![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakSomething that recently occured to me: fans tend to be either one true story or multiverse people, and the inevitable mingling is where many kerfuffles come from. Let me illustrate what I mean.
Back when the first X-Men films were released, and brought a whole bunch of new fans to the Marvelverse, including yours truly, there were also, more than once, complaints that characterisations that applied to the movieverse were transferred to the comicverse and vice versa in fanfiction. (Comicverse: Wolverine is short. Movieverse: He's Hugh Jackman. Comicverse: Rogue is Mystique's daughter (sort of), starts out as villain before switching teams (this is especially important for Carol Danvers aka Ms Marvel's backstory). Movieverse: completely different backstory, basically different character with same name and mutant ability. And so forth.) This turned out to be the case with more or less every comicbook based film which also inspired fandom, most recently The Avengers, hence the occasional "where the hell does this motormouth prankster Clint characterisation come from?" (from movieverse only fans, bewildered at fanfic) versus "this is not my Clint" (from comicverse first fans). And so forth. Now given that comics in themselves are pretty characterisation flexible (depending in which era and by which writer just about anyone gets written, just whisper the names "Grant Morrison" and "Xorn" into a Magneto fan's ear), you'd think the idea of "similar archetypes, different interpretations" goes down easier than with, say, book fans - who have a novel (or series of novels) authored by only one person and limited to a definite beginning and ending) faced with film adaptions which make sometimes completely different choices in terms of characterisation and storylines. As there is no One Definite Text as the origin. But not always. And I understand that, because I'm in the process of discovering that while I'm usually capable of enjoying more than one 'verse at the same time, I, too, can get irritated when something I see belonging to one particular universe gets unquestioningly transferred to another.
Sometimes it's not just via fanfiction but also via canon. A few months back I read a post comparing the reboot Star Trek and the way Spock Prime as a scriptwriter embodying deus ex machina keeps telling reboot Kirk and later reboot Spock they're meant for each other with Avengers fanfic that transfers the relationship between Tony Stark and Steve Rogers from the comics (where they have decades of backstory) to the movieverse (where they don't, have only just met and didn't exactly hit it off, with by the end of the film only just starting a more peacable relationship), and I thought, bingo, she's on to something. I mean, I enjoyed the reboot film. A lot. I also enjoyed the tension-ridden scenes with reboot Kirk and reboot Spock. But the relationship between Kirk and Spock in the original Star Trek didn't start out as bffs (or enemies, for that matter), you know; in the second ST pilot, it was Gary Mitchell, not Spock (or McCoy), who was Kirk's best buddy, and in the early episodes afterwards they were still light years away from the point where Kirk risks his ship and remaining crew to on the off chance of getting Spock's soul home to Vulcan, as he does in ST III. Yes, their friendship defines them both and is deeper etc. everything Spock Prime says it is - but it's one earned through years and years together. Telling the reboot versions this is their destiny basically forces something on characters and audience which hasn't been earned yet. (And reminds me uncomfortably of everything I hated in the last season of Fringe.) And instead of making me root for this relationship, it makes me interested in all the other relationships the characters have instead. Reboot Kirk and Pike? Kirk and Bones? Kirk and Sulu? Bring it on. Reboot Spock and Uhura? Reboot Spock and Bones? Want more. But I consciously avoided anything reboot Kirk/Spock centric. Then again, I was never a K/S slasher even in their original incarnations, though I loved their friendship as much as the next Trekker.
With The Avengers, you can tell the difference between pre- and post-movie fiction with some characterisation and character appearances fairly easily. (If Bruce has a prominent role in the story, it's written post movie; pre-movie stories usually avoid featuring him at all. If Natasha is a silent ninja, it's pre-movie written.) And my own reaction if it comes to shippery fanfic as opposed to tasty team gen fic is to keep movieverse and comicverse shipping strictly separate, especially when it comes to Tony/Steve, which in the comicverse is a relationship I'm basically taking for granted (much like Magneto/Xavier) as existing emotionally at least, whereas in the movieverse I can't see it at all. (Meanwhile, the exact reverse is true for Tony/Bruce in their respective incarnations.) I have no problem of shipping differently for different incarnations and verses in this case; it reminds me of the Lord of the Rings where I found movieverse Aragorn and Boromir as slashy as hell whereas I never thought they were in the book. But what I find intriguing is the urge to transfer/ to insist on relationships in a big part of fandom. (Let's count Orci & Kurtzman, the scriptwriters for the Reboot, as fandom here.) (Joss Whedon is of course a fanboy as well, but he's a cheerful multishipper by nature who enjoys coming up with new ships, so that's different.) So Kirk and Spock have to have the closest relationship in their lives with each other because it was that way in the story fans originally imprinted on - even though as yet there is no sign of it in the new version of the story (and in fact the closest relationship they have are with other people, McCoy and Uhura respectively). That supposes there is a One True Way the story must go, even though circumstances are altered.
