Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Fans & Fantasy: A Conversation With 'The Other Side'


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

Fans & Fantasy: A Conversation With 'The Other Side'

Mar 4, 2013

Share on Reddit


As promised last week, this week I'm bringing you a conversation I had with a friend. Paul is a gamer, and a roleplayer, and we first started talking about whether shipping had anything in common with roleplaying; in terms of its worldbuilding or in terms of stigma. But the conversation took a turn when Paul started talking about the difficulties he's had with interacting with shippers in the past. In the process, he brought up a lot of valid points in a very eloquent way. I hope the excerpts from the conversation below are as interesting to you as the whole conversation was to us.

On the definition of canon

Paul: I'm somewhat anti-shipping, but I really don't care what people do as long as they don't demand I accept their headcanon as true.

Tiptoe39: One of the ideas I'm trying to promote is that by saying "It's canon, it's totally canon," a shipper is not actually saying "You must think it's canon too." He/she is saying, "I see this possibility in the subtext," and because that possibility has to do with romantic/sexual chemistry, it's shot down where ideas and possibilities with no romantic/sexual aspect would be considered as valid ideas whether they were agreed with or not.

While I agree that shippers need to learn to speak in a language that's accessible and non-threatening to non-shippers, I don't think they're really doing all the "pushing their ideas on others" that they're being accused of. And I won't even dignify the small minority of folks who really do that with acknowledgment that they're part of our group. They aren't shippers, they're tinhats, and I don't speak for them or want to speak for them.

But in general, I think the line between "arguing for one's own headcanon" and "demanding others believe their headcanon is true" is not where most non-shippers think it is. If non-shippers were to respond to shippers with "I don't see it, personally, but OK" instead of "STOP INSISTING I SHIP IT, YOU NUTBAR," they might not get such a powerful and outraged response. You see, in this moment I'm seeing two groups both shouting because they think the other group is shouting louder, and in the din nothing's getting heard at all.

P: That's a case of jargon then. "It's canon" being short hand for "there's subtext that supports it" as opposed to "This is an official part of the story; accept it as such" is new to me, and is a particularly useful bit of information when discussing the topic.

"This is my head canon, let me explain it" vs "ACCEPT MY HEAD CANON": This is a street that goes both ways, and I'm not sure how to clearly explain my position. There are times I've felt like merely disagreeing with a given pairing is opening myself up to get screamed at by a shipper, so rather than engage them in a discussion I just dismiss them and move on. It's a shame, too, because I love bantering. But I don't see the value in dealing with the backlash. So we're back to people responding more vehemently because it's a relationship rather than, say, a mystery to be solved that's core to the plot.

T: Yeah, the "it's canon" thing is a weird one, because really what it means is "I see it as canon, happening behind the scenes." The best response to this is usually no response. No amount of shipper yelling "it's canon" is going to make it your headcanon, no matter how they try, so why is it necessary to say to them "stop saying it's canon"? What's heard there is "You're wrong, what you're seeing is wrong and talking about it is wrong." What does it accomplish, then, to nay-say the shipper, besides riling both sides up?

P: Because the word canon is being used in a weird way. We're not hearing your use of it. We're hearing "This is an absolute truth in the context of the show; accept it". Going to Leverage, you can tell me Hardison/Elliot is canon until you're blue in the face, and I'll keep saying you're wrong. But even I will concede that there's some subtext.

So, the short version? Saying "There's subtext" is one thing. Saying "This is officially part of the product" is another. "It's canon!" will be perceived by the non-shipper as the second even if you mean the first. Maybe a change of terminology would help, I don't know. There's a reason I start my crackpot statements about series with "My pet theory is that...". It lets the other person know it's my personal interpretation of events, and I'm not expecting them to buy into it.

On social justice

T: The flip side of the question is, of course, why does the shipper feel the need to say "it's canon"? And the answer, as far as I can tell, is twofold: One, it's an expression of joy, it's the pronouncement of a theory and the delight in finding another piece of evidence that supports one's theory.

The other is, there is an element of social justice to shipping - there is the desire to be seen as part of the larger community and there is a desire to say 'Look, we are seeing chemistry between two characters that, if they were of different genders, you'd all want them to be a couple. We're pushing past that barrier because somebody's got to." And to be shut down and called deluded, to not even be heard when we're trying to be represented, is problematic. And it's got nothing to do with personal egos or validation, it's got to do with the fact that this stuff happens in the real world and it's about damn time it should happen on TV.

P:I'm not trying to be a jerk here: that's not social justice in and of itself. That's giving showrunners feedback about what you'd like to see for whatever reason, be it you like seeing boys kiss, you think the relationship is well done, or you want to see more gay couples on TV. Good on ya.

