[.....this may or may not sound bitter. *cough*]

[reenka]

It just occurred to me that it's not that I don't like enthusiastic recs, obviously-- 'cause I do that all the time-- and it's not that I'm not 'naturally fannish' in the omg-squee sense, because I totally get obsessive and excitable about things I read or watch-- but what really turns me off is when something's recced or pimped by just saying 'I like it, SO YOU SHOULD TOO!' ^^;;; I mean, I'm okay with the reccing-'cause-liking part, but that's just not a good reason to peer pressure anyone. And yes, it always feels like peer pressure to me. >.>;;;

It's like... the difference between sharing hobbies and 'creating a phenomenon' or marketing a story or a fandom or whatever.
    There are a lot of books (and movies & comics, etc) that mean a lot to me, that are personal to me. But they are personal to me, and therefore it would be disingenuous to defend them or 'sell' them, so when I want people to get into them too (and I do! I tell all my friends to read 'Sandman'), I'm constantly walking the line between assuring them they'll like it and why it's actually awesome and just describing what -I- like about it and such. Some things really are very well-done and worth reading/seeing... but to a person like me, if you over-stress how 'need to see' or 'have to read' something is, it makes me feel like a sucker. :/
    I hate the popularity game-- I mean, I really feel like the more popular or famous something gets, the more its own fans will ignore its real merits (and flaws) and just coast along on the 'obvious' awesomeness of it all and how clearly omg-genius & hot it is.

I guess what I mean is, I hate it when something I initially cared about for partly quirky subjective reasons becomes 'cool' and 'the thing to like'. :/ At a certain point of popularity, it's not okay to critique something as much, to geek out and just talk about all the little things that appeal to you, because rabid fans get uber-defensive, y'know? Of course once it's popular, it's FLAWLESS & GODLIKE. -.-; Like, if someone tells you they don't like something about Tolstoy's work, people would assume that person is an idiot, right? Either that or they'd get pissy you're harshing their buzz. Somehow the story/show/etc becomes an identity or status symbol for people once it reaches a certain level of popularity.
    Of course all larger communities have their good & bad side; on the one hand, you lose the intimate feeling & greater understanding between those first few fans, but on the other hand, more people are being exposed to the material (if you care about that sort of thing) and you get vindicated about how awesome it is. Mer.
~~

Btw, I really liked this post on purposeful misidentification in stories by fictualities, 'cause that's pretty much what makes me feel most uncomfortable while reading (and alienates me in some more critical meta fandom circles). Fighting the narrative is hard work with little reward, and ohhh, I like my rewards, precious. :> Though I'd never feel I'd 'have' to fight the narrative just to identify with the 'missing' main girl-- I mean, um, having that degree of an agenda is hard work too :>
    However, I can like 'bad' characters naturally merely based on the ambiguously-positive cues in the text, while still liking the good characters, simply 'cause I generally don't care who's good & who's bad :D Unless they annoy me & seem stupid. Then it's really on :/ But I totally never felt I was 'supposed' to dislike Draco, not the way I was 'supposed' to dislike the Dursleys, so yeah, it's obvious he's not entirely unsympathetic (so who cares). Seriously. He's always been just so cute!! *___* Man, who wants to be an intellectual -.-

EDIT - I just found fairestcat's year-old post explaining Watsonian vs. Doylist approaches to a given canon (one justifying various events from the author-pov so they'd make sense & one from a character's), and maaaan, that explains a LOT about fandom conflicts :D Needless to say, I'm definitely a faithful Watsonian :> I tend to consider Doylist-style explanations cute and enlightening (ie, author intent & attendant issues are interesting), but ultimately it pulls me out of the flow of a show/story so I tend to compartmentalize it, I guess. Like, if the only way to explain something is to point to the writers' "smoking crack" or having whatever agenda, then I'm just plain disappointed in the show & don't bother with further analysis voluntarily. I guess I'd say it's useful to add some Doylist flavor but not satisfying emotionally to me as a fan ^^;;;; And in some ways, I do think there might be a rational vs. intuitive/emotional-style analysis divide between the two approaches....

