I'm not even on the BFA any more, and that kind of endless argument is annoying anyway, but Ple, you asked for comments, so I'll give you some. Keep in mind I'm a BTDT, oh-come-on-people kind of fan.

I'm increasingly of the opinion (and this has nothing to do with the fact that I tend to prefer writing them) that wildly unconventional 'ships, when done well, tend to have better characterization than most canon 'ship ficcage.

Call me picky, but isn't that tautological? I mean, any X, done well, is by very definition going to be better than 90% of available Y. That's not a worthwhile point to argue. A better argument would be whether the good examples of X and the good examples of Y are comparable, better than, worse than. Am I wrong?

There's so much 'what', that the 'if' is less open to interpretation in the wonderful game of 'what-if' that is writing. At least for me.

In other words, characters who interact less have less canon to work with, and are thus freer to be interpreted. I tend to agree, except for the part where, when you're working with fine-tunings of a narrow, rule-bound characterization, it's a lot harder to miss than when you're working with a gigantic emptiness of possibilities. Which is to say, lack of canon means you can make a character anybody you want, which means, in my experience, characterization that's creative and excellent, or characterization that absolutely blows . Far, far more of the latter than the former, and unlike any 'mainstream' of fic, there tends to be very little in the middling, don't-love-it, but it-doesn't-make-my-eyes-bleed okay range: it always seems to end up at extremes.

People are writing it because they're very invested in the pairing,

Preaching to the choir, I agree. There's a whole intra-group logic that can occasionally take hold and fly in the face of external logic. Unfortunately, that's as true of anybody with an agenda -- by which I mean any other, conflicting ship, or anybody invested in a ship not existing. Being outside of a shipper norm doesn't automatically make one more skeptical, more's the pity.

I think the important thing is that I consider it a preference, not a prejudice, and will put aside my inclinations if the story's good.

This I tend to agree with (it's shrift).

In sum, I think that harder jobs -- like pairing characters who have never met -- are harder to do well than standard jobs. Which, by definition, means the harder jobs will have a higher rate of failure. A more forward, and I suspect more accurate, thesis is this: I would tentatively suggest not that unconvential stories are better; but that unconventionalness tends eventually to attract the better, more innovative writer.

Based solely on the number of people I respect who have said to me, "I couldn't get enough of _____, back in the day, but then I got bored and now I'm trying ______, _______, and _______."

I keep hoping she'll put that on her website before we do the next rec update, simply because I have an irrational dislike for linking to things on LJ.

Oh, my dislike of linking to/clicking on recs on LJ isn't irrational at all....

Me? I come very much from a literary-fiction background; and I think that *has* influenced the way I read. I don't read fic any differently than I read literary fiction (I don't really read sf/fantasy), and for me, form and content are so inextricably connected that I *can't* talk about them as separate things. *How* something was done inevitably affects how I read it and how I like it as itself. (And there are a few writers I know who can make me like anything they ever do-- FayJay, or Jane St Clair.) It seems artificial, to me, really, to make any sort of divide. This sort of thing-- incestfic, or a particular 'ship, or slash/het/whatever. I just don't understand at all how anyone could dismiss anything grandly as a whole. It seems insane and just incredibly naïve, readerly-wise.

I mean, there are a very few constants in my act of and attitudes in fic-consumption. Like... Giles isn't sexy. I've only ever been able to find him slightly sexual in the most suspension-of-subjectivity -reading sort of way. Um.... Actually I think that's kind of it.

cereal:

I'd meant to mention this.

[link]

Caveats:

1) She says "alright".

2) I cannot quite bring myself to believe that Wesley would use an interrobang in print. I really really can't.

But this is really a beautiful, well-paced story, and PMM, you're making Buffy/Welsey 'shippers out of us all.

Then I'll be naive. Incest!fic squicks me, and I won't read it happily. If I do read it, I go away with a bad taste in my mouth.