T: It is social justice, because it's trying to change the "straight unless explicitly shown otherwise" paradigm. And in this case it kind of is addressed at other fans, because while nobody's going to accuse folks of outright homophobia, there is a greater good in pointing out that hey, look, you -- yes, you -- do assume people/characters are straight unless otherwise shown. That's because media has done that to you. That's because that's all that media shows. And with the exception of Willow Rosenberg, we've never seen a major character (and we've still never seen an outright hero/main character) on a show go through seasons straight and then discover otherwise. That's trying to change the way sexuality is portrayed in the media, and that does have a social-justice purpose.

P: It honestly never occurred to me that culture bombing could be the purpose. I think that's cool as hell.

Here's the thing, for me. Saying "If they were different genders, you'd want them to be a couple" presupposes that is the conclusion I would draw. You can't know that, and the assumption that the only reason I'm interpreting the evidence differently is due to the gender of the characters is aggravating to the point where I won't engage in the discussion.

BOTH sides would do well to remember that they aren't in the other person's head, and shouldn't go around assigning motivations to them, be it accusations of homophobia or insinuating that the shipper is just after validation.

T: I really hadn't thought about the angle where the non-shipper would feel like they were being accused of homophobia. I don't think that's the angle that's intended; I think what the shipper is saying, in that context is that the showrunners and marketers are the ones who are locked into those ideas of gender being determinative of what kind of relationship two people onscreen can have. It's not intended to be a slight to the person who doesn't see it, but very often, the backlash that the non-shippers give (you're delusional, you just want to see pretty boys kiss, etc) is insulting to the shipper in a way that does sort of smack of homophobia. So because the relationship we see is a same-sex one, it's because of our own particular fetish, not because we honestly see something there?

On the reasons to ship

T: What's frustrating is the way the conversation gets shut down and shippers are considered lesser fans who are working off delusions/their own wants rather than subtextual clues in the actual show. Instead of saying, "I don't think Dean's interested in Cas that way," it's "Why do you feel like you have to push this on me?"

P: Delivery, for one ("It's canon!"; I'm seriously starting to hate that phrase because of the ambiguity in this context). Overexposure for another. Being all but called an idiot for not picking up on the clues for a third.

T:Nobody can make you feel like an idiot without your permission. And that's something that I would address to shippers as well - there's no need to try to shout down people who don't think it's "canon"/"real", because their saying "I don't ship it" doesn't actually mean "you're stupid for shipping it." So I agree with you about the terminology, I honestly do. But being called an idiot... I really do wonder how much of that is terminology differences and how much of that is both sides hunkering down in their tent firing off warning shots, each thinking the other is a wolverine. Ahem. Bad analogy is bad.

It's not pushing or demanding to argue for what one sees in subtext. As a friend of mine brought up the other day, when Snape killed Dumbledore, it brought the "Snape is evil!" cohort to cheers, and rivalry with the "Snape is good" cohort was played up to the extent that it was part of a marketing campaign. That kind of he is/he isn't was totally acceptable to discuss. But in terms of a character's sexuality, the I-don't-even-want-to-hear-it is palpable, and it's frustrating.

P:Let me turn this around on you, though: why is there even a need to discuss [a character's] sexuality? If it's to justify fanfic, roleplaying, or any other fan thing, find your arena of choice, agree what you and your fellow fans are saying is true, and go nuts. I'm not stopping you. But I certainly can't remember any point in the [Harry Potter] books where [Snape's] sexuality mattered to the overall plot.

T: My answer to you is twofold. First of all, what does it matter what the purpose is? It's no stranger than wanting to figure out a logic to fit a continuity hole, or wondering how Star Trek's warp drive really works, or arguing as to whether Han shot first. It's part of being a fan. It's filling in gaps and discussing subtext, and it shouldn't be relegated to its "arena of choice"just because it has to do with sexuality. Every other topic is perfectly acceptable on a general forum. Shipping is singled out as particularly stupid/irrelevant/tinhatty, when there's plenty of other tinhatty discussion going on. And it's not fair.