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think the debate-being-independent is apparently a J issue, btw :D For me there is no separation between liking to think at all and liking to think because I like it (ie, I'm hugely motivated by preference in general). While I like 'making things work', I don't like doing things I really like if I don't like the circumstances. I'm lazy and flippant that way :> In other words, it's a personality-based preference which leads to me just being rather picky in general :D (...it also hounds me at school, as you can imagine.....)

However, it doesn't go so far for me as to not be into a show/etc if I don't "trust" the author; sure, I'd be -more- into it if I did, but it's enough for me not to actively disrespect or be annoyed by the author. So I was saying if and when I see something that makes me lose respect, I can't really enjoy analyzing it. It's also why sometimes you think I'm a lot more hardcore pro-canon & JKR than I am, I guess. I'm not really a 'fan' of most things I just enjoy (certainly not of the HP books), but I still need to basically feel good about it.

I agree it's about making the author look coherent more than anything. In some circumstances (like the QaF US situation where knowing intent clarified the canon that was there because of a lot of fans' preconceptions), I guess it helps canon, but generally it doesn't work like that, yeah.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think the debate-being-independent is apparently a J issue, btw :D For me there is no separation between liking to think at all and liking to think because I like it (ie, I'm hugely motivated by preference in general). While I like 'making things work', I don't like doing things I really like if I don't like the circumstances. I'm lazy and flippant that way :> In other words, it's a personality-based preference which leads to me just being rather picky in general :D (...it also hounds me at school, as you can imagine.....)

Heh, yeah. I think the J acts differently whether you're emotionally involved or not, meaning we can get sarcastic, paranoid and pissy when we're involved, but we don't have to be. Even when you're detached, you're driven to offer judgements, which is why the accusations of bitterness when the criticism is particularly harsh don't work for me. I don't have to be angry to be critical! I think people jump to the conclusion that you're bitter (and angry) because they're assuming a fan is emotionally involved all the time, or that if a person is devoting their time and efforts to tear apart something they are emotionally involved anyway. Poor misunderstood INFJs :( Nobody gets our fetish for pointing out that everything sucks.

Being a fan -- I wonder what that even means at this point. The way fandom evolved, you can enjoy being in it and engaging other fans without feeling particularly good about the canon. I feel various degrees of say, admiration and affection towards certain canons (and different degrees of the same towards their authors), but I don't know how else to define myself for being a (satisfied or dissatisfied) viewer who is in the fandom. I can tell you that I'm a fan of Naruto and BSG, but I don't think I'm a fan of HP, even though I enjoy parts of it.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

You know, maybe 'fan' should be someone who's into the material a lot-- more than a casual reader/viewer (since that's its straightforward meaning), and fandom should just get its head out of its ass as to allowing outside or academic-style critique/commentary (...and even heckling). What you're really more into is the academic approach with HP-- not that emotionally involved/happily involved at least, but interested in the ideas being raised or interested in the types of discussion. Most fans just aren't that into that sort of thing, even the ones that like meta & even most academician fans tend to at least enjoy their subjects, so. :> The tendency to think most about what you like isn't that rare even among analysts or TJs, even if 'like' != emotional involvement.

I guess I'd say I don't respect/admire HP but I enjoy it-- I have a childish glee at the fanart, enjoy the book covers (as you know, ehehe) and try not to analyze it to death tooooo much. Initially I hated it, and that just meant I hated the world for liking it & it being everywhere, so this is much more comfortable ^^;;

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

I was actually thinking yesterday after reading on Enneagrams that certain types aren't cut for fandom. Like, a Six like me, we can enjoy ourselves reasonably for a month or so before we start zooming in on the flaws. Of course the other side to this is that a Six can become the staunchest supporter of any given canon once the canon has, er, proven itself, so who knows.

I also think the tendency of INFJs to always want to observe and dissect things (to positive or negative evaluations) well, doesn't necessarily make them incompatible with canon, but could annoy fans who are in it mostly for the love and squee -- oldest debate in fandom?