To OTP or not, that is the question

[lunabee34]

As part of the fascinating discussion over in 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?

Comments

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of what you've said and it describes my reading pretty well, too. I like being convinced of pairings...of course the problem is that so much fic is written for shippers, so there's no convincing going on (so rare pairings are actually better that way, since they do have to convince people).

The only time I have been OTPish is with Louis and Lestat from Vampire Chronicles, but even then I liked fic with them with others so long as it fit in the canon timeline (like Louis/Armand during the years Louis thought Lestat was dead).

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

Yes! on the convincing. That's my favorite part of any fic (which is one of the reasons I tend to like established relationship fic less), even ubiquitous pairings. If the relationship is not canonical, I want to be convinced that it is real, that it is workable, that it is happening. That's at least 50% of the enjoyment for me right there.

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I do like some established relationship fic, but I have a really hard time with it for some pairings. Anything to do with Snape, for example, I'm always like, but how did they stop hating each other!?!?!? Whereas if they're friendly in canon, I can more easily make the leap without the story showing me.

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

*nods*

I think the main problem I have with established relationship fic is that it's often difficult to introduce a source of conflict and tension that's internal to the relationship (which for my money is way more interesting than the deus ex machina of the week) and you get that in spades in first time fic.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

I have just the opposite reaction to establish relationship vs. first time--the initial rush of infatuation makes it possible for people to ignore or handwave a LOT about another person, but those factors can no longer be ignored as the relationship progresses.

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

This is very true of real life and you're right, you do read it in fics. I guess I just tend to gravitate more towards the handwringing, angst ridden "I LOVE YOU BUT THERE ARE ALL THESE OBSTACLES! AND THEREFORE I SHALL WATCH YOU FROM BEHIND POTTED PLANTS AND CRY!" because I'm broken - no actually I think broken covers it. *nods*

[quillori.livejournal.com]

I think there is a distinction between writers who can't be bothered with how their couple got together or developed into the people they are now portrayed as being, and those who have a clear idea but, because they are primarily writing for a community of readers already familiar with a whole range of interpretations and scenarios, don't bother to rehash what has been done repeatedly before, but instead indicate - clearly to those in the community, much less so to those without - what their approach for this story was, and then turn to other matters (cf. wave theory of slash). I don't think the latter is any evidence of bad writing: yes, you limit your audience, but on the other hand the audience you do have is in a better position to appreciate exactly what you're trying to do.

Of course, if what what you are interested in reading is specifically accounts of how a couple got together, rather than what happened afterwards with the first stages left as an exercise for the reader, shipper fic is frequently going to be unsatisfactory, even when good. I guess maybe the earliest stories in any given pairing are more likely to be to your taste?

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I guess maybe the earliest stories in any given pairing are more likely to be to your taste?

No? I mean, I've never come across a fandom where people stop writing first-time stories after a certain point. I do prefer first-time for many pairings, because of what I said above about it being too hard for me to get from canon to the point of the established relationship. But there are a lot of pairings I find it easier to believe, so it's not like I never read established relationship fics. I just can't generally do so for pairings where they hated each other in canon, because I'm not a shipper (of any pairing, much less those), and need to be shown how it could happen.

[quillori.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't mean at all that people stopped writing first-stories. Those always seem to be the most popular. Just that in the early days you pretty much have to explain how you see the characters and how they get together and why (unless you're just not that good a writer, of course), whereas later, when there have already been 50 stories with something close to your take on their personalities and them getting together pretty much how you envisage them getting together, you are free to assume your intended audience will be able to figure out for themselves where your story fits into the (shipper) fannish consensus and so devote yourself to writing other things. Of course, that does limit your audience to people interested enough in the ship to read it widely.

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I totally get why it happens.

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

You are very right and I do find that with the most popular pairings in a fandom, or the pairings I have read the most, I do tend after some time to not require as much "couple development." For instance, at this point I pretty much buy John/Rodney and read and enjoy stories about them that don't really delve into the whole "this is how we got together" stage. Bates/Kavanagh on the other hand would require much 'splainyness for me to appreciate. :)

That being said, the how they get together is still my favorite part even for McShep or Wincest or some other pairing whose fanon, etc, I have internalized.

I've never thought about which stories I like the best in terms of when they were written but that's an intruiging idea. I think I like best the stories that come after season one of a show. So many times the earliest stories written don't hold up well over time in terms of characterization simply because we have so few points of data from which to extrapolate after three episodes, or what have you.

[quillori.livejournal.com]

many times the earliest stories written don't hold up well

That's a good point. And not only is there less to go on at the start, but it's likely you'll extrapolate from what there is in what will turn out later to be the wrong direction.

I think I maybe prefer stories from later seasons, because I like established relationships and, in default of anyone ever writing them, I'll settle for first times with lots of implied backstory. (Of course, this only works if later seasons are actually good and don't mess up the characters or the 'feel' of the show, which sadly can't be relied upon. I worry when I fall hard for a pairing in the first season, because I don't necessarily trust TPTB to keep up the sort of dynamic I like. Perhaps if I stopped liking the designated bad guys I'd be safer?)

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

Never stop liking the bad guys for yea verily they are the most interesting, thus sayeth Lorraine.