But the other reason is this: character matters to plot. What's going on in a character's head is tremendously important to how that character proceeds in the plot. And it's a trope of TV, as it is of life, that as people face their demons and fears, and as truths come out, characters develop. That's what we watch for. We're not watching episodes of COPS here, we're watching a serial drama, and we keep tuning in because we want to know what happens to these characters next. A storyline in which a character meets their long-lost father and has to deal with conflicting emotions and old traumas? Incredibly compelling TV. A storyline in which a character has to face a fear that's been keeping him from effectively doing his job or fighting his enemy? Keeps us on the edge of our seats. A storyline in which a character has to deal with the increasingly undeniable realization that the best friend or the acquaintance he's been working or talking with all this time means more to him than that, and that admitting it will change everything in his life? Yeah, that's been done too. But a storyline in which the character who faces his fears and takes that next step is doing so with regard to sexuality - and is saying "I need to take this step to be more myself, to be better at what I do, and it's not gonna make me less of a man or less heroic," and then has to face down the prejudices of the world in addition to the prejudices his own heart has held dear for so long? How the hell can that not be an amazing storyline?

Especially when the subtext has already laid the foundation stones. And sometimes, it's hard to believe those stones are not laid on purpose.

So "it's canon," definition number seventeen, is: "This could be made canon if someone would just have the cojones to do it."

And maybe once somebody does, we'll all feel less need to shout about the fact that it could happen. But until then, we go to forums and we go to nerd/geek/fandom places to talk about it because we know those places from the other aspects of our life and we know how accepting and creative and imaginative they can be. And what we find when we broach the topic of shipping has continued to disappoint us and beat us back.

P: Fair points, all of them, and I definitely get the filling in the holes aspect. I certainly do it with some shows. But I'm also not as big on character development as some folks, so I just kinda shrug about it. Is Dean gay for Castiel? I don't care, he's a monster slaying badass. So I suppose it's differing priorities on the part of the consumer.

T: But Dean is more than that, he's also a protector, and part of his heroic identity is the sense of martyrdom, and that he has to sacrifice himself for his brother,and that he doesn't deserve anything but eventually dying at the hands of some monster. There's a sense of the epic-tragic about him and it makes him such a compelling character. And one of the things Castiel does for him as a character (whether friend or lover or whatever) is parallel that and reflect it back to some extent, so Dean is forced to face the funhouse-mirror reflection of himself and realize how others see him. So to accept Castiel as a friend - and as a soulmate to some extent - would be character development for him. And it would probably make him even more of a badass, honestly. Because I wouldn't want to see Dean reduced to romantic woobie either. I'd want to see him fight as fiercely as he does for his brother, for someone else who's come to mean a lot to him.

P: The last sentence is key. Too often it seems like shippers want to woobify/fetishize the people in question and that, to me, is what cheapens the character.

T:: Agreed. To be honest and a bit prejudiced, I think there's an age difference here, too. I would love to see a demographic breakdown of various kinds of fic readership, and I don't mean to say there aren't fetishizing adults or highly thoughtful teenagers. (Hell, I'll admit to being a fetishizing adult on some fronts.) But I think that as you grow and discover new aspects of romance and sex and relationships in your own life, what you want from your media may change as well.

But that is far too much speculation on my part :)

However, and this is a flip side, sometimes woobification/wanting that happy ending is in itself a form of fandom wish-fulfillment that can bring joy to the fan. So I'm not going to condemn that for its own sake, as much as it may annoy some people. Whether I think it's something that ought to be brought up in forums... meh. I'm not gonna proscribe it, either. But it's certainly probably not something non-shippers would want to engage in, as they don't go in for that part of it. In which case, again, my wish would be for the non-shippers just walk away, and not be too derisive on your way off to another thread, you know? Because that is needlessly hurtful, and it also can reach a wider audience than intended.

On shippers in general fandom discussion

P:The arena thing could use some clarifying on my part. I don't see the problem in a "are Nate/Sophie a couple?" thread on a general Leverage forum, nor a "Are dean/cas a couple?" on a supernatural forum. I'll avoid them, because it bugs the hell out of me when characters are trivialized into being half of a couple.

But, I will also admit here I've been burned. A lot. Too many people trying to define too many characters by who they're sleeping with or their orientation. Happens to me quite often when I GM and it pisses me off to no end.

This is where that overexposure thing comes in. When I go from A to B to C to D and I get confronted with a ship everywhere I go, it wears me down after a while because it's ultimately, to me, the same discussion. The same way that someone who's not a gun afficianado will get worn down by constant discussions of the firearms used in various shows if they're constantly seeing it everywhere they go. Sooner or later you're going to say "ENOUGH!".

T: If you're going to say Nate/Sophie and/or Dean/Cas disussions are OK in a TV forum, they need to be equally OK, and all topics dealing with their relationship need to not be lumped into one topic simply because it's dealing with the relationship between two characters.

And conversation topics are repeated ALL THE TIME in forums.

