I'm of the opinion that fandom, fandom terms, and whatever ripples to the outside world should not be controlled by the fanbrats. If anything, we - as "mature" fans - should band together to educate fanbrats on what all of those things really are.

Is it just a misunderstanding or different interpretation of what the Greek muses were? If so, would that bring about people complaining about how they don't need no stinkin' gods to control things like the weather? That nature can do it on its own and to bring up such an idea is an insult to nature?

I guess, to me, the naysayers are fairly insulting because I do call my creativity and imagination my muse. And, by spewing forth this wank, we are letting the fanbrats win. You wouldn't allow a fanbrat to drive you out of your fandom, would you? So why should anyone allow fanbrats to take over words and concepts? Especially when it's leaking into the real world?

In actually reading the second post (I know, I know, I'm a horrible person for only skimming it before I started typing) I realized that I've basically restated a lot of points there. My apologies to anyone who read all of the two posts and then continued on with mine.

*Term "writer' used to generalize, chosen for its connection to the two posts.
**If this were a wank, would I be breaking some sort of law by bringing up rape?