Thinky thoughts on episode reactions

[ash48]

On Fandom Reactions and Reacting. And why the request to "...just stop watching" is difficult.

Please note that this is not in response to any one person's comment. My husband said it to me recently and it got me thinking. Also, I started writing up a disclaimer for my reaction posts and realised I had some things I wanted to say about negativity and episode reactions. I've also been tussling with Twitter and trying to figure out how to successfully "play" over there.



After episode 10.09 ended I went on a verbal tirade around the house and my husband copped most of it. After carrying on a treat he stopped me and said "why don't you just stop watching it then?" (rather too hopefully I might add!). I looked at him and said "Are you mad? How could I do that? You can see how passionate I still am. I wouldn't be ranting like this if I could simply walk away. I still ADORE these characters and I am still heavily invested in their story" (I'm sure he thinks I'm mad, but loves me anyway…*g*).

The thing is, I've also seen this reaction from fans to fans. I understand the sentiment and appreciate how frustrating it must be for fans who have nothing but praise for an episode to then read a heap of negativity about it. It must seem strange that fans could watch a show that they have negative feelings for.

Unfortunately, the option to simply "stop watching" is not that simple. In fact, I'd say the very nature of how difficult it is, is the reason why negative comments and reactions exist. I know that for me, the only reason I will be negative about the show is because I can't (and don't want to) tear myself away from it. I WANT the show to keep me engaged and be everything I love about it. I WANT it to live up to my expectations and be of a high standard. It's when it doesn't do those things that I will find myself reacting negatively to it.

Much of that negatively comes about because of the pain that is felt when the show lets you down. It's about loving it with all your heart but seeing things in it that annoy you or you think are just plain stupid. It might even be a way of trying to let go. Being negative and posting about it could be a way of doing some self convincing…this is why I should let go. Kind of like death throes. I admire the fan who can suddenly cut ties and not spend years lamenting it. I am intrigued by fans who say "I haven't watched the last few episodes and I really don't care". That, for me, is a sign that the passion has gone and therefore the ability to cut ties completely is so much easier. The day I don't care if I miss and episode will be the day I truly know the passion is fading. Just because I am angry at an episode (or permanently pissed at Carver) should not mean I should stop watching or stop sharing my feelings on it (not that I've directly been accused of this).

Having said that, I don't consider myself really that negative. In fact, I'd say that I'm pretty positive most of the time. Of all my reviews this season the latest episode is the only one I've been annoyed with. I've rated most episodes either "awesome" or "pretty good", so being critical on ONE episode in a season does not make me some sort of a "bad" or disloyal fan. It makes me a frustrated fan who needs an outlet. I've always seen fandom as a place to be able to discuss all elements of the show - be them positive or negative.

I think it's possible to be a loyal "good" fan AND be critical about the show. I don't mean out and out character bashing or stomping all over someone else's squee. Nor do I mean sending hate to the writers or jumping hatefully on someone's tweet/comment because you disagree with them. I mean being able to say "man, that sucked" or saying "what's happening to my show?!" without the backlash.

Which brings me to another area that I've been wanting thinking about lately.

I try very hard to not dump negativity on other people's journals but it gets trickier on places like Twitter and Tumblr. On LJ we have a space that we can create cut-texts to hide content. Followers can decide whether to click on your thoughts and read what you have to say and by doing so take responsibility for what they are about to read, but on Twitter they can't make that choice (unless blacklisting tags, but I'm not sure that's very successful).

I have realised that posting random (negative) thoughts on Twitter is problematic. There are people who just don't want to see that. I have been trying lately not to dump negativity on Twitter because I am conscious that some of my followers just don't want to see it. I know I could accept losing them as followers and I probably need to toughen up in that regard - but the connections I have with many of those people are more important to me than using it as an outlet for my frustration. The problem with Twitter is that it is SO easy to just jump on and post a random thought that pops into your head. It takes a lot of strength (for me) to NOT do that, so I've made a choice to stop visiting there as much as I was. My problem is, I don't really have an outlet for random frustrations, observations or even squee anymore. I don't see LJ as a great place for one off random comments and twitter means that you're likely to offend someone. I suppose it's about control and not giving into the feeling of needing to shout things out to the world. But damn it, sometimes I just want to post random observations or worries or excitement about stuff without the fear of pissing someone off. Unfortunately I have the kind of personality that worries about being at odds with people I've met in fandom.

Mostly this is about saying that criticising the show, the writers, the show runner etc. does not automatically make you a disloyal or bad fan. I think it makes you a fan who, for whatever reason, still wants to be involved with the show and the fandom but needs the freedom to complain about it or perhaps make fun of it, or find a way to enjoy it despite it's failings. I find in many cases the complaining ends up being a way to reconcile problematic aspects of the show in order to move on. That's my personal experience of it anyway.