There is no Supernatural forum that doesn't have twenty topics on whether Dean is getting a better storyline than Sam or Sam is getting a better storyline than Dean. But I feel like all shipping-related topics are lumped in as one topic, again, being seen as this monolith when it's not, and the questions within shipping are in fact just as varied as the questions without it. For example, you can have a thread on "Is Dean bi, does he have attractions to men, or is it just because Cas is in a male vessel that he's attracted to him?" and you can have a thread on "Should Dean and Cas become canon or is it better to just keep it within the fan sphere?" and you can have a thread on "Would a canon relationship between Dean and Cas undermine the bond between Dean and Sam?" and these are all not the same question, but they are perceived as such. Within shipping, there's a million different topics of conversation, but I have the feeling -- and maybe that's my perception -- that they are lumped in as one question.

P: And the fact that it happens is crap, but I can see how they get lumped in. They all come back to the fundamental discussion about whether Dean is gay/bi/whatever. For those to be valid discussion topics, you must concede that Dean likes men, or at least has single-target sexuality for Castiel. Now me, I can partition my conclusions off and delve into hypotheticals if the topic's interesting enough. A lot of people can't, just like there's a lot of people that wouldn't be able to accept me saying "I still disagree with you, but I will pretend you are right so that we can discuss this". They get hung up on "I still disagree..." and don't even try to discuss.

"Is Dean bi, does he like men, or does he just like Castiel" actually sounds pretty fascinating; probably because Cas is an angel. But again, this is a case where the non-shipper has no clue just how broad the topics can be.

T:Honestly, the points I made above about the character development for Dean should he accept Castiel as more than just a sometimes-ally are equally valid points should the relationship become romantic or not. There's fodder for discussion there that shippers and non-shippers CAN discus. If we can not get sidetracked as to whether we're talking about a romantic or a non-romantic relationship, which is secondary to the character development question. Which direction do you want Dean to go in the future, and what would be key to getting him there? That's a question on which both shippers and non-shippers can weigh in, and they should be able to without one side being disparaged for "not seeing what's obviously there" or for "seeing what's obviously not there" (larger accusations of homophobia or delusion notwithstanding). I'm just trying to figure out how to get there, I guess.

P: Approach it like it's a scholastic dialogue and not a religion debate. It's no different than those "Find symbolism in this novel and write about it!" papers we all did in high school, and accept that people aren't always going to agree. And I’m pointing that at both sides.

Also accept that people disagreeing with you doesn't invalidate your enjoyment and your interpretation; again, both sides. Going back to RP, there are a lot of people who disagree with how my WoW guild handles game lore. But you know what? They don't matter. We're internally consistent, we stick to game lore as much as we're able, and you know what you're getting into when you join. We don't force it on you if you're not a member. The fact that there are people out there telling us we're bad, and wrong, and we're terrible people for having fun? Screw 'em.

T: Doubly agreed. Again, the nobody-can-make-you-feel-inferior-without-your-consent thing. But with the caveat that people are allowed to disagree with you and they're allowed to raise questions that are based on a different premise than what you see, and they don't have to wait until you (not YOU, obviously) are out of earshot to do so.

Which invites disagreement, which we need to learn to take in stride.

But from where I stand, I see a lot more being dismissed/derided out-of-hand for bringing it up than I do pushback for disagreeing. When I do see pushback, it's usually to that derision, not to the disagreement itself.

P:So maybe overexposure is the wrong term. Maybe fatigue? I'm tired of dealing with it because I see it so much, so I write it all off.

T: I wish I could erase the fatigue that you feel and try to reset the relations on this.

P: You're doing that by having this conversation. I had always seen shipping as purely an exercise in justifying why two people should be together, primarily for fetish purposes and without any further analysis. The idea that it's not just about determining who the OTP is, but also analyzing why the relationships work or don't, or what they bring to the table, or why it's such a great match from a story perspective even if the relationship is doomed to fail...that's all new to me.

Next week, I'll be starting a new series: "Shipping as...." focusing on the different aspects of what shipping does for those who ship -- different sides of the culture. For those of you who ship, please tell me in comments what shipping does for you personally, and how you see it -- as joy, as art, as social movement, etc. For those of you who don't, what do you imagine goes on within shipper communities? What are your questions about how shippers interact? And, as always, your thoughts on this column are most welcome. Thank you!

