![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
We discussed this on IM last night, and thought it was worth throwing out for conversation. My musing is such: I've bought and read some of those 'erotica anthologies', and for the most part, they bore me to tears. So I've been wondering if there's a component of having an attachment to a character that adds to the enjoyment of such fic. As in: I find I enjoy 'adult' fanfic with a character I know and care about more than the 'professional' sorts of stories found in published anthologies. With many of those, it's virtually nameless and faceless and I just don't care enough about the participants for the story to be satisfying on any level. Obviously, there are exceptions. but generally speaking that seems to be the pattern.
Thoughts?
And here's hoping the other participants of last night's conversation share their thoughts.
Thoughts?
And here's hoping the other participants of last night's conversation share their thoughts.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-25 05:59 am (UTC)From:That's the beauty of this story. Tryfanstone doesn't take the easy way out and just write porn. She makes a point. As you said, there's context. When Tryfanstone first posted this story, the comments were all about the sex. No one mentioned the subtext and I thought, "Are you people reading the same story I'm reading?"
Then I thought, of all people, Duncan and Methos had to know they were being Watched. If Joe was still around, he would have been discreet. He would never have taken those photos. So it had to be someone else. But at the end of the story, it implies that the person looking at the photos is Joe and that he's all too aware that he's not the only one Watching Duncan and that he's being watched as well. So he misfiles the photos in the Archives. Holy shit.
So it's slash, it's porn and it made me think. Did it do that for anyone else? I don't know. I didn't see it in the comments.
Text, subtext and context. That's good writing and that will reel me in every time. Do I need an emotional commitment going in? Not if the writer hits me with one on the way out. Even if it scares the shit out of me.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-25 06:59 am (UTC)From:If the subtext went completely missed by everyone else or completely missed by everyone that commented I'm not sure how accurate it is to say Tryfanstone made a point. It's accurate to say she made you think, but if only you "got it"... Also, you originally said the story could be any two Immortals, but here you are talking about it as Duncan/Methos with the Watcher being Joe. If it could be any two Immortals, you're projecting onto the story.
Do I need an emotional commitment going in?
I don't know about "going in", but yf you care about Duncan/Methos and project that pairing on a story that could be about any two Immortals it seems you do need an emotional commitment. ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-25 08:55 am (UTC)From:Second, I said "No names were mentioned...it could have been any two Immortals..." The implied anonymity used in the story emphasized the invasion of privacy (at least to me) as did the authorial voice that spoke directly to the reader, ie: the viewer of the portfolio of photos. This device indicated that a) the reader/viewer knew the two men and so no names were necessary and b) the reader/viewer was seeing the photos for the first time; therefore he was not the photographer.
The descriptions of the men in the photos, however, led the readers to assume that the writer was talking about Duncan and Methos so there was no projection on my part or anyone else's. It was also fairly clear that the man who was looking at the photos was Joe. That may be wishful thinking, but the fact that he hid the photos indicated to me that he had an emotional investment in those two men. The only Watcher we know who meets that criteria is Joe. Ergo, my assumption. Again, I'll have to ask Jay if that assumption was correct.
Do I need an emotional commitment going in? Absolutely not. If I did, I'd never buy another book or DVD. I didn't start watching SG1 until after I'd read several well written fanfics that had been recommended to me. I don't care for Johnny Depp but Ith and several other LJ pals rec'd Pirates so often that I finally bought the DVD and liked it well enough to go see the sequel. So, no, I don't. But a good storyteller will always keep me coming back for more. :)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-25 07:14 pm (UTC)From:My point was that you don't know it wasn't missed either.
The implied anonymity used in the story emphasized the invasion of privacy (at least to me)
My point was that it's a) only implied not text, and b) that you chose to interpret it in one particular way.
The descriptions of the men in the photos, however, led the readers to assume that the writer was talking about Duncan and Methos so there was no projection on my part or anyone else's.
First, if it couldn't have been anything other than Duncan/Methos slash than that's what it was. Second, if it's something that has to be assumed by the reader rather than stated, the reader has to project a pairing.
Do I need an emotional commitment going in? Absolutely not.
By your own further examples, you may not need one in the characters in a story from the start, but you do need to make an emotional commitment. You didn't start watching SG1 until you'd become invested through the fanfics you'd read. You didn't get Pirates until the recommendations of friends had gotten you emotionally invested. You aren't emotionally detached from your entertainment. If you were you not only couldn't enjoy good work you couldn't be disappointed by bad work.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-25 11:30 pm (UTC)From:My point was that you don't know it wasn't missed either.
No, I don't. Which is why I emailed Jay and asked. I also give her the link to this discussion so that she can add her two cents worth if she's so inclined. I'm still waiting to hear back from her.
The implied anonymity used in the story emphasized the invasion of privacy (at least to me)
My point was that it's a) only implied not text, and b) that you chose to interpret it in one particular way.
Yes, I did and so did the other readers. Jay did nothing to correct that interpretation so either we were right or she's holding her cards very close.
The descriptions of the men in the photos, however, led the readers to assume that the writer was talking about Duncan and Methos so there was no projection on my part or anyone else's.
First, if it couldn't have been anything other than Duncan/Methos slash than that's what it was. Second, if it's something that has to be assumed by the reader rather than stated, the reader has to project a pairing.
Given the descriptions of the men and the clues in the text, it was logical to assume that the writer was referring to Duncan and Methos. Deductive reasoning rather than projection.
Do I need an emotional commitment going in? Absolutely not.
By your own further examples, you may not need one in the characters in a story from the start, but you do need to make an emotional commitment. You aren't emotionally detached from your entertainment. If you were you not only couldn't enjoy good work and you couldn't be disappointed by bad work.
Exactly. I don't need one going in. If I'm emotionally engaged by the time I'm done, then I'll come back for more. If not, I won't. I never said otherwise. The Da Vinci Code pissed me off so badly with its poor research and stilted writing that I gave it to my mother, who loved it. But after 26 years, I still go back to Dorothy Dunnett's The Lymond Chronicles at least once a year. Every time I get to Don Luis, I laugh my ass off and when I get to the chess game, I sob and want to scream at the fates. And yet in all these years, I've only managed to get one person past the first fifty pages of the first book. To each their own.
I don't need emotional commitment going in. I do need it coming out if I'm ever going to come back.