On the flip side, I think positivity has to be utterly respected also. Nothing is better than having a positive reaction to an episode. I love seeing people's positive reactions to ones I feel negative about. If I'm feeling positive about an episode I tend to avoid, or skip past negative ones and accept that we each view things differently. I'm always thrilled to come off of an episode full of joy and usually I don't care if there are others who are negative about it. Over the years I've come to trust my initial reaction to an episode. If it didn't work for whatever reason I will be true to that. If I felt squeeful (even when others didn't) I will be happy that I was lucky enough to experience it the way I did. We are all different and even though we may never see eye to eye, I think it might be possible to respect each others reactions. No matter what they are.

Comments

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

I admit I'm having a hard time bending my mind around the issue because I don't think there is any incentive in fandom against reacting negatively, at least not to the narrative itself? Like, of the (fortunately, small sample size of) harass-y anon messages I've gotten, more of them have been people who are mad at me for being too supportive of the direction Carver has taken things,* than about me being negative about anything? I have gotten one or two fan-credential-checks over being too ~negative about Dean and/or his behavior toward Sam. "I don't UNDERSTAND?!? how you can HAAAATE one of them??? Why do you even watch when THE RELATIONSHIP IS AT THE CENTER OF THE SHOW??!?" (Ah, yes, that sole determinant of the quality of a narrative, normative approval of a relationship between characters one loves, which led to the astronomical success of Selfie and the crushing failure of Breaking Bad.)

Point being, my anecdata suggests that no amount of positivity or negativity will avoid the risk of pissing people off. Posting with a clear conscience is IMO just about being as intellectually honest as possible and acknowledging that the results may or may not do it for everyone else. And possibly, if on Tumblr, using cuts and tags for blacklisting, I think that's a fair expectation.

IDK. Personally, I'm not bothered by people disagreeing with me on liking or disliking something. I'll go further, even, and say that I don't think worthwhile fiction often lends itself to universal agreement. What hacks me off is bad faith. Subjectively liking or disliking something isn't necessarily bad faith, but tone-policing about whether someone is "too negative/positive," rather than engaging with or even politely ignoring someone's opinion is bad faith. Not being thrilled on a Watsonian or Doylist level about a choice a character made is totally reasonable; insisting that said choice is objectively "OOC" and therefore anyone who puts forth an argument for why it does make sense is WRONG AND STUPID is bad faith. Being dissatisfied with a plot development is totally fine and IMO doesn't need any explanation; making a sweeping declaration that "THE ONLY acceptable storytelling choice is the one that would leave ME satisfied" is probably bullshit. &c, &c.

But yeah, I'm a big believer that sincere critique is a compliment. I am totally a viewer who will just bail if I stop being really engaged, and so if I'm engaged enough to be upset about something, I tend to think there's value in it. I've come down harder on BSG than almost any other show I've written about, precisely because it's one of my all-time favorites and I never get tired of unpacking all the complex stuff it did. I think it is a credit to SPN that I stuck with it through the earlier seasons, which for many reasons are not my usual style and which I find extremely philosophically questionable. It is a HUGE compliment to Dean as a fictional construct for me to have such passionate conviction that he is as big a scuzzbag as Angel(us) and Jimmy McNulty. They are the VERY BEST of the worst, okay. So it's frustrating to feel like that's off-limits to talk about.

*I will say this one steams me less because of the anons and more because I had numerous discussions concerning the issues that Carver and I are apparently delusional in exactly the same way about....the summer before he took over. Curious, how he's so tapped into my personal totally-out-there fanon, if there really is no logical basis in canon for it. It's almost (dun dun dun!) NOT NATURAL.

[gateslacker.livejournal.com]

Not being thrilled on a Watsonian or Doylist level about a choice a character made is totally reasonable; insisting that said choice is objectively "OOC" and therefore anyone who puts forth an argument for why it does make sense is WRONG AND STUPID is bad faith. Being dissatisfied with a plot development is totally fine and IMO doesn't need any explanation; making a sweeping declaration that "THE ONLY acceptable storytelling choice is the one that would leave ME satisfied" is probably bullshit.

OMG! YES! A Million times YES!!!

I think that is the thing that makes me the absolute crankiest about fandom. I'm still loving this show. I don't love every episode and I don't expect to. (Come on? Is there really a show out there that you LOVE every single episode.)