17 comments:

  1. First things first, I love your article. I hope it is read by many and some pull some truth from it.

    Secondly to your inquiry at the end:

    I personally am not a big shipper, but it does come out occasionally when I think a character would benefit in having a relationship with another character that is different to his own. Or if their characters would get more interesting in it's course. If an older woman and a younger man for example would get into a relationship, the man would face the challenge to grow up quicker (or too quick), whereas the woman would have to deal with the society and what they think etc. So for me personal growth or demise is most interesting in shipping.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a Shipper I have never gone to the extremes that some of my fellow shippers have been on expressing Canon or not. I do recognize may different types of shippers in your article. I found the cracked version of shipping to be one of the more interesting facet of this phenomenon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Talk to me about the "cracked" version. I'm not sure what you mean by that and am very interested in it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. oh christ you guys think about it too much.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We have fun thinking about it. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. What I don't understand is why is this so important to people? Does it change the character fundamentally whether they fantasize in their heads about boys or girls? If Dean is sacrificing himself for Sam, Castiel, Bobby, or some stranger does it change the heroics of the act? Why does a character's sexuality matter so much to people? I don't see how it changes the story line if Dean is secretly thinking about running his hands over Castiel while he is driving down the road or thinking about the stripper angels that were in his dream when, I believe it was Anna, popped in. Does it really change Dean? If he is gay or bi and is trying to hide it by running away from Aaron in the bar, does it change how much it hurt when the Golem threw him?

    I want to watch Die Hard, not Twilight. A relationship is allowed, as long as it doesn't distract. I really don't understand why so many people focus and revel in the "underlying feelings". Why does it matter whether the feelings are romantic or just platonic? Why do they have to be labeled? Actually, why can't they just be ignored?

    I guess I would call myself an anti-shipper. I don't CARE if Castle is with Beckett (female) or Espinosa (male). I actually dread there being a romance at all because I don't want to watch a soap opera. And I gotta admit, I really don't appreciate having people shoving things in my face that I don't see and don't want to see. If it was obvious in the show, fine. If its not, I would prefer there was never any romance. Ever. On this show. Ever again. Jess was fine because she was there and then GONE. Lisa was OK because she was OK with Dean doing what he had to do. She was OK with being left in the background... But, I was still OK with her being erased from the show. I kind of hated the way it was done, but anything getting rid of the romance from the show is greatly appreciated.

    Then, the Amelia thing.... all I can say is UGH! Suddenly the only thing Sam can do in a show is dream about useless, non-supernatural moments with a woman... Where is the action? Where is the blood? Where are the heroics?

    I have no problem with a one night stand, but when the "feelings" become part of the story, I "at best" tolerate it. The feelings when after the Amazon were OK because they were Supernatural and the feelings at the end of Heart were OK because they had to kill her, but anything more than a secret little smile or a relieve sigh of relief as they leave town and I the romance becomes intrusive.

    If I wanted Romance I would watch Vampire Diaries....

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am not a shipper. I just honestly never really give it much thought one way or the other. I suppose I have more exposure to it than some fans because I love reading and writing fanfiction. I generally read and write general fanfic, but there are some AMAZING authors who have crossed over into Wincest and/or Destiel, and I have dipped into it now and again in pursuit of those authors who have *fallen* /g. On the other hand, I must not be TOO connected to the shipping community because I am not familiar with the “It’s Canon!” declarations or the pushiness some people are put off by. I, of course, am only on the fringes of fandom, so I may be too disconnected to ever see it.

    I mean, for instance, I read the Redemption Road series, because there are some authors there that are completely worth reading if you love beautiful writing. Destiel or not…the writing is outstanding. Although…and please, please understand that I respect the authors and am truly fans of some
    of them…I did at times get a little bored with the series. I think it’s probably because of that
    disconnection for me. It’s kind of like in shipping there is always a third member in the relationship…and that is the shipper her/himself. I didn’t have that close relationship with the pairing, so instead of being in a ménage a trois, I wound being more of a third-wheel. Heh. Does that make sense? Anyway, when I read the stories, I would often times read some of the comments left.
    It is quite evident for those who ship that THIS IS fact for them. This is their reality, and they take it very seriously. As a non-shipper, again, I really don’t care. I’ve never once felt how your sparring partner ever felt. I’ve never once felt that their “canon” was being foisted upon me. And I never felt the arrogant need to prove to anyone that what they like is NOT cannon. I honestly don't care what you take from the show or how you process it in your brain.

    I actually really loved what you said about the “’straight unless explicitly shown otherwise’ paradigm”, and I think it is absolutely fine to test the barriers. You brought up Willow, and I have to tell you that her relationship with Tara was one of my all-time favorite relationships…and it became so real for me that I simply stopped thinking of them as a gay couple and thought of them as a couple. So, I’m fine with that. I wouldn’t be opposed to a canon relationship between Dean and Cas, for instance, but I also think that any relationship in the SPN verse is always going to be shaky and tenuous at best. And regardless of who Dean is paired with, I really want to watch a story about hunters…not lovers. So I dunno…you know? I will say this…I absolutely do believe that if Cas had taken a female vessel, that Cas and Dean probably would have physicalized that “profound bond”. No, there’s no way to ever know for sure, but it seems pretty likely. To me, anyway.

