fannish types

[meganbmoore]

Here is an interesting post on two Intellectual and Emotional fans and approaches to fandom and fiction.  (Though I think "Analytical" is much more fitting than "Intellectual."  I think it represents the responses and comments better, and that most would be more willing to label themselves as such.)

See also:  Why Megan hates or is "meh" about many popular things.

I don't think it's quite as strict a divide as it comes across in the post (but then, I don't think the OP intends for it to be a strict divide) but I think most of what it says is pretty spot on.

For example, I hate the standard kdrama trope of the Cinderella story where the poor girl and/or her family is saved by the rich guy, who treats her badly throughout the series, but it's ok, because he's angsty and  he loves her, so he can treat her badly as long as she gets the cute guy and a better financial/social position.*  Most, however, don't seem to be bothered by "male angst justifies bad treatment of female," especially with the "gets guy" addendum, (this applies to a lot of romantic fiction)  or even see it as such, and just want the angsty love story.   Approaching fiction for and like that isn't "wrong" or "bad," but is obviously the opposite of how I read it, as very different things are wanted from it.  On the flipside, when you add in his selling himself as a child so she can have an operation to save her life to the trope, I turn amazingly forgiving.  (It also helps that his adoptive mother is so mentally fragile that for once I can understand the whole "push away for greater good" thing.

*My Girl is the only one I've seen with this Cinderella trope where I never thought he treated her badly or was a jerk.  Lovers and 1% of Anything dance around the trope a bit, but ultimately they're pretty much on the same social standing, and the only time either heroine needs to be "saved" is when the guy caused the situation in one way or another, so she's never in his debt so that his actions are excused by that.

Comments

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

For me, at issue in a story (for liking a character) is usually not as much the action, but reasons for this action. E.g. punching a person in the face is abstractly bad, but punching a person in the face to prevent them from beating up an old lady is good.

That is why a lot of kdrama 'jerks' (of either gender) work for me. I am willing to accept the male protagonist of Thank You (e.g.) hating the entire Universe when the story starts, because he's just come off his father euthanizing his sister and his girlfriend dying of cancer. Something more general, like being brought up in a crazy, unloving and abusive household or alternatively broke, insulted or unvalued would also work to mitigate my ire towards someone's behavior (see Bali).

Of course, not every behavior can be justified by bad situations (one of the main characters in East of Eden forever lost any goodwill I might have had towards him when he had a woman tortured and raped, even if he did come from a sociopathic, unloving household). But your everyday jerkiness...you can be a girl with a terminal illness (Snow Queen) or a guy with 'revenge is my goal in life for the death of my mother' motto (Green Rose) and I will probably like you.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

See, I usually find the "bad" situations/causes for angst in kdramas to be built up as being much more than they actually are, and often an excuse. (For example, I started Queen of the Game and it was well written and well acted and I liked both leads, but it did the "I will destroy you're family because my father committed suicide and tried to kill me." Which most eat up (as long as he falls for her, of course) but I see as blaming the wrong person.) Thank You and Bali, of course, are two I know I'll dislike for just those reasons. (And in Bali, I suspect I'll dislike Ha Ji Won's character, and I refuse to do that.)

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I think kdramas are quite good at creating horrific backgrounds actually, which in reality would probably have heroes and heroines locked up with a constant stream of meds as opposed to being the semi-functioning, snazzily-dressed movers-n-shakers they are.

I can actually see wanting revenge on a whole family (haven't seen QotG so no idea how it works there). Bad enough grievance, I might want to do it myself :P As long as there is a believable reason for a character to be screwed up, I am OK. That goes not just for 'attractive' leads but any character: secondary, parent, or whatever.

I won't dislike a character unless I find them (a)unbelievable as a person or (b) doing bad things out of spoiledness, not trauma. Which luckily leaves me with most kdramas wide available.