I really enjoyed this mid season finale. Sure it wasn't non-stop action (does it have to be?) I enjoyed the character beats. Then I come to LJ and read about how terrible it was. How clunky. How boring. And the usual, the writers totally suck; the showrunner totally sucks. I start thinking, am I just "too easy." Am I not a discerning viewer? You begin to question your own enjoyment.

Thankfully, I have friends in real life who are not involved in fandom. They are highly intelligent folk who, for various and sundry reasons, know a whole heck of a lot about writing and literature. We can have discussions about what worked and what didn't without fandom agenda and the never ending muckity muck about showrunners playing a part. In that way it is "pure" discussion. They also enjoyed and thought "it was a very well written ep." I have warned them away from coming online because the fanwank can and will alter the way you look at the show. Especially this fandom which is the most divisive I have ever seen!

But that's the kind of rich discussion I wish fandom could have.

[quickreaver.livejournal.com]

Pretty sure you're not the only one who would like to have self-aware discussions about the show, free of shipping agendas! Ash does a pretty good job of facilitating that, overall. Not sure how to keep the wank out, though. Keeping it to namespace is helpful, I think.

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

I don't see where gateslacker made any mention of "shipping agendas." I see mention of "fandom agenda," of which "preserving a preferred interpretation of SamnDean" is certainly one.

[quickreaver.livejournal.com]

Oh, man, Freudian slip there, on my part, huh? ;)

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

Come on? Is there really a show out there that you LOVE every single episode.

ACTUALLY.......but ~30/30 is grading on a really different curve than ~200/200.

And the usual, the writers totally suck; the showrunner totally sucks. I start thinking, am I just "too easy." Am I not a discerning viewer? You begin to question your own enjoyment.

This is what frustrates me as well. Because it's not just "ugh, I didn't like the episode, and here's why." It's "I can't believe [personalized insult] [showrunner/writer] thought WE ALL would be SO STUPID as to FALL FOR THIS." Okay, so if it worked for me, that's an insult to me. Well, an attempt at an insult to me, though I don't really feel my intelligence threatened by this ~level of discourse, lol. But this kind of nonsense does mess with fandom at large by putting a lot of people on the defensive, consciously or not.

Especially this fandom which is the most divisive I have ever seen!

It really is unusual in this way. And even thinking, as I do, that this is largely a byproduct of the passion about the show which also leads to what is most exciting about the fandom....can we, like, not?

[quickreaver.livejournal.com]

I have a sincere question: do you really see a lot of folks asserting that 'x' behavior is objectively OOC? I mean, I can be guilty of saying stuff like "so-and-so would NEVER do that!" but I recognize that there can always be circumstances where they would have done just that, if given believable motivation. What I usually mean is "this felt really OOC to me, in this situation."

The magic is in taking the Doylist restrictions any given project is saddled with, but using Watsonian cleverness to make it all work. I think. If I have those terms correct!

I really like your line about being intellectually--and I'll add emotionally--honest. Sometimes it's really tough to intellectualize why something rubs us the wrong way.

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

do you really see a lot of folks asserting that 'x' behavior is objectively OOC? I mean, I can be guilty of saying stuff like "so-and-so would NEVER do that!" but I recognize that there can always be circumstances where they would have done just that, if given believable motivation. What I usually mean is "this felt really OOC to me, in this situation."

Yes, I do. I assume people are grownups and mean what they say, so when they say "this is OOC" I believe that they mean "this is OOC" and not "this didn't fit with what I think about the character." I see lots of SAM WOULD NEVER in this thread alone, about just one action which, far from being out of nowhere, is yet another emphasis of something the show has hammered home in almost every episode of the season so far: that Sam's denial about what Dean is becoming and who Dean has always been is getting harder and harder for him to sustain, and so he's tripping over that cognitive dissonance more and more frequently. Which is an interesting shade to the character, it's something that's been an increasingly present part of Sam's arc for several seasons now, and it's concerning an issue that reaches back to the very early seasons.

People are free to not like the character or episode for any reason. But, yeah, when a character acts on a motivation that is such a consistent part of their arc and I see a lot of people reacting not by saying they didn't like it, but by saying it's "OOC" and OMG CARVER SUXXXXX? Yes, that I find unpleasant, not because it is ~negative, but because it's outright refusing to consider a huge part of what's been going on with my favorite character.

The magic is in taking the Doylist restrictions any given project is saddled with, but using Watsonian cleverness to make it all work. I think. If I have those terms correct!

Agree! Though I don't think it's actually necessary as often as fandom often seems to think.

I really like your line about being intellectually--and I'll add emotionally--honest. Sometimes it's really tough to intellectualize why something rubs us the wrong way.