    Anyway, your article was excellent and covered too much to really respond to. So I’ll just say that
    even though I don’t ship much…I’ve never been bothered by it or felt pressed by shippers. But then again…I don’t have a Twitter account. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No one wants to make it all about the romance (or most shippers don't anyway). It's just that when we see two characters with such amazing chemistry, we want to see it come to it's natural conclusion. Romance is a part of character arc and when it's done right it enhances character development. For instance, I love Castiel and Dean because they bring out the best in each other and their dynamic is intriguing to watch. I don't need the show to be all about their romance, because I don't really like spoon-fed romance either. In fact, when I think of typical tv or movie romance, it's not actually romantic to me. It is the one-night stand or the obvious shoe-horned love interest which I could do without. Shipping is so popular because it, with few exceptions, takes characters with already established chemistry and dynamics that 1) fit in with the series storyline and 2) come from an organically developing relationship. I don't think a relationship that meets the above criteria need be intrusive. It would take very little to take that Dean/Cas friendship to another level.

    But my guess is that ultimately you and I have differences in what we look for and why we watch certain shows. I watch Supernatural because I love the characters and I find their psychology wonderful drama to watch. I also love action/adventure, horror, and mythology--all of which Supernatural has in spades. But I couldn't enjoy the latter without the former. I'd get bored and tune into something else. I also don't want to just watch people getting in and out of relationships. I can't stand soap operas or most chick flicks because I do need the psychological drama to be mostly displayed through action/adventure and horror. While the character arcs remain the number one reason I watch, I need it underlying the action/adventure plot.

    Ultimately it does matter to me who these characters are because I see myself in them and learn through them. I realize not everyone does this, but quite a few people do. That's why we have female astronauts inspired by Nichelle Nichols' portrayal of Uhura, why Indiana Jones and a fictionalized account of Alexander the Great got me interested in archaeology, and why Spock and logic got me through middle school. It matters to a lot of people who are not used to seeing themselves represented either at all, accurately, or very often to see a canonically bisexual Dean. It really does matter to a great many people. I'd ask you why does it bother you if we analyze character and relationships if that has nothing to do with how you enjoy Supernatural? The great thing about fiction is that it is enjoyable on many levels and we needn't sacrifice our enjoyment of one level for another. You enjoy the action, but not the character analysis; we enjoy both. So what?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that the article is interesting in what it DOESN'T bring up - that many non-shipper fans perceive "shippers" to primarily be female and the shipping to be akin to women reading romance novels about their favorite characters. I think it's a way of both trivializing female fans and the idea orf romance as an interesting story. It says MY interests outweight your interests because your's trivializes the characters while my discussion of Dean's favorite knife/gun combo doesn't.

    That said, I kind of agree with the non-shipper being interviewed in that I flinch when people say something subtextual is "canon" because canon used to be defined by it literally being something that everyone watching can see onscreen. So when fans say something is canon that can't be confirmed onscreen I sit back and say, "um how about no". And I do understand that it's part of shift in dialogue within fandom and now is more a shout of rejoicing for some particularly unsubtle subtext, but... It does grate on me as a shipper too.

    Final thought - does no one ever remember Bayliss on Homicide? In 1998 after 6 seasons of being straight he came out as bisexual. For that matter, Ianto from Torchwood was presumed straight for the first season he was in. Characters have been presumed straight and come out as bisexual before now. Ianto and Jack Harkness were a fanon couple before they became a canon couple. So non-shippers need to recognize the possibility and shippers need to recognize it's not canon until it becomes more than that. And whether or not it can become canon is probably more based on financial issues than story issues.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I personally don't think that a romantic relationship has a place on Supernatural. And I must say that that is something I love and find unique about the show. I would have a hard time counting on one hand tv series that do not involve a romantic character arch somewhere in the series.

    They have already tried introducing romantic interests to the show and they've either been great one offs or did not mesh will with the story when around for too long. Even Bobby and Jodi's relationship that was just staring to take off had a pin point through with Bobby's death. And the big problem I see with Destiel is that both characters are mains on a show with so few mains, so it would hard to keep that story line separate from the others like they did more Lisa/Dean, etc. Also if the characters romance fell apart there would likely be that tension anytime they have a seen together which is something this show really does not need anymore of.

