-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are you a "curative" or "transformative" fan? (of comics / games / TV shows, etc.)
- Thread starter jgwhiteus
- Start date
- Status
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
awwww *_____* ok ok i will try
but that's such a cute duck pic thoughhhh *______*
man ducks are awesome.... cept the ones that are unnecessarily aggressive :<
Curative. Transformative undermines the creator in my eyes - characters can be morphed to act differently or whatever, and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't but often it does not fit the intended characterisation completely. Transformative bypasses the strain in creating a consistent world with characters that people are attached to and allows people I don't know, a cheap way in.
I suppose its more because I like writing though.
I suppose its more because I like writing though.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I guess I tend more towards curative, but I'm not sure. I like well-written fan-fiction, but I find that well-written fan-fiction is tiny speck of insignificance in the howling wastelands of putrid excrement that is fan-fiction in general. However, my qualifier for 'well-written' isn't necessarily 'cleaves closely to original material', but 'well-paced prose, engaging characters, satisfying plot'. As such, I'm not really sure if I'm innately curative, or simply align with curative because the majority of fan-fiction is very bad indeed.
I also strongly dislike shipping just because I don't understand why you'd ship in the first place. I don't find any independent value in two characters forming a relationship separate from how that contributes to the narrative. Again, that isn't to say I can't tolerate all fan-fiction invented-relationships - I can think of maybe... 2? off the top of my head where I appreciated the invented-relationship because it added to the aim of and development of that particular piece of fan-fiction - but the vast majority really just does come across as sexual wish fulfilment. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but my sexual wishes don't revolve around fictional characters.
I also strongly dislike shipping just because I don't understand why you'd ship in the first place. I don't find any independent value in two characters forming a relationship separate from how that contributes to the narrative. Again, that isn't to say I can't tolerate all fan-fiction invented-relationships - I can think of maybe... 2? off the top of my head where I appreciated the invented-relationship because it added to the aim of and development of that particular piece of fan-fiction - but the vast majority really just does come across as sexual wish fulfilment. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but my sexual wishes don't revolve around fictional characters.
Curative. I'm not a creative type. I'm not at war with transformative fandom, I don't really care about fanfiction. It has failed me once too many: the one Naruto fanfiction I read years ago that turned out to be better than the manga that followed for which I'll never forgive that fanfiction. I mainly apply that curative fandom to The Vampire Diaries though, where I'm sure as a straight male, I'm outnumbered by a longshot.
I've definitely experienced being on both sides of that particular coin; for some fandoms I'm much more on the curative side of things, collecting info and discussing canon, while on others I'm smack-dab in transformative, writing and reviewing fanfic and being much more engaged in the "what-ifs" than the hard facts.
A lot of the time these different parts of fandom can get along pretty well, but I've also seen cases where there's tension between the two halves, especially in cases where members of the fandom feel the canon material wasn't up to scratch. When that's happened, I see groups very dedicated to the source material go up against groups that prefer to replace or fill in gaps, and it tends to end in bad blood. For example: say a character in backstory wasn't given a lot of detail. Fans come in and begin to interpret them in their own ways. Down the line, that character is given a few more details that then, from a canon standpoint, totally break a lot of the fan works. Who "wins" in that case? At the end of the day, canon is canon, but is it really healthy to police fanworks to say "no, writer X said factoid Y was true, therefore this thing you've invested time in is invalid"? That's a bit of an exaggeration, but you see what I mean.
I know the prevailing view of fandoms tends to write it all off as either hard-curative - Comic Book Guy - or hard-transformative - Strawman Tumblr Yaoi Fangirl - but I think the two halves interact much more than that. There's a lot of really fascinating sociological angles to fandom that I think tend to get brushed under the rug.
A lot of the time these different parts of fandom can get along pretty well, but I've also seen cases where there's tension between the two halves, especially in cases where members of the fandom feel the canon material wasn't up to scratch. When that's happened, I see groups very dedicated to the source material go up against groups that prefer to replace or fill in gaps, and it tends to end in bad blood. For example: say a character in backstory wasn't given a lot of detail. Fans come in and begin to interpret them in their own ways. Down the line, that character is given a few more details that then, from a canon standpoint, totally break a lot of the fan works. Who "wins" in that case? At the end of the day, canon is canon, but is it really healthy to police fanworks to say "no, writer X said factoid Y was true, therefore this thing you've invested time in is invalid"? That's a bit of an exaggeration, but you see what I mean.