I agree, and it's not always easy. And honestly, I think that becomes even more difficult in this weird tone-policing environment. It can be hard enough to get that and why something hurts us, but it's really hard to talk about when you know you will be disingenuously invalidated as a HATER!!/EXG/wtfever no matter what you have to say.

[ash48.livejournal.com]

I really like your take on Sam in that scene (as I often do when you talk about Sam). It didn't even cross my mind that this could be seen as evidence that Sam is denying what Dean is becoming. What I saw was Sam believing that Dean was ok to bring up the rear - as he usually is. Sam has been showing concern for Dean but also seeming to believe him when he says he's ok. Perhaps that moment in the last episode when Dean told Sam he's doing ok Sam not only believed it because Dean told him so, but because he desperately wants to believe it. I can buy that. It makes a heap of sense that Sam is in denial - perhaps more from fear than anything else. We've seen moments of real fear from Sam (towards Dean) and it ties in nicely with what he went through when Dean was a demon. Though, as I often say (and I know we've had the discussion about how it doesn't matter what the show is trying to tell us..but...) I'm not convinced (yet) that this is a conscious decision on the part of the writers. BUT but.. I like it and I won't write that off as a possibility. Thank you!

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

What I saw was Sam believing that Dean was ok to bring up the rear - as he usually is. Sam has been showing concern for Dean but also seeming to believe him when he says he's ok.

Yeah, exactly. I can maybe cut people a little slack for not realizing just how quickly it all happened, since the cuts in and out of Dean's dream visions took us out of time a little bit. But it was, what, a minute or two, maybe? that Sam was under the mistaken impression that Dean could be trusted to exit a room without direct supervision. I can understand people being a little like "what huh?" And again, I don't think there's any need to defend a subjective reaction of just not having liked it. But when there's lots of people repeating over and over that IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE?!?!? like that's some objective critique of the show and nobody brings up the very reasonable argument for YES, IT REALLY DOES, that's not a good faith conversation. That's just trying to spoil other people's fun.

And yeah, you know I don't care if it's conscious authorial intent, but I would argue that it's very much consistent and explicit that Sam is going back and forth with himself about what's going on with Dean. Just limiting this to S10 and what I can pull off the top of my head: he directly brought it up at the beginning and end of 10x4, at the end of 10x6, he questioned what Dean was saying in 10x7, there was the "for the first time?" exchange in 10x8, and then that long lingering shot of Sam staring at the Mark at the beginning of 10x9, all leading up to that last WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU scene. And after that pile-up of evidence, I don't think it's reasonable to assume "oh, well, obviously this totally stops affecting him when he's not saying so directly!" Sam's rational observations and his gut instincts are telling him he is not safe, but his love for and need to think the best of Dean is getting in the way of him facing it head-on. So I don't think going on about how STUPID SAM IS BEING OMG is called for - less because I don't like people trash-talking Sam, and more because I think when you look at everything that's happening the truth is much closer to "it's a wonder he's functioning at all when he's this afraid to deal with the threat that Dean poses to him."

ANYWAY YES I am really enjoying myself this season! I would love to see more people getting as much of a kick out of it as I am.

[quickreaver.livejournal.com]

The potential of cognitive dissonance, wow, yes...I can totally buy that, now that you make mention of it!

Not sure what we can do about "tone policing," though, except to try to be as mindful of our own words as possible. (I could certainly be kinder.) Personally, I don't tend to gripe if someone is overly gushy or overly dour, as a general ambiance, but I will bristle if someone seems dogmatically hateful to a character...by their word choice or clear, stubborn bias.

It's tough to be calm and analytical in the face of "I hate 'X' because he did this to my beloved 'Y'! And that's my opinion and you can't convince me otherwise." Goodness knows there's plenty of that behavior out there.

It's probably best to avoid those folks in general, or you'll just be spinning your wheels in the mud.

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

It's tough to be calm and analytical in the face of "I hate 'X' because he did this to my beloved 'Y'! And that's my opinion and you can't convince me otherwise." Goodness knows there's plenty of that behavior out there.

See, it doesn't bother me when people are just upfront with that kind of reaction. I probably won't want to make friends with someone who gets like that about Sam or to a slightly lesser extent Cas, but w/e, their loss, IMO people who come out and tell me I should avoid them are doing me a favor. It's when people deny they're having that kind of reaction and try to cloak it in (frex) some willfully selective "critique" of ~the writers. "Oh, I love Sam and I'm totally against character-bashing, I just wish THE WRITERS wouldn't make him SO STUPID and turn him into someone who DOESN'T LOVE HIS BROTHER." That's character bashing with a side of disingenuousness, and I do get annoyed when enough people fall for it (because after all, THEY SAID they're not being NEGATIVE!!) to make it my problem.