Going back a few millennia: if you look at Greek drama, all based on the same myths, characterisations and storylines can differ considerably. Sophocles' Elektra is not Euripides Elektra (who is married, among other things). Even the same author chan cheerfully retcon himself and provide alternate interpretations. In Euripides' The Trojan Women, Helen is definitely there, the genuine article, Leda's daughter, and a canny survivor who talks Menelaos around into forgiving her. In Helen in Egypt the same Euripides tells us Helen never was in Troy at all but in Egypt through the whole Trojan War. I don't think any Greek author would have pulled off a drama where it turns out there was no Trojan War at all, though. Or where Hector and Achilles were the best of friends. Then again, you never know.
What I'm getting at with all these asides: I think much of the audience is flexible enough to accept different versions of a story/characters/relationships existing - up to a point. (See also: kerfuffle about Elementary aka the one with Lucy Liu as Watson before the show even started.) But at the same time, you have this need to cling to core elements which are regarded as indispensable, so that they must be there even if they don't really fit the new story (yet). Just what those elements are may differ from verse to verse, but I wouldn't be suprised if a survey, which I don't have time to do, would end up concluding in each case, they are a romance/deep friendship which can be interpreted as such.
And that, in turn, makes me wonder: who is it that people ship? The characters or a platonic ideal of them that can be stronger than what's actually shown on the page/screen? In this context, the development of Clint Barton/ Phil Coulson as a popular slash pairing was fascinating, because there was absolutely no basis for it whatsoever other than two lines of dialogue about a third party (Thor) and whether or not Barton should shoot him. This was the amount of their interaction in Thor, during which they weren't even on screen at the same time. They had no interaction at all in The Avengers. But the need for the pairing to exist is so powerful that once it came into existence, it became a self feeding juggernaut moving on despite the utter lack of source material, while dialogue referring to Coulson having had a romantic relationship with a cellist in Portland was reinterpreted as a joke about Clint or a cover story or whatever, simply anything that does not refute Clint/Coulson as a pairing. Given this extreme example of the triumph of platonic ideal over source material, the whole transfer of comicverse Tony/Steve or Prime verse Kirk/Spock onto their counterparts, no matter whether or not the transfer actually fits, really isn't that surprising, I suppose.
Back when the first X-Men films were released, and brought a whole bunch of new fans to the Marvelverse, including yours truly, there were also, more than once, complaints that characterisations that applied to the movieverse were transferred to the comicverse and vice versa in fanfiction. (Comicverse: Wolverine is short. Movieverse: He's Hugh Jackman. Comicverse: Rogue is Mystique's daughter (sort of), starts out as villain before switching teams (this is especially important for Carol Danvers aka Ms Marvel's backstory). Movieverse: completely different backstory, basically different character with same name and mutant ability. And so forth.) This turned out to be the case with more or less every comicbook based film which also inspired fandom, most recently The Avengers, hence the occasional "where the hell does this motormouth prankster Clint characterisation come from?" (from movieverse only fans, bewildered at fanfic) versus "this is not my Clint" (from comicverse first fans). And so forth. Now given that comics in themselves are pretty characterisation flexible (depending in which era and by which writer just about anyone gets written, just whisper the names "Grant Morrison" and "Xorn" into a Magneto fan's ear), you'd think the idea of "similar archetypes, different interpretations" goes down easier than with, say, book fans - who have a novel (or series of novels) authored by only one person and limited to a definite beginning and ending) faced with film adaptions which make sometimes completely different choices in terms of characterisation and storylines. As there is no One Definite Text as the origin. But not always. And I understand that, because I'm in the process of discovering that while I'm usually capable of enjoying more than one 'verse at the same time, I, too, can get irritated when something I see belonging to one particular universe gets unquestioningly transferred to another.
Sometimes it's not just via fanfiction but also via canon. A few months back I read a post comparing the reboot Star Trek and the way Spock Prime as a scriptwriter embodying deus ex machina keeps telling reboot Kirk and later reboot Spock they're meant for each other with Avengers fanfic that transfers the relationship between Tony Stark and Steve Rogers from the comics (where they have decades of backstory) to the movieverse (where they don't, have only just met and didn't exactly hit it off, with by the end of the film only just starting a more peacable relationship), and I thought, bingo, she's on to something. I mean, I enjoyed the reboot film. A lot. I also enjoyed the tension-ridden scenes with reboot Kirk and reboot Spock. But the relationship between Kirk and Spock in the original Star Trek didn't start out as bffs (or enemies, for that matter), you know; in the second ST pilot, it was Gary Mitchell, not Spock (or McCoy), who was Kirk's best buddy, and in the early episodes afterwards they were still light years away from the point where Kirk risks his ship and remaining crew to on the off chance of getting Spock's soul home to Vulcan, as he does in ST III. Yes, their friendship defines them both and is deeper etc. everything Spock Prime says it is - but it's one earned through years and years together. Telling the reboot versions this is their destiny basically forces something on characters and audience which hasn't been earned yet. (And reminds me uncomfortably of everything I hated in the last season of Fringe.) And instead of making me root for this relationship, it makes me interested in all the other relationships the characters have instead. Reboot Kirk and Pike? Kirk and Bones? Kirk and Sulu? Bring it on. Reboot Spock and Uhura? Reboot Spock and Bones? Want more. But I consciously avoided anything reboot Kirk/Spock centric. Then again, I was never a K/S slasher even in their original incarnations, though I loved their friendship as much as the next Trekker.
