![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I post I read was a plea to the show runners and writers to read meta as an indication of the seriousness of the fandom audience. Their take was that when show runners, writers (and actors) only look at fanfiction and fanart they'll always think of fandom as fluffy and plain bad and never realize that there are very good and 'valid' reasons to make (for example a certain ship) changes to canon.
This makes the assumption that all meta is well-thought out and considered, and not that there is as much illogical thinking and wishfullfilment in meta as there is in less serious 'fanfic' and 'fanart.'
But along with that comes the idea that internet fandom is the only fandom, that there are not many thousands or even millions who watch a show, but never make fanfic, fanart or meta, but still impact the writers and creators and actors nonetheless, through the medium of snailmail! conventions and most directly, ratings!
Here is the nature of entitlement, that if an argument is backed up by bulletpoints and time and effort, it should be listened to, over the desires of the people who make the show (or write the book, or produce the film, or the play, etc.) What meta can be is intriguing, thoughtful, funny and envigorating, just as the mediums of fanart and fanfic, what it can't do, is force anyone to do what they don't want with their own creation.
This makes the assumption that all meta is well-thought out and considered, and not that there is as much illogical thinking and wishfullfilment in meta as there is in less serious 'fanfic' and 'fanart.'
But along with that comes the idea that internet fandom is the only fandom, that there are not many thousands or even millions who watch a show, but never make fanfic, fanart or meta, but still impact the writers and creators and actors nonetheless, through the medium of snailmail! conventions and most directly, ratings!
Here is the nature of entitlement, that if an argument is backed up by bulletpoints and time and effort, it should be listened to, over the desires of the people who make the show (or write the book, or produce the film, or the play, etc.) What meta can be is intriguing, thoughtful, funny and envigorating, just as the mediums of fanart and fanfic, what it can't do, is force anyone to do what they don't want with their own creation.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-05 06:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-05 10:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-06 03:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-06 04:08 am (UTC)Briefly, Dean is placed in a future alternate universe, where his future self acts contrary to his character - in a scene in the episode FutureDean sends his friends to their deaths on a suicide mission.
Now the premise of this fan's meta-essay is that the 'suicide mission' never really happens, because Dean's narrative of events can't be trusted.
But the whole point of the episode is that powerful forces are trying to manipulate Dean, by putting him in a place that makes him despair and give up hope (natch, it doesn't work) but since events in the episode are not told in first person or in flashback but in real time, Dean's 'narrative' not being trustworthy makes no goddamed sense.
the essay becomes fanfiction, as the fan 're-writes' the episode with their impressions of how the characters would act in their version of the spn universe, not how they acted (for good reason) in the show canon.
To negate the fact that this future world was created to get Dean to capitulate, and talking away and transforming its tragic ending, removes the entire point of the episode, it just baffles me how at times, someone's desire to view a show through their shipping lenses (het or slash or gen) warps the canon out of recognition.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-06 04:53 am (UTC)