(here via metafandom) I am terribly amused at the thought that DC canon is "less consistent than Marvel". It's true, of course, which just goes to show how inconsistent DC continuity is...
I think to a certain extent it depends on how narrow your definition of "gendered trait" is. This is not a trait that's universally male, any more than the opposite is universally female, but I do think female fans are more likely than male fans to be willing to live with a certain fluidity of interpretation. It does seem to me that male fans are, on the whole and with exceptions, more likely to fixate on the most obvious interpretation, or to attempt to establish For All Time what the "truth" of any given text is, where female fans are (again, on the whole and with exceptions) happier to produce subversive/unlikely interpretations (even knowing that they're not going to catch on, or that the creators have explicitly ruled them out) and to live with a multiplicity of possible readings.
My experience in 24 fandom, which illustrates this rather starkly, is that the female fans are happily writing Chloe/Jack stories (despite the fact that the producers have outright stated that Chloe is not in love with Jack, nor vice versa), while the male fans are creating sites like the Jack Bauer Death Count or the JackTracker, both of which are about establishing "facts" about the canon. (I say "facts" in quotes because 24 plays fast and loose with the laws of physics, the geography of California, and its own internally laid-down timelines. Attempts to make it internally consistent are doomed to failure: "making of" documentaries make it clear that the producers don't care about that kind of thing as long as the result is dramatic.)
I do think it's significant that in the one area where I've seen large numbers of female fans insisting on their interpretation's being superior/privileged, it's been with regard to relationships -- a traditionally female domain.
And I don't think saying "Daredevil's powers don't work that way!" counts as canonwhoredom, as alixtii is using the term. It'd be more like... hm... well, one of my favourite theories about Northstar is that he's bipolar, and I could cite evidence for this if somebody asked, but it's not definitive, and if I wrote a story featuring Bipolar!Northstar, a canonwhore would object because it's never been outright stated and my "evidence" is kind of sketchy -- while a non-canonwhore would only object if the story didn't do anything interesting with the idea.
I mean, there's deviating from canon because you don't remember details and can't be bothered checking, and there's deviating from canon because you think you can create something more interesting if you don't stick too closely to what's on the page. The former is irritating; the latter can be very cool. I would guess that one's level of canonwhoredom is a function of how cool the execution of a non-canon idea has to be for one to get over its non-canonicity. And it does seem to me that male fans (on the whole etc.) are likely to have a higher threshold for this than female fans.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-29 03:21 am (UTC)I think to a certain extent it depends on how narrow your definition of "gendered trait" is. This is not a trait that's universally male, any more than the opposite is universally female, but I do think female fans are more likely than male fans to be willing to live with a certain fluidity of interpretation. It does seem to me that male fans are, on the whole and with exceptions, more likely to fixate on the most obvious interpretation, or to attempt to establish For All Time what the "truth" of any given text is, where female fans are (again, on the whole and with exceptions) happier to produce subversive/unlikely interpretations (even knowing that they're not going to catch on, or that the creators have explicitly ruled them out) and to live with a multiplicity of possible readings.
My experience in 24 fandom, which illustrates this rather starkly, is that the female fans are happily writing Chloe/Jack stories (despite the fact that the producers have outright stated that Chloe is not in love with Jack, nor vice versa), while the male fans are creating sites like the Jack Bauer Death Count or the JackTracker, both of which are about establishing "facts" about the canon. (I say "facts" in quotes because 24 plays fast and loose with the laws of physics, the geography of California, and its own internally laid-down timelines. Attempts to make it internally consistent are doomed to failure: "making of" documentaries make it clear that the producers don't care about that kind of thing as long as the result is dramatic.)
I do think it's significant that in the one area where I've seen large numbers of female fans insisting on their interpretation's being superior/privileged, it's been with regard to relationships -- a traditionally female domain.
And I don't think saying "Daredevil's powers don't work that way!" counts as canonwhoredom, as
I mean, there's deviating from canon because you don't remember details and can't be bothered checking, and there's deviating from canon because you think you can create something more interesting if you don't stick too closely to what's on the page. The former is irritating; the latter can be very cool. I would guess that one's level of canonwhoredom is a function of how cool the execution of a non-canon idea has to be for one to get over its non-canonicity. And it does seem to me that male fans (on the whole etc.) are likely to have a higher threshold for this than female fans.