Re: Thank You. I don't know if you'd hate it actually. The main thrust of the story is the male character coming to terms with his life (it's made pretty clear he was a very nice person before all this happened) and healing, and the heroine healing herself in her different ways, and even at his grumpiest, in the early eps, he always does good things when it counts. And he never patronizes the heroine (he is brusque with her the way he is with everyone at the beginning, but that is different, IMO) and in fact at the end he ends up working in a volunteer type clinic on the small rural island where she and her child live so he doesn't 'raise her up' a la Cinderella.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

QotG was actually handling it well at from what I saw, but at the same time, I had just finished watching Taiyou no Kisetsu, and wasn't up for another drama of someone ruining lives rather than deal with the person who was really at fault not being available to blame.

The thing about kdrama characters (especially guys) and me is that they often seem to be rather simplistic, and are rarely complex enough for me to buy into their problems. And...well...a lot of the guys do come across to me as spoiled in one way or another. This is also true of a lot of romantic shoujo. There's rarely enough to it for me to find the jerkiness justified or acceptable.

[dangermousie.livejournal.com]

I think you will actually like both Kingdom of the Winds and East of Eden, then. The grown-up versions of the two main male charactets in EoE are only mad at the person who killed their father (and the company that covered the murder up), not everyone involved, and there isn't either jerkiness or cinderella syndrome at all.

And in the KotW, SIG's character has some awful things happen to him but he never becomes whiny or takes it out on people who are not responsible (or who he believes are responsible. E.g. he might hate the King for killing his friends, but he doesn't desire to off the King's wife or seduce the King's daughter or whatever).

Re: TnK. I just wanted the main male character in that one to jump off the roof. It's hardly as if the bank pres cheated and stabbed his father. And the kid he was trying to ruin was perfectly nice.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

The Korean period dramas I actually have a completely opposite reaction to. In general, I find them incredibly complex and the characters-even minor ones-incredibly well developed, and no one is directly villified or portrayed as wonderful, and even if I can't like or sympathize with a character, I can understand where they're coming from. But then, I consider Hwang Jin Yi, Emperor of the Sea, and Damo to be the best dramas I've seen (in that order, though not that preference...reverse preference, actually.)

In TnK, I think the text did a good enough job of portraying him as a creep and wrongwrongwrong that, while I wanted to punch him a lot and OMG GET OUT OF THESE NICE PEOPLE'S LIVES!!, it wasn't to the point of not being able to watch. But enough that a story with a similar root was not what I needed.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Just wandering in to say that totally agree with you on the greatness of Hwang Jin Yi and Damo. (I haven't seen Emperor of the Sea yet). I'm just really not sure why I prefer them so much more to most of the modern dramas I've seen, but maybe it's because they're not purely romance genre.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Well, IMO, modern kdramas are, in general, fairly shallow, and most boil down to "rich guy financially or physically saves poor girl." Most of them, frankly, tend to treat their love interests badly for reasons exagerrated far beyond their mileage, and they tend to manipulate things to have "us against the world" for shallow reasons, and have anti-responsibility/family themes. (I mean, look at Goong. Shin's angst boils down to "I don't want to live up to the responsibilities of my station-which the entire country needs me to do-and my girlfriend rejected my ultimatum." I spent the entire time sympathizing with his mother and Hyo-Rin, and wanting to scream at him to get over himself.) In addition, while the heroines often seem to have plenty to do at first glance, it's usually "be cute but annoyed over hero->pine over hero as he pays attention to everyone else->repeat->get hero or die in the snow/cancer/get hit by a car." Even the shoujo I'm tempted to throw across the room does better on that front. Sageuks, however, seem to have much more complex (and tighter) plots, and there's a much more conscious effort put into making the female characters be more developed and have more to do.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

There do seem to be some that are non-romance (though they usually do have romance in them, it doesn't follow the pattern you describe this badly). I recall watching one about a guy who worked in a casino, and another about people in the hotel industry. I am pretty much tired of the dynamic you're talking about. I had to stop watching Goong because I disliked Shin so much. Also because I found the story was just going on for too long.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Goong could have worked if it were half as long. I kept watching because I'd been told everyone had problems with him, and that it got better and he was great. Possibly my worst viewing mistake ever, as I thought he-and the romance-just got worse and worse. By the end, he was my most hated drama character ever, and no one has even thought about challenging him for that position yet.

