![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakThis turned out a trickier question than I had anticipated, because no sooner had I typed a dealbreaker that an exception from the rule occured to me. Still, let's see: first of all, said dealbreakers only apply for voluntary reading, i.e. texts I read for my leisure. If I need to read them, say, for research, there are no dealbreakers, no matter how unpleasant the text is. (This is also why students complaining about triggers get no sympathy from me and awake my inner cranky old woman instead. I read the bloody (literally) Malleus Maleficarum, one of the vilest, most misogynist texts ever written, with horrible real life results, you can damn well put up with Othello strangling his wife.)
So, reading for purely for fun/entertainment. As far as fanfiction is concerned, fandom has developed a few ever so useful patterns to avoid in the summaries already. "This story sucks" and any variation thereof in the summary: thanks for telling me, I'll be avoiding it, then. "I don't know the canon, I'm basing this on the great fanfiction I've read" : won't read it. (Special Highlander related subclause: "I only watched the Methos episodes" , when the story is about something more than Methos' past. Thanks for telling me, I won't read it.) "Character X bashing" as a tag: thank you for being honest. I won't read it, whether or not I'm fond of X. "Alpha/Beta/Omega": so not my thing. " Then there are relationships I'm not a fan of. Not because of something being wrong with them, just out of personal l like and dislike, so naturally if a summary tells me this story will be focused on Pairing I Don't Like, I won't read it. (BTW, this holds true for professional fiction as well, of course, though sometimes a summary could be so Out There that it makes me curious how on earth the author will justify it, so I might at least take a look. )
But say the summary of professional or fan fiction sounds intriguing, and then the actual texts still has things in it which make me put the book down/click the button. What could these be?
Most of what follows has exceptions, see above. Not least because if you become interested in a new subject, be it a new fandom or a figure of history, you tend to read at first anything you can get your hands on, and some of it will inevitably be very bad and would at a later point of your interest make you back away early on. I'm sure we've all gone through this stage, feverishly infatuated and thus far more uncritical about any given subject.
So: if the text isn't able to get me emotionally invested or at least interested in more than one of its characters, or in none at all, it is a dealbreaker. "Emotionally invested in", btw, doesn' t mean "identify with" or "agree with character's world view, politics or attitude". I've cared for a great many fictional characters whose views, even given their historic context, were very different from mine, and some characters who were murderers, abusers and what not. And no, in the later case these weren't all characters later redeemed or justified by the narrative, or characters who got their narrative punishment in the end. I think what makes a difference is whether or not the narrative itself gives me the sense that we're on the same page as to what these characters are like. For example, mistaken Kate Beaton caricature not withstanding, Emily Bronte is very clear on Heathcliff not being a misunderstood woobie. (See separate post on why I love Wuthering Heights. ) Meanwhile, I have very mixed feelings re: Jane Eyre because I don't think Charlotte and I agree about Mr. Rochester.
Character bashing both for fanfiction and historical fiction was a criteria that came immediately to mind when pondering this topic, but the more I think about it, the more my awareness of how subjective it is rises. For example: a while ago, I read a review in which the writer thought Elizabeth Woodville in Sharon Penman's Sunne in Splendour was vilified and demonized. This surprised me, as Penman's version is by far my favourite Elizabeth Woodville, far more interesting a character than the one in Philippa Gregory's White Queen where she's meant to be the heroine. Similarly, a review of Jude Morgan's novel Passion thought he was too hard on Annabella Milbanke ( the later Lady Byron), and I thought "huh? I've read Annabella's letters. She totally was like that". So what felt like character bashing for those reviewers was to me good characterisation. Conversely, I'm sure that when I've been grumbling about Hilary Mantel's Thomas More and Anne Boleyn characterisations in her Cromwell novels, a lot of other readers thought "yeah? Well, I think HM was dead on and they WERE like that!"
With this caveat: in both pro and fanfiction, I tend to be put off by what I perceive as character bashing. On a related level, I'm also put off by sudden 180° turnarounds and unearned plot twists. An example would be Lindsey Davis' novel "Rebels and Traitors", which I very much enjoyed until the bizarro ending with characterisation and genre changes and the big confrontation given to the wrong pair of characters, more here, which meant I never read the novel again, which I otherwise certainly would have. I think it comes down to: do I feel the story keeps faith with me or not?
Style is not a dealbreaker. Thomas Man writes gorgeous prose, but his novels still leave me cold. (Consequently, the Thomas Mann texts I'm most familiar with because I reread them a lot are his correspondance with brother Heinrich; TM had massive brother issues and the letters are thus a highly captivating testimony to a complex sibling relationship.) Conversely, my guy Feuchtwanger isn't nearly as much an artist with the language, but I enjoy (most of) his novels.
