To OTP or not, that is the question
Apr. 10th, 2008 05:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lunabee34As part of the fascinating discussion over in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
sga_talk, one of the things we've been talking about is OTP and it got me to thinking (which, yes, is dangerous).
I am not an OTPer. In the beginnings of my fannish days, I was very devoted to Spike/Xander but after some time I began to suffer from Spander fatigue and had to search out other pairings. While I always enjoy the popular pairing of a fandom (Sam/Dean, Jack/Daniel, John/Rodney), my propensity for pairing fatigue still remains. At this point in my fannishness, what I am mostly coming to the table for is to be convinced that these wonderful things (whatever they may be--plot, backstory, pairing, secret, possible future) that never occurred to me are indeed plausible and OMG WHY DID I NOT THINK OF THEM? For that reason, I am very interested in rare pairings and in tangential characters; I think that predilection is neatly summed up in my Bates/Kavanagh fascination. :) So while I love to read and write McShep, I also really wish Sheppard was doing it with Caldwell. (I will not again subject you guys to that detailed fantasy.)
I do not approach fandom through an OTP lens. I'm okay if John and Rodney aren't together; I'm okay if they are angry with each other or mean to each other or if they break up with each other or if *gasp* they never even meet each other. I like for my characters (both written and read) to behave in ways that can be extrapolated from their canon characterization, but that's really about it for me in terms of requirement.
I like to be *surprised* by fanfic. The way I define fanfic for myself is taking the bare bones of canon and building up layers of new flesh so that the animal I create is subtly (or sometimes drastically) different than the animal canon gives us. And after awhile, if all I am reading is one pairing, I stop being surprised. Does this keep me from writing or reading said pairing? Hell no. :) But it does make me long for a wildfire of Lorne/EVERYFREAKINGBODYOMG to sweep through fandom and it does make those main pairing fics that manage to do something completely unexpected that much sweeter.
The only pairing that perhaps approaches the OTP for me is Sam/Dean, mostly because at this point in SPN canon I have a very difficult time believing that either of them could have successful relationships with anyone but each other. But, boy, do I like to read about them trying! LOL
So my question for y'all is this: Are you an OTPer? If you OTP, do you have only one (METHOS!) or do you have an OTP for each fandom? How do you think being an OTPer affects your fannish experience? If you're not an OTPer, why not? How do you think not reading/writing through that lens affects your fannish experience?
sga_talk, one of the things we've been talking about is OTP and it got me to thinking (which, yes, is dangerous).I am not an OTPer. In the beginnings of my fannish days, I was very devoted to Spike/Xander but after some time I began to suffer from Spander fatigue and had to search out other pairings. While I always enjoy the popular pairing of a fandom (Sam/Dean, Jack/Daniel, John/Rodney), my propensity for pairing fatigue still remains. At this point in my fannishness, what I am mostly coming to the table for is to be convinced that these wonderful things (whatever they may be--plot, backstory, pairing, secret, possible future) that never occurred to me are indeed plausible and OMG WHY DID I NOT THINK OF THEM? For that reason, I am very interested in rare pairings and in tangential characters; I think that predilection is neatly summed up in my Bates/Kavanagh fascination. :) So while I love to read and write McShep, I also really wish Sheppard was doing it with Caldwell. (I will not again subject you guys to that detailed fantasy.)
I do not approach fandom through an OTP lens. I'm okay if John and Rodney aren't together; I'm okay if they are angry with each other or mean to each other or if they break up with each other or if *gasp* they never even meet each other. I like for my characters (both written and read) to behave in ways that can be extrapolated from their canon characterization, but that's really about it for me in terms of requirement.
I like to be *surprised* by fanfic. The way I define fanfic for myself is taking the bare bones of canon and building up layers of new flesh so that the animal I create is subtly (or sometimes drastically) different than the animal canon gives us. And after awhile, if all I am reading is one pairing, I stop being surprised. Does this keep me from writing or reading said pairing? Hell no. :) But it does make me long for a wildfire of Lorne/EVERYFREAKINGBODYOMG to sweep through fandom and it does make those main pairing fics that manage to do something completely unexpected that much sweeter.
The only pairing that perhaps approaches the OTP for me is Sam/Dean, mostly because at this point in SPN canon I have a very difficult time believing that either of them could have successful relationships with anyone but each other. But, boy, do I like to read about them trying! LOL
So my question for y'all is this: Are you an OTPer? If you OTP, do you have only one (METHOS!) or do you have an OTP for each fandom? How do you think being an OTPer affects your fannish experience? If you're not an OTPer, why not? How do you think not reading/writing through that lens affects your fannish experience?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
A good writer can make any pairing work
Date: 2008-04-11 12:14 am (UTC)I honestly don't understand why anyone would insist that there can only only One True Pair (or how another pairing could never happen) -- whenever I read that, it makes me wonder how rigid they are in their overall thinking.
