Actually, though I think of myself as the traditional "fangirl"-type fan (all about the hurt/comfort and rabid OTP-shipping and specific-character-based-squee and the ZOMG, Gambit&Rogue'sloveissotrue), the latter example would also irritate me, unless the writer specifically designated the fic AU (and even then, if characterization is different, I'll usually bail). I literally cannot read Ultimates because the pod-people pretending to be Tony Stark and Jan Van Dyne are so obviously not based on 616 canon.
Characterization is the sticking-point for me, too, though I do like Ultimates -- but that's probably because I came to it first. (Feel free to scream in horror at the thought of somebody meeting Ultimate!Cap before 616!Cap...)
I find that deviations-for-the-sake-of-coolness itch at me. I can overlook them if the story's great, and the better the story, the more likely I am to overlook it, and the more deviation I can tolerate. But my idea of what's "cool" is not always the author's, and I much prefer it if I'm, so to speak, walked through the changes. I think this is probably why I prefer first-time stories to established-relationship stories: even for my OTPs, I can never quite believe in established-relationship stories unless I've read a lot of first-times beforehand so that I can fill in the details myself -- and even that's problematic because different authors have different ways of getting the characters together and that affects the subsequent relationship.
I've noticed that stories written early in a series's existence tend to grate on me, too, because they usually get details "wrong" -- and of course it's not the author's fault. They couldn't possibly have known. But as I read the "wrong" bits, I mutter to myself "but that's not how it happened!" and I can never quite enjoy it as much as more canon-compliant stuff. (This makes going through old SGA archives frustrating, because anything written in between seasons is likely to have this problem. Damn cliffhanger endings.)
All of which is to say that you and I are probably not as far off as you may think. I know that in my writing, I'm very anal-retentive about canon details, even though I know most readers don't care that much. I can't bring myself not to care.
But that's extrapolating from canon, not randomly making stuff up because you want to write a story about X, regardless of whether it makes sense with canon or not.
Sure. But there's a continuum involved here, not a dichotomy. Canon never fills in all the details, so we all extrapolate, otherwise we'd assume that our heroes never went to the toilet. Some people's extrapolations go further than others'. I think every reader has a point where they say "this is not justifiable extrapolation, this is making shit up for no good reason", but it's different for everyone.
I'd argue the notion that keeping religious track of canon statistics, etc. is a specifically male trait, though, anymore than shipping is a female one.
To use RPG terms for second: I'm not saying that male fans are only into the crunchy bits (statistics etc.) and female fans are only into the fluffy bits (relationships etc.) and never the twain shall meet. I think I'm saying that in a fandom (or fandom subgroup) that is male-dominated, there will tend to be more crunchy bits, while female-dominated fandoms (or subgroups) will tend to have more fluffy bits. Does that seem reasonable to you?
you could make a case for canonwhoredom as an Aspergers trait.
Stands to reason that the attention to detail and laserlike focus associated with AS would lead to that kind of engagement with fictional texts. And doesn't Simon Baron-Cohen theorise that autism is a kind of "extreme male brain"? Not that that's a universally-accepted idea, of course.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-29 12:47 pm (UTC)Characterization is the sticking-point for me, too, though I do like Ultimates -- but that's probably because I came to it first. (Feel free to scream in horror at the thought of somebody meeting Ultimate!Cap before 616!Cap...)
I find that deviations-for-the-sake-of-coolness itch at me. I can overlook them if the story's great, and the better the story, the more likely I am to overlook it, and the more deviation I can tolerate. But my idea of what's "cool" is not always the author's, and I much prefer it if I'm, so to speak, walked through the changes. I think this is probably why I prefer first-time stories to established-relationship stories: even for my OTPs, I can never quite believe in established-relationship stories unless I've read a lot of first-times beforehand so that I can fill in the details myself -- and even that's problematic because different authors have different ways of getting the characters together and that affects the subsequent relationship.
I've noticed that stories written early in a series's existence tend to grate on me, too, because they usually get details "wrong" -- and of course it's not the author's fault. They couldn't possibly have known. But as I read the "wrong" bits, I mutter to myself "but that's not how it happened!" and I can never quite enjoy it as much as more canon-compliant stuff. (This makes going through old SGA archives frustrating, because anything written in between seasons is likely to have this problem. Damn cliffhanger endings.)
All of which is to say that you and I are probably not as far off as you may think. I know that in my writing, I'm very anal-retentive about canon details, even though I know most readers don't care that much. I can't bring myself not to care.
But that's extrapolating from canon, not randomly making stuff up because you want to write a story about X, regardless of whether it makes sense with canon or not.
Sure. But there's a continuum involved here, not a dichotomy. Canon never fills in all the details, so we all extrapolate, otherwise we'd assume that our heroes never went to the toilet. Some people's extrapolations go further than others'. I think every reader has a point where they say "this is not justifiable extrapolation, this is making shit up for no good reason", but it's different for everyone.
I'd argue the notion that keeping religious track of canon statistics, etc. is a specifically male trait, though, anymore than shipping is a female one.
To use RPG terms for second: I'm not saying that male fans are only into the crunchy bits (statistics etc.) and female fans are only into the fluffy bits (relationships etc.) and never the twain shall meet. I think I'm saying that in a fandom (or fandom subgroup) that is male-dominated, there will tend to be more crunchy bits, while female-dominated fandoms (or subgroups) will tend to have more fluffy bits. Does that seem reasonable to you?
you could make a case for canonwhoredom as an Aspergers trait.
Stands to reason that the attention to detail and laserlike focus associated with AS would lead to that kind of engagement with fictional texts. And doesn't Simon Baron-Cohen theorise that autism is a kind of "extreme male brain"? Not that that's a universally-accepted idea, of course.