World view in the text: it depends. Obviously, I wouldn't have read the Malleus Malleficarum for fun, but the Oresteia by Aeschylus is deeply entrenched in ancient Greek misogyny, and I still have read these three dramas a lot, in various translations, and watched them performed. Of course, Aeschylus was a genius and Jakob Sprenger & Heinrich Krämer/Institoris weren't, but I don't think literary quality is the decisive criteria here, see above re: style.
Author misdeeds or views as voiced outside the text: can be tricky, and can certainly be a reason why I haven't approached a text in the first place (see also: Ender's Game, because Orson Scott Carr), but aren't , if I'm honest, a deal breaker as to whether or not pro or fanfiction stays with me if I've already read it, or if the author is dead. (In the not metaphorical way.) It may keep me from rereading for a while. For example: Marion Zimmer Bradley. Finding out what she did was a great blow because of what those novels had meant when I was 13, it made me reexamine some plot lines in my memory, and it will be some time before I can read any of them again, but I haven't felt the need to throw them of my book shelves.
Genre: no deal breaker. Every time I thought "Oh, I'd never read *fiction of type X*" I at some point read it anyway. Sometimes this resulted in me changing my view on X, sometimes it reaffirmed it (i.e. that I dislike it), but there are no absolutes there.
The other days
So, reading for purely for fun/entertainment. As far as fanfiction is concerned, fandom has developed a few ever so useful patterns to avoid in the summaries already. "This story sucks" and any variation thereof in the summary: thanks for telling me, I'll be avoiding it, then. "I don't know the canon, I'm basing this on the great fanfiction I've read" : won't read it. (Special Highlander related subclause: "I only watched the Methos episodes" , when the story is about something more than Methos' past. Thanks for telling me, I won't read it.) "Character X bashing" as a tag: thank you for being honest. I won't read it, whether or not I'm fond of X. "Alpha/Beta/Omega": so not my thing. " Then there are relationships I'm not a fan of. Not because of something being wrong with them, just out of personal l like and dislike, so naturally if a summary tells me this story will be focused on Pairing I Don't Like, I won't read it. (BTW, this holds true for professional fiction as well, of course, though sometimes a summary could be so Out There that it makes me curious how on earth the author will justify it, so I might at least take a look. )
But say the summary of professional or fan fiction sounds intriguing, and then the actual texts still has things in it which make me put the book down/click the button. What could these be?
Most of what follows has exceptions, see above. Not least because if you become interested in a new subject, be it a new fandom or a figure of history, you tend to read at first anything you can get your hands on, and some of it will inevitably be very bad and would at a later point of your interest make you back away early on. I'm sure we've all gone through this stage, feverishly infatuated and thus far more uncritical about any given subject.
So: if the text isn't able to get me emotionally invested or at least interested in more than one of its characters, or in none at all, it is a dealbreaker. "Emotionally invested in", btw, doesn' t mean "identify with" or "agree with character's world view, politics or attitude". I've cared for a great many fictional characters whose views, even given their historic context, were very different from mine, and some characters who were murderers, abusers and what not. And no, in the later case these weren't all characters later redeemed or justified by the narrative, or characters who got their narrative punishment in the end. I think what makes a difference is whether or not the narrative itself gives me the sense that we're on the same page as to what these characters are like. For example, mistaken Kate Beaton caricature not withstanding, Emily Bronte is very clear on Heathcliff not being a misunderstood woobie. (See separate post on why I love Wuthering Heights. ) Meanwhile, I have very mixed feelings re: Jane Eyre because I don't think Charlotte and I agree about Mr. Rochester.
Character bashing both for fanfiction and historical fiction was a criteria that came immediately to mind when pondering this topic, but the more I think about it, the more my awareness of how subjective it is rises. For example: a while ago, I read a review in which the writer thought Elizabeth Woodville in Sharon Penman's Sunne in Splendour was vilified and demonized. This surprised me, as Penman's version is by far my favourite Elizabeth Woodville, far more interesting a character than the one in Philippa Gregory's White Queen where she's meant to be the heroine. Similarly, a review of Jude Morgan's novel Passion thought he was too hard on Annabella Milbanke ( the later Lady Byron), and I thought "huh? I've read Annabella's letters. She totally was like that". So what felt like character bashing for those reviewers was to me good characterisation. Conversely, I'm sure that when I've been grumbling about Hilary Mantel's Thomas More and Anne Boleyn characterisations in her Cromwell novels, a lot of other readers thought "yeah? Well, I think HM was dead on and they WERE like that!"
