[rambling on about nothing as usual.]

[reenka]

You know, before I spent too long in fandom, I had squicks. Now I just have preferences and a whole lot of pet-peeves, where it's just that you'd have to work harder to please me if I've a peeve about it. Like, y'know, I remember in the good old days, where Kirk/Spock sex pretty much squicked me, even if I liked the idea of the pairing a lot; I couldn't get over my adolescent vision of them. I remember when Ron/Draco and Snape/Draco and even Harry/Hermione seemed Deeply Wrong... and now I just don't prefer them. I remember when H/D was the alpha and omega of my fannish universe and I had all these ideas about how it 'should' and 'shouldn't' be done (and okay, I still have those), but I've become quite lax about thumping my chest and hyperventilating, alas.

Anyway, I meant to talk about a specific comment in this Wincest squick post, but it also made me think a bit, 'cause yeah, the sheer prevalence of that reading of a show's canon bothers me a bit-- though that's my 'canon, bitches!' thing, not any anti-incest squick, exactly; actually, I don't think I've ever had a 'traditional' squick in the sense that it's based on my real-life beliefs (I mean, I tend to like characters in fiction I'd probably clobber in real life, for a start). Like, if it's well-written, anything challenging or transgressive can only make the story more interesting, as far as I'm concerned; for examples, look to the many instances of incest in classic literature and also some of the best genre lit of today (okay, mainly Song of Ice and Fire). I cannot imagine seriously reading something good and then stopping and going, 'but this is WRONG, HOW COULD THIS BE??! NOOOoooo'. If I really felt like that, I mean, I wouldn't have graduated from books for toddlers, because isn't there always something unpleasant and 'wrong' and unfair even in (good and/or classic) children's books?

    (Btw, this is where some of my friends woujd just say I'm not a critical enough reader, so I clearly suck. Hehe. Because yeah, while I was careful to say 'well-written' and 'good' stories, the truth is I also suspend a lot of judgment/personal issues/disbelief when reading stuff I just... like a lot for whatever reason. I wouldn't call it a 'kink'; like, I don't have a 'kink' for HP canon, y'know? Most of the time the only reason I'm critical is when I either really love something or really hate it, usually because of aesthetic/story-construction reasons. This mostly applies to stuff that's really bad. How do I explain it. It applies to purple-prosey fantasy books with ass-stupid names & the majority of post-OoTP fanfic I read, hahaha; it very rarely applies to content, in other words, and only to execution-- the big exception being OOCness in fic and stuff I find relentlessly bleak. Because I'm a huge romantic dork. But I try to keep that under control. :P So yeah, it's a personality issue, basically, and one I can't really do anything about, so nyah.)


In any case, I'm veeeery touchy about actually projecting slashiness on any canon... and in fact I can't think of any where I would do so with all honesty. There's liminal cases like Star Trek, The Sentinel and Gundam Wing, but I wouldn't go so far as to explain anything that happened with the characters through that lens. It's just subtext, take it or leave it.

Aaanyway. It's funny because I have the exact opposite reaction-- usually if something squicks me in text/theory, it squicks me less in a visual representation, because I'm more of an aesthete-- I always look at art as an 'art piece' first and a 'statement' second; in other words, I can easily disengage any moral/ethical/other biases and just enjoy the pretty because pretty is what matters with visual media to me. This is why I have no hard pairing preference with fanart, for instance, and why I tolerate and enjoy extreme cheesiness in fanvids of the sort that'd make me run screaming from a fic.
    Coincidentally, it's also why the 6A/LJ wank sticks in my craw like mad. It's really the art-critique aspect that drives me mad, the double-standard where fanfic is okay but fanart isn't-- fanart needs to be judged by outsiders who don't have the first clue what they're looking at. That just drives me mad. Visual art just... the idea of judging it in such pedestrian terms without even realizing that's what you're doing-- it makes my blood boil.