I know the prevailing view of fandoms tends to write it all off as either hard-curative - Comic Book Guy - or hard-transformative - Strawman Tumblr Yaoi Fangirl - but I think the two halves interact much more than that. There's a lot of really fascinating sociological angles to fandom that I think tend to get brushed under the rug.
I totally agree with you here, especially the last part. I jokingly call myself a fandom anthropologist, but I find the whole thing really interesting.
As for your example, we have a term for that in the circles I run in, it's called being Jossed. Most fanfic writers I've run into shrug it off. Some get weird about it, and that's when I stop following them. I mean, we're writing fanfic, it's not like canon events are that sacred
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Jossed
Ah, yeah, I'm definitely familiar with Jossing! (I've done my time in the TV Tropes mines.) The reason it came to mind for me is that I'm in one fandom which had a very large downtime in canon media, and in that gap occasionally the writers would say "oh, here's a detail about character X" or "if the story had gone on we would have revealed fact Y" and so it was a constantly-evolving set of 'canon' after the original ending point of the story, where transformative work was the only 'new' material. This is also a fandom with a very large curative contingency, so it was kind of a perfect storm. (I guess you can kind of compare the situation to Doctor Who and its hiatus, with the key difference that here there was still someone to declare "this is canon now", and there was an existing emphasis on transformative works.)
Agreed on the fandom anthropology thing, too - as an undergrad a few classes I took brushed on fandom as a social construct, and if I had pursued sociology I think I would've tried to do a deeper academic dive on the concept.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Rose is the be all end all in the Doctor Who fandom because she's the ultimate self-insertion character. You can't imagine yourself as Martha because she failed to 'win' the Doctor, you can't imagine yourself as Donna because she has an actual strongly defined personality (and is therefore the best companion), Amy gives you less freedom as a self-insert character because you're tied to Rory, and Clara has an entire episode aimed at subtly jibing the fandom community over shipping so your self-awareness has to be fairly minimal to use her.
Buffy and Sherlock have better fanfiction because Buffy and Sherlock have strongly defined casts that provide stronger crutches to fan-fic authors. The Doctor's personality changes every few seasons and quite a few of his companions are pretty empty/poorly defined so fanfiction writers have to create more substance to those characters. That's the most difficult part of writing. I'd be willing to be a pretty penny that the Doctor/companion pairing with the highest quality fan-fic will be Tennant/Donna. In contrast, for Sherlock/Buffy I could probably write a paragraph each on every character's temperament, desires, ambitions, and personality without stretching.
Buffy and Sherlock have better fanfiction because Buffy and Sherlock have strongly defined casts that provide stronger crutches to fan-fic authors. The Doctor's personality changes every few seasons and quite a few of his companions are pretty empty/poorly defined so fanfiction writers have to create more substance to those characters. That's the most difficult part of writing. I'd be willing to be a pretty penny that the Doctor/companion pairing with the highest quality fan-fic will be Tennant/Donna. In contrast, for Sherlock/Buffy I could probably write a paragraph each on every character's temperament, desires, ambitions, and personality without stretching.
As for your example, we have a term for that in the circles I run in, it's called being Jossed. Most fanfic writers I've run into shrug it off. Some get weird about it, and that's when I stop following them. I mean, we're writing fanfic, it's not like canon events are that sacred
What do they call it when officially sanctioned canon gets thrown out or completely overwritten, as in the case of the Star Wars Expanded Universe? "We got Disney'ed!"
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It can be quite hard to avoid. For example, I really enjoy the Fire Emblem games but I rarely go into GAF's Fire Emblem community thread because the odds are reasonable they'll be talking about waifus. Similarly, I really enjoy Avatar: the Last Airbender but it is 100% impossible to have a conversation of more than the briefest length without someone bringing up shipping; that fandom is crazy.
True Savior
Member
None.
I like things that stimulate my sensory perception. But i dont get attached to everything that provides me enjoyment.
I like things that stimulate my sensory perception. But i dont get attached to everything that provides me enjoyment.
What is the first oldest fandom? Tolkein?
I imagine most people writing Doctor Who stuff probably only picked it up after the recent reboot.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Yea, it's not like I don't understand this XD
.... Actually all the shows I'm following, I avoid their fandoms actively. It's just like going into a very intense room full with very, very, very ... uh, passionate people.... :x Kinda bowled me over.