With this caveat: in both pro and fanfiction, I tend to be put off by what I perceive as character bashing. On a related level, I'm also put off by sudden 180° turnarounds and unearned plot twists. An example would be Lindsey Davis' novel "Rebels and Traitors", which I very much enjoyed until the bizarro ending with characterisation and genre changes and the big confrontation given to the wrong pair of characters, more here, which meant I never read the novel again, which I otherwise certainly would have. I think it comes down to: do I feel the story keeps faith with me or not?
Style is not a dealbreaker. Thomas Man writes gorgeous prose, but his novels still leave me cold. (Consequently, the Thomas Mann texts I'm most familiar with because I reread them a lot are his correspondance with brother Heinrich; TM had massive brother issues and the letters are thus a highly captivating testimony to a complex sibling relationship.) Conversely, my guy Feuchtwanger isn't nearly as much an artist with the language, but I enjoy (most of) his novels.
World view in the text: it depends. Obviously, I wouldn't have read the Malleus Malleficarum for fun, but the Oresteia by Aeschylus is deeply entrenched in ancient Greek misogyny, and I still have read these three dramas a lot, in various translations, and watched them performed. Of course, Aeschylus was a genius and Jakob Sprenger & Heinrich Krämer/Institoris weren't, but I don't think literary quality is the decisive criteria here, see above re: style.
Author misdeeds or views as voiced outside the text: can be tricky, and can certainly be a reason why I haven't approached a text in the first place (see also: Ender's Game, because Orson Scott Carr), but aren't , if I'm honest, a deal breaker as to whether or not pro or fanfiction stays with me if I've already read it, or if the author is dead. (In the not metaphorical way.) It may keep me from rereading for a while. For example: Marion Zimmer Bradley. Finding out what she did was a great blow because of what those novels had meant when I was 13, it made me reexamine some plot lines in my memory, and it will be some time before I can read any of them again, but I haven't felt the need to throw them of my book shelves.
Genre: no deal breaker. Every time I thought "Oh, I'd never read *fiction of type X*" I at some point read it anyway. Sometimes this resulted in me changing my view on X, sometimes it reaffirmed it (i.e. that I dislike it), but there are no absolutes there.
The other days
no subject
Date: 2016-01-05 10:31 am (UTC)Plus the way she could get inside the characters' voices in the Darkover series using the trick of telepathy by simply giving us their thoughts in cursive wherever she was writing from their POV is probably what converted me forever to free indirect speech.
Except, I will never be able to read again Dian Ardais and Danilo Syrtis's story without thinking of the horrible real-life abuse the author took part of. And, boy, was that a shock when I found out. Which, yeah, means I won't probably be reading them again any time soon.. To think I used to re-read bits and pieces of that series all the time... I mean, you can apply the "Death of the Author" factor all you want but some supremely paranoid part of you will always be wondering if all the while you were reading the author wasn't still subliminally sending you some evil message. And that's no way to enjoy a book... *shakes head*
/but I haven't felt the need to throw them of my book shelves/ - Me neither, they're still dominating the fantasy corner of my library (I say "dominating" mostly because, with the advent of my ereader, I don't seem to be buying actual books anymore, while e-books take up no space at all so it's not a fair contest LOL).
no subject
Date: 2016-01-05 10:51 am (UTC)I read it before I read any fanfiction, and it was what introduced me to early feminism, reinterpretation of myths, m/m and f/f relationships alike. So formative for teenage me!
Dyan Ardais and Danily Syrtis was the plotline I was alluding to as well. It's going to be years before I tackle Heritage of Hastur and Sharras Exile again, and they used to be favorites.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-05 11:05 am (UTC)/It's going to be years before I tackle Heritage of Hastur and Sharras Exile again, and they used to be favorites./ - I know!! They used to be my favorites too. ;( I was such a Regis Hastur fangirl...
Also, I just loved the concept of Darkover, how it mixed fantasy (psi-powers! medieval society!) and sci-fi elements (the Terran Empire! space travel!) so well. It was my happy medium.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-05 02:59 pm (UTC)I'm much more aggressive when it comes to fanfiction - I'm a lover of side characters by trade, I usually don't like the ships said characters find themselves in, and most popular characters/ships usually bore me to tears. And I agree, this tendency of only reading fanfiction instead of at least trying to get a feeling for the canon which spawned it really puts me off reading something much quicker than spelling mistakes.
