Lines in the Sand
Sep. 15th, 2005 02:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gwendolyngraceSo this has come up over and over, going back basically about 4 years at this point, but it's a point that people seem not to get.
The point is about lines in the sand in fandom. Any fandom. Pick your poison, I don't care. The idea is that everyone comes to a fandom because of an obsessive (some might say unhealthy) love for the thing - movie, TV show, book series, whatever - and that, whether it's an open canon or a closed one, they spend time analysing and nitpicking and poring over the minutiae in ways that, really, just aren't normal.
Now, even a closed canon cannot possibly fill in all the cracks. Heck, even Tolkien left chinks unexplored (though arguably not many, and his notebooks go on for miles), as well as room for interpretation when it comes to matters of character. There are always characters who are little more than names on the page, and who aren't ever meant to be expanded. There are always "cut" scenes, just as there are always details about the characters - main, secondary, and cameo - that the author will never tell us, because they Just Don't Matter to the central story.
But...the fan, the really active, obsessive fan in each of us picks and chooses, just like the author, what is important, by assigning it some measure of personal importance.
It's difficult to take this apart from authorial intent. For the purposes of this discussion, authorial intent doesn't matter. Trust me on this. By authorial intent, I mean a sort of Occam's razor interpretation here, leaving aside so-called "subversive" or "alternative" interpretations of what the author could have meant. With me so far?
Because now what I'm going to talk about are those moments when the fan finds himself out of synch with that authorial intent. We *know* that in the original Star Wars, Han shot first. We *like* it that way. Lucas went back and *changed* the film to reflect his revised decision, so it's clear that he *wants* us to accept the "new" Han as the same Han he has been all along. But countless SW purists drew their lines in the sand and rejected Lucas's interpretation.
That's an imperfect example, because what happened there was a change, and not an "it's always been that way," but it does provide a good analogy to "open" canon, where new installments "change" what fans have believed they knew. Some roll with the punch and pick up the "new" information and run with it, folding it seamlessly into their consciousness and rejecting any of their "old" interpretations where they contradict canon. They simply drop that line of inquiry and go on with what they've now been told.
But some fans don't.
This doesn't have to be a major plot point, or even a minor one. It doesn't have to signal the end of a fan's career in fandom, nor does it even mean that they'll stop participating in and discovering other things about the "new" canon. It simply means they hit a wall on one point, regardless of its significance (or lack thereof), and have drawn a line in the sand.
No. No, I'm sorry. I love *this* fact that you told us, or *this* connection that you allowed us to make. I always knew I was right about *that*. Really? You're kidding. I could have sworn that character was going to turn out to have the Force. Oh, well. Okay - no skin off my nose. But you say that *this other* character is really in love with her? The hell you say. Nope, sorry. Not buying.
One fan's line in the sand may be a name; another's may be an entire theory that they just love and want to keep playing with; someone else may be able to accept everything about a character except what kind of people their parents were; or another fan may not care about anything except what happens to the red shirt on page 278 who will never show up again, most likely. Sometimes we don't even know which lines in the sand are the dealbreakers until after the author (or creators) crosses them. In other words, not until after we're proven to be incorrect. Not until after we're faced with a choice: Which do you like better? Your version, or theirs? What's more important? Your own pet backstory, or the "reality"?
In fandom, people assign these things their own level of importance. It doesn't matter whether, in the scheme of canon, these small and large details are necessary. It doesn't matter whether, in the course of the story, it will turn out to be "important" or whether a plot will hinge on it. It doesn't even matter if it's never mentioned outside a character sketch in the role-playing guide.
It only matters because the fans make it matter.
So while it's tempting to bash fellow fans because one theory seems more crackpot than another, because someone truly believed (read: hoped) something was going to turn out to be true, when it's become clear that either the author never intended it, or decided against the possibility, because anyone dared to care what a character's second cousin's brother-in-law's name was, remember: Next time, it could be your theory being dashed, or your assumption that was wrong, or your nonsensical fascination with a minor character being exposed. Okay, so, this revelation didn't matter to you. Great. So, you had a rival theory that turned out to be more aligned to the author's plan. Congratulations. But you know what?
I'll bet you still have your own line in the sand. Maybe you just haven't encountered it yet.
Come on, 'fess up. What's your line in the sand?
The point is about lines in the sand in fandom. Any fandom. Pick your poison, I don't care. The idea is that everyone comes to a fandom because of an obsessive (some might say unhealthy) love for the thing - movie, TV show, book series, whatever - and that, whether it's an open canon or a closed one, they spend time analysing and nitpicking and poring over the minutiae in ways that, really, just aren't normal.
Now, even a closed canon cannot possibly fill in all the cracks. Heck, even Tolkien left chinks unexplored (though arguably not many, and his notebooks go on for miles), as well as room for interpretation when it comes to matters of character. There are always characters who are little more than names on the page, and who aren't ever meant to be expanded. There are always "cut" scenes, just as there are always details about the characters - main, secondary, and cameo - that the author will never tell us, because they Just Don't Matter to the central story.
