It's funny how the perceptions & definitions of quite separate concepts get mixed up so often. Like: 'fluff'.
Like. Okay, what with most people mean by 'fluff', I guess I'd have to say don't like it, y'know (even though that's not true)? I feel like a liar when I say 'okay, fine, I'm an angst-whore' because I'm not, but it's like in the binary world of that definition, I would have to be, or something, because by a rather prevalent (implied) definition, fluff = OOC, careless, overly-saccharine & largely humorless. Like crackfic except more staid and less out there & imaginative (as opposed to my definition, where fluff is basically 'feel-good fic where it's more slice-of-life warmth than serious drama' or perhaps just 'optimistic!fic' should cover it-- and WHY oh WHY should optimistic = implausible/saccharine/over-the-top??).
It's as if the usual, widespread usage of 'liking fluff' (not to mention 'liking smutty romantic fluff') implies consciously turning away from realism. As if you cannot have... I dunno... fluff-smutty realism (which... you can, it's just, y'know, harder to write, esp. with a canonically rivalslash/angsty pairing). You can so totally have perfectly IC fluff-smutty fic, cute & sexy & IC... well, mostly with friendslash, but also as lighter episodes late in a long-running rivalslash. I've seen it! I've loved it! IT EXISTS. You don't have to be like 'well, I like an angsty pairing but I can't take angst all the time so let's just throw plausibility & common sense out the window 'cause it feels good & it's easy'. You could be-- no one's stopping you; you just don't -have- to.
In other words, optimism & denial? NOT THE SAME THING.
Also, when people make these strident, eloquent posts about how no sexual kink or fantasy expressed in fanfic is morally questionable-- yeay, sexual freedom, right? So far, so good. And then 'sexual fantasy' becomes writing, which... is a craft, unlike sexual fantasizing, so. Um.
( *snip* )
Like. Okay, what with most people mean by 'fluff', I guess I'd have to say don't like it, y'know (even though that's not true)? I feel like a liar when I say 'okay, fine, I'm an angst-whore' because I'm not, but it's like in the binary world of that definition, I would have to be, or something, because by a rather prevalent (implied) definition, fluff = OOC, careless, overly-saccharine & largely humorless. Like crackfic except more staid and less out there & imaginative (as opposed to my definition, where fluff is basically 'feel-good fic where it's more slice-of-life warmth than serious drama' or perhaps just 'optimistic!fic' should cover it-- and WHY oh WHY should optimistic = implausible/saccharine/over-the-top??).
It's as if the usual, widespread usage of 'liking fluff' (not to mention 'liking smutty romantic fluff') implies consciously turning away from realism. As if you cannot have... I dunno... fluff-smutty realism (which... you can, it's just, y'know, harder to write, esp. with a canonically rivalslash/angsty pairing). You can so totally have perfectly IC fluff-smutty fic, cute & sexy & IC... well, mostly with friendslash, but also as lighter episodes late in a long-running rivalslash. I've seen it! I've loved it! IT EXISTS. You don't have to be like 'well, I like an angsty pairing but I can't take angst all the time so let's just throw plausibility & common sense out the window 'cause it feels good & it's easy'. You could be-- no one's stopping you; you just don't -have- to.
In other words, optimism & denial? NOT THE SAME THING.
Also, when people make these strident, eloquent posts about how no sexual kink or fantasy expressed in fanfic is morally questionable-- yeay, sexual freedom, right? So far, so good. And then 'sexual fantasy' becomes writing, which... is a craft, unlike sexual fantasizing, so. Um.
( *snip* )
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}