MZB: I read Mists at a similar age, but I think I was pretty busy raging against her narrative sledgehammer methods that were meant to get you to like or dislike certain people. I think to this day I have a fondness for her Guinevere purely out of spite. When I read it again at 21, I did notice some of the more dubious aspects regarding sexuality (and gender), so the ultimate revelation about her part in her husband's proclivities didn't necessarily surprise me, sad to say. (Even though it's obviously dangerous to read some sort of "proof" about personal ideas/morals into dubious tropes an author uses. A lot of it is ignorance, or different sensibilities, or even lack of self-reflection.)
no subject
Date: 2016-01-05 05:45 pm (UTC)Same here. I loved the anthologies of fanfic about Darkover as well, and for years I wanted to be published in the Sword and Sorcery anthology that still bears her name. Then I found out what she'd done and everything associated with her seemed tainted.
I will never be able to read again Dian Ardais and Danilo Syrtis's story without thinking of the horrible real-life abuse the author took part of. And, boy, was that a shock when I found out. Which, yeah, means I won't probably be reading them again any time soon.. To think I used to re-read bits and pieces of that series all the time... I mean, you can apply the "Death of the Author" factor all you want but some supremely paranoid part of you will always be wondering if all the while you were reading the author wasn't still subliminally sending you some evil message.
Again, so with you on this score. And I hated Dian Ardais. Hated him with a fiery passion, even though I always had the feeling that the writer thought he was a lot more forgivable than I did. I didn't believe that Ardais should be forgiven, because that would just send him the message that he hadn't done anything wrong. I thought that drop-kicking him into a black hole before he started abusing Danilo would have been ideal.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-05 06:00 pm (UTC)/I always had the feeling that the writer thought he was a lot more forgivable than I did./ - Oh, yes, I thought that too. I mean, at the time I was a fierce Regis/Danilo shipper and I didn't mind some hurt/comfort to go with it, I also thought Dian adopting Danilo and trying to put right his wrongdoings an interesting character development, only for the life of me I couldn't figure out how Danilo, for his part, could have later forgiven him, I just really couldn't, it's such a frigging absurd notion... *shakes head*
no subject
Date: 2016-01-05 08:55 pm (UTC)To begin with, I can't stand the Unholy Trifecta: Stalking is Love, Abuse (especially Emotional Abuse and/or Emotional Manipulation) is Love, and Rape (a.k.a. Lack of Consent) is Love. And I see them appallingly often in fanfic, manuscripts and published works, usually by authors who are under the mistaken impression that such things are valid expressions of affection and romantic interest because--and I'm quoting scores of authors here--that's the way love is always portrayed in books. Or movies. Or the media.
It gets very discouraging, hearing that response so often.
Mind-control. I hate mind-control--and its cousin, memory charms--as tropes, because memory and free will are where people live. If you take away one or the other, you're taking away a lot of what makes a person a person. Maybe I'm not supposed to think of Alzheimer's Disease or brain damage or rohypnol when memories or free will are erased in stories, but I do. The blithe way that such erasure is usually treated always bothers me. I think that people's autonomy and identity should matter a lot more than someone else's convenience.
Protagonist-Centered Morality. I tend to think that if something is bad when the villains do it, it's bad when the heroes do it. This belief conflicts with a LOT of popular fiction.
Did Not Do the Research. This bugs the hell out of me, especially if the facts are blatantly wrong and the info could have been found with a two-minute Google search.
The Protagonists Who Won't Do Anything. I get very frustrated by lead characters like this. I can't help but feel that it's the job of a protagonist to protag (especially if they have a problem that needs solving), not to sit around being dull.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-06 10:42 am (UTC)I am tempted to say I have no triggers in the sense of the internet using this word. I have a few squicks, i.e. of course sometimes I'm revolted by what I read (or watch, or hear), and not just when I'm intended to be by the narration. But none of this traumatizes me. It doesn't do worse to me than make me rant about Whatever It Is. I'm starting to think this means I'm a very desensitized person.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-06 10:49 am (UTC)But as with all things: it's a case of mileage will differ, individual perception, etc.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-06 05:40 pm (UTC)Guineveres: I liked Gillian Bradshaw's. She did this trilogy which is mostly about Gawain, and Guinevere is the narrator in the third book. Of course, here you have Very Evil Morgause who does evil sorcery, but at least not all Paganism seems bad, given that some of the Irish gods show up being quite helpful. (Still, Christianity seems stronger, so make of that what you will.) But Gwen is really the best.
I cannot say if you're desensitized. :) Being able to rant about something and having that put it out of your system sounds quite healthy to me. I'm used to having stuff gnaw at me, but at the same time, I often catch myself thinking that people overreact to things I'm not bothered about. I think part of that is indeed growing older. :P