Actually I think she has a point -- she's not saying don't watch the show for the slash, she's just saying 'Don't come to a show with expectations', which I think is fair.

For example, I originally hated House and Buffy the TV show because I came to House expecting it to be high drama, and I came to Buffy expecting it to be like the movie. When neither one meassured up, I didn't watch them. Later, I sat down and accepted House as a soap opera with a big budget and enjoyed it, and watched Buffy as its own show, not as a continuation of the (fantastically awesome) movie.

I think if someone said to me "I don't want to watch ____ because there's no one to slash" I think I'd stare at them for a moment and walk away. And that's as an avid slash reader/writer.

I don't think she was saying it's wrong to slash or to watch a show from the slash perspective -- just that going INTO a show for the first time, don't pre-judge it. People who say they won't try something because they have a pre-conceived notion drive me crazy.

That's fair, but from the conversations that came out of it, I saw a lot of "I don't understand watching the show that way"-- not just "starting the show that way" but watching it in general. So, once I've watched House without hoping for pairings, at what point am I allowed to start wearing the slash-goggles? At what point can I start watching it for Chase or Wilson or Foreman instead of House (which isn't a point Hannah made, it was a point someone else made in the comments-- that House "isn't about" Chase or Foreman or Wilson, and thus fans shouldn't bitch about them not appearing.)

At what point is someone allowed to watch the show for (and bitch about) "something the show isn't about"?

If that makes any sense. :/

I mean, hell, when I watched Buffy, I ended up tuning in for the intermittent episodes of the "Oz is a Sexy Nerd Show" with its fill-in series "Willow Could Probably Beat Everyone Else Up Show".

I think 'allowed' is a bad term. It implies that there are some kind of TV police, telling you how you can, or how you can't, watch a show.

You're allowed to watch a show in any way you wish. However, I think that others are allowed to be offended by certain notions -- for me, I'm offended by the notion of not trying a show, or giving a show a chance because it doesn't fill certain pre-made check boxes.

If you watch the show a few episodes, and it just doesn't do it for you, I think that's totally fair. But when I read the original poster's er, post, I read her as saying 'It's frustrating when people won't give things a chance because of superficial reasons', which I do agree with.

If she was attempting to say 'You can't ever watch a show and enjoy slash in it that isn't canon' then no, I don't agree with her.

And someone is allowed to watch and bitch about a show at any point they want -- but when I hear "I don't think ____ is good because it didn't have enough slash", I tend to tune out. It just seems like a very shallow reason to reject something. I can understand saying "I'm not in the mood for something serious tonight -- let's go with light comedy", but it's hard for me to understand "I won't watch this show because not enough guys make out".

What I got was both "I'm offended if people are constantly looking AND "I'm offended if people get annoyed when it's not." (At least the latter is what I get from the whole "I hate slash goggles"-- It' the "slash goggles" bit that makes me think she means people shouldn't be looking for slash. It should "naturally occur" somehow, as though subtext doesn't involve people looking for it at least on some level.)

But RE: the former...
If I watch a cop show and stop watching because there aren't enough shoot-outs or people getting read their rights, that wouldn't annoy people. Why should people get annoyed if I watch the show and decide it's not to my liking because the pairing possibilities aren't interesting to me?

It's not like the whole "watch for things you want to see" is uncommon regardless of whether you're in fandom-- a group of the guys at my local comic shop were talking about Iron Man yesterday, and one of them commented "You know, I realized why I didn't really like it. There wasn't enough gay." This guy isn't in fandom, and isn't into slash-- but he likes superheros because, well, they can get pretty damn gay. So he watched the movie and decided he didn't like it because what he came in expecting to see wasn't there. Another person said he wouldn't watch the Speed Racer movie because the movie's run-time was too long, but someone else liked it because the car crashes were amazing. Choosing what you watch and enjoy based on an arbitrary standard is totally common.

I don't understand judging someone for their arbitrary standard-- why is genre, tone (and number of explosions) okay, but not types of character interaction?

I don't understand judging someone for their arbitrary standard-- why is genre, tone (and number of explosions) okay, but not types of character interaction?

Well, but you're making the assumption that I think it is okay to disregard something based on number of explosions, or based on run time.

