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

Comments

[dangermousie]

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

[meganbmoore]

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]

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

[meganbmoore]

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.

[paperclipchains]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*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]

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]

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.