As much as I love McShep, I've also read great Sheppard/Dex, Sheppard/Lorne, McKay/Dex, and -- my favorite rare SGA pairing -- Lorne/Parrish.
Re: A good writer can make any pairing work
Date: 2008-04-11 12:20 am (UTC)I go in and out of OTP modes (also depending on fandom), but when I'm OTP, the bestest of writers with the most fascinating premise wouldn't get me to read outside of my OTP.
Lunabee, to jump off my post today...for me the repetition is more important emotionally...it's not that i like surprises...but a lot of my reading is comfort reading, and there I want to know *exactly* what Im' getting...then again, I read the end of books as well....
Re: A good writer can make any pairing work
Date: 2008-04-11 12:36 am (UTC)It may not be about good writing for you, but it is for me. My time for reading is limited; I don't want to waste it reading bad or even mediocre writing, even if it's about a pairing I like a lot. And sometimes I just want to read something different.
That said, I can relate to your comment about "comfort reading." That's one of the reasons I am less likely these days to check out unknown writers unless they've been recommended by someone I trust.
Re: A good writer can make any pairing work
Date: 2008-04-11 01:01 am (UTC)What I should have said is: "For those readers who self-define as reading for an OTP/as reading only their OTP, it is not primarily about good writing but about the emotional component connected to their fannish cathexis of the pairing in question." That does not mean that those readers may not carefully select what they like to read *within* that pairing according to other characteristics (which may include what they consider "good writing"). It does mean, however, that for those readers, even the strongest of other characteristics will not trump their OTP. Let's just say that my favorite writer could write my favorite tropes and I still wouldn't open a McKay/Beckett story :)
In other words, you and many others may very well read for the quality and enjoy different pairings equally, maybe because your investment is in the show as a whole, a particular character whom you can see paired off in various ways, or for fan fiction in and of itself with little investment in the source. But if you "have" an OTP, the very thought of splitting up your pairing feels "wrong"...at least OTP in the strong sense (I've noticed in recent years that the term has been expanded to include pairings one likes, so that it doesn't seem paradoxical any more for people to say that they have two OTPs in the same fandom or even involving the same character....)
Re: A good writer can make any pairing work
Date: 2008-04-11 03:27 am (UTC)You know Rodney sneaks down to Carson's stasis chamber at night and presses his cheek against that cold cold Ancient polymer and tells him all his hopes and dreams. And sometimes Rodney cries.
Oooh, I like what you say about investment. I think maybe that's why Sam/Dean are closer to OTP for me because I am more invested in those two characters and on SGA I like and am interested in just about everybody equally.
Ceteris Pairingbus
Date: 2008-04-11 03:06 pm (UTC)(Ceteris paribus means "all things being equal" btw.)
Re: Ceteris Pairingbus
Date: 2008-04-11 03:10 pm (UTC)Re: Ceteris Pairingbus
Date: 2008-04-11 05:21 pm (UTC)HALLING: I can't go on!
BECKETT: I'll go on!
Re: Ceteris Pairingbus
Date: 2008-04-12 03:48 am (UTC)Re: A good writer can make any pairing work
Date: 2008-04-11 03:23 am (UTC)I completely get where you're coming from with the comfort reading and the repetition. Your post made me realize that fandom is not where I go for that, interestingly enough. My comfort reading is all novels I've read before or magazines (with lots of pictures!!)
Re: A good writer can make any pairing work
Date: 2008-04-11 03:19 am (UTC)I understand OTP in some ways, even though I don't share the impulse. It's like wearing the same perfume every day or watching reruns of Sitcoms or having roughly the same schedule of meals every week. It's familiar and comforting and you know you like it and that you won't be disappointed by what you find there. Which there is certainly something to be said for.
Re: A good writer can make any pairing work
Date: 2008-04-14 07:40 am (UTC)I guess that's a popular reason for OTP, although not the only one. In my case, I like the extra restrictions (rather like a sonnet, really); the ability to appreciate quite subtle variations (if you eat a new dish for the first time, you may be able to say whether you like the dish or not, but you won't be able to analyse precisely what this chef in particular is doing as you would if it were a dish with which you're familiar and have eaten a number of other interpretations of already); and the communal nature of the project - writers aren't just commenting on cannon, but on each other, creating a much richer tapestry than one story could alone.
I wish I really wasn't ever disappointed by what I find. Sadly the most familiar thing is often the liberal use of epithets.
Re: A good writer can make any pairing work
Date: 2008-04-15 03:15 am (UTC)LOL
Can you say a little more about how OTP is like a sonnet? That comparison intrigues me.