Thursday, July 12, 2012

seekingoutfriday said: Haha I liked how you compared it to TSS, because I was the one who didn't think Faberry would end up together in the long run. Anyhoo, fleshed out characters are good. It's needed. It just can't seem toooo OOC. I dunno. I'd just have to actually read a fic like that and see (aside from the oneshots I like, which you already know about.)

Truthfully, I’m still undecided about Faberry ending up together in the long run, post-TSS.  Haha!

I think the challenge with writing fleshed out Quinntana is that the context isn’t really there.  With Faberry, there’s the whole subtext route.  With Pezberry, there are several instances that could support subtext as well.  But with Quinntana, there’s just a lot of cattiness.  Yes, there are a few moments of sincere friendship, but seemingly not enough to construct a context that goes beyond lust.

Because of that, the writer would then be flying blind with romantic characterization.  How much is too much OOC when you don’t know what in-character romantic Quinntana is like to begin with?  It’s not impossible, but it would take a lot of discipline.

seekingoutfriday said: (continuation of message just sent) So basically, for me to read Quinntana, it has to be super emotional and psychological and about two incredibly messed up people coming together and just creating an even bigger mess. They would not be a happy couple.

I think a lot of people could say that about the Faberry dynamic—TMF included.

I mean, look at TSS.  I think one could easily summarize that story as “super emotional and psychological and about two incredibly messed up people coming together and just creating an even bigger mess.”  The only difference I can see is the role of both participants’ guilt in their dynamic, pushing them both to work towards a (sort of) more functional relationship.

However, who is to say a further fleshed out Quinntana dynamic could not provided the same catalyst?

Seekingoutfriday Submitted:

I’m picky because I personally can not see them in a functional, healthy romantic relationship. There is a reason people call them frenemies. They are characters who will stab each other in the back (As we have seen) for their personal gain and then be sweet to them the next day. A relationship would be highly dysfunctional and all push and pull with no compromise. They would tear each other down, build each other back up, and then the cycle would continue. In fics that have them in romantic relationships lose the characters’ intense pride, selfishness and fire and turn them into saps, usually. Not that Santana and Quinn can’t have sappy moments, but all in all, that is not them together. 
So in my Quintanna headcanon, they would ruin each other and not even know how it happened. Two HBIC - that would be a disastrous relationship. 
Friendship it could work because it is a different type of dependency and dynamic, which is why I think it works in ECFC, but elsewhere, it’s hard for me to read.  
Just me personally anyway . 

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

seekingoutfriday answered your question: Question Time.

I absolutely adored her friendship Quinntana (especially in ECFC) but couldn’t get into it romantically. I’m very picky about that pairing.

Since this is an attempt at discussion, would you care to elaborate? :D

Picky in what ways?

Monday, July 9, 2012

Question Time.

Hey, wow, over 80 followers!  That is awesome!

Sorry there haven’t been many posts lately.  I have been (surprisingly) busy!

So.  I know TMF wrote very little romantic-Quinntana, but it’s been on my mind lately.  I mean, most well written Quinn-centric fics can’t go without fleshing out the Quinntana dynamic within the narrative, and vice versa.

I suppose my question here is how do you all feel about how TMF portrayed the Quinntana dynamic within her works?  Do you feel that is exceptional?  Is it lacking something you think needs to be said?  Do you want to compare it to another work by another writer?

Basically, share all your Quinntana feels (if you have any).

Please?

Monday, July 2, 2012

An Anon Said:

I’m posting this for several reasons:

  1. It was sent anonymously, so I can’t respond otherwise.
  2. This person had a lot to say, and it would be unfair to ignore them.
  3. Clearly, there are some things that need to be addressed.

However, I am putting under a cut because it is rather lengthy.

Read More

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Seekingoutfriday Submitted:

Within Glee, characters have had to state if they are gay or straight. So far, those characters have been: Brittany, Santana, Karofsky, Sebastian, Kurt, Blaine, Finn, Puck, Sam, Will, Sue, and Beiste. Out of the main students, the only ones which have not outright said an orientation have been Quinn, Rachel, Artie, Mike, and Tina. And with Quinn’s insane and inconsistent  characterization anyway, it is much easier for fanon to interpret canonical scenes and then label her gay. Also, Santana went from bisexual one episode (she out right said she is attracted to men and women) and then next episode she is full out gay. 
Since Glee writer’s don’t even know their own characters, it’s impossible for fandom to correctly know them as well. So, basically, if people want to claim Quinn as gay because of interpretation of canonical scenes (like I personally do) cool. If not, there are canonical scenes to prove that as well. 
Internet is awesome which allows us to do that. 

Just spouting random stuff.
 

Anonymous said: I don't think you're using canon and fanon correctly, and that's the problem here. You can't have a canonical interpretation, there's just an interpretation. And that's fanon. As far as the show is concerned, Quinn's orientation is unstated, but she's been sexually active with at least one male. She also touched Santana's ass, and she stated she's "not that into that." Anything you want to make of that is fanon.

