[fic ramble #20983409]

[reenka]

I think this post by worldserpent verbalizes my confused feelings about the two approaches to literature (quality vs. entertainment, or 'status' vs. 'contract'), and why one has so much more dominance in fandom. More specifically why the search for 'quality' and 'ICness' in fanfic is basically futile, like,
    people adopting extreme Status attitudes (oh noes, why do people ignore this great work even if it's in a genre/pairing they have no interest in; fanfiction is insufficiently citius altius fortius (faster higher stronger); writers are not sufficiently into busting the dominant paradigms! Also all of the meta which seems to have a subtext of "eat your peas."
    Also, so correctly: a broken Contract induces rage. Exhibit A, crazed Harmonians.

I'm sufficiently humbled: I'm very sorry if I've ever seemed to imply people should eat their peas (as I fear I have). Honestly, I hate peas. I just want my favorite cake, but realize I should bloody well make it myself. Well, I tried, though in the end it was just kind of glum having a party of one.


Anyway, the point was that this quite natural focus on 'contract' drove her in particular to stop reading fanfic-- and I think that's what it's done to me too. I -love- fanfic for the way it approaches writing (communal, multi-layered, nonlinear), but I can't stand wading through the dreck and having my own personal 'contract' broken so repeatedly. In the end, I'm no better than a 'crazed Harmonian' with all my ranty rage about fanon!Draco, people not writing 'serious' H/D and so on and so forth. I mean, sane people just stop reading fic, and I guess that's what I did in the end-- but at first it really feels like such a -betrayal- that no one's writing what -I- want to read; it's ridiculous, and a clear sign I'm reading for 'contract' (my own entertainment) moreso than quality, and should really try harder not to confuse the two, even if it's true I read for quality first (I thought).

Actually, I don't think I do; I'm mainly a (fantasy/romance) genre reader, and I have no great interest in reading 'great' works of literature just because they're great. It's always been that way. With my family being old-school intellectuals, I'll probably never get over the guilt with that, but fact remains I've always read for pleasure first and I basically don't care how 'good' the book is if it's boring. On the other hand, I'm incredibly picky about the things I like, and become extremely focused and narrow in what my 'contract' is. Even so, I don't think I'll ever narrow so far as to read for 'status', because that's just joyless, and to me reading is joy.

Actually, I read for quality in the -beginning- of fandom much more-- just a different sort of quality, perhaps. I used to be nearly 100% style-centric, and now I'm probably something like 85% content-centric, which is ridiculously high & hard to meet. It's all rather contradictory but such is (my) life.
~~

Also, I reread this old post on how all women love a fascist (ie, an 'Alpha Bastard' and/or Byronic Hero) and it struck me in relation to my recent post on Tsukasa from Hana Yori Dango, who's pretty classic in that respect. There was a comment on that saying that they prefer 'the witty, dangerous, heart-on-his/her-sleeve rogue'.

It made me think that this too is a very old literary/romance type, though usually not the one who Gets the Girl (when he does, like in the shoujo manga `Mars' or, well, in Robin Hood), I think I'm somewhat surprised, but usually this is also explained by there being a lack of the brooding Dark Knight. The girl -always- picks the Dark Knight in traditional romance, at least.

I was also thinking that my attraction to the Dark Knight is very different from liking them because they're such fascist bastards, even though I like to keep harping on their angsty bastard qualities with a sort of glee. I certainly like people's dark sides, but I suspect this is why more reasonable people than I dislike them or even hate them. And often enough, the girls who like this 'bad boy' character will say they'll dump them if they turn 'good' or 'gooey' or vulnerable (like the William bits in Spike), whereas my approach is totally different. I think the 'wounded boy' parts in this archetype are the most vital and interesting parts, and without them you wouldn't have a real person. At the same time, I'm not in favor of the girl 'taming' or totally (unrealistically) changing them but rather them finding some measure of self-acceptance or peace through loving & being loved, which isn't all that far-fetched.

Basically, I think inside every 'fascist Alpha Bastard' Byronic type there's a wounded, rather pathetic little boy who needs love. Believe me, I'm saying this with a total straight face, too. I'm not saying they're cuddly bunnies on the inside, I'm saying they're wounded, damaged people, usually messed up sometime in their childhood. I don't think a properly empathetic lover would be delusional to think they can help. Though I have to admit most romances written about this are highly unrealistic in execution.

