![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hmm, how do I explain this? gah. different fandom conventions there?
For instance, there's no conventional ratings. There's just a note on whether it's "lemon", "lime", or "citrus". Lemon is fucking, lime is groping or oral, citrus is petting and snogging. All in all I find I like that system better than the ratings system which I never *could* make heads or tails of. I mean, fer gosh sakes, if you don't want anyone under a certain age to read it, labeling it with rating isn't going to help, really. All in all, it seems that the "ew!" factor was enough to keep most of my peer group from reading things we weren't prepared to handle. ::shrugs::
Oh, and I dunno, but yaoi just seems to be a highly...stylized? Compared to what slash is. More pink bubbles and dark rose petals and even the *suffering* is pretty. Really really pretty, in a way that slash isn't, and I KNOW I'm going to get arguments on this point from somewhere; but just the *feel* of it is less real and more...crystalline? Or just stylized.
Partly it's the source material I think, the highly exceptionally stylized art of very non-realistic features, in the way that "<3" is not a real, bloody and bleeding *heart*. It's *not* and is in no way realistic; it's fantastical and yaoi is less...gritty? than slash.
Knowing, also, that yaoi generally has a slightly younger fanbase, that might also explain some things.
Knowing, also, that there's been a mingling of the slash and yaoi fandoms these past few years and that I'm speaking from what I remember of the fandoms three years past.
Knowing, also, that yaoi comes more from a culture
of "perfection", and if it's your fantasy, why *not* make it perfect? (this is a rhetorical question. I am posing it in the mindset of another, "a walk in another's shoes" so to speak.)
I will state it plainly here: This IS a culture clash.
Say it with me now: Culture. Clash.
Different perspectives, different values. Easy to say, hard to live. And NO, there isn't really solid grounds for argument based on 'logic' in some issues, because while Person1 might think in terms of "A to B to C to D", Person2 might think in terms of "A to 1 to One to O", and Person3 might think in terms of "A > B > C and thus Cat".
Summary?
You can't make 'logical' arguments when your opponent's base values are different than yours.
Logic HAS no footing (no basis, support, or foundation) when the parties in discussion can't agree whether "1" means "first" or "least". Or for that matter, when neither party even realizes that there's a miscommunication along those lines.
::facepalm::
(btw, this is not directed to anyone. this has been stewing for a bit.)
[]
Oh btw.
This?
It's *exactly* what you think it is.
Ah, those Japanese. Shall we blame it on the hot springs and day-time porn? ;)
[]
Point of happiness:
Seeing this icon?
(![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
moondog's)
...makes me happy.
Also? Wheneverviva_gloria writes I'm happy.
Go read (Some Say The World Will) End in Fire
It's only the second piece of Norse Mythology slash that I've come across. And oooooooh, but it's good. It's deathly good and I love it on many levels, 'cause it's layered and deals with the Odin/Loki dynamic so fabulously.
And, really, there should be more Norse!slash. There just should. Where else can you not only get superpowers and literal talking heads and the fabulously beautiful and the famously ripped and neat weaponry and angsty drama and the Original Armageddon...
And! Canon Mpreg! Canon! Mpreg!
...though it's a bit fucked up that Odin kept the kid for his war stallion; but hey, the whole thing was partly Loki's fault anyhoo. (oh, and Odin wasn't the dad. A horse was. And it's not really beastiality. Really. 'Cause shapechanger, y'know? erm. I'm kinda not helping the cause here, am I? ::cringe:: I'm still blaming it on the meds)
For instance, there's no conventional ratings. There's just a note on whether it's "lemon", "lime", or "citrus". Lemon is fucking, lime is groping or oral, citrus is petting and snogging. All in all I find I like that system better than the ratings system which I never *could* make heads or tails of. I mean, fer gosh sakes, if you don't want anyone under a certain age to read it, labeling it with rating isn't going to help, really. All in all, it seems that the "ew!" factor was enough to keep most of my peer group from reading things we weren't prepared to handle. ::shrugs::
Oh, and I dunno, but yaoi just seems to be a highly...stylized? Compared to what slash is. More pink bubbles and dark rose petals and even the *suffering* is pretty. Really really pretty, in a way that slash isn't, and I KNOW I'm going to get arguments on this point from somewhere; but just the *feel* of it is less real and more...crystalline? Or just stylized.
Partly it's the source material I think, the highly exceptionally stylized art of very non-realistic features, in the way that "<3" is not a real, bloody and bleeding *heart*. It's *not* and is in no way realistic; it's fantastical and yaoi is less...gritty? than slash.
Knowing, also, that yaoi generally has a slightly younger fanbase, that might also explain some things.
Knowing, also, that there's been a mingling of the slash and yaoi fandoms these past few years and that I'm speaking from what I remember of the fandoms three years past.
Knowing, also, that yaoi comes more from a culture
of "perfection", and if it's your fantasy, why *not* make it perfect? (this is a rhetorical question. I am posing it in the mindset of another, "a walk in another's shoes" so to speak.)
I will state it plainly here: This IS a culture clash.
Say it with me now: Culture. Clash.
Different perspectives, different values. Easy to say, hard to live. And NO, there isn't really solid grounds for argument based on 'logic' in some issues, because while Person1 might think in terms of "A to B to C to D", Person2 might think in terms of "A to 1 to One to O", and Person3 might think in terms of "A > B > C and thus Cat".
