In femslash the object of desire is a woman so I suspect most SI readers who are attracted to women will be fine with it.

But it also adds the additional complication of a female MC, which for some may act as an independent barrier.

For me, I would read it if it was fem!Harry centric but if it's any other character then that's going to undermine my interest in the story.

Because that's one thing I didn't mention in the OP: for me, the Third Party reading experience is so lackluster compared to the SI reading experience that it just doesn't interest me. It's the difference between experiencing something for yourself vs. being told about it.

 

I've been meaning to write a response to this for a few days but have kept putting it off. Instead, I'm just going to pose a comment/question.

Do people think this related to the not insignificant fraction of the fandom community that stubbornly refuses to tag the pairing type on AO3? I find it rather grating that I commonly can't filter out slash fics because many authors refuse to use the slash tag and I have taken a look at Reddit to see comments about this being bombarded by accusations of homophobia.

I've generally just assumed that most of these people are hypocrites who would instantly nope out of a femslash fic, but the Si reader/3rd person reader comments raise interesting points. I suspect now it's a mixture of both.

Edit: I am curious to see what response Taure's comments would get on Reddit.

 

I don't think I've ever stumbled on a slash fic accidentally.....

 

Is this a response to me?

 

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion of:

• If you are a Third Party Reader, you will enjoy reading any (well-written) relationship regardless of your own preferences.

I consider myself a strongly Third Party Reader yet I don't enjoy slash, nor seek it out, cause I don't find the idea of "watching two other people kissing, a fly on the wall" (from Taure's explanation of TPR) appealing when it's two male characters, no matter how well-written the relationship is.

 

I'm also mostly a SI reader so if a character that I'm locked on to acts too out of my comfort zone (which is quite wide tbh), I won't be able to continue.

My main problem with most slash stories though is the Slash style writing. Even if the story itself isn't slash, such a writing method is too out of how I perceive the world for me to be able to enjoy the story for too long.

 

To you and all other "SI readers" or even "Third Party readers" how do you even read other fiction? I understand if you just read fanfiction to primarily fantasize of doing/living the character's life, but how do you read other books?

I read Macbeth and I couldn't really say I saw myself in those characters and yet I enjoyed it immensely. I've read many novels and I never experienced it the way you do. The only slightly similar experience was reading a novel where the character goes a bit mad and it really shook me in a way I've never before or after been shaken.

I'll have to ask real life people because I suspect people reading fanfiction may experience stuff differently.

 

It's a bit weird to be perfectly honest but sometimes even if it's not the main character you just pick a character like a duckling and view the story from that angle.

Additionally I can't say that I enjoy jumping between PoV s all that much for that very reason alone.

 

And that is the reason I only read genre fiction with heroic protagonists - other forms of fiction do not deliver the reading experience I am looking for.

Most of the fantasy genre allows broadly the same reading experience as fanfic. But not always. I distinctly remember throwing Assassin's Apprentice across the room, never to be reopened, because I found the protagonist's viewpoint and decisions so alienating.

It's a double edged sword. On the one hand, you certainly limit the range of fiction you're interested in if you're an SI reader. But on the other hand, the reading experience from an SI perspective is so enjoyable and absorbing that I can't help but feel some pity for those who don't/can't experience fiction in that way.

 

Based on the responses here, it seems that men are far more likely to be SI readers than women are.

It wouldn't surprise me as until relatively recently, you rarely ever saw female main characters outside romance. This would mean that most women raised in the 80s and 90s primarily read books centered around a male POV.

This would explain a lot with the history of fanfiction too. It used to be a male dominated activity until the rise of the internet. Many older fanfic writers used fanfiction as a way to increase diversity (usually gender) in old fandoms like Star Trek. I've also heard that slash became popular as it was a way to write romance without having to deal with the gender issues in the fandoms.

It would also explain the differences in gen x, who have much more diversity to choose from when reading. It wouldn't surprise me if younger female readers are more into SI than us older generations.

Personally, I have no problems with slash as long as it's a good story. The biggest problem I have with it is I'm not a romance fan and most slash stories are heavily focused on romance. It's also why I tend to dislike Fleur/Harry pairings.

 

Now this is an interesting post, and makes clear the hidden premises that were confusing in the OP. I have to ask, Taure--do you not enjoy any fiction outside of the fantasy genre? What about movies? Do indie films that intend to educate their audience, like a serious novel might, not hold your interest? If not, that strikes me as odd, given your wide range of interests.