The only fandom I sort of find okay is the Fannibals, atm. I avoid SPN fandom with great fear....
I don't know. I've seen what you'd call hardcore "curative" fans obsessively interpret things to such an insane degree that I'd say they become transformative. For example I remember that ridiculous prediction on how The Matrix trilogy would end, back before the last one was released.
Usually this kind of stuff is curative fans obsessing over canon to a much greater degree than the author(s).
Usually this kind of stuff is curative fans obsessing over canon to a much greater degree than the author(s).
not psycho
Member
I don't really understand the distinction. The examples they give are:
Curative: what would happen if the characters fought?
Transformative: what would happen if _____?
So they're the same, except curative is limited to fighting? That makes no sense. Maybe they mean to say curative is if you provide arguments based on canon?
In other words, if you wrote fan fiction, drew fan art, cosplayed, etc, but you based your choices for these on canon, and could provide arguments for why they made sense based on canon, then it would be curative.
If you wrote fan fiction, drew fan art, cosplayed, etc, intentionally going against what you believed to be canon, that would be transformative.
If that is what they mean, I would lean toward curative. I draw fan art which usually aligns with how I interpret the canon, and I think about new scenarios but I usually base the actions on how I perceive the character in the canon. Arguably, even a gender flipped fanart wouldn't be transformative, because there is no inherent tension between it and the canon unless you made it so the character literally had their gender switched. Re-imagining the characters into a totally different setting (like the Boss Luffy specials in One Piece, set in real world Japan) would also be curative, since it never requires conflicting with the canon?
Curative: what would happen if the characters fought?
Transformative: what would happen if _____?
So they're the same, except curative is limited to fighting? That makes no sense. Maybe they mean to say curative is if you provide arguments based on canon?
In other words, if you wrote fan fiction, drew fan art, cosplayed, etc, but you based your choices for these on canon, and could provide arguments for why they made sense based on canon, then it would be curative.
If you wrote fan fiction, drew fan art, cosplayed, etc, intentionally going against what you believed to be canon, that would be transformative.
If that is what they mean, I would lean toward curative. I draw fan art which usually aligns with how I interpret the canon, and I think about new scenarios but I usually base the actions on how I perceive the character in the canon. Arguably, even a gender flipped fanart wouldn't be transformative, because there is no inherent tension between it and the canon unless you made it so the character literally had their gender switched. Re-imagining the characters into a totally different setting (like the Boss Luffy specials in One Piece, set in real world Japan) would also be curative, since it never requires conflicting with the canon?
As I understand it, a transformative action would be classified as such if it alters or perhaps significantly expands on some aspect of a universe (although the divide is really centered around characters) beyond the scope of the source material. While both may be interested in hypotheticals (what if), the curative operates primarily from the standpoint of what is, while the transformative is more interested in what could have been.
That's not to say that a curative only operates in that realmindeed, the example of two characters hypothetically duking it out is borne from a transformative mentalitybut the line between a curative and a transformative, if one is to draw one, should be drawn based on scope and breadth of change. Generally speaking, the curative will shy away from taking any liberties with characterization, opting instead to stay as "by-the-book" as possible, whereas a transformative generally has no issue with exploring aspects of a character that have been ignored by the creators or otherwise molding them into something new.
I personally think it more appropriate to view this curative versus transformative divide as less of a rigid dichotomy and more of a spectrum of behavior, with varying degrees of behavior within both camps. As someone else pointed out, for example, there are different approaches to handling development of established characters set in fan-invented scenarios: the in-character approach and the out-of-character approach. It's quite easy to identify the OOC approach as more transformative than the IC approach.
Corollary to that is that I believe it's far easier for visual art to be curative than fanfiction. With visual art, one can simply draw a scene from the work or a simple character portrait with minimal change to the source material. Fanfiction, however, relies on the invention of new and potentially intricate scenarios, which is inherently a transformative action. Naturally, it's up to the fan author to decide how the characters react within the context of these events.
tiggerkiddo
Member
Well since I am often inspired by stuff I read, watch or experience in general, I'm easily transformative. Don't write much in the way of fanfics but I have done it with no regrets.