For me, personally, I'll try anything. Multiple times, even. Food, TV, movies, whatever. My only thing is that sweet potatoes make me throw up >> So they're my one "No" item. But I've found that my tastes change as I age, so I'll try things more than once to see if my feelings have changed over time. I'll watch just about anything, and give it a fair chance, so I find it frustrating when others don't.

I think, to a certain extent, the problem is the feeling of double standards. For instance, you find it acceptable when someone doesn't want to see something because of its run time, so you don't understand why someone else can't accept when you don't want to see something because of the pairings. For me, I'll try anything that anyone pitches it at me, so I feel frustrated when I pitch something at someone and they say they won't watch it because of some artibrary reason.

The end result is that we feel like a double standard is being placed -- you'd allow me to reject a show for any reason, so long as I accept the same. But I would watch any show you suggested, and expect the same. We're both actually keeping a fair standard(behaving as we expect others to behave), it's just that they're conflicting standards.

And, just to make sure I'm distancing myself from this, I ABSOLUTELY disagree with the OP if she was saying that slash has to "naturally occur". Or that you're not allowed to see slash in a show.

I guess it's just that since I'll try anything, I get really frustrated when I pitch something to someone and they won't even give it a chance. I don't even necessarily judge them or anything, as many of my friends do this, but it's a frustrating experience, and I could identify with the OP being frustrated if that was her point.

Sorry for the lull in replies XD I love this discussion, but I keep reading your responses JUST before I have to leave the house, and it ends up falling on my 'to do' list for ages.

But "don't come to a show with expectations" is...crazy. Of course you come to a show with expectations. I don't just turn on the tv and watch whatever's on because hey, it's tv, and I shouldn't have expectations. "Don't let your expectations keep you from experiencing something different and maybe awesome" is something different, IMO.

I also think people are trained to go into a show with het expectations-- it's what our culture tells us to do-- so I don't see anything particularly 'wrong' about going against that training.

Pretty much. "het goggles" are just the default, so it's a surprise when someone is open about automatically looking for a homosexual couple. There are plenty of people who don't care to watch show that don't have het ships-- except that if there is a girl and a boy, there's automatically going to be the assumption of a het ship, so it's not usually a problem.

But if you can see why people would object to "don't go in with het expectations" you must conversely see why people would object to "don't go in with slash expectations." Majority/minority things aside, you're still valuing one form of sexuality over another, and even worse, basing quality on an arbitrary variable.

If I'm going window shopping, or, hell, a friend suggest a store to me, and I approach the store thinking "Man, I'm going to buy a lot of apples here" and it's a stereo store, it's not the store's fault that I can't buy apples there. And making a qualitative judgment on the store(Man, what a crap store. They don't even sell any apples!) would just make me look a fool. Just because they're not selling my particular need of the moment, or selling my brand of item, doesn't make it a bad store.

This all comes from a gay/bi woman who merrily writes oodles of slash. But I can't imagine going into a show NEEDING slash there to make it good. I understand having a craving, sure -- some evenings I wanna sit down and watch Bruce Willis blow up crap, and Dirty Dancing, my friends, is just not going to cover it -- but I like both Die Hard AND Dirty Dancing, they just fit different moods. Making a judgment on a piece that involves so many angles -- from writing, to directing, to acting, to effects -- based purely on who makes out with who seems very shallow.

You said 'wrong' in your post, but I don't think that anything a viewer takes away from entertainment is 'wrong'. Sure, I have an old couple who're friends of the family who think the Sixth Sense is a story about a father getting his son to overcome his shyness(???), and okay, I think I can safely say they're wrong, but if someone refuses to watch a show because there's no slash, I don't think they're 'wrong'. It's entertainment -- anyone can watch whatever they want to, for whatever reason they want to.

However, I'm still allowed to say that I wouldn't be interested in someone who rejected a show just because there wasn't enough gay, just as I wouldn't be interested in someone who rejected a show for not having enough straight. The minute they say that I hear "I didn't like Moby Dick because Ahab didn't make out with the whale".

Also, apologies on the slow -- I was really interested in this discussion and wanted to get back to it, but life ate me :)

You were really just waiting so I could use this icon.

Damn those lives! Don't they realize we're supposed to be sharing our thoughts on yaoi?

I didn't use 'wrong' actually-- I said it's 'not wrong.' But anyway, to the meat!