For SI readers, fanfiction is basically just wish-fulfillment. You read whatever gets you off. smut or not. I'd argue that 90% of fanfic readers and writers fall into this category. There's nothing wrong with that, but DLP pretends to judge fanfiction on 'objective' merits. We look at a story that's up for review, and evaluate it based on grammar, plot, characterization, originality, avoidance of cliches, etc. That's a 'third-party' perspective that has nothing to do with whether one enjoys the SI aspects of the fic (i.e., whether it's fun to imagine oneself being the protagonist).

What gives DLP its 'elitist' reputation in fanfiction circles is our willingness to judge wish-fulfillment fics by the standards of 'real' (i.e, third party) fics. Why else do harem fics suck? By using these distinctions to argue against slash, you're basically undermining the whole point of reviewing something objectively. If the whole point of writing is to provide the reader with a fantasy that scratches their particular itch, what's the point of pretending that we're objective? At most, we can say that some fics are better at satisfying our tastes than others.

 

Like Taure said, there's a fair amount of original fiction that can deliver the same experience, especially in the genre of fantasy and some in science fiction. These are the series that I enjoy the most, and often the ones that stick with me.
It's also a large part of what attracts me to fanfiction. Stories like Harry Potter and Naruto create fantastic worlds but issues I have with the main character either prevent me from enjoying it to the fullest (former) or even force me to drop it entirely (latter). Fanfiction then gives an opportunity to read a story set in that world that I love, minus the hang-ups that were irritating me.
Stories that provide no opportunity for immersing myself, like your example of Macbeth? I may read them. I may enjoy them, especially aspects that display really masterful writing. But my enjoyment will never reach the same heights as it will while reading, say, the Percy Jackson series. It's not to say I think my favorite stories are higher quality, or that I can't recognize the great quality in the other story, just that there's a reason they're my favorites, and it comes down to how I read them.

 

We got over the whole "elite fanfiction" thing a while ago, I think. It was part of DLP's teenage edgelord phase.

I think most members now recognise that when it comes to any form of creative or artistic endeavour, there is no getting around preferences, no matter how much you try to dress things up as objective - as they say, there is no accounting for taste.

DLP does not just rate fics by whether the author has managed to string a sentence together in correct English (perhaps the only real objective measure). We all bring to any given review our own preferences as to what a good story constitutes and what we are looking for in fanfic. As for the library, that has utility primarily because DLP contains like-minded individuals, whose aggregate opinions approximate a reliable predictor of what other people who share those same opinions enjoy. DLP has never marketed itself as a site committed to finding fics of "universal" appeal - that would be an impossibility. There is no such thing as universal appeal, nor an "objectively good" piece of art.

Rather, the site was founded as a site for a specific kind of fic. The clue is in the name of the site, but in case it's ambiguous, here's the message Zev sent out to the first members of the site:

 

Eh, I would disagree with this, and there's no need to educate me on the purpose of the site. The countless threads about writing well have nothing to do with writing for a particular audience. 'There's good writing and there's bad writing' is the constant refrain. Witness all the 2/5 reviews because someone uses too many adverbs, too many synonyms for 'said,' or simply has too many goblins.

If anything, DLP has grown more open-minded in terms of preferences, and more rigorous in terms of style. You still didn't address the primary concern of my last post: that your preference for SI dismisses most serious fiction as boring, and that objections to slash amount to little more than 'eh, I don't like slash.' That's fine, but why not just say that instead of endorsing one-half of a distinction that undermines the act of criticism itself?

 

Well, the conversation after your comment looks very interesting. One reason I have gotten into fanfiction is that I kind of am a "SI reader" as you so called it. I do lose myself in fiction and I do take a journey that may live on in my head for a long time and further the story. However I don't exactly "imprint" on one character/main character. I can't explain it well, but I'm mostly imprinting on every character's aspect that I find relatable; that I recognise and have experienced. At times I'm the main character, at others I may be their friend or their enemy etc. So while I do read like a SI I insert myself most everywhere and it doesn't put me off at all if the character's actions are not what I'd do.

I'd never really given it much thought, I supposed that that was how everyone read. And I pointed out Macbeth, because that was one book that, while good, I had a lot of trouble of immersing myself in the story. Something that was no issue with Hamlet for example, or even more so with A midsummer's night dream (to keep with Shakespeare that I've read).

Man I've yet to read a Fleur/Harry pairing story that I've enjoyed. I don't enjoy romance for the romance and it seems like Fleur/Harry (at least the stories I've stumbled upon) are too close to slash/smut; ie sex/romance self-fulfilment. Which I'm firmly not into (I'm into actual stories...that have a plot).

I understand your point, but I think that you have not taken into account the "slash style". That criticism is true even if someone isn't into slash. But well, most fanfiction is shit and I'm sure I've read slash that's not all bad (or at least not at the beginning). Second string is slash and I wouldn't say that's it really fits into "slash style", and for fanfiction is actually good (at least up to a part, I think after like half the story it gets weird).

 

You're eliding two separate concepts.

Proper technical writing is necessary for a story to be good, but it is not sufficient. A story is not just form, it is also substance. A good story - that is to say, a story which the reader enjoys - must contain more than simply correct English and properly executed style. It must contain content which is in line with the reader's preferences.

Your argument amounts to "DLP cares about good form; therefore substance is irrelevant to DLP". But that's not a valid deduction. The fact that DLP cares about good technical writing is unrelated to the fact that it has content preferences. Members review fics on the basis of the content they like in fics, and always have done so, and DLP would lose its essential essence if it instead attempted to appeal to the entire fandom.

???

The entire OP is a fairly clear statement of "I don't like slash". Not sure where you thought it was anything other than that. It simply goes into the detail of why I don't like slash, and how different people's reading experiences may impact their ability to understand others' relationship with slash. Judging by the number of people who say they are "SI readers" in this thread, and the number of people who have recognised the features of the "slash style" I outlined (which, again, is all a matter of preference), it was a worthwhile observation.

As for "serious fiction", I do not recognise any such thing as existing outside of college English Literature departments. Historically speaking, Shakespeare himself was the MCU of his era - entertainment for the masses. There is nothing inferior or unserious about genre fiction or in telling a story for a story's sake. Indeed, if anything, I would identify such fiction as the heart of the human instinct to tell stories, and if there is any fiction out there which is inferior, it is the whole body of "literary fiction" which came about as a kind of perversion of that spirit.

------

Back on topic:

I was reflecting on the SI reading experience in the shower, and contemplating why it is that I strongly dislike literal SI fics (i.e. a fic in which the main character is explicitly a self-insert). And it occurred to me that, somewhat ironically, SI fics are actually heavily predisposed to be read in the Third Person mode. The way they break the fourth wall, make meta-references, etc, is constantly immersion breaking; the fact that the main character is explicitly also a reader of the work and ostensibly a "real" person prevents you from being able to properly immerse yourself in the character and world, because the essential nature of the story is to draw you out of it and keep you at a distance.

I therefore suspect that those people who are able to enjoy SI fics are actually not SI Readers but rather Third Party readers.

@Lindsey Interestingly, I have never found female MCs to break my SI reading experience (probably unsurprising given my works). Nor, for that matter, does the main character's race have any impact on my SI reading experience.

I think it is an over-simplification to state that the SI reader looks for a character who reflects their own characteristics or experiences, or even experiences that the reader aspires to have. Certainly, I do not aspire to be an orphan or locked in a cupboard and starved and repeatedly attacked by a murderer.

But the character's actions can still alienate you from them, as an SI reader, if (for example) they start making decisions you feel are stupid.

So I would phrase it like this: the main character doesn't have to have the same characteristics, experiences, or even opinions as me. Part of the reading experience is not just imagining yourself in that character's shoes, but also imagining yourself as having that character's past, experiences, etc. So if a character acts in a way that feels true to themselves, and I am imagining that I myself have shared their formative experiences, then that action will also feel true to me - within certain limits. It still has to be within a range of what I consider me-compatible actions. The character cannot do anything that, if I were in their shoes with their experiences, I still could not see myself ever wanting to do. And being attracted to people I am not attracted to is one of those things, as is doing something intensely stupid or self-destructive.

What this says about me, I think, is that my sexuality is actually a much greater part of my self-identity than my gender is.

 

I don't disagree with any of this. I was stating that DLP has a reputation for endorsing only the 'best' fanfiction in the fandom. The touting of the DLP c2 is a prime example. This reputation derives partly from its members insistence that we judge by objective criteria. When DLP says a story is bad, we don't usually say, 'this story doesn't suit DLP's tastes.' We say, 'this story is bad, and you should feel bad for liking it.' And the arguments in favor of it being bad usually reference its technical aspects, as well as its plot and characterization. (I know, not all DLP, but give me a break). I'm only saying that we should give up all pretense of being an objective evaluator of fanfiction if we accept your distinctions. Claiming that 'we did that a long time ago' is ridiculous. Do you still read reviews of new fics?

This is all that I wanted to hear you admit. Enough said, except that you're only right about Shakespeare's comedies.

 

Plot and characterisation are not technical aspects, and there is no such thing as an objectively good plot or an objectively interesting character.

It's possible to point out obviously bad characterisation - for example, bashing - but the absence of bad is not the same thing as good. And even then, calling this obviously bad depends on a shared preference - the idea that characters should act in realistic ways. That's a fairly widespread preference, so you can usually be safe in criticising characters for lack of realism, but it is ultimately still just a preference - not objective.

A good example of this is The Green Knight, which I saw yesterday. It employs a mythic type of storytelling where character motivations are not always that clear and often their actions appear rather bizarre. But I don't think it's much of a criticism of the Green Knight to say the characters are dumb who don't think things through, because "characters act in realistic ways" is not one of the axioms of that type of storytelling. All you can really say is "This type of storytelling is not for me; I prefer more grounded types of stories where characters act in more realistic ways".

Alternatively, take for example the "slash style" in my OP. Clearly I dislike those elements. But is there anything objectively bad about an author making Harry a whiny little bitch, contrary to his canon self? Certainly not. Canon-compliance is a preference; characters who aren't whiny is a preference.

DLP reviews often comment on plot and characterisation, but I think only the most pretentious reviewers will consider their plot and characterisation preferences as some universal value system that all the world must accept. To the extent that reviews couch comments in universal terms, it's precisely because DLP is a community of relatively like-minded individuals; within the DLP universe, our shared subjective preferences have the appearance of being universal or objective. But the phrasing of criticism in purportedly universal terms is just a shorthand way of expressing shared subjective preferences.

Also, largely irrelevant but I hate to burst your bubble - the wider fandom does not perceive DLP as some elite bastion of quality and objective analysis. Mostly they think we're assholes.

 

Agreed, which is why I said 'technical aspects,' as well as plot and characterization.

Frankly, this entire argument is surreal to me. My tastes mostly overlap with everyone else's here. But the readers who object to DLP's system for evaluating fics would be stunned by your reasoning, Taure. That's because almost all non-DLP readers are SI readers, and a good fic for them is defined by the effectiveness of the wish-fulfillment. The quality of the writing is secondary.

Using your distinctions, the most common accusation leveled against DLP is that we use 'third party' criticisms against 'SI-style' fics (almost all of them), which is, according to them, unfair. Read any review of a new fic, and you'll see that their point is true. DLP is perceived, by me and others, as literally the only site that cares about more than whether a story gets your particular rocks off. So to hear you so brazenly dismiss objectivity in literary criticism is bizarre. I would have expected you to favor the third-party approach, given your background in law and philosophy. I have more to say, but have to bail until later tonight.

 

I think you have misunderstood some key element of the OP. A fic is neither an SI fic or a Third Party fic. It is the reader who reads in an SI or Third Party manner; any given story can be read either in an SI or Third Party way, depending on the reader.

For example, I will read any Harry-centric fic in a SI manner (including fem!Harry), regardless of the content. I will read any non-Harry centric fic in a Third Party way, regardless of the content.

Gengar, on the other hand, reads male characters in an SI manner but female characters in a Third Party manner.

So a fem!Harry fic is for me an SI type fic but for Gengar a Third Party type fic.

Crucially, "third party" does not mean "objective", and "SI" does not mean "subjective". These terms simply refer to the relationship between the reader and the point of view character. The relationship of the reader to the main character is not the same thing as the logical basis for any given criticism a reader may choose to level at a fic.

As for that criticism, as I argue for above, all criticism of a fic outside the purely technical is subjective and dictated by preferences, whether the reader is an SI type reader or a third party type reader. The third party reader still has preferences, and can make subjective criticism of a story on the basis of those preferences. For example, they may enjoy stories which feature certain genres, or certain characters, or certain tropes. It's simply that they do not project their own sense of self into the point of view character. That is the only distinction that the "SI" vs. "Third Party" vocabulary captures.

The third party reader is not a philosophical zombie without any preferences who has achieved some kind of literary zen where they have unique access to the objective truth of a story's quality. They are just a reader who relates to the main character in a slightly different way to the SI reader.