There are some non-romance contemporary ones, but they aren't the norm, and are pretty much hidden behind the rest. And some of the romance ones aren't like that. It's just that more of them are, and they're the ones that tend to be most popular. I think it's that they cater to the lowest common denominator, and so are easy to get into. It's also, I find, easier to talk endlessly about less complex things, including finding ways for them to be complex, when they really aren't. Really complex things tend to be difficult to pin down and explain, but something simple with a bit of "this is complex" coding over it is easier fodder.

BTW, I was looking at your Hwang Jin Yi posts earlier. It isn't really mentioned in the drama, but the guy who played her bodyguard is, historically, the one who loved her his whole life and always supported and took care of her (I think the bodyguard bit is more popular fiction than history, but he was an official of some sort), even though he wasn't her "great love," and they were together until he died.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

This is a problem with a lot of kdrama, they are too long. I find that Japanese dramas tend to be shorter and thus more watchable. (Not that I've seen too many) It's too bad, I wanted to like Goong because I am a sucker for costumes and palaces and stuff, and there was some interesting stuff about the nature of fame and the clash between the modern and the traditional... But the romance annoyed me too much.

Oh, is that what it was. I was kind of confused by his purpose in the drama.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I think they originally meant to include the romance with him, but decided to bring it full circle, with her art being her ultimate love instead. Still, it was nice to find out that she did end up with him. I spent a lot of the drama thinking about how, of the three men who loved her, he was the only one to truly realize and accept that her love of art would always come before any romantic love, and his love had already endured years of being second to anything else. In the long run, I don't think she could have been happy for more than a few years with the other two. No matter how much she loved them, she always loved her art more, and I don't think either could really share her with it, but he could.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was a different thing from a story with a woman as the main character, showing art as #1. It kind of reminded me on that point of Glass Mask, where that issue sort of covertly comes up (art to her is the foremost thing in life, beyond love).

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was something different from a story with a woman as the main character, showing art as #1. It kind of reminded me on that point of Glass Mask, where that issue sort of covertly comes up (Like Hwang Jin Yi, she also lives for her art).

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I've always thought that the main reason Jin Yi was so desperate in her loves is because Baek-Moo told her they could never be first and that she could never live without them, and when you're that in love with art (which will almost always have a competitive edge, especially that kind) you almost can't help but rise to the challenge. Then, of course, she had the example of her mother and the man who loved her.

BTW, I hope you don't mind, but I friended you.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

So a bit of rebellion against Baek-Moo? I can really see that. And after her death, she began to move beyond that.

Oh, I don't mind. As I say in my userinfo, I feel no one needs permission to friend me.

[paperclipchains.livejournal.com]

I can't help but think there has to be more than two options, especially as there is just so, so much overlap between them. If I didn't have stars in my eyes for these characters and series, I would never seek to analyze them further. I know that was touched upon in the article, but I think that synthesis needs to be acknowledged more.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

*nods*

I think the behaviors and differences are very well explained, it just doesn't get into the overlap, and how certain exceptions can be made.

For example, I tend to automatically break things down to their elements no matter how much I like them, but I also know that, when it comes to a discussion or debate, I'll first default to "what are you saying about the female involved" and if there's somesort of character conflict or two characters annoying or mistreating each other, I'll most likely see it from the POV of the female in question. Like, female characters in shounen tend to need rescuing. A lot of people go "I don't like these girls because the guys have to rescue them," while I'm usually thinking about the junk they have to put up with just because of some guy. (And what she puts up with always seems to outwegh what he does to me.) And then apply that to other genres...

[wasabi-girl1.livejournal.com]

I am definitely a mix of the two. I am emotionally invested in fandoms right off the bat, but once I delve into it, I start to meta and ponder and think about more analytical things. It may just be more a superficial vs. invested thing.

And then there's fandoms that I'm incredibly analytical about except for that ONE character, who makes me all emotional, etc. So there are THINGS that break the rules for me.

[lesbiassparrow.livejournal.com]

I find that there are things with almost the exact same storyline where I engage madly with one and with the other I want to kick everyone and complain about it all day long. There are certain things that are bound to set me off, of course, but I'm not sure with a good enough writer or actor you couldn't get around that. Though I have to say I've never read anything outside a period novel (i.e. of the past) where someone has made me not want to kill the aristocratic hero who is born magically to command.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I think it's because things written then understand the sheer overwhelming burden of responsibility, while things written later on but set in the past are more about excaping responsibility.