Regardless, I meant to just quote harriet_spy's comment:
    To be honest, there's no way you can take a dynamic that hinges even a little bit on transgressiveness, have ten thousand squeeing fangirls stampede over it, and have anything left but flatness.

I just thought that was really... very true. And it really applies to some of my favorite pairings (*cough!*) rather than just Wincest. It's not that I hate fluff... it's that I'm just so bored & frustrated by the sheer glut of narratives that make the transgressive and raw as acceptable and 'easy' as possible. Actually, the reason I wouldn't ship Wincest is probably because you can't reasonably expect it to be remotely healthy or resolvable in any positive way-- and I'm still a romantic. It's kinda figures that the incest is intinsically everyone's problem, but yeah. This definitely reminds of the sheer flatness I felt before I stopped reading H/D altogether; this sense that the pairing has become... completely predictable and 'easy' (in fandom, not in canon). I can't really think of a transgressive pairing that actually consistently captured its own problematic areas... which is why I'm really way too wary to read S/L, but oh well.

Comments

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

I didn't say "just rewire." It's sort of the opposite of what I said. It's not either the past or the present, it's both, and they're both there... but I know what you mean about different styles of communication. You said "Fi first" but it seems more like "all Fi, all the time" to the point where sometimes unless I'm mirroring your reaction it seems like I've got nothing to add that would really impact you (about certain topics).

Actually I could write obsessive Draco quite easily.

It's true that we both respond to what we read, but then I become frustrated with this admission of readings being personal while at the same time going on tangents about what JKR meant, what was really there, and how gay readings are different (because of the fangirls!! argh) This is totally not about how you should change your response, but about the arguments you make while explaining it that just aren't about your response only so it makes me want to debate them.

I can't grasp it with my claws the way you can pluck at it with your beak

I feel like I'm missing the cultural context...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's not either the past or the present, it's both, and they're both there

Hahah. Tangent, but: it's like you're telling me to use Ni (that's what that is, right) and I'm frustrated you keep using that as reference and then getting frustrated when I keep using Fi as reference, and both of us think we're being 'stubborn' ahahahah whereas we're just being... who we are? Er?? :)) I perhaps am too quick to read you as being prescriptive, but the things you say don't read as 'how-tos' because I guess your how isn't my how :>

You probably -could- write obsessive Draco because you can write anything (characterization-wise) you set your mind to, I forgot :> In fact, I'd be quite pleased if you wrote obsessive!Draco :D :D :D :D :D AHHH AN AU ESPECIALLY! Man. Man, I really would read that. Obsessive post-OoTP Draco AU :D With angry!Sirius-obsessing!violent!Harry who has issues and further confrontations with Snape and Dumbledore, and is too busy angsting to notice much in the 'real world', ahaha :D Oh man oh man. I'll never love anything like I love post-OoTP HP in my head :)

Anyway, it really is 'Fi first' because once someone acknowledges the Fi emotional reaction as valid and okay, then I can move past that; as long as I'm defending my reaction as valid and as something I can't easily decide to change, I can't move on, I guess. To impact me on 'those topics' you'd need to inspire me in an emotive/inspirational way... I mean, non-rationally. Reading fics, watching vids, seeing fanart-- all that affects change upon Fi reactions, and meta only rarely does, and even at best it just makes me think and starts me on the road to possible change. Half the time I forget meta stuff I've heard rather than incorporate it, whereas I definitely incorporate stories/art/vids. That's just how my mind works, I guess.

I think I do a bit too much justifying of my responses in a defensive way, but it's useless debating because whatever seems rational is only a way of explaining I'm grasping at-- if it doesn't work (as it very well may not), I'll say 'oh, that doesn't work' & try to find another rationalization/explanation that does work. The reason I can do that and not be hypocritical is just that it's the response that's central, and everything else is just a theory I have to explain and put it in context, and theories can always be wrong, y'know. If you really wanted, you could even explain me -to- me, and if it really worked & didn't insult my intelligence I may totally use it :))

