(no subject)
I was up all night writing a final paper. No fun. Now I have to work all day ... I'm zombie Laura. Drinking lots of coffee. (And I can't even go home and sleep tonight, because I have to study for a final tomorrow morning, too. Grrrrr.)
Of course, I should have written last night's paper earlier, but chenanceou is in town and I couldn't miss hanging out with her. Last weekend we had a Pirates viewing at drujan's place, which was very fun, although we ended up stranded there until nearly 5am because of the snowstorm.
This weekend a bunch of us (chenanceou, jerrymcl89, drujan, jaydk, and I) went to see Big Fish. I actually thought it was really good, which is rare for me, since I usually don't like movies that lack action or sci-fi. I thought it was very well done, very creative, and very sort of "heartfelt," in a real way, not a cheesy Lifetime movie way. Also, at the end, all four of us women were crying. Awwww. (I wonder if Spike redemptionists have a greater likelihood of getting emotionally involved in movies or TV?) Then we went to eat at GoBo, which has really yummy vegan food, so I was happy.
We're doing a great big huge super important urgent project at work, which, in combination with finals, is really stressing the hell out of me. So, naturally, I'm going to take my lunch break to babble about fandom nonsense.
Weirdly enough, I've been archiving a lot of Spike/Buffy on my site recently. This is coincidence, largely because I've made an effort to catch up with some older authors whose work I hadn't gotten to yet, and they've tended to be S/B oriented. (I also contacted a few slash writers, but they haven't written back to me yet *hint hint*.) I'm not back on the Spuffy ship or anything like that; I still find Buffy to be one of the most repulsive characters I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. But I do try to judge each story on its individual merits, and I also think it's easier to perceive actual human qualities like, say, the potential for compassion (for someone she doesn't see as an extension of herself or as a useful tool) in the Buffy of earlier seasons.
But I am looking to get back to other pairings and more recent stories, so if anyone has any recommendations for current writers that I'm missing out on, please let me know. The extent to which I seek out new writers has been rather limited lately, so I'm sure I'm missing out on some great fic. (I do, btw, plan to play a bit of catch up over the holidays, once finals are over, though I'll also have colloquium preparation to worry about then, too. *cue panic attack*)
Everyone's doing the pairing meme, so I considered doing so as well. Problem is, I think that meme is inherently at odds with how I view the show/characters/relationships.
The meme assumes that there is one definition of a pairing, an essence, sort of a Platonic ideal really, and so by knowing the name of the pairing you know everything about it and can judge whether it's something that you find will or won't enjoy.
I don't really see pairings as fixed entities, but more like collections of possibilities. Depending on the writer and the story and the context, each pairing could go in an infinite number of directions. So how can I possibly say that I find, say, Spike/Xander to be a "train wreck" when, depending on how it's written, it can be anything from the darkest angstfic to the lightest fluff? (Or anything from the cheesiest wish-fulfillment crap to a stunning and brilliant piece of art?)
I suppose definitions are more clear when it comes to canonical ships, since in those cases there is actually an "official" version of the relationship. But even then, I see so many possibilities. At any given moment in canon, the story could have gone in an infinite number of other directions--many of which are explored in fanfic. So how can you really have a definitive understanding of, say, Angel/Cordelia, when in the minds of fic writers it could have (and has) gone in such exceptionally different directions than the way it sort of fizzled out on the show?
I suppose, then, that what we're really judging is our own perceptions of the relationships. I guess this works if you see only one true interpretation of the relationship from your point of view. But even then, that just seems so limiting. I really don't understand when people say "I find this pairing squicky" or "I just don't get this pairing" because it's not the combination of names that creates the pairing. Each pairing is this huge complex web of possibilities; in the hands of different writers it holds an infinite amount of possibilities. How can you just dismiss those possibilities out of hand?
I can see "I don't like this pairing in this fic," but I totally don't understand "I could never like this pairing ever." Maybe "I wouldn't want to like this pairing" makes more sense. It acknowledges the possibility that you could potentially like some version of the relationship; you're just not interested enough in the characters to bother pursuing it.
I guess then that the meme could maybe be based on probabilities, as "I like Xander and Spike, therefore I am more likely to enjoy a Spike/Xander fic; I dislike Kennedy and Willow, therefore I am less likely to enjoy a Kennedy/Willow fic." Or "I dislike reading about underage sex, therefore I am not likely to enjoy Dawn/older character fic." But these statements don't preclude the possibility that there could, theoretically, be an enjoyable Willow/Kennedy fic, or a unenjoyable Spike/Xander fic, or an enjoyable Dawn fic.
The idea of "One True Pairing," the tendency we have toward definitive, simplistic, reductionist declarations, really just doesn't sit well with me. When we do this, we're closing our minds and missing out on a lot of possiblities just because they don't fit our preconceived notions. I wouldn't say I have a One True Pairing; rather, I'd say that there are many pairings that have the potential to be (or not be) very meaningful to me.
(Um, also I was just up all night writing a paper about the future of genetic technology, and I think I basically took Jeremy Rifkin's argument that we should value diversity and variation instead of trying to achieve a single reductive "ideal" and pretty much translated it over to shipper politics. Man, I need to sleep.)
(The more I think about this, I realize that I don't feel the same way about characters. Characters, to me, are defined entities in ways that pairings are not. I don't see a problem with saying "I dislike Angel," though I wouldn't say "I could never like Angel under any circumstances." Maybe that's because characters exist pretty definitively on the show, while pairings usually don't. Or it could be because I don't really place much value in pairings, and don't see pairings as entities on their own; my focus is on characters, and pairings are simply combinations of characters.)