Also, this made me think of a color classification system of sorts for the dominant male romance archetypes, where the Brooding Byronic Bastard would be the 'black' type (ie, Snape & Harry), the Dashing Dangerous Wit would be 'red' (ie, Sirius and James, probably Draco) and then there's 'silver' for the Brilliant but Shy Gentleman (ie, Remus). (Alpha/beta/theta??) There are probably others I can't think of at the moment. :>


    And I feel I should mention that these types are rather fluid and often cross over in terms of actual characters. For instance, you can't say that 'violent temper' is a property of the 'red' type alone (I think the brooding 'black' type is just more likely to uh, hold on to grudges, perhaps). Similarly, brilliance can be a characteristic of any type of personality, it's just that it defines the 'silver' type's behavior most heavily, in the sense that they tend to be more passive or non-emotional in a different way that the 'black' type would be-- meaning they're not cold (and repressing their red-hotness, mmm) but rather -cool-, if that makes sense. Though the cool 'silver' type is just repressing things differently a lot of times, etcetc :D

EDIT - Anyway, because I felt I did need to elaborate on the types beyond just a few examples, here:
    Black = the 'bitter', neurotic, angsty type. Given to outbursts of anger/rage/violence if pushed but generally controlled and/or distant. Possibly bored or disillusioned with either most people or life in general. Usually v. intelligent but not quite intellectual per se. Very dominant to the point of being near-sociopathic in interactions with others, though capable of putting on a good show; it's more natural to just intimidate people, though. Has very few (to none) good close friends; is generally overly close/attached to some childhood female figure and/or has a complex. Is not talkative and represses quite a lot of emotion. May be sexually promiscuous but in a desultory way-- generally avoids too much contact. Without 'help' or intervention, can become psychotic and totally separated from humanity-- sadism kicks in. With help or someone to lean on/let off steam with/talk with, can gradually soften and become more of a leader, someone who actually wants to take care of/protect people. One might say that overall, this type is just repressing the fact that he's 'red' on the inside, so to speak, but that's what gives him that somewhat mysterious quality.
    To be quite disgustingly meta, you could say he would be a manifestation of Ego; of Will. His willfulness and stubbornness define him.

Red = the witty, charming yet often violent playboy type. Tends to hide his emotions a lot better while also wearing his heart on his sleeve in a more obvious fashion-- meaning, you can see his moods pretty well, but you can't get really close very easily either, and he has a ferocious temper that's pretty easily triggered. Does tend to have a group of close friends and a whole slew of acquaintances, and treats women very well as a rule and likes to be treated well in return. Tends to have a style of 'no commitments & no attachments' & yet is so charming and funny he gets away with it. Likes to affect a happy-go-lucky attitude that hides a darker side which is slow-moving and intense, which even he may not be aware of. Is very hard to catch off-guard and will swear that being loyal and devoted is completely out of his nature, but it is actually his true nature, it's just that he's more multi-focused and genuinely interested in people than the 'black' type. Pretty addicted to danger & excitement of all sorts, and tends to have a very good way with words.
    Is definitely representative of Id on a very meta level; I like to associate this archetype with Mars lately. The god of War.

Silver = harder to define, as it is a rarer and more elusive type of character. Tends to be quiet and keeps to himself, generally observing and not causing a scene. Is the 'calm one' whom many dismiss and don't treat as a danger (wrongly). Can be rather manipulative and casual about it, but is generally dedicated to whatever ideal/ethical system he follows. Won't let himself be seen or understood very easily, but doesn't bluster or bluff with coldness or violence. Is polite to a fault & can smile insincerely in many different ways; is a master of insulting you so subtly you don't know you've been insulted.
    Rather manipulative and generally emotionally weak, but thinks he's more mature than everyone around him. Tends to fall for fiery, emotional types that drive him insane, but also get him to open up and be more spontaneous and genuine. Another characteristic is a tendency to give things up easily and forgive too easily while really keeping a score on some level at the same time. Is a gentleman on principle rather than any sort of desire to impress or be liked by everybody-- he often wants to be liked by those he finds worthy, and the rest just to fall into place and not bother him. Has the ability to get along with anyone and makes few enemies, but when he does, it's forever.
    Might be seen as a manifestation of the superego in some ways. Sort of.
~~