Plus, well, tangents are tangents and I do go on a number ^^;; I'm skeptical rather than totally intolerant of 'gay readings'; some of it has to do with intent, some with the precise argument being made at the time (like, I saw an PoA!S/R argument I liked once which basically said 'well, some people's cultural context is such that they can't help but interpret these cues this way'). Also sometimes I just 'react' to 'the gay' myself-- like, squee!-- it's just that reacting and any rationalization of that isn't the same thing as a serious reading, for me, perhaps biased by my own personality & how it works. I just always felt that H/G was going to happen... and it's not a controversial thing to say; reacting to H/G & H/D differently based on their roles in canon just seems natural to me. My arguments are always in flux, though, yeah, and may very well be totally illogical, ahaha.

The claws vs beak is an offhand reference to an Aesop's fable from my childhood to do with a Fox and a Stork (http://snowy.arsc.alaska.edu/gutenberg/1/1/3/3/11339/11339-h/11339-h.htm#THE_FOX_AND_THE_STORK) ^^; haha

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

I sort of want to say but see I do it better because I offer Ti propositions and Ti is an international language! Ahah.

Well I do have a post-ootp AU (that I even dedicated to you!) When I don't feel like such a slacker I'll pick it up again. Though I don't know how much it qualifies for the sort of thing you want because he's all... irritant terrorist truth-teller who is always humiliated and is petty. And it's post-Hogwarts and they used to fuck.

I know it's useless debating in the sense that you don't respond to it, but I see these ideas floating on my computer screen and I feel the call to deconstruction. It's not personal at least, until I feel you're becoming sort of aggressively resistant and *sigh* and are *tired* and don't want to debate but at the same time make a lot of offensive flippant comments ahahahah.

I don't know why you should be skeptical of gay readings specifically, I mean I am skeptical because I am skeptical of everything, but if you go easy on certain readings disqualifying gay readings seems a bit sleazy. Actually when you made that comment to the anon on sisterm lj that it seemed she wanted affirmative action for gay readings I was like "why not."

I mean, gay reading != slash, you shouldn't always conflate it. It's like you always take it back to your paranoia about gay Harry, and I have similar paranoias about making Draco a dildo, and Sirius/Remus irritates me, but this is bigger than HP. I mean, BEN HUR!

Lol that fable seems to be about the Stork being a moron.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's not just about gay!Harry, and in the end it depends how the gay reading is presented. :/ I mean, the affirmative action thing is just dishonest and isn't too likely to lead to good rational debate as far as I'm concerned (you can justifiably say 'you're just projecting' if there's 'affirmative action'). I don't 'go easy' on certain readings; in the slashers' environment, I don't come across other readings discussed near as much, but you should know about my resistance to deconstructionist and post-modernist readings as well, not to mention Harmonian readings :P At least you can't accuse me of singling out gay readings; I pretty much don't mind any reading as long as it's separate from canon text and isn't claiming to directly 'explain' it. Like... it's a bit confusing to me 'cause sometimes people will say 'this is so gay' and then admit it's just subtext they see... I mean, by definition (to me) you can't debate subtext because it depends on personal perception (which is where I accept people saying they naturally 'see' Sirius/Remus, say). If you simply say 'this is what I see' rather than 'this is what's there', I'm like, 'great!' So to some degree this is a communication issue typical for an INFP-- I accept any personal perception as long as that's what it is. But at some point you couldn't really argue with the Harmonian reading either, and that's like my point where it goes too far. If people's reading is a commentary on canon rather than an interpretation that tries to define canon, then I'll accept next to anything, though some things remain stupid and unlikely.

Anyway, in the context of fandom, I think gay reading = slash; in academia it's not, but this isn't academia & most times that distinction wouldn't be useful. I support Ben Hur. What bothers me is the 'so gay omg!!' squee where people forget to use Occam's Razor and/or common sense. There's also a difference on whether you're consciously leaving out Authorial Intent or not; it's fine if you are, but some people go on about how the author was sekritly sending them messages only they can see :P Since I'm in slash fandom and see this the most, this is why I concentrate on that particular type of reading. I'm not saying everyone who 'sees the gay' is a crazy fangirl, before you jump on that-- I'm saying a lot of them are, which drove me to this state.