But if you can see why people would object to "don't go in with het expectations" you must conversely see why people would object to "don't go in with slash expectations." Majority/minority things aside, you're still valuing one form of sexuality over another, and even worse, basing quality on an arbitrary variable.

I think it's a question of how and why you go in with slash expectations, too. That's never my primary objective when watching things, but I certainly went into Torchwood hoping to watch John Barrowman kiss boys, and I keep watching Bones for the UST between Bones and Booth. (I may be the wrong person to defend slash goggles, actually, now that I'm on a roll.)

if someone refuses to watch a show because there's no slash, I don't think they're 'wrong'. It's entertainment -- anyone can watch whatever they want to, for whatever reason they want to.

However, I'm still allowed to say that I wouldn't be interested in someone who rejected a show just because there wasn't enough gay, just as I wouldn't be interested in someone who rejected a show for not having enough straight. The minute they say that I hear "I didn't like Moby Dick because Ahab didn't make out with the whale".

Ahahah, that would be awesome. but what about Queequeg and Ishmael? OTP, baby.

Of course you have that right. Shit, all of us have the right to pick our friends and our shows, and I've stuck with crappy shows longer than I should for silly and shallow reasons (hello, Weiss Kreuz, why yes I am talking about you).

Oooohh, I liked the second link a lot. I am quite a fan of "The Adventures Of Space Patrol Ho Yay", "Toph Doesn't Need More Screentime Or The World Would Explode From Awesome", "Gorgeous Men Shaking Their Hips Every Week" and "ROCKS FALL, EVERYONE DIES While Mary Alice Fauxlosophizes".

I like that last one! :D I watch it too!

With occasional guest appearances by Geoff, the Amazing Human Eeyore.

I am loving "The Donna Noble and Martha Jones Make Fun of Ten Show". XD

I stopped watching Lost when it stopped being the "Charlie Is Adorable And Funny And Must Be Featured Extensively Show" - I usually claim I lost interest because of the black smoke, but in reality there was Just Not Enough Charlie for me to keep watching. With Friends I ended up watching the "Ross, Please Stop Shouting Show", which made me cringe an awful lot, but I kept watching anyway for the Chandler Bing Show.

Anyway. That's a lovely little essay, and I quite agree with it. Thanks for linking. :)

I love that essay! (My husband favors the blue girls as well, hahahah.)

I really have to start watching "The Donna Noble and Martha Jones Make Fun of Ten Show."

I myself am a huge fan of the "Akane Tendou really needs to get off her ass OR else stop whining about how she's 'a martial artist too!'" show and, more recently, of the "I'm Still Waiting for House to say 'Holy shit, it's lupus! - I owe you a Coke, Cameron!'" show.

Incidentally, what shows are you talking about? I've fallen behind on my pop culture. That last one is Heroes, I'm sure.

The first one is Doctor Who. the second, unfortunately, has taken over several series that I enjoy, so I watch it a few times a week-- most notably on Thursday and Saturday, and probably Mondays when Heroes starts again, Heroes, and Avatar.

I call Dr. Who the "I'm Here To See How Amusingly They Mangle History Show." Love it.

That is such a FANTASTIC link, thank you! Hee.

I like "The Witty Banter Show," and I've been watching rather more of the "No, Seriously, Did You Learn Your Gender Studies in the Boys' Lockeroom? Show" than I really like, but 80% of what I watch is the "Fucked-up, Emotionally Constipated, Deeply Damaged, Heartbreaking, Psychologically Fascinating And Improbably Attractive Woobie Hero Show."

I'm watching that one with four or five casts right now. Sometimes with subtitles like "Aka: When Did Incest Get So Hot?" or "Aka: John and Rodney, Kiss Already!" but really, if I'm honest, they're all the same show.

Heh. Okay, the alternative title game is a GOOD game, and I hope it catches on in fandom.

Watching and GNS

I've certainly run across this phenomenon quite a lot amongst my friends, especially recently... it's basically why I don't like to talk about TV or movies or books if I don't have to.

I have a particular way of approaching most literature, which v_cat would describe as my "inability to emotionally sympathize with the characters." I would describe it more along the lines of the GNS Model, which is borrowed from LARP theory (for a good explanation, see this post). In LARP, I'm basically somewhere between a Narrativist and a Gamist, with heavy leanings towards the Narrativist side. Basically, I like to watch the story unfold, and I want to know what happens, and experience how it happens.

My friends are by and large Simulationists - they like to get inside a character's head and experience things from that character's point of view. The Dr. Merlin essay you linked to largely describes this way of reading/watching, as far as I can tell.

So, net result, I rarely get into characters or 'ships (god, how I hate that word) the way my friends do, and the things I do find interesting, like foreshadowing and story construction, are rarely interesting to the people I hang out with. It does sound a bit like hannahrorlove might share my point of view, from her essay, but might not see it the same way I do.

Aaaanyway. This has been your regularly scheduled way-too-long ramble from Nat.

Re: Watching and GNS

Tangent time.

I prefer Game/Nar games meself. Honestly, I'd much prefer that they be called GNS be changed, in order, to Challenging, Thematic and Genre play, though. Makes great swaths if theory easier for me to understand.

Re: Watching and GNS

Interesting. I'm not sure I'd agree with those characterizations 100%. "Challenging" is fair enough, assuming one doesn't take it to mean that the other two styles of play don't have their own kind of challenge to them.

"Genre" - I think I understand where you're going with that, but it's a very different interpretation of simulationism than I usually mean by that word. I tend to see simulationists as pure roleplayers - if the character feels like sitting in the corner of the room crying the entire game, they're perfectly happy to do that, and will have fun doing so. But that doesn't mean that they're happy to accurately simulate any sort of character: simulationists, as far as I've seen, tend not to have fun with characters who are primarily focused on accomplishing goals, even if it's in genre to do so. In other words, simulationism isn't exactly genre play, IMO, because certain genres (for example, dungeon crawling, or space opera) don't lend themselves to simulationist play.

I'm not sure I exactly understand what you mean by "Thematic" as that relates to narrativism - could you elaborate?

Re: Watching and GNS

Well... what I mean by Genre is that the game is entriely about simulating a living, breathing situation and setting in a particular genre. If you wanted to run a game that was Just Like Tolkien, it would be simulationist/genre.

Narrativist games are entirely about themes - if you define a theme as "What happens when you choose one of two good things at the expense of the other?"

The theme of His and Her Circumstances, as murdered by me by way of example, is, "If you choose love over academics, you'll be happier."

With games, you have to define X and Y but not Z - Dogs in the Vineyard is all about "What do you think will happen when you have to choose between faith and logic?" Bliss Stage games are "What do you think will happen when you choose between love and responsibility?" But they essentially deal with themes - "What do you think will happen when you make this difficult moral choice?"

So... that's why I call "Narrativist" games Thematic. The rules of those games deal almost entirely with making you choose between the lesser of two evils or the better of two virtues.

Re: Watching and GNS

Oh, yeah... an english professor would say that Dungeon Crawling isn't a genre, exactly. It's a situation. Technically, a genre is a situation + a setting. Adventure in The Dungeons of a Fantasy World is closer to the "genre" of D&D in that sense.

Tekumel's genre is entirely "Adventure and Drama in Tekumel," and it's one of the best simmy games to date.

Gurps is actually extremely bad at doing Simmy stuff in my experience... but fantastic for gamist play.

Re: Watching and GNS

Yeah, that makes sense. I was looking for a better word to use than "dungeon crawl," but I didn't find one.

So, as for your previous comment - I think your definition is pretty far off from what I would describe as "Narrativist."

I don't think you're wrong here, and making someone choose between two mutually exclusive good choices, or two mutually exclusive bad choices, definitely is a legitimate creative agenda to have in a roleplay situation (sorry for linking to Gordon again, btw, but he does a pretty good job with theory posts). But that's not at all what I understand Narrativism to be.

I'd definitely agree, now that I understand what your definitions of the terms are, that your words for them are much better than Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist as far as describing what you mean by them. And on reflection, I don't think my definitions are exactly what, say, Gordon means by GNS either.

I'd love to continue talking about this with you, but I'd guess that ryuutchi probably doesn't want this discussion continuing on her comments thread. I've made a post about it on my blog, which is here - want to jump over there and continue it?

Re: Watching and GNS

Gladly.

Sorry about the tangent, Ryuutchi.