[lesbiassparrow.livejournal.com]

For me, I think it's about being willing to accept that sort of attitude of inherited excellence from someone from a previous period but not a contemporary author. It's like how the attitudes about women in Victorian novels don't bother me but they would in a recent book.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

*nods*

Rather like how I can handle-but still intensely dislike-Rochester in Jane Eyre, but dislike him applied elsewhere unless he's severely watered down into somethin mor palatable.

[aphelion-orion.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I find the propagation of that Cinderella syndrome a bit dangerous. Girls (and women) who are into romance get a completely wrong picture of what constitutes a good relationship, and instead get taught if only they ignore their prince's bad qualities, it'll be okay.

I can stand the trope when the girl is shown as a strong personality, who is willing to fight back and make the jerk realize that this kind of treatment isn't acceptable. I mean, there's a difference between somebody being a sarcastic bastard and being abusive, obviously.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

To be honest, i'm often concerned by popular pairing types and romances, especially since a lot of what getas called "standing up for herself" tends to be empty protestations.

[pikabot]

I am an Intellectual/Analytical fan the whole way. Some things elicit a more visceral, immediate response than others but even those, after I've had my five minutes of warm fuzzies I am not only willing but in fact eager to go back and examine why I liked that. I love cracking my fandoms open, not just for meaning and shit but also for the mechanics: the paneling, the prose, the camera angles, see what works and what doesn't. I love noting where a piece of music rises and falls, and if it's timed well with the rest of the scene. I love fleshing out minor characters, giving them a fuller personality and speculating on why they might be the way they are.

One thing I've noticed about some of my main fandoms (read: Avatar, *sigh*) is that they're full of 'meta' that isn't actually meta at all: it's a lengthy essay detailing one's opinions, with no actual analysis involved. I suspect that this is a case of fans who fall firmly into the Emotional spectrum trying to be Intellectual ones for whatever reasons. Which isn't to say that Emotional fans can't do meta or anything, but they need to put in the effort to actually pick it apart if they are going to do so, which is something that doesn't come as naturally to them due to the way their fannish tendencies fall. The result is often infuriating to 'Intellectual' fans, who go in hoping for real honest analysis and discover a load of opinions instead.

It's especially aggravating since the people posting said meta generally do not react well to dissenting responses. One time I responded to a piece of 'meta' about the Avatar finale with a rebuttal that was so long, it took 4 comments to contain it all. This was not even acknowledged, and was simply deleted without comment. And I was banned from commenting on that person's journal. Needless to say I was pissed.

(Sigh, my kingdom for a good stable of intellectual Gurren Lagann fans. I want to babble endlessly about the Idealism vs Pragmatism themes and why the ending was themtically PERFECT, but all anyone cares to talk about in that fandom is DORRIRU. And don't get me wrong I love a good dorriru, but there's so much more to the show!)

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

*nods*

Most Avatar "meta" I've read or been directed to has centered around how...well...it was wrong to be a show aimed for 8-12 year olds...

[pikabot]

Yeah, and that drives me bonkers.

Also this is going to sound HORRENDOUSLY elitist but I generally find that fanfiction etc coming from "Intellectual" type fans tends to be better than that which comes from "Emotional" type fans. Not in terms of prose writing or anything, but because they actually analyze what they're reading, they tend to have a firmer understanding of canon characterization and a firmer grasp of character voice as a result.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

What you wish/want the text to be saying vs what the text is saying? Combined with what the text is saying with this element as a part of the whole vs what the text is saying through the filter of this element?

I realized a while back that the reason I bounce off so much fanfic is because it seems to base itself off of a part of the text removed from context (and changing the meaning) or a wish for what the text was, instead of being rooted in the entirety of the text. Like, in Samurai Deeper Kyo, I ship the canon pairing madly (they're one of the few pairings I look for fic of) but while I get annoyed at Kyo/slash not only because I think it insults both Yuya and Akari (a crossdresser who's been in love with him for years) but also because he is possibly the most exclusively heterosexual character I have ever encountered, I get equally annoyed by a lot of Kyo/Yuya fics because they make him abusive and/or a near rapist and her a doormat, or they wax poetic, which is very very wrong for them. (He decided she was cute because she headbutted him when he threatened to kill her and told her to beg for her life, and one of his earliest love tokens was returning her stolen gun to her. The normal rules of mush and romance do not apply!)

