Does that mean an author can only write what you approve of?
No. It pretty much means I only enjoy what I enjoy. Which, I understand, is a tautological point. What I was trying to say is that I find reading a well-written characterization by a good writer, which gives me the impression that the good writer does not actually *like* the character in question, is more unpleasant to me than reading an awful, bashing characterization. The reason for this is that in the latter instance, I can dismiss the characterization as bad writing, as being written by someone who obviously was pushing her own agenda instead of writing thoughtfully, insightfully, and skillfully about the canon we all know and love.
In the former instance, I rarely am able to dismiss the characterization because the other characters, and the piece on the whole, is *good*, and the characterization itself is well-handled. And yet, there's something about it giving me a negative vibe: the parts from canon are all there but they are off kilter, the focus is shifted onto traits the character *has* but that I don't think is the center of that character's existence, and over all, there's the impression that this intelligent, insightful writer looked at this character, saw all the faults I see, saw all the greatness I see--and still doesn't love the character, doesn't *feel* what I feel is so special about him/her. And that? Distresses me. It is expecting everyone who is logical and intelligent to like what I like, and that is narrow-minded and perverse. That's also how I feel, when someone writes a character and I read between the lines that they don't like said character.
And how do you know that they have only tried to write a particular character? How do you know that isn't how they really see them?
I don't know. As I said to someone above: it's concievable that I could read a Buffy by a Buffy-lover, and still come away with the impression that the author secretly hated Buffy and was only trying to write Buffy as she did for the purposes of loyalty to canon. It's also concievable that I could read a Buffy by a Buffy-hater, and come away with the impression that the author loves Buffy and portrayed her this way out of love. But I have rarely found those instances to be the case. It's more often that when I recieve that impression, that the writer does, actually, hate Buffy.
Why can't somebody write them the way that they really feel? You can still like a character, and think they are a bit of a jerk sometimes.
This is pretty much the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about writers who don't like the characters, and try to write like they like them, out of respect for canon, good writing, and possibly other people's points of view. Of course, as you pointed out, I sometimes have no way of *knowing* whether or not the writer likes the character, and whether the writer is writing them this way out of love or out of an attempt to respect what they cannot like. And I am not dogging on these writers for being "insincere"--the *effort* to write characters they don't like with care and respect is certainly a sincere effort. And I'm not talking about a writer who doesn't like a character, and who writes with truth and skill about that characters flaws--I often love characters *because* of their flaws.
And what if you think that the writers on the show have got it wrong? ...So, are we wrong for writing him differently?
I have difficulty with the premise that canon is "wrong." Canon just is. Do I think they fucked with Cordy's character S3 of Angel? I sure do. But it's there. I'm not going to discard the things she said and did just because I didn't agree with them.
That said, we all have our interpretations of canon. As I said above to someone else: my B/A is not your B/A is not Joss Whedon's B/A. I am happy with that state of affairs. I love seeing new and different interpretations. And in my head, I really appreciate it when someone tries to respect the characters I love, by not bashing them, by attempting to write them justly and fairly. But when such efforts fail, I *feel* that reading those efforts is actually more distasteful than if they hadn't tried at all.
no subject
No. It pretty much means I only enjoy what I enjoy. Which, I understand, is a tautological point. What I was trying to say is that I find reading a well-written characterization by a good writer, which gives me the impression that the good writer does not actually *like* the character in question, is more unpleasant to me than reading an awful, bashing characterization. The reason for this is that in the latter instance, I can dismiss the characterization as bad writing, as being written by someone who obviously was pushing her own agenda instead of writing thoughtfully, insightfully, and skillfully about the canon we all know and love.
In the former instance, I rarely am able to dismiss the characterization because the other characters, and the piece on the whole, is *good*, and the characterization itself is well-handled. And yet, there's something about it giving me a negative vibe: the parts from canon are all there but they are off kilter, the focus is shifted onto traits the character *has* but that I don't think is the center of that character's existence, and over all, there's the impression that this intelligent, insightful writer looked at this character, saw all the faults I see, saw all the greatness I see--and still doesn't love the character, doesn't *feel* what I feel is so special about him/her. And that? Distresses me. It is expecting everyone who is logical and intelligent to like what I like, and that is narrow-minded and perverse. That's also how I feel, when someone writes a character and I read between the lines that they don't like said character.
And how do you know that they have only tried to write a particular character? How do you know that isn't how they really see them?
I don't know. As I said to someone above: it's concievable that I could read a Buffy by a Buffy-lover, and still come away with the impression that the author secretly hated Buffy and was only trying to write Buffy as she did for the purposes of loyalty to canon. It's also concievable that I could read a Buffy by a Buffy-hater, and come away with the impression that the author loves Buffy and portrayed her this way out of love. But I have rarely found those instances to be the case. It's more often that when I recieve that impression, that the writer does, actually, hate Buffy.
Why can't somebody write them the way that they really feel? You can still like a character, and think they are a bit of a jerk sometimes.
This is pretty much the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about writers who don't like the characters, and try to write like they like them, out of respect for canon, good writing, and possibly other people's points of view. Of course, as you pointed out, I sometimes have no way of *knowing* whether or not the writer likes the character, and whether the writer is writing them this way out of love or out of an attempt to respect what they cannot like. And I am not dogging on these writers for being "insincere"--the *effort* to write characters they don't like with care and respect is certainly a sincere effort. And I'm not talking about a writer who doesn't like a character, and who writes with truth and skill about that characters flaws--I often love characters *because* of their flaws.
And what if you think that the writers on the show have got it wrong? ...So, are we wrong for writing him differently?
I have difficulty with the premise that canon is "wrong." Canon just is. Do I think they fucked with Cordy's character S3 of Angel? I sure do. But it's there. I'm not going to discard the things she said and did just because I didn't agree with them.
That said, we all have our interpretations of canon. As I said above to someone else: my B/A is not your B/A is not Joss Whedon's B/A. I am happy with that state of affairs. I love seeing new and different interpretations. And in my head, I really appreciate it when someone tries to respect the characters I love, by not bashing them, by attempting to write them justly and fairly. But when such efforts fail, I *feel* that reading those efforts is actually more distasteful than if they hadn't tried at all.