But...the fan, the really active, obsessive fan in each of us picks and chooses, just like the author, what is important, by assigning it some measure of personal importance.
It's difficult to take this apart from authorial intent. For the purposes of this discussion, authorial intent doesn't matter. Trust me on this. By authorial intent, I mean a sort of Occam's razor interpretation here, leaving aside so-called "subversive" or "alternative" interpretations of what the author could have meant. With me so far?
Because now what I'm going to talk about are those moments when the fan finds himself out of synch with that authorial intent. We *know* that in the original Star Wars, Han shot first. We *like* it that way. Lucas went back and *changed* the film to reflect his revised decision, so it's clear that he *wants* us to accept the "new" Han as the same Han he has been all along. But countless SW purists drew their lines in the sand and rejected Lucas's interpretation.
That's an imperfect example, because what happened there was a change, and not an "it's always been that way," but it does provide a good analogy to "open" canon, where new installments "change" what fans have believed they knew. Some roll with the punch and pick up the "new" information and run with it, folding it seamlessly into their consciousness and rejecting any of their "old" interpretations where they contradict canon. They simply drop that line of inquiry and go on with what they've now been told.
But some fans don't.
This doesn't have to be a major plot point, or even a minor one. It doesn't have to signal the end of a fan's career in fandom, nor does it even mean that they'll stop participating in and discovering other things about the "new" canon. It simply means they hit a wall on one point, regardless of its significance (or lack thereof), and have drawn a line in the sand.
No. No, I'm sorry. I love *this* fact that you told us, or *this* connection that you allowed us to make. I always knew I was right about *that*. Really? You're kidding. I could have sworn that character was going to turn out to have the Force. Oh, well. Okay - no skin off my nose. But you say that *this other* character is really in love with her? The hell you say. Nope, sorry. Not buying.
One fan's line in the sand may be a name; another's may be an entire theory that they just love and want to keep playing with; someone else may be able to accept everything about a character except what kind of people their parents were; or another fan may not care about anything except what happens to the red shirt on page 278 who will never show up again, most likely. Sometimes we don't even know which lines in the sand are the dealbreakers until after the author (or creators) crosses them. In other words, not until after we're proven to be incorrect. Not until after we're faced with a choice: Which do you like better? Your version, or theirs? What's more important? Your own pet backstory, or the "reality"?
In fandom, people assign these things their own level of importance. It doesn't matter whether, in the scheme of canon, these small and large details are necessary. It doesn't matter whether, in the course of the story, it will turn out to be "important" or whether a plot will hinge on it. It doesn't even matter if it's never mentioned outside a character sketch in the role-playing guide.
It only matters because the fans make it matter.
So while it's tempting to bash fellow fans because one theory seems more crackpot than another, because someone truly believed (read: hoped) something was going to turn out to be true, when it's become clear that either the author never intended it, or decided against the possibility, because anyone dared to care what a character's second cousin's brother-in-law's name was, remember: Next time, it could be your theory being dashed, or your assumption that was wrong, or your nonsensical fascination with a minor character being exposed. Okay, so, this revelation didn't matter to you. Great. So, you had a rival theory that turned out to be more aligned to the author's plan. Congratulations. But you know what?
I'll bet you still have your own line in the sand. Maybe you just haven't encountered it yet.
Come on, 'fess up. What's your line in the sand?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 10:03 pm (UTC)My point wasn't so much with the issue that people ship something opposing to me: I might not have seen evidence of H/Hr or R/S in the books prior to HBP, but I can understand that some people might, and indeed, had those been the pairings to come out in HBP, it would neither have surprised or offended me.
I think the issue was a) firstly, the reaction of shippers who had their ship sunk: the threats, the libel, the out-there conspiracies that painted JKR in some very negative colours, and b) that people wanted the books, for whatever reason, to reflect their own moral values: in the case of the Harmonians, that they wanted JKR to show the pure, non-violent and righteous love of Harry and Hermione, and in the case of R/S shippers, that they wanted JKR to condemn homophobia with one fell swoop: neither of which are bad things in themselves, and are quite admirable, but when taken to extremes the matter really does reach that of a religious or social movement. (I always found H/Hr to be the exact opposite of R/S, mind, and I tend to talk out of my arse a lot. But you're free to delete this post should you wish.)
With the matter of R/S, I've seen shippers say that JKR has ruined a 'perfectly good gay character': that they wouldn't be a fan of Lupin if he were anything but gay; that her putting him into an ambiguous heterosexual relationship was definitive proof of her own homophobia (http://www.livejournal.com/users/a_white_rain/170466.html): claims which are pretty offensive and far-reaching. I know it certainly doesn't apply to the majority of R/S shippers, but there is a small and vocal minority who are acting with a particular vitriol in the aftermath of HBP.