    I also believe that if Destiel where to ever become "canon" it would not live up to the fans' expectations. Especially since the current writers seem to think that forced conflict between characters draws in the audience.

    However in saying that, if in the final episode or final few episodes of the series, it was shown definitively that, yes, there were romantic feelings between those two (not dwelling on it but simply showing it then moving on with the story line), I would have no objections. I then think shippers of the pair would have the satisfaction of knowing that this pairing did come to fruition but at the same time it wouldn't take away from the story and it would also mean that shippers could let their imaginations run wild with what happens after the show ends without being disappointed in how the show portrayed the relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  11. [quote]when we see two characters with such amazing chemistry....[/quote]
    Is the chemistry between Dean and Castiel really better than between Dean and Sam or Dean and Benny or Dean and XYZ? Dean always gets more time to develop his relationships with characters on screen and Bobby, Henricksen, Gordon, the Serving Wench (I am blanking on the girl's name from Monster Movie), Jo, Nancy, Rufus, Ellen, etc, etc all had pretty relationships with Dean that I thought showed some serious chemistry (plus a lot more). I even totally believed Aaron got a 'vibe' from Dean. But, if the scene is intense, Jensen could have chemistry with a picket fence.

    [quote]we want to see it come to it's natural conclusion.[/quote]
    By that I supposed you mean they "express their undying love for each other by having sex".... and maybe holding hands and going to candle lit dinners in between killing demi-gods and vampires. I just don't see the "natural outcome" of this kind of intense relationship as sexual or romantic in any way. No matter how great the chemistry appears to be. To me they are more like brothers in arms and I can see the possibility of that kind of relationship leading to sex, but I don't see it as the natural outcome.

    Whatever happened to friendship? Why is that not enough. Dean has called Castiel a brother. Dean has called Benny a brother. Why is that not enough? I am more of the philosophy that if you rely on somebody and depend on them... if they make you light up just by coming over... Why should the natural outcome of that lead to sex... or let's just say a romantic relationship to take the crudity out of it. Have you never had a friend that you would love to spend every minute of the day with and yet not had sex?

    [quote]I watch Supernatural because I love the characters and I find their psychology wonderful drama to watch. I also love action/adventure, horror, and mythology--all of which Supernatural has in spades.[/quote]
    Just because I say that I like action, why does that say I don't like character analysis? I just don't like to force romance into the story. To me, this type of show suffers if romantic entanglements are added. Actually, I seldom like romantic entanglements... but that does not mean that I don't enjoy character analysis. I just don't see the fascination in "Is he/she bi/gay?" "Will Joe sleep with Sally?" I just don't care...

    I am always interested in our primary characters' thoughts, words, actions and yes feelings too. However, I prefer things like: Heroic actions. Protection. Suffering. Brilliance. Wise Cracks. Self-sacrifice. Familial Bonds... I loved when Dean talked to the child in Dead in the Water... It showed so much about who Dean was... But, hitting on the Mom didn't really show much at all. Every time he hit on a woman, it shows a tiny bit of who Dean is, but does that compare to the conversation with the little boy? When Aaron pretended like he felt a connection with Dean and Dean backed off looking nervous... does that really tell us more about Dean than his defense of Benny to Sam. Oh, or does his defense of Benny to Sam mean that he wants to sleep with Benny? See, to me if there are romantic / sexual feelings behind that defense, it just white washes too many emotions and makes the scene bland for me. I just don't see anything important about that. I don't watch X-Files waiting for Scully and Mulder to get together. I don't watch Psych waiting for Gus and Shawn's relationship to advance to its "natural conclusion". I want them playing around, solving adventures, saving each other... being best buds.

    [quote]That's why we have female astronauts inspired by Nichelle Nichols' portrayal of Uhura[/quote]

    What did any of your statements about iconic characters have to do with sexual orientation, romance, etc?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Making the relationship canon in the last episode or two would be one of a couple of ways that I could accept it. The other would be to kill off Castiel shortly after. Supernatural has been about two brothers, saving people... hunting things... the family business. A long term romance would make the show a totally different creature unless the paramour could be forever in the background or dead. D.E.A.D. Dead.



    The only time I can recall a serious friendship converting to a sexual relationship well... then transitioning back to an acceptable friendship was Elaine and Jerry in Seinfeld. Most of the time people don't want to take that extra step in case it doesn't work out. They shouldn't mess with "this"... pointing at the characters of your choice.... Sorry, this Seinfeld reference is tough to use without some form of graphic...

