A Vindication of the Rights of Shippers (The "Good Parts" Version)

[eilowyn]

I've been reading a bunch of French post-structuralists the past couple weeks, and I think I understand the problem with fandom: we over-identify with our favorites (be it ship, character, show, narrative device, whatevs), so when someone insults that ship/character/show/narrative device, we take it as a personal blow. De Certeau* (the guy I've

Comments

[eilowyn]

Yep! Thank you!

[kwritten]

I'd really love to see this discussion extended into the tropes of shippers and what they are prioritizing in general. (Perhaps with the use of cetrumlumina's ao3 data?) Because I don't disagree with anything you are saying here.

I *do* think that there are interesting conversations happening in fandom that are breaking down the barriers of what it means to be a "shipper" and how much that is part of a dominant ideology. I don't find 'shipper' culture to be subversive in any way - and in fact, find the dominant ships (Sherlock/Watson, Sterek, Delena/Stelena, Bangel/Spuffy) to be hyper-focused on the masculine element and also on a prioritizing of the 'romantic' relationship as being the ideal and most important relationship a person can participate in.

With the rise of sexual minority vocalization - especially in tumblr's often-self-conflicting and over-zealous social justice - we have this really fascinating and confusing conversation about what a shipper culture prioritizes.

Let's take Sleepy Hollow (and Elementary because the

[kwritten]

So yeah. I support the shippers because they have every right to identify with what they end up identifying with. That is their tactic to understand mass media. That doesn't give them (or me) the right to be a jackass about it, but shippers shouldn't be looked at as some lesser being because their distinguishing identifier is a romantic relationship, and when you say "shippers ruin fandom," you're privileging your own way of reading media.

I'm sorry... but I have to continue to disagree with you on this point. I think this prioritizing of romantic relationships in such a toxic manner is damaging on many levels. I daily have to log out of tumblr in disgust because the vile, gross behavior that occurs in anon when shippers feel as though someone doesn't like their fave. Overidentification happens. It's interesting and should be interrogated and not dismissed. But childish mud-slinging, slut-shaming, and my friends crying, and female-character assassination is not okay in my book

[kwritten]

I think you should read the Duplessis article that I gave links to a few weeks ago in my large theory post. Here's the info and a bib entry I wrote about it a while back. She's talking about narrative subjectivity in 19thC literature and I just find it a bit interesting how similar your points are.
(and shouldn't we be past a 19thC paradigm of subjectivity by now???)

Duplessis, Rachel Blau. “Breaking the Sentence, Breaking the Sequence.” Essentials of the Theory of Fiction 3rd Edition. Ed. Michael J. Hoffman and Patrick D. Murphy. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005. Print. 221-238

[gillo]

That looks like a very useful article. Adding it to my list for when I write about Thackeray. (And, actually, it might be useful for the early modern witchcraft I'm working on at the moment.)

[gillo]

Fascinating. This makes total sense to me.

[eilowyn]

I'm so glad I made sense! I really didn't know if my logic was circular or something (and Kelsey is helping me to dig deeper in her comments above, so I know I still have room for improvement).

[treadingthedark]

Well done!

[eilowyn]

Thanks!

[rahirah]

I would agree that everyone's invested in their favorites. I don't think, however, that everyone is over-invested. Plenty of people are casual shippers, or multi-shippers (or casual gen fans, for that matter.) Why some people become over-invested and others are able to maintain a healthy distance between themselves and the characters they like is just as interesting a question as which characters people become (over-)invested in.

ETA: I think that the "shippers ruin fandom" argument is missing the point. Human beings WILL divide themselves up into groups and squabble, regardless of context. If no romantic relationships exist in a given context, people will find something else to argue about. Look at... well, mainstream sports, where actual physical violence between opposing factions of fans is sometimes involved.

[shipperx]

Try living in primary battleground of Auburn Vs. Alabama. That rivalry is every day of the year. It's out and out tribalism :D

Roll Tide/War Eagle

[eilowyn]

Why some people become over-invested and others are able to maintain a healthy distance between themselves and the characters they like is just as interesting a question as which characters people become (over-)invested in.

Yes, this is what fascinates me. Why do some people see some fan object as the be-all and end-all of their identity? I mean that in a hyperbolic way - other factors come into how we construct our identity - age, race, gender, sexuality, political leaning, religion, etc. - but the idea of the "stan" versus the "casual fan" is something I'd like to interrogate more.

And yeah. Because humans like to group themselves, there will be conflict.