[...apparently my favorite]

[reenka]

There was a comment on a recent post saying that the person gets upset when Draco is written as "OOC for fanon Draco". Taken in conjunction with the whole idea it was responding to re: not liking characters to be OOC because of wanting to recognize them, it sort of throws a new spin on things a bit, doesn't it?

At least, I've always felt a bit confused because as strident as I am about hating on fanon!Draco (as in, you literally have never heard of me if you don't know how much I hate fanon!Draco)... even so, I love old-skool fanon; it's just that I know people don't mean 'that fanon', the fanon I recognize, when they say 'fanon!Draco' these days. If I read -that- Draco, I'd just feel nostalgic and vaguely droll, like omg-the-folly-of-my-youth, but it would be a guilty pleasure (if the fic was vaguely well-written and especially didn't contain too much a) humorless sap, b) stupidity & c) bottom!Harry). On the other hand, no matter -how- well-written the new-fanon!Draco is, nothing can make me like him, almost -especially- the well-written fics that take him seriously; so perhaps it's not so much canonicity that I need as a standard, and given when I entered fandom & my experience with both fic and canon, some things will just -never- be standard to me, and smooth!ice-prince!Draco is one of the top non-standard offenders.

Overall, the canon vs. fanon debate reminds me of the writerly rigor vs. self-indulgence debate, and it pretty much follows along the same lines (in myself as well as people in fandom): it's all a percentage quotient between how seriously do you take yourself and/or your writing vs. how much do you want to escape in wank & nostalgia. I want to do both (wtf can't I have rigorous nostalgia?? DAMMIT!), and so am never happy.
~~

Also, I've gotten into ms_manna's 'original slash' fics, the Administration series. Man... sociopaths and high-level ops and hardcore sex and cute cyberpunk (so far)... I dig (though I could do well without the dystopia). Reminds me of why I get into the better Gundam Wing fic, actually (I mean, Heero will always be my favorite psychopath). Although there was a psych article on psychopaths posted in mannazone, which is the comm for the series, and...
    I think I realized why the psychopath is such a foolproof and constant hero in both over-the-top and gritty romances-- being supposedly 'incapable of (selfless) love', they make the perfect challenge, don't they? It will never stop making for good drama to try and get the one incapable of an emotion to show that emotion; and now I wonder just how close does Brian Kinney come to that definition, ahahahaha. Well, that would be more on the 'high-functioning' end of the scale.

Also, this whole 'psychopathic protagonist in romance' business makes the separation between 'selfish love' and 'selfless love'-style romance more obvious, but I think it was always there, almost as two distinct subgenres of a single type of story. People definitely often seem to prefer one over the other in characters, on a scale, of course: possessiveness vs. martyrdom, neediness vs. protectiveness, change vs. acceptance, even domination vs. submission (ie, do you claim/disclaim love or submit to love?) I can like both, but I find the two approaches are pretty distinct and both can be 'romantic' love (just different eras in 'romance', I think, one Byronic/Victorian & one Medieval); I think it's also possible the 'martyr'-type selfless love can have its own pathological extreme just like possessiveness does with psychopathy, with something like... I dunno... the delusional Don Quixote-type romantic protagonists.

Comments

[asynca.livejournal.com]

There are VERY few people who love selflessly without dispising themselves or suffering from debilitating insecurities. It bothers me when people write of selfless love without tackling these other issues.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ah! Yes, actually, the word 'selfless' itself should be a clue there :D It's true, come to think of it-- in my experience, these people want to be 'filled up' or given purpose in existing by having to care for (and being cared for by) the love interest. I think it's just these issues are more accepted and reinforced by our culture, perhaps? But it's hard to remember the last story I read where it was really shown as an emotional disturbance of that sort. (Probably in some cases of familial love or incest most often...)

[asynca.livejournal.com]

It's true - our culture actually attributes moral value to 'selfless' love. It's just another way for people who feel unworthy to feel like valid human beings. Actually, this is one topic I find that if you get to the core of why people love selflessly, it's actually selfish - but just serves those lovers in a different manner than the 'selfish' love you spoke of. Love, no matter how you look at it, is self-serving.