Raonak
Banned
I'm a hobbyist game developer, so I'm definitely transformative.
lot of the time, I get inspired by story/gameplay elements that i really enjoy,
It's a feeling of I want to experience that awesomeness again, but add my own twists/improve things i didn't like.
That said, there are two things im definitely in the curative camp; Metal Gear, and One Piece. I am definitely inspired by them, but consider them to be hard to improve on.
lot of the time, I get inspired by story/gameplay elements that i really enjoy,
It's a feeling of I want to experience that awesomeness again, but add my own twists/improve things i didn't like.
That said, there are two things im definitely in the curative camp; Metal Gear, and One Piece. I am definitely inspired by them, but consider them to be hard to improve on.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
But how many times don't you get curative fans shitting all over the creator because they take a character or story in a direction they weren't originally predicting? Isn't that the same thing?
michaelius
Banned
Definitly curative.
Nothing pisses me off more than retcons or changes of already established characters.
Nothing pisses me off more than retcons or changes of already established characters.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Sure, but I don't know what that has to do with me. I don't like those people either, it makes me cringe every time I see people on Twitter bagging on someone about something like this. If I were a writer I probably wouldn't have a Twitter, because it seems like in this day and age if you're a creator of something and you leave yourself open on a public forum, you're just welcoming hundreds, if not thousands of people to act like they're your bosses.
I don't go around telling creators if I don't like something they do with their characters. It's their character, they should be doing whatever they want with it. It's their creation, and it's not my place to try and change what they're doing with it, even if I don't like it. If I don't like the direction a creator takes with their work I just simply stop partaking in it.
Late reply, but this is a gross oversimplification. Sure, the brony fandom produces a ridiculous amount of fanfiction and other fan works, but the show and official comics have plenty of curative fans as well, and many of the fan works are in fact curative in nature. I'd even go as far as to say that the majority of MLP fans are curative, though that's just my own impression.
As for myself, I'm much more curative than transformative, though I have dranw some (mostly curative) fanart and written a piece of (mostly curative) fanfiction. I do enjoy some transformative fan works but shake my head at others. So yeah, it's not clear-cut.
What does curative people think about other media adaptations ?
Because for me Nolan's Joker is as much Comic's Joker as Zilla is Godzilla. They KINDA look a like, have 10% of the same personality and have the same name
But ... it is THE canon version of Nolan's Batman
....can you be curative of Hitchyker's Guide to the Galaxy with its 32 author written adaptations that change important stuff in between ?
Because for me Nolan's Joker is as much Comic's Joker as Zilla is Godzilla. They KINDA look a like, have 10% of the same personality and have the same name
But ... it is THE canon version of Nolan's Batman
....can you be curative of Hitchyker's Guide to the Galaxy with its 32 author written adaptations that change important stuff in between ?
Bomber Bob
Banned
I'm a fan
I was definitely a transformative Ghostbusters fan.
I was part of a team, made a fan film that's climbing to ~ 400K hits, organized a 40+ person group that marched in the Boston St. Patty's Day parade, and generally plugged into all things Ghostbusters for about two years before moving onto real-world stuff.
I was part of a team, made a fan film that's climbing to ~ 400K hits, organized a 40+ person group that marched in the Boston St. Patty's Day parade, and generally plugged into all things Ghostbusters for about two years before moving onto real-world stuff.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think it's wrong to say that fanfic is innately a transformative process. I think that you can certainly have curative fanfic, or at least non-transformative fanfic - something like constructive fanfic, which explicitly avoids contradicting canon. Often, constructive fanfic takes part in the same universe but in a different timeframe or in a different place, so that the OCs don't meet the original cast during the events of the original work; or if they don't use OCs, constructive fanfic tends to be fan-sequels or fan-prequels that are intended to directly link to the original. In other words, they're canon-consistent. Transformative fanfic explicitly breaks canon.
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
Because people who are into shipping seem unable to discuss any other aspect of a work of fiction. They want their two characters to end up together, they make stupid little shorthand words for their desired pair, they get angry at people who have different shipping ideas (and arguments between two factions frequently derail discussions), and then they act like pissy little children if the show doesn't conform to their views on what they think it should be.
It's just a goddamn stupid thing to get emotionally involved in, and everyone involved in shipping seems to get excessively emotionally involved in it.