I was wondering when this would come up.

In my studies, we are taught that what is actually canon is up for interpretation depending on one’s perspective.  Like, there’s this thing called “The Literary Canon”, and theoretically it’s this list of works that set the standard for literature.  Logically, however, no one can decide exactly what is on that list because interpretations of works change over time, new works are written, and so on and so forth.  So people rely on a plausible interpretation based on their perspective to decided personally what is included on that mythical list and what isn’t.

I guess the problem is that I approach the term canon in the context of a television show and fandom interaction in much the same way.  To me, “canon Quinn” (or any character really) is a portrayal of Quinn that is plausible based on what is presented in the show.  The plausibility is ultimately determined by my personal interpretation of what is “canon Quinn”, but the interpretation is a logical one.  And really, the only reason why the question of Quinn’s orientation is so popular is because Quinn’s characterization on the show is about as consistent as the pattern of snowflake.  Therefore, with each new scene and interpretation (both in and out of context), it is very similar to a new work being added to the “Quinn Fabray Canon”.

However, fanon, to me has always been a term attributed to a portrayal of Quinn that is more about hypothetical fan desires than logical characterization.  For example, these ideas that Quinn is secretly a huge gamer or really into the indie music scene. There is absolutely nothing presented within the show to support that characterization as canon thereby making it fanon.

Of course, I understand that I’m pretty much alone among fandom in my understanding of the terms canon and fanon, but it’s what I’ve been taught, and that’s hard to shake, you know?

I also apologize for typing so much.

Anonymous said: quinn being gay in some of tmf's stories has exactly nothing to do with quinn's orientation on the show. regarding in character, there is a difference between making a story that makes a ludicrous non-canon premise (ie bodyswap, tss) believable by giving seriously changed characters some recognizable traits, and attempting to write characters just as they are on the show. idk why anyone would try to do the latter with glee, as the show canon is awful.

First, for the sake of this discussion, we can throw out post-season 2 canon from consideration since most of TMF’s fics were written either disregarding portions of season 2 and/or completely disregarding season 3.

With that said, just because TMF invented some non-canon situations in which to place these characters, that does not necessarily mean that those characters are thereby non-canon themselves.  The basic function of most fic is to place canon characters into non-canon situations.

The problem is that since Glee’s canon is so bad the function of fic (at least, well-written fic) is not only to place canon characters in non-canon situations, but to also flesh out the canon characterization in a plausible manner.  Therefore, the difference between fanon and canon versions of characters becomes subjective to the perception of both author and reader.

For example, since I personally believe that it is still plausible after watching the season 2 finale that Quinn could, in fact, be a repressed lesbian based on how she was presented and characterized to me thus far, I can read TSS and Bodyswap as canon interpretations of Quinn as long as I accept how TMF justified  her characterization of Quinn within the context of the fic as plausible canonical development.  

If I don’t, then I must take into account TMF’s intent for the work, which is where I think you stand.  Because of this, you see the characterization as “giving seriously changed characters some recognizable traits”, while I do not (necessarily).

Similarly, when reading the first few parts of ECFC, I became frustrated with the deterioration of the Brittana dynamic because I could not accept the presented characterization as plausible canonical development.  In this way, Santana seemed fanon to me, rather than canon.  It was not until I read the Brittany interlude that I began to accept the deterioration as plausible and was able to see the portrayal of Santana as canon.

The fact that Quinn is presented as gay in some of TMF’s stories is related to Quinn’s orientation in the show because you can’t have the fic without the show.  It is widely accepted that fic writers do Quinn better than Glee writers do Quinn, and a large portion of well-written, Quinn-centric fic feature Quinn gay.  It is impossible to discuss the fic without discussing the show because so much of the success of the story depends on the reader’s perception of the show. If that were not the case, then we would be discussing original fiction rather than fanfiction.

Anonymous said: re: tmf's opinions on quinn, the first glee thing she wrote was ecfc. she never thought quinn 'was gay', people just assume she did because she wrote her as gay. basically, she just started writing faberry to experiment with writing rachel before writing a big rachel segment of ecfc. she referred to her faberry as rachel/original character all the time, because fanon gay quinn is basically an excuse to lazily write an oc. which can be fun and well-written, but has nothing to do with canon.

This is so strange for me because I started following TMF when she was in the middle of rewriting TSS.  I do remember her hating fanon gay Quinn very much and calling other works Rachel/OC, but she seemed pretty serious about making the TSS rewrite in character.  And AoCC, well, that seems pretty canon to me.  I don’t know.

This is why I have an incompetent moderator tag.

There is so much I don’t know about this person, which is horrible considering I’m running an appreciation blog.  Although, it’s not so much about her, but rather her works.  Usually in a very literal “do you have such-and-such story?” way, but in a discussion way sometimes, too.