meta rec - I probably shouldn't post about this, but... (Merlin fandom)

I probably shouldn't post about this, but . . . by linaerys regarding the Merlin fandom in response to thingswithwings post on Merlin (linked in entry).



This is pretty much a lot of what I wanted to say on the subject after reading thingswithwings's post, but a.) I am not even in the Merlin fandom and have only watched a little of the show, so authority, see I have none and b.) I'm not terribly objective since I was in comments there and being sane, I'm not going to post on something when my feelings are hurt or blah blah whineycakes.

It's more--I'm not sure I have the right to take it personally when I think there was actual escalation involved, and I'm not entirely sure I'm not to blame for getting frustrated with the concept that seemed to be running through the essay and much more specifically in comments regarding a social obligation not to be fannish on source text that's problematic. So, yeah. I'm still reading through it to make sure I didn't misinterpret, but it's still bothering me, because a.) really, no, fans are not now responsible for the creators actions and b.) I'm not comfortable fans themselves be judged by what they are fannish about. I know there are exceptions to this--I can think of several off the top of my head I'd find problematic, like fangirling Nazis, because it's not a good post unless I can Godwin it--but I'm also extremely wary of skating toward your kink is not okay.

Like I said, linaerys said it far better and more clearly than I can.

Comments

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I respond to the problematic stuff in those shows, definitely, in commentary and fiction; but I resent the hell out of anyone telling me I am trampling on the sisterhood by watching them.

This, yes. This.

Which is not to say that I have the right to insist that anyone who finds those shows too problematic for those reasons should watch them.

I have so many words of yes here you have no idea. The lemming argument and the not reading the text critically argument drove me up the wall on that, too. I'm just not seeing how it's a good idea to interpret a fan's social conscience by their television viewing habits. Just--no.

[cofax7]

I'm just not seeing how it's a good idea to interpret a fan's social conscience by their television viewing habits

... which is not to say I might not raise an eyebrow at someone watching something entirely uncritically. It's sort of like the pattern where Fangirl A hates Sam Carter, and then goes on to hate Elizabeth Weir, and then Ruby and Bela, and then and then... I get to be dubious about that pattern, even if I might never say anything.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Not sure. Are we only allowed to watch dodgy stuff IF we do so critically? I would hate to say that; I know very smart women who choose to be fannish about stuff and they think critically in a lot of ways but they don't WANT to deal with issues of race and gender when they're being fannish. Sometimes because they deal with issues of race and gender in their offline life, and fandom is an escape.

Are they letting down the sisterhood, too? I don't think so.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

It's sort of like the pattern where Fangirl A hates Sam Carter, and then goes on to hate Elizabeth Weir, and then Ruby and Bela, and then and then... I get to be dubious about that pattern, even if I might never say anything.

Yeah, but those would fall under the fan's actual fannish interaction with the source text, not merely the act of being fannish about the source text. I guess the presumption that fanning something == not thinking about it critically == supportive of questionable text is getting my back up. These things do not equal each other.

Are they letting down the sisterhood, too? I don't think so.

TBH, I can't take it as my place to judge on that one. I'm not sure I could comfortably make a definitive statement without having a perfect degree of insight into their lives and minds, so it's honestly not something I think about that often.

[liraelsays.livejournal.com]

I'm just not seeing how it's a good idea to interpret a fan's social conscience by their television viewing habits.

Shouldn't that strictly speaking be "interpret a fan's social conscience by their television viewing habits as they write about them in their lj" which is even worse because I am not my journal and I'm quite capable of having many different thoughts that I *gasp* *shock* *wonder* don't write about in my lj.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

You mean you cannot gauge a person's entire life and opinions through a single LJ entry about a single TV show? LIES.

[liraelsays.livejournal.com]

I can gauge that if said person doesn't appreciate the hotness that is John Sheppard in you're-so-dead-mode they probably need new glasses, but beyond that, no, not really. Which is of course a personality defect I should correct as soon as possible. /sarcasm

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I can gauge that if said person doesn't appreciate the hotness that is John Sheppard in you're-so-dead-mode they probably need new glasses

I totally judge people who do not find John Sheppard hot.

Which is of course a personality defect I should correct as soon as possible.

You are a true fangirl. I hope I can follow in your brave footsteps.

[liraelsays.livejournal.com]

I totally judge people who do not find John Sheppard hot.

I judge people who don't judge people who don't find John Sheppard hot.

I hope I can follow in your brave footsteps.

Well, the first step seems to be to throw a fit in your journal wherein you tell other people what they can and cannot say, do, read, watch etc. Pick a subject (for example, bear porn is EVOL!!11! and the people who like it need to be driven out of fandom) and let yourself go.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

Damn bear porners destroying society fandom!

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

Are you judging the bear threesome in my icon?