Of course, I should have written last night's paper earlier, but chenanceou is in town and I couldn't miss hanging out with her. Last weekend we had a Pirates viewing at drujan's place, which was very fun, although we ended up stranded there until nearly 5am because of the snowstorm.
This weekend a bunch of us (chenanceou, jerrymcl89, drujan, jaydk, and I) went to see Big Fish. I actually thought it was really good, which is rare for me, since I usually don't like movies that lack action or sci-fi. I thought it was very well done, very creative, and very sort of "heartfelt," in a real way, not a cheesy Lifetime movie way. Also, at the end, all four of us women were crying. Awwww. (I wonder if Spike redemptionists have a greater likelihood of getting emotionally involved in movies or TV?) Then we went to eat at GoBo, which has really yummy vegan food, so I was happy.
We're doing a great big huge super important urgent project at work, which, in combination with finals, is really stressing the hell out of me. So, naturally, I'm going to take my lunch break to babble about fandom nonsense.
Weirdly enough, I've been archiving a lot of Spike/Buffy on my site recently. This is coincidence, largely because I've made an effort to catch up with some older authors whose work I hadn't gotten to yet, and they've tended to be S/B oriented. (I also contacted a few slash writers, but they haven't written back to me yet *hint hint*.) I'm not back on the Spuffy ship or anything like that; I still find Buffy to be one of the most repulsive characters I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. But I do try to judge each story on its individual merits, and I also think it's easier to perceive actual human qualities like, say, the potential for compassion (for someone she doesn't see as an extension of herself or as a useful tool) in the Buffy of earlier seasons.
But I am looking to get back to other pairings and more recent stories, so if anyone has any recommendations for current writers that I'm missing out on, please let me know. The extent to which I seek out new writers has been rather limited lately, so I'm sure I'm missing out on some great fic. (I do, btw, plan to play a bit of catch up over the holidays, once finals are over, though I'll also have colloquium preparation to worry about then, too. *cue panic attack*)
Everyone's doing the pairing meme, so I considered doing so as well. Problem is, I think that meme is inherently at odds with how I view the show/characters/relationships.
The meme assumes that there is one definition of a pairing, an essence, sort of a Platonic ideal really, and so by knowing the name of the pairing you know everything about it and can judge whether it's something that you find will or won't enjoy.
I don't really see pairings as fixed entities, but more like collections of possibilities. Depending on the writer and the story and the context, each pairing could go in an infinite number of directions. So how can I possibly say that I find, say, Spike/Xander to be a "train wreck" when, depending on how it's written, it can be anything from the darkest angstfic to the lightest fluff? (Or anything from the cheesiest wish-fulfillment crap to a stunning and brilliant piece of art?)
I suppose definitions are more clear when it comes to canonical ships, since in those cases there is actually an "official" version of the relationship. But even then, I see so many possibilities. At any given moment in canon, the story could have gone in an infinite number of other directions--many of which are explored in fanfic. So how can you really have a definitive understanding of, say, Angel/Cordelia, when in the minds of fic writers it could have (and has) gone in such exceptionally different directions than the way it sort of fizzled out on the show?
I suppose, then, that what we're really judging is our own perceptions of the relationships. I guess this works if you see only one true interpretation of the relationship from your point of view. But even then, that just seems so limiting. I really don't understand when people say "I find this pairing squicky" or "I just don't get this pairing" because it's not the combination of names that creates the pairing. Each pairing is this huge complex web of possibilities; in the hands of different writers it holds an infinite amount of possibilities. How can you just dismiss those possibilities out of hand?
I can see "I don't like this pairing in this fic," but I totally don't understand "I could never like this pairing ever." Maybe "I wouldn't want to like this pairing" makes more sense. It acknowledges the possibility that you could potentially like some version of the relationship; you're just not interested enough in the characters to bother pursuing it.
I guess then that the meme could maybe be based on probabilities, as "I like Xander and Spike, therefore I am more likely to enjoy a Spike/Xander fic; I dislike Kennedy and Willow, therefore I am less likely to enjoy a Kennedy/Willow fic." Or "I dislike reading about underage sex, therefore I am not likely to enjoy Dawn/older character fic." But these statements don't preclude the possibility that there could, theoretically, be an enjoyable Willow/Kennedy fic, or a unenjoyable Spike/Xander fic, or an enjoyable Dawn fic.
The idea of "One True Pairing," the tendency we have toward definitive, simplistic, reductionist declarations, really just doesn't sit well with me. When we do this, we're closing our minds and missing out on a lot of possiblities just because they don't fit our preconceived notions. I wouldn't say I have a One True Pairing; rather, I'd say that there are many pairings that have the potential to be (or not be) very meaningful to me.
(Um, also I was just up all night writing a paper about the future of genetic technology, and I think I basically took Jeremy Rifkin's argument that we should value diversity and variation instead of trying to achieve a single reductive "ideal" and pretty much translated it over to shipper politics. Man, I need to sleep.)
(The more I think about this, I realize that I don't feel the same way about characters. Characters, to me, are defined entities in ways that pairings are not. I don't see a problem with saying "I dislike Angel," though I wouldn't say "I could never like Angel under any circumstances." Maybe that's because characters exist pretty definitively on the show, while pairings usually don't. Or it could be because I don't really place much value in pairings, and don't see pairings as entities on their own; my focus is on characters, and pairings are simply combinations of characters.)