Buy yourself a vidder