Summary?
You can't make 'logical' arguments when your opponent's base values are different than yours.
Logic HAS no footing (no basis, support, or foundation) when the parties in discussion can't agree whether "1" means "first" or "least". Or for that matter, when neither party even realizes that there's a miscommunication along those lines.
::facepalm::
(btw, this is not directed to anyone. this has been stewing for a bit.)
[]
Oh btw.
This?
It's *exactly* what you think it is.
Ah, those Japanese. Shall we blame it on the hot springs and day-time porn? ;)
[]
Point of happiness:
Seeing this icon?
(
moondog's) ...makes me happy.
Also? Whenever
viva_gloria writes I'm happy.Go read (Some Say The World Will) End in Fire
It's only the second piece of Norse Mythology slash that I've come across. And oooooooh, but it's good. It's deathly good and I love it on many levels, 'cause it's layered and deals with the Odin/Loki dynamic so fabulously.
And, really, there should be more Norse!slash. There just should. Where else can you not only get superpowers and literal talking heads and the fabulously beautiful and the famously ripped and neat weaponry and angsty drama and the Original Armageddon...
And! Canon Mpreg! Canon! Mpreg!
...though it's a bit fucked up that Odin kept the kid for his war stallion; but hey, the whole thing was partly Loki's fault anyhoo. (oh, and Odin wasn't the dad. A horse was. And it's not really beastiality. Really. 'Cause shapechanger, y'know? erm. I'm kinda not helping the cause here, am I? ::cringe:: I'm still blaming it on the meds)
no subject
Oh, wait, being on fandom_wank is a *bad* thing. Nev-er mind. . .
I actually think the most disturbing thing about the underage Elizabeth fic is that she's depicted as enjoying it and asking for more. It's a very distorted view of that situation (in addition the fic is completely ooc for both characters). Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the author shouldn't have written or posted it (although I do think the story is *very* disturbing). But she *really* should have put much stronger and clearer warnings on it (like
Re:
I can see though, perhaps, that she might have been going for a surprise tactic, possibly? And thus not wanted to spoil it? But that's a little disturbing, what with the issue contained - by this I mean, if she WAS using it just as a shocktactic then that seems to belittle the severity of the issue. I don't know, I'm loathe to try and pass judgement when there are many valid points of view I haven't read. But, and not to draw parallels on two different topics, but when a fic contains character death, for example, as a writer, you might not want to spoil that in the warnings section before anyone gets to it. Which is something I have to address soon, hence my worry. I might ask a few people's opinions on this, before I post.
Bah, it's a complicated issue. And my head hurts. It was my first ay back at college today! *whines*
But yes, the maturity with which it's been/being dealt with is brilliant! And here we're meant to be raucous pirates. o_0
Re:
Just a thought,what about putting in the hader that the warnings can be found at the end if so wished?
Those who don't like character death spoilers would appreciate it and those who prefer to be warned of a character death could go and check it out.
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
*attack glomp*
(I don't think I glomp anyone but you. It's the Japanese anime (it IS Japanese anime, right? *attempts not to look like a twat*) thing you bring to my flist. You and
Re:
yup! well, I'm not sure as to the *exact* origin of the term, I *think* it comes from the sound of one person attaching him/herself leechlike to another. Either that, or the thud as the huggee get's unbalanced by the hugger and both hit the floor...
Re:
It wasn't entirely my idea, because ages ago someone said something (no I don't have the memory of a sieve, Gov...) that they didn't like warnings, because they spoiled everything for them. When asked by me how else to deal with it I think the idea of having the spoiler warnings at the end was mentioned. By whom? I have no idea.
That's what I do too these days, certainly for character death.
Re:
While I don't entirely feel the same sort of moral outrage that some of the reviewers at [Unknown site tag] do, I certainly understand it and sympathise with it. Sexual abuse of children is a highly emotional (and personal) topic for a lot of people, and while I don't agree that
Adult/child abuse and rape(indeed, rape in general) is an extremely sensitive subject, and one that many people find very disturbing. I personally feel that any fic which contains a rape scene should be rated at least R. Not PG-13. R. The line between R and NC-17 is fuzzy and highly subjective, but I think we can all agree that rape, even non-graphic rape, is not PG material. Also, while I can see that she wanted to keep the pairing a surprise (for example, by not mentioning Norington's name until the end), she should have at least warned prospective readers that the fic dealt with chuld molestation (not simply "Elizabeth's first sexual experience") and that her "partner" (and I use the term loosely) was an adult. She didn't have to say "Norrington/Elizabeth," but she should have said "adult male/Elizabeth." Simply using the term "chan" was not sufficient. For one thing, it has a very flexible definition, and for another, not all members of a non-anime fandom like PotC are guarenteed to recognise it.
Personally, adult/child pairings are my one, ironclad, unsinkable squick. That's why I don't ship Snape/Harry or Snape/Hermione. It's why I refuse to read fanfic for Peter Pan. It's why Sirius/Harry can get me to hit the back button faster than almost anything else. However, since I know this about myself, and since I know that, as a slash fan, I live in a glass house as far as moral outrage is concerned, I try not to throw stones. I won't object to the presence of such fics in PotC fandom anymore than I will in HP fandom.
But I do sure as hell want to be given fair warning of child molestation or adult/child relationships in fics so that I can avoid it like the plague.
Re:
like