I'm sorry I make comments that are offensive to you ><;;;; You have a knack for making comments that are offensive to me as well; I've just accepted this is a communication issue most of the time. ^^; A lot of times you say this and I do continue the debate for your sake even though it drains and exhausts me and is the polar opposite of fun (I'm not kidding or being avoidant when I say I'm tired, anyway), but at some point I can't go on anymore. I try to not be resistant with you, and usually the point at which I 'snap' into that mode is much much later than when I first get uncomfortable; I just don't have the stamina to match you. I want to reach an understanding and so I go on in debates, but even though I do it to humor you, in the end it just draws out the conflict, generally, rather than easing it, because there are always 10 more new things to deconstruct once 3 are done with, y'know? Which is why the tiredness. I wish I could do better, though! I do try.

Look, I defend the right of INFJs to irritate me here (http://infp.globalchatter.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=7301) :D Sort of related, I thought of you when I saw this discussion of whether INFPs are selfish (http://infp.globalchatter.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=6556), ahahah :D

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

Hey Reenabee, I want to answer to all your awesome posts&point, but before I lose my thread of thought about this, it was really cool what you wrote about INFJs and wanted to tell you that. I think you're also very kind and humble with the INFPs who might not be used to us assholes who judge. I also liked the other thead even though I felt like I had to navigate through oceans of denial (I don't think it's a function of INFPs, per se, it's about the board general level) about those INFJs who dare calling you out & everyone is selfish* etc, but some of the posts were very honest I thought and made me think. Plus you're always so patient with me. I'll try to be less paranoid :D

I'd like to know the context of that anedocte about selfishness, if it was the INFJ being randomly epic or the INFP sort of passive-aggressively got it out of him.

*lol, this one happens all the time, no way it's an INFP thing. "I'm not X because everyone's X." Though I sort of feel the allergy to judgement is innate to INFPs like the allergy to [insert a better word for emo with less annoying connotations] is innate to INFJs. Is there even a romantic/friendship archetype about INFP & INFJ? It seems even romantics fear it, lol.

Though I think Memphy in particular is smug beyond belief for being so stupid, sorry.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah Mempy gets on my nerves a bit with the depth of her self-justification. I think she used to be the opposite (Enneagram 2) and has since been over-compensating ><;; I'm glad that selfishness thread was helpful! In my experience, it wouldn't take much to get an INFJ to pronounce something of that sort, though :))

Hehe I'm always trying to understand people who're different through understanding their INTENT ahahahahalfasjkfaslkjfasf. So great you appreciate it at last :D :D I'm glad. It really pays of in ways like this, definitely. Like for all the times I just sucked it up & tried to be patient, it's worth it when it's appreciated <3. It makes me wonder why more INFPs aren't passionate about this; it seems so clearly an outgrowth of Fi+Ne to me, though Ne+Fi does it more. But Fi+Ne can do it too, y'know! :D It's my sekrit Naruto-like part ;))

You're right about the allergy to judgment, though. Some INFJs seem less militant about emo (Aspen!Cassie is just briskly pragmatic but not... anti-emo), just as some INFPs seem less reactive to jugdment (or at least like Sister M, they battle it with logic rather than Fi, anyway, hahah). :>

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I meant the stork vs fox thing as a metaphor for different means to do the same thing based on innate structural differences ^^;; People don't necessarily mean to offend with that sort of thing, it's just that projection of 'what I'm comfortable with is what also what the other should be comfortable with'; both the stork & the fox made that error. Fi is particularly given to that assumption, but Ti tends to be all 'if you can't play my game by the rules you shouldn't be in it at all' and Ni just isn't the best at considering individual/various subjective povs anyway (as far as that goes, Ne's more likely to do that because it's less driven to bring everything back to one single Truth... maybe).