I just read this blog entry which gave me an interesting bit of perspective, being a tribute to all the 'nice' girls out there and the guys who complain that all the girls want mean guys & not them, whereas really they don't give the nice girls the time of day either. And I always feel chagrined when I remember this basic reality of existence, and how I always pair the nice ones with the mean ones and don't blink twice, and how that's just perpetuating the cycle of misunderstanding & misery in real life, because people have these sorts of unrealistic expectations of their actual love-lives.
    And all I can say is that I -know-, of course I know (being a nice girl myself, mostly) that it's not just the mean and tortured ones that need love, and of course I don't think being closed-off and emotionally immature should mean you can get away with anything (ie, emotional abuse). Life isn't fiction, as they say.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think the deep dark & ugly truth is that I (and a lot of women, apparently) are nurturing types: we like them being emotionally 12 because it gives us a challenge and/or something to do and/or someone to take care of who needs us and there's this exchange of need thing (as separate from codependency?? maybe), too, 'cause like, they're still powerful in a way we're not. Or something. So if you're not into nurturing or 'taming' or basically being an amateur psychologist/therapist/nurse as well as a lover, none of this will sound fun to you :>

Anyway, um, I cringe at trying to tie this to one's real-life partner preferences 'cause I feel it doesn't -have- to be tied, and well, 2 of my 3 boyfriends were total Remusy nice guys. Though, uh, the one I never got over was the immature bastard type, but. *coughs*

I think the 'I-never-grew-up-emotionally-from-12-years-old thing' is like... not anything you -respect-, if you're looking to respect/admire your partner and treat him as an equal in every way, perhaps. And that gets old, I know. Ideally, that's their one weakness, though-- it works best if they're otherwise brilliant/strong/violent(? well in some contexts)/powerful or whatever. I think it's misleading to just call them 'bastards' because well, that dumb construction worker guy down the street catcalling all the pretty girls is an immature bastard too, and he does nothing for me. They have to be very much an individual who stands out, someone completely uniquely (dominant), one of a kind. There's usually only room for one or two at a time, and if they're together they're usually enemies.

Which is why it's important, I thought, to separate them into color or type categories. I mean, I'd probably pick Remus over Sirius, but then I dig silver more than red. I become friends with red types and fall heavily for black types, and can get involved in a friends-with-benefits way with silver types.

Also, most het chicks & most of the bastards they like aren't nearly intelligent or empathetic enough to make this sort of tamer/tamee relationship work. Enormous strength and fortitude and persistence is needed on the part of the girl, and the love between them has to be very strong to withstand all the inevitable bullshit. And the guy has to be interesting enough in other ways to make the pay-off worth it, which doesn't happen all that much in real life, y'know. But fiction, on the other hand-- :>

I guess I'm still willing to read fanfic, clearly, just dunno about H/D fic. I was tempted to make a post telling people all my squicks/kinks/desires and asking for recs, but then thought I probably know or heard of every significant H/D writer out there (seriously, I probably have if they're even remotely well-known, and pretty likely even if they're not). I still have to say I'm not -quite- as bad as the Harmonians since I never technically crossed the insanity barrier, y'know ^^;;

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

I think the deep dark & ugly truth is that I (and a lot of women, apparently) are nurturing types: we like them being emotionally 12 because it gives us a challenge and/or something to do and/or someone to take care of who needs us and there's this exchange of need thing (as separate from codependency?? maybe), too, 'cause like, they're still powerful in a way we're not.

But they're not. These kinds of men are not dependent. They don't need nurturing types. They just need people to use and exploit - men and women. You can't tame that, because there's no equality.

but then I dig silver more than red. I become friends with red types and fall heavily for black types, and can get involved in a friends-with-benefits way with silver types.