With The Avengers, you can tell the difference between pre- and post-movie fiction with some characterisation and character appearances fairly easily. (If Bruce has a prominent role in the story, it's written post movie; pre-movie stories usually avoid featuring him at all. If Natasha is a silent ninja, it's pre-movie written.) And my own reaction if it comes to shippery fanfic as opposed to tasty team gen fic is to keep movieverse and comicverse shipping strictly separate, especially when it comes to Tony/Steve, which in the comicverse is a relationship I'm basically taking for granted (much like Magneto/Xavier) as existing emotionally at least, whereas in the movieverse I can't see it at all. (Meanwhile, the exact reverse is true for Tony/Bruce in their respective incarnations.) I have no problem of shipping differently for different incarnations and verses in this case; it reminds me of the Lord of the Rings where I found movieverse Aragorn and Boromir as slashy as hell whereas I never thought they were in the book. But what I find intriguing is the urge to transfer/ to insist on relationships in a big part of fandom. (Let's count Orci & Kurtzman, the scriptwriters for the Reboot, as fandom here.) (Joss Whedon is of course a fanboy as well, but he's a cheerful multishipper by nature who enjoys coming up with new ships, so that's different.) So Kirk and Spock have to have the closest relationship in their lives with each other because it was that way in the story fans originally imprinted on - even though as yet there is no sign of it in the new version of the story (and in fact the closest relationship they have are with other people, McCoy and Uhura respectively). That supposes there is a One True Way the story must go, even though circumstances are altered.
Going back a few millennia: if you look at Greek drama, all based on the same myths, characterisations and storylines can differ considerably. Sophocles' Elektra is not Euripides Elektra (who is married, among other things). Even the same author chan cheerfully retcon himself and provide alternate interpretations. In Euripides' The Trojan Women, Helen is definitely there, the genuine article, Leda's daughter, and a canny survivor who talks Menelaos around into forgiving her. In Helen in Egypt the same Euripides tells us Helen never was in Troy at all but in Egypt through the whole Trojan War. I don't think any Greek author would have pulled off a drama where it turns out there was no Trojan War at all, though. Or where Hector and Achilles were the best of friends. Then again, you never know.
What I'm getting at with all these asides: I think much of the audience is flexible enough to accept different versions of a story/characters/relationships existing - up to a point. (See also: kerfuffle about Elementary aka the one with Lucy Liu as Watson before the show even started.) But at the same time, you have this need to cling to core elements which are regarded as indispensable, so that they must be there even if they don't really fit the new story (yet). Just what those elements are may differ from verse to verse, but I wouldn't be suprised if a survey, which I don't have time to do, would end up concluding in each case, they are a romance/deep friendship which can be interpreted as such.
And that, in turn, makes me wonder: who is it that people ship? The characters or a platonic ideal of them that can be stronger than what's actually shown on the page/screen? In this context, the development of Clint Barton/ Phil Coulson as a popular slash pairing was fascinating, because there was absolutely no basis for it whatsoever other than two lines of dialogue about a third party (Thor) and whether or not Barton should shoot him. This was the amount of their interaction in Thor, during which they weren't even on screen at the same time. They had no interaction at all in The Avengers. But the need for the pairing to exist is so powerful that once it came into existence, it became a self feeding juggernaut moving on despite the utter lack of source material, while dialogue referring to Coulson having had a romantic relationship with a cellist in Portland was reinterpreted as a joke about Clint or a cover story or whatever, simply anything that does not refute Clint/Coulson as a pairing. Given this extreme example of the triumph of platonic ideal over source material, the whole transfer of comicverse Tony/Steve or Prime verse Kirk/Spock onto their counterparts, no matter whether or not the transfer actually fits, really isn't that surprising, I suppose.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-20 12:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-20 02:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-20 01:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-20 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-20 03:07 pm (UTC)and i guess I didn't boggle at Phil/Clint despite the lack of onscreen time, because of the prevalence of crossover ships. If people see a possibility of imagining an interesting relationship, they'll write it.
But your questions about what are we shipping, really, are still fascinating.
may I link?
no subject
Date: 2012-07-20 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-20 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 03:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 03:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-21 04:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-22 03:58 pm (UTC)But the vast majority of Kirk/Spock reboot fans were not TOS fans, nor were Tony/Steve movieverse fans mostly comicbook readers. These shippers are telling a certain story about these characters not because of their love for a previous version of the text but because that is the story they want to tell, and they find these characters fun to tell it about. Elements of comicsverse Tony/Steve exist in movieverse Tony/Steve fics because when movieverse shippers got started, there was no movieverse canon about the relationship to draw on, and so comicsverse canon was mined. In Star Trek, yenta!Spock can be blamed for asserting that reboot Kirk and Spock were predestined to end up like the originals.