It's the same way with H/Hr: there's a large group who have gone off on their merry ways to continue writing H/Hr and drawing their fanart, and for the most part you don't even know they're around. H/Hr shipping, on the other hand, is far more mild than what Harmony has turned out to be: this was really a pair that readers rallied around as being the high example of moral purity, and that the HP books, instead of being entertaining books for children and young adults, would be seen as some sort of bible for how romances should be. Angua's essay on the Harmonian mindset (http://www.livejournal.com/users/angua9/204545.html) should hopefully shed more light on this, and she herself differentiates between people who were fond of the pairing, and thought it might happen in fandom, and those who turned it into something different altogether.
I wish I were joking about comments about JKR being involved (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/773990.html#cutid1) in Chinese abortions (http://www.livejournal.com/users/phoenixwriter/76666.html). I wish I could lie and say that some Harmonians didn't liken themselves to African slaves. (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/772909.html?thread=73888045#t73888045) I also wish I could lie about people saying they'd have preferred JKR to have died in childbirth because of HBP. (That link to come: can't remember where I had it saved on my computer.)
But I can't say I was joking, because I would be a liar. Those aren't relationship theories, that is overreaching, untrue libel, trying to defame the author who brought them the characters that they shipped so strongly for years.
Part the second
Date: 2005-09-15 10:05 pm (UTC)I like the HP books because they're great books for older kids which the author has had the tremendous foresight to put in some decent fanservice for older readers. If my ship gets sunk in the next book (and chances are, it probably will: I wear no rose-tinted glasses for the fate of a ship portrayed so ambiguously as R/T) I probably won't be too upset, because it is, after all, JKR's books and she may do what she bloody well pleases with them. To call her the things I've heard her called in the aftermath of HBP because my ship has been sunk (many of which are far too foul to put into print again) would be disrespectful and in poor taste. There are always going to be the semantics that might not impress people (as you mentioned in the post about Lupin's middle name) but those are the sort of things that don't necessarily affect the plot whatsoever.
My line in the sand, therefore, is probably a fairly ambiguous one, for I don't hold any fluffy notions of romance or expectations of people to actually stick it out. After almost a year of planning my WIP, I didn't even like the idea of R/T together at the end so I had them break up. I think that rather than having my shipping plans dashed, I'd probably see how people came to their conclusions about the reasoning to be more worrisome than the ship itself.
Ps. I apologise for intruding into your journal, and I hope that this clarifies my position. I certainly don't intend to be rude by doing so, though I do appreciate that personal LJs are certainly a private domain of their owners.
Re: Part the second
Date: 2005-09-16 02:02 am (UTC)Mine have ranged from that infamous middle name to an age to major character points in the HP fandom. I have absolutely no compunction saying that I think JKR is completely addled in her head with some of the decisions she has made, and to wonder publicly whether she might be, in fact, smoking the crack. And while it may be in poor taste, it doesn't bother me to hear that people reacted very, very strongly to having their aspirations for the series killed. Killed dead, and in fact, with no more respect for the fans than they returned in kind.
Don't get me wrong: I'm a big girl and I can live with disappointment. But it's perfectly acceptable, IMO, in a fandom, to pick and choose the pieces of canon that you *want* to use, and to throw away anything you don't. Other people's opinions differ, but that's my stance.
Re: Part the second
Date: 2005-09-16 02:49 am (UTC)I can certainly agree that that JKR didn't respect the wishes of some fans, but it's an entirely different thing to label her a homophobe or to wish ill on her or her baby daughter. Or to say she's involved in human rights abuses or slavery. At some level I think people need to draw the line between what's polite, reasonable and opinioned and what's rude, libellous and hateful.
As for her being smacked while writing the books, I do agree, though it seems to show through for the better for me.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-16 03:46 am (UTC)But I wanted to briefly address your endorsement of Angua's essay on Harmonian mindset (http://www.livejournal.com/users/angua9/204545.html). It's really quite amusing to me that
But, hey, without your link, I might not have been aware of this at all. Now, I'm able to ask her to correct her entry at least it pertains to me personally. :--D
no subject
Date: 2005-09-16 05:24 am (UTC)I'll go have a look at your entry.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-16 01:30 pm (UTC)I'm not, and never have been, an H/Hr-shipper (and it's kind of sad that I feel the need to make such a disclaimer, because it shouldn't matter, but the fact is that in this fandom, it does), but I have to say that when I saw that "essay" I was kind of amazed at how many people seemed to take it seriously, as if it really brought some kind of "insight" to how "Harmonians" really are and think. I mean she admits herself that she is looking at them through hostile glasses; if you want to make a serious analysis of a segment of people you don't belong to yourself, you need to be able to obtain a certain objectivity. I wouldn't trust anyone to "objectively" report how their enemies think.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-16 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-12 04:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-03 12:48 pm (UTC)I really don't wish to troll or anything, however, I never said that JKR was homophobic. If you read my post, it would have been clear that I loahted how Tonks' character was played out. I never touched the R/S element. I really wished you had read my post before linking me, becasue I never said that and I don't like being labled as something I'm not.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-03 12:51 pm (UTC)