You may as well be speaking Swahili for all the sense this makes to me.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, uh. See, of course they're dependent and needy (though naturally in denial about it), that's the logical byproduct of them being 12 emotionally, right? As in, they didn't get raised correctly in some way, something's missing. So if something's missing, then they need it, and thusly you create dependence. They may be capable of 'social success' as most people understand it while alone, but this is their great trick, generally, since they're carrying around all this baggage & emotional trauma, generally (well, we're talking Byronic heroes, so they do by definition). They may be capable of acting okay (like autistic people learn to live normally), but they're not, in fact, okay. So a function of them falling in love is realizing they're not okay first and then simultaneously realizing their great need/desire (and eventually love). At least that's how it works in stories, I'm not saying it's a direct parallel to real life in general.

...I'm starting to suspect that I should've actually explained the color-coding thing better ^^;; Man, this writing-by-shorthand (basically so that -I- know what I'm talking about) is really a drag. I'm a horrible explainer :/

Er, I've edited the post to include the definitions, just in case that's clearer now~:)

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

that's the logical byproduct of them being 12 emotionally, right?

Not really. The point I was trying to make about them being emotionally 12 is that they're selfish pricks, without a care for others. They're not dependent emotionally on others, like most teenage males.

I mean, Byron himself is the perfect example. He wasn't dependent on anyone, and did as he pleased. He was a grade A arsehole, and generally treated both men and women like shit. They can't "act okay" because they are emotionally retarded, so instead they act like bastards.

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

Ohh, double edit: On the colours, um, I'm not sure if it's that simple. I mean, one could argue Harry's not overly brooding anymore, nor is he really a bastard.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to narrow everything down to black type = Harry (or Snape). In fact, only Sirius fits the ('red') archetype overly well in HP, but I stretched to say 'this is the closest I could come to explaining what I mean with HP'. Perhaps I should've left out examples all together, 'cause people always quibble when they know what I'm talking about but it doesn't fit exactly, and really I was thinking of another character most people wouldn't know. Also 'bastard' is a huge oversimplification-- the colors are more descriptive of dominant male -romance- archetypes.

Also, by 'act okay' I meant act like -they're- okay, not act 'okay' to other people. Plus, how they act to other people is totally separate to how they'd act with their one person/girl they love/etc. Since I'm talking about romance archetypes in the first place, -not- real-life bastards who may never meet anyone like that. I get that you don't buy that these types need anyone, but fact is everyone needs someone, especially teenage boys~:) They're just better at pushing people away to their own detriment.

I wasn't arguing with the 'selfish' aspect, but rather saying love too, can be selfish, but in the end they can be soothed/softened by the right person. In stories. ^^;;;

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

They're just better at pushing people away to their own detriment.

See, I don't think it's to their own detrement. Yes, everyone needs interaction with others on some level, but that interaction doesn't need to be truly dependent in the emotional-relationship sense. It's making them out to be some sort of pitiful poor darling woobies which is the whole problem of the myth. They're not. They're arseholes because they've chosen to be arseholes. Whether they stand there and say, ala Dr Troy from Nip/Tuck, "Oh, I was abused" or "A woman I loved dumped me and I can never love again" or blah blah blah, excuses excuses, they're just that: excuses. Forever arsehole that uses said excuses there's a million people in the world who had the same experience and didn't become an arsehole. I just detest these types so much in real life I find myself avoiding them in stories, unless they're written purposefully in a bad light (ala The Ultimates) for what they are. Or unless they're reallu really hot, such as Julian McMahon. Did you know his daddy was Prime Minister of Australia?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, you know I try not to whitewash people's dark sides and not to explain away bad behavior-- as I tried to say, it's not like I'm out to excuse emotional abuse or say it's okay. At the same time, I feel there should be some balance between justice and mercy, to be all meta about it; feeling sympathy and love and wanting to help a person & all that isn't the same as excusing someone from the consequences of their actions.

In the end, it's just a personal belief that everyone needs love, especially the people who can 'process' it least well. Like, especially because they've got these barriers against vulnerability-- that's often why it's so tempting to bring them to that point (to some people-- I wasn't trying to claim universal appeal or rationality, only noticing patterns in stories). I don't think it's about pity & woobification, though-- that's just the badfics, generally. At heart, it's like cellia said-- a primal game of power.

And they may not need emotional dependence to function like some poor lonely girl or something, but this dependence can -develop- is what I was saying, and once they fall, they can fall hard & brutal. That said, it's not as if you need to like them-- often enough, even the ones in love with them don't like them. In stories, it's often also a journey to them truly liking themselves.