Date: 2007-09-16 11:01 am (UTC)
I think the reason I associate some 'disappointed' with rational (not the Harmonian kind) is because, depending on what they're disappointed about, JKR really did mess up the plot/books/stuff she herself set up, so it's almost like what happened in the books was actually illogical on some level, or perhaps 'too simplistic'. Some casual fans say stuff like 'I didn't think Snape's motivations would be this simplistic' even though they thought the possibility was there from the start. I think one pitfall of 'rational' type response is, I guess, overthinking things or expecting the author to think in the same way or to the same degree you do. Of course, this is not to be confused with people who're just emotionally invested in a particular outcome & then it didn't happen so they're disappointed and upset. Those former people tend to get quite tetchy if you confuse the two types, in my experience.

Well, like I said, currently I feel muddled about what I meant; I don't think it's like I reinvented the words randomly to suit myself or anything, it's just that I didn't define exactly what I did mean enough. Perhaps subjectively-driven and objectively-driven would be better ways to talk about it, because I'm talking about preference rather than either side being the exclusive incarnation of either feeling or reason; hopefully, any halfway intelligent person has both aspects in their personalities. :> It's just that people definitely seem to have differences I can track in how they relate to stories, and it's not just a canon-preference vs fanon-preference (because you can be a rationalist and still have a fanon/subversive preference, to borrow an example you'd mentioned). Some people tend to fixate more on or just-- prefer the objective 'truth' and 'this is how it is' type statements, and others are more commonly found defending their emotive stance (I love X! I hate Y! Stop trying to oppress me and my right to enjoy porn/love Sirius/hate Sirius/write Sirius in/out of existence! *cue rationalization and really bad pretend-logic*) These emotive types seem to be equally likely to be wanking or squeeing about either questionable canon or questionable fanon. It's not as if you can really break fans into two distinct types and that's it. It's just there are at least two different/opposing approaches to text in fandom that I was naming a bit carelessly. Everyone has an emotional response, 'tis true; some people seem more attached and driven by theirs than others, though. So yeah, it is just how you explain yourself/a style of engagement... but at the same time the type of post [livejournal.com profile] anitaray had was representative of a 'rationalist' approach... I mean, whether or not you find any given label useful for understanding is inherently somewhat subjective, though. It's not just modes of self-expression, it's that taken together with a given fan's values/focus areas.

Anyway, I definitely wasn't conflating valuing plot (or not, or preferring style) with rationality or the lack thereof; to the contrary, I mentioned that to promote an actual -lack- of hierarchy, as a commentary on how subjective are the building blocks of what we eventually use to explain why a story sucks or is awesome, and to show why some really horrid fics may be popular.
From:
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
User
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

Profile

reenka: (Default)
reenka

October 2007

S M T W T F S
 12 3456
78910111213
1415161718 19 20
21222324252627
28293031   

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 11:45 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios