1. I prefer following canon but I'm open to good non-canon pairings (same-sex or otherwise) if the characterisation is fair and if they provide novel character analysis. Slash/gen/het/shipping as wishfulfilment has never been my thing. Avoiding shipping tends to make the fandom experience a rather odd one. 2. See 1. 3. Well-written f/f is awfully rare so I suppose I prefer m/m but it's mostly an issue of quality. 4. A year ago I would have said 'not a thing' but I've revised my opinion recently. I think my orientation plays a definite role - or rather, my experiences as far as my orientation goes plays a role. I prefer to avoid stereotypical behaviour or characterisation and I abhor labels. I've seen both good and bad in the fandoms I've passed through over the years. The good is when writers (of all orientations) treat the matter with respect and insight – treat the characters as people who react fundamentally the same, irrespective of orientation. The bad is when the orientation of a character becomes the single defining trait. It's unrealistic not to mention disrespectful. The acid test is the dreaded 'coming out' story. I've been a part of fandom for 15 years and I've read perhaps a handful coming out stories that didn't make me want to throttle the author-person. 5. I usually don't ship at all so it's not really a problem for me. 6. I love erotic fiction but most of the so-called erotic fan fiction I've read has been wildly unrealistic and, quite frankly, badly written. There seems to be a tendency for some writers to want to smash their favourite (male) characters together at all cost - apparently, if one man is sexy then two is just short of perfection. Well, if getting those two people together involves full-frontal character lobotomies then no, I don't like explicit sex at all. Cryptictac and asynca have both managed good slash with explicit sex, but it's hardly erotic. 7. I have no idea. '94-'95 perhaps? So, mid-twenties. I didn't read slash back in the 'zine days. 8. As if #4 wasn't probing enough *g*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-21 02:15 am (UTC)1. I prefer following canon but I'm open to good non-canon pairings (same-sex or otherwise) if the characterisation is fair and if they provide novel character analysis. Slash/gen/het/shipping as wishfulfilment has never been my thing. Avoiding shipping tends to make the fandom experience a rather odd one.
2. See 1.
3. Well-written f/f is awfully rare so I suppose I prefer m/m but it's mostly an issue of quality.
4. A year ago I would have said 'not a thing' but I've revised my opinion recently. I think my orientation plays a definite role - or rather, my experiences as far as my orientation goes plays a role. I prefer to avoid stereotypical behaviour or characterisation and I abhor labels. I've seen both good and bad in the fandoms I've passed through over the years. The good is when writers (of all orientations) treat the matter with respect and insight – treat the characters as people who react fundamentally the same, irrespective of orientation. The bad is when the orientation of a character becomes the single defining trait. It's unrealistic not to mention disrespectful. The acid test is the dreaded 'coming out' story. I've been a part of fandom for 15 years and I've read perhaps a handful coming out stories that didn't make me want to throttle the author-person.
5. I usually don't ship at all so it's not really a problem for me.
6. I love erotic fiction but most of the so-called erotic fan fiction I've read has been wildly unrealistic and, quite frankly, badly written. There seems to be a tendency for some writers to want to smash their favourite (male) characters together at all cost - apparently, if one man is sexy then two is just short of perfection. Well, if getting those two people together involves full-frontal character lobotomies then no, I don't like explicit sex at all. Cryptictac and asynca have both managed good slash with explicit sex, but it's hardly erotic.
7. I have no idea. '94-'95 perhaps? So, mid-twenties. I didn't read slash back in the 'zine days.
8. As if #4 wasn't probing enough *g*