[pikabot]

part of the text removed from context (and changing the meaning) or a wish for what the text was, instead of being rooted in the entirety of the text

Yes. This. I mean I'm all one for cracky pairings and other silliness but I'm only interested in it if it's in the context of the canon, and properly considered.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

And more often than not, it's not really considered beyond a character/pairing filter. It's part of why I have so many problems with the "identification" argument for shipping. For one thing, it's only a step away from inserting yourself into the text, and it tends to automatically skew the text so that the text is read through what you think is most beneficial to the character. That reading,though, may be (and often is) a direct contradiction of the text itself when viewed in any context beyond what you think that character wants.

[fivil.livejournal.com]

I'm beginning to become allergic to "two polar opposites" type theories of anything, but I guess this one makes sense considering a lot of people seem to start out in fandom as youngsters ('fanbrats') who step on a lot of people's toes with their extreme emotional responses to something. Still, most people would be a mix of the two. Like I personally don't meta just for the sake of meta-ing something; there has to be something there for me to think through, semi-analyze, why I like it, why it seems to make sense, why I don't like it, what turns me off about this/that character. A lot of the time, whatever I watch/read just doesn't do that to me, so I suffice to saying I really like it, and write a bit about why I like it but nothing deeper than that.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

*nods*

Ithink most fall mostly on one side or the other, but not completely, but I think the post does a very good job of explaining the different types of responses.

I'm obsessive about writing up everything I read (a shock, I know...) but not really with what I watch, as sometimes all I can think is "well, i liked that."

[issen4.livejournal.com]

I'm watching Hearts at Nineteen which has a very sweet Cinderella premise without the guy ever acting like a jerk--ok, at the beginning before he falls in love. But the reason he falls in love is that he thinks she's utterly fantastic and better than any other woman he's met so he just... respects her a lot. (The angst in their relationship comes from parental objection, because he's rich, has higher status and she's from the country.) She's pretty cool too--he teased her a lot but she stood up for herself and is all: "if you want to date me, you can't call me 'country bumpkin', geddit?" And duly chastised, he stops!

I'm not a fan of the rich jerk trope. ^^

[kakkobean.livejournal.com]

I can't stand the cinderella trope in kdrama *avoids it like the plague, and avoids it in twdrama as well 'cuz it's annoying* DARN ANGSTY EMO MAIN GUY WHO IS TOO IMMATURE TO TREAT THE LADY HE LIKES NICELY DDDDD8< There's one drama that I started that kind of did a flip to the Cinderella thing, though--instead of focusing on a Cinderella character, it focuses on an "evil stepsister" character, who has been viewed as the evil girl ever since she's known "Cinderella", despite "Cinderella" being a conniving double-faced bitch that I secretly think is in love with the step-sister character because she drives all men away from her so she can have her all to herself.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

What's the drama?

I don't think I've encountered the Cinderella/Jerk Prince trope in txdramas as much. But then, I haven't seen many. I see it mostly in romantic kdramas and romantic shoujo. Naturally, the popular ones of both are the ones with the trope, and the less popular ones are the ones most don't like/won't touch because it doesn't cater to the trope.

What's the drama?

[kakkobean.livejournal.com]

Love Patzzi--in the Korean version of the Cinderella tale, the evil steps-sister's name is Patzzi, thus the name (because it's a story that involves two very decent guys ending up falling for the brutally honest charms of the "EVIL STEPSISTER" character and seeing beyond "Cinderella's" fake charm 8D

I still think that the Cinderella character secretly loves the other girl, causing her to be the main cause of her misery for the majority of their lives >.>

[amewarashi.livejournal.com]

I'd be someone who's analytical/intellectual over some fandoms and emotional over others, I reckon. With some series I'm kind of there to enjoy (or for the lulz or for eyecandy, it can happen) or there's not really a lot to ponder about, so I'm more lenient and don't nitpick/build thoughtful opinions about things. With some others I make elaborate theories or spend awful time trying to understand a certain character's personality/build a culture for plot-device civilizations/make ways for a pairing I like be IC/patching plotholes with plotbunnies. It just depends of the fandoms, I suppose. In some others I might even be a mix. I do usually look more analytical to others since I squee less loudly.

