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

[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.