I align more with the transformative side of the fandom. As far as my anime fandom goes, I consider things like doujins and pixiv fanart (and fan music, etc.) to be as much a part of the fandom experience as any expanded universe material. And in the case of some modern shows, like Kantai Collection or iDOLM@STER Cinderella Girls, the shows basically wouldn't exist without fans taking the games' rather thin characterization and spinning it into something that can sustain an entire universe.
I get the appeal of the Wiki-style everything organized and correct stance, but transformative is the way to look deeper into it. While I lack the talent for drawing, fanart can often do some amazing things, and I'm sure everyone's tried their hand at fanfic at some point. Art doesn't cease to exist when it comes into contact with the fans.
Rather, that's merely the starting point.
I get the appeal of the Wiki-style everything organized and correct stance, but transformative is the way to look deeper into it. While I lack the talent for drawing, fanart can often do some amazing things, and I'm sure everyone's tried their hand at fanfic at some point. Art doesn't cease to exist when it comes into contact with the fans.
Rather, that's merely the starting point.
WyndhamPrice
Member
I've actually been thinking a lot about this particular tumblr post over the last week or so. Really interesting stuff I hadn't ever considered before.
I'm definitely more curative than transformative. I totally get why someone might lean the other way but I just have zero interest in fanfic (and related forms of expression) in general.
I'm also especially bothered by fan theory stuff that turns into a mandate for works in progress, and if the work in question doesn't turn out how a community prefers they get mad about it like the creator was under any obligation to conform to or care about their theories in the first place.
I'm definitely more curative than transformative. I totally get why someone might lean the other way but I just have zero interest in fanfic (and related forms of expression) in general.
I'm also especially bothered by fan theory stuff that turns into a mandate for works in progress, and if the work in question doesn't turn out how a community prefers they get mad about it like the creator was under any obligation to conform to or care about their theories in the first place.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
:O .... um. Why do you care so much about what other people do/talk about though?
As I have said before I dont really get involved in a lot of fandoms myself, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that shippers suck or "i hate shipping" etc. I just avoid them. Like... I dont go into threads that I think might annoy me to no ends in GAF. Same thing? No?
This reminds of a concept that's been lingering on my mind for a while, about how given any two characters in a work of fiction, men seem more likely to frame the pair as a "who would win" thing, while women seem more likely to go for a "shippability" discussion.
I wonder if there's a Death Battle equivalent for shipping... then again, I have no idea of what that would even look like - analyzing scenes where those characters are actually together and comparing all sort of affinities and temperaments?...
Beyond that, the curative/transformative thing seems like a false dychotomy - it's important to know what the facts and rules of a setting are to know how and why to deviate from them.
Then again, my pet fandom involves Japanese games whose canonical information is insufficiently available or translated - having palpable reliable sources is important, to make sure somebody's headcanon edit in a wiki isn't taken for truth, which is a risk when the fact are hidden behind a wall of kanji in books which aren't easily available.
There are also a lot of official works that walk a fine line between both tendencies:
- The Life and Times of Scrooge Mc Duck - Don Rosa is a really big fan of Carl Bark's Scrooge stories, so he put in the curative effort of cataloguing all backstory references in those, and wrote new stories based on them, often mentioning those were his interpretations.
- Crossover works like Super Robot Wars, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Namco X Capcom/Project X Zone - lots of references to minute details from the base works, some of which used to tie them into different works, while weaving original stories of their own.
I wonder if there's a Death Battle equivalent for shipping... then again, I have no idea of what that would even look like - analyzing scenes where those characters are actually together and comparing all sort of affinities and temperaments?...
Beyond that, the curative/transformative thing seems like a false dychotomy - it's important to know what the facts and rules of a setting are to know how and why to deviate from them.
Then again, my pet fandom involves Japanese games whose canonical information is insufficiently available or translated - having palpable reliable sources is important, to make sure somebody's headcanon edit in a wiki isn't taken for truth, which is a risk when the fact are hidden behind a wall of kanji in books which aren't easily available.
There are also a lot of official works that walk a fine line between both tendencies:
- The Life and Times of Scrooge Mc Duck - Don Rosa is a really big fan of Carl Bark's Scrooge stories, so he put in the curative effort of cataloguing all backstory references in those, and wrote new stories based on them, often mentioning those were his interpretations.
- Crossover works like Super Robot Wars, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Namco X Capcom/Project X Zone - lots of references to minute details from the base works, some of which used to tie them into different works, while weaving original stories of their own.
- Status