On the other hand, I rarely ask emotional folks about their reasons when I'm feeling analytical, nor I get wanky at analytical folks' meta about things I'm emotional about. I used to be more like that when I was a fanbrat and the clashes were sort of embarrassing, looking back. It looks even worse when you are both analytical AND emotional about something you're arguing about (OMG HOW CAN YOU [NOT] LIKE ____ WHEN THEY *insert tl;dr essay*!1one!) You can potentially seem so wanky, and I usually did.

[the_rck]

I'm trying to figure out where I fit on the emotional/analytic spectrum. I'm really not sure because, while I enjoy reading analysis and thinking about it, I don't tend to do it myself. I don't, however, tend to get emotionally involved in canons, either.

My suspicion is that it has a lot to do with my being aggressively multi-fannish. I don't tend to get heavily attached to particular fandoms (with one or two exceptions that are, I think, for odd reasons). It may also be that I attach to fandoms because of love of possibilities as much as (or even more than) a love of the actuality. I know that I interact differently with canons that are complete and right than I do with fandoms that have holes and/or unsatisfying endings but that still contain something that catches my imagination.

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

That articulates nicely why property-specific LJ fandom generally unappealing. I am hard-core analytical (in everything, not just fandom), and I like to *think* about things, and discuss them, and speculate, and argue. My Internet fandom coming-of-age was on Usenet, and we were all about the analysis and arguing. Good times.

It's not that I'm not emotionally attached to my fandoms, my favorite characters, and my favorite pairings (OT and otherwise). Not at all. It's that for me, loving something entails understanding *why* I love it. And then sharing that understanding with other people. Examining why something is awesome makes it more awesome. And examining and understanding its flaws is also good. Paraphrasing some philosopher or other, "The unexamined fandom is not worth fanning."

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Yeah, fandom-specific tends to be...less appealing.

I tend to examine popular characters/pairings, reactions, and tropes to a point where people wish I wouldn't, though.

[vierran45.livejournal.com]

I guess being a mixture of the two types is most common, but having the differences between them analyzed was very interesting.

I know that I can, and most often will turn quite obsessive when I enter a fandom, but that doesn't stop my brain from working completely. Even though I can fangirl with the best, I also enjoy reading analytical comments about my fandoms and often step back a bit and enjoy the crazy (teenage) drama for it's entertainment value.

I like doing both emotional and analytical types of posts, depending on the contet and my interest in the subject. To be honest, my tiredness level from work is also a major factor.

If I'm tired, there are no posts or lots of rambling posts with no real content. If I'm not too tired, full-length meta posts or a major picspams can be the result.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

For example, I hate the standard kdrama trope of the Cinderella story where the poor girl and/or her family is saved by the rich guy, who treats her badly throughout the series, but it's ok, because he's angsty and he loves her, so he can treat her badly as long as she gets the cute guy and a better financial/social position.

It depends for me. I am perfectly fine with "he treats her badly" when it is four things (have to be at the same time):

1) Not TOO badly, just cold or generally the not kindest of persons to everyone (but with a good reason of unhappy family or something)
2) At the start of relationship. He doesn't know her and doesn't love her yet. he treats everyone the same, men and women.
3) When the girl is no push-over (as in she thinks just because he rich he can do this). She is just a kind person to everyone.
4) He changes as the relationship progress (the most important point). He becomes a putty in her hands.

The examples: "Lovers", "Lovers in Paris", "Beautiful days"

I dislike:

1) When bad treatment is presented as cute, as in "Hong Gil Dong"
2) Or where he is indeed too OTT and doesn't seem to want to change(like "Que Sera Sera")

"Goong" is a bit borderline because Shin changes come about only in the last two episodes. but it still passes with me.

But in general, I think I am an emotional fan. :D