Be careful with the grand statements, RL. Plenty of people have reasons for their squicks, and calling them naive for them isn't recommended.

And no, I'm really not getting into the whole keyword debate, but I understand the desire to have things like rape and incest keyworded.

This sort of thing-- incestfic, or a particular 'ship, or slash/het/whatever. I just don't understand at all how anyone could dismiss anything grandly as a whole. It seems insane and just incredibly naïve, readerly-wise.

Er, did you really say this, in a post in which you also said you read almost no fantasy or sci fi?

Hee. (edit: to Lizard) I blame myself for Mer's starting in on that 'ship. Honestly. Because it started in my LJ. So it's my fault, mine, mine I tell you!

In sum, I think that harder jobs -- like pairing characters who have never met -- are harder to do well than standard jobs. Which, by definition, means the harder jobs will have a higher rate of failure. A more forward, and I suspect more accurate, thesis is this: I would tentatively suggest not that unconvential stories are better; but that unconventionalness tends eventually to attract the better, more innovative writer.

Good point. My thesis, being fueled by lack of sleep and the general irritation with "UC Ships are all OOC" 'tude, leads to faulty illogical statements. Go team me! I'm so very much not a Vulcan. And I should have pointed out that I meant that all other things being equal (writing ability wise, say for example, looking at one specific writer portraying both a canon and UC ship), the UC ship will often be truer to character for whatever reason. Naming no names, I can think of at least two or three excellent writers who do better jobs with UC than with Canon, because Canon gives them a shortcut and makes for lazier characterization.

I think I like your thesis, because it's what I was trying and failing to get at.

Well, I was a Spike/Buffy shipper way back, and I tended to like more of the fic when it wasn't canon. Now you can't turn around without stepping over bad Spuffy.

Then I'll be naive. Incest!fic squicks me, and I won't read it happily. If I do read it, I go away with a bad taste in my mouth.

Be careful with the grand statements, RL. Plenty of people have reasons for their squicks, and calling them naive for them isn't recommended.

I'm sorry, Suela; I said "seems". I had meant to be clear that that was how it was *in my head*. And I, like everybody here, knows that I'm often wildly out of line with everybody else....

No. I'm saying it again. Maybe it's being young & stupid, or maybe I'm just a freak, but I don't have those exact barriers in those exact way.

The Lost Boys fic I read a while ago. That's an example. Gorgeously-written-- I mean gorgeous. And very much incestfic. And I was terribly disturbed and freaked out because it was hitting me in a very painful-squick place, but it was *beautiful* and hot and moving, and it was throwing me around mentally until I was nearly shaking.

It was, I thought, because of this, very successful art. In the way that Patricia Smith's poem "Skinhead" (I'll find a link if you like), which is (I thought) fantastically technically skillful and intensely lyrical, but also POV this intensely horrible man who says intensely horrible things... in very beautiful ways. It's push-me-pull-me sympathy (in the technical term) with the reader, and it left me scared and grinning the first time I read it. It's an amazing poem, and it's my favorite illustration of the technique of antihero.

Er, did you really say this, in a post in which you also said you read almost no fantasy or sci fi?

I don't *really* read fantasy or sci fi, I said; it just doesn't occur so much in my life. (Plaidder's WOF being a huge big ol' exception.) I read the fiction that passes by me at work, which, of course, is generally craptastic; and I read the fiction I read for fun, which tends to be the sort of thing I already know; and I read the fiction I read for school. But I wasn't saying it was *bad*. I was just acknowledging I don't know that much about it and its histories. And I'm sure there's brilliant, beautiful f/sf out there I'm just not seeing. That's a shame; but I don't have enough time to read and research it in my spare time-- I don't have enough time to read and research all the brilliant beautiful *lit* fiction out there!

ita resumes her confusion at the still undefined genre of "literary fiction"

ita resumes her confusion at the still undefined genre of "literary fiction"

Oh, easy. You tell by what the cover illustration looks like. Or where it's shelved in the bookstore.