    ReplyDelete
  13. "By that I supposed you mean they "express their undying love for each
    other by having sex".... and maybe holding hands and going to candle lit
    dinners in between killing demi-gods and vampires."

    I think that was what Ananda was saying she specifically *didn't* want. Candlelight dinners don't belong on Supernatural. Profound bonds absolutely do. I get a thrill when Sam and Dean show devotion to each other; I get a similar thrill when Dean and Castiel do, but for me the vibe is slightly different. I don't think the romance option should be ruled out - in fact, I think it would enhance the story because it would give Dean something to stay alive for. Right now he desperately needs that; as strong as his bond with Sam is, he still (and we just saw this) sees Sam as the one who's gonna survive long after Dean dies. Sam wants to take him to that "light" where Dean has a reason to survive and live. So Dean learning to want to live is already part of his character arc. Having someone he wants to spend his life with would move him further down that road. And when that someone appears to already be on the screen and already have shared perilous situations and taken insane risks with Dean, then having Dean realize the intensity of his feelings and how Cas has changed him would be compelling TV without the candlelight dinners, without anything more than, perhaps, a single kiss.



    I think the difference between a TV-concocted romance (i.e. boring-as-hell Amelia) and a fan-created ship is that the characters who would become lovers are already part of the show, already have their own storyline and personality. They're not cookie-cutter, ready-made love interests, and we don't want them to be. Shipping can actually be a way of seeing an element of romance in the show without having it turn INTO a romance. So I think what you think shippers want to see and what we (or, at least, I) really want to see are probably kind of different.



    As for sexual orientation being part of iconic characters, it's important just as gender or color is important in being part of whom we look up to. Nichelle Nichols inspired *women*, and women of color, to become astronauts, not because being a woman was such an important part of her role, but because she looked like them. It's the same with non-straight people. They want to see themselves kicking ass and taking names, and still being who they are.



    But that may or may not be related to why a particular person ships. It's certainly a part of some shippers' frame of mind.


    I'm really sorry about the Luke and Leia trauma. I am pretty sure you're not alone in that regard! That can be upsetting. But it does show how very deeply onscreen romances can touch people and why they matter, even if they aren't the show's main focus.


    I think I just wrote another column! Sorry about that. I think you raised some good points and I think that we're not necessarily as much as odds as you might think. This is just an exploration of an aspect of the show and its relationships. A romantic bond can also be a familial one, and in this case I'd rather see Dean fully accepting Cas as part of his family than treating him like Dean has treated every other love interest in the show. Maybe that's another aspect of their appeal - the idea that Dean can grow to have a healthy love interest. But if that's not in the cards, then personally I'd prefer Dean accepting Cas as a brother to the hottest sex scene and the most delicious candlelight dinner you can possibly imagine. There, I think we are probably in agreement :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't think we are at odds so much as I don't understand the "passion" for the desire to see this next step. I don't begrudge people wanting to see something like that in the show. I guess I have just never seen a romantic relationship improve a show. To me it cheapens the bond between two close partners, friends, whatever... gives it an easy explanation... to others it enhances it. I guess it all boils down to Jack giving himself for Rose in Titanic left me cold (no pun intended), but Dean giving himself for Sam moved me beyond speech.


    Didn't Dean already accept Cas as a brother?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Haha, fair enough! I hope that occasionally this column will do its job of at least explaining a bit of why some of us feel that passion, so that might make it a little less mysterious, at least? :-)



    It's true that romance done badly can be the death knell of the TV show, but it's not as though it's never been done well. And I don't think romance cheapens a bond, but I have my own experience to look back on, considering I married the man I considered my closest friend in college and the romantic aspect felt like the final piece of a puzzle falling into place. It deepened, not cheapened, that bond. Like you said, it's different for some than it is for others.


    Dean and Cas's relationship has been pretty uneven in places; the only time Dean ever referred to Cas as a brother was in the past tense, after he found out Cas was working with Crowley in S6. S8 has gone a long way toward repairing that ("You can ride shotgun" was practically a declaration of love!) but it'd be nice to see it reinforced a bit more, at least in my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cracked are pairing not normally thought of being made. Most of the Cracked versions of shipping are found in A/U settings. A/U stands for Alternate Universe. In shipping we all subscribe to the Multiverse Idea of a universe. So any pairing can conceivably happen.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh, yes! I did a column on that a while ago called "Who Needs Canon?"
    If you search the Fans & Fantasy tag you should be able to read it.
    I find the exploration of
    not-even-remotely-close-to-even-being-in-the-subtext pairings a creative
    and fascinating part of the culture. I hope to mention more about it during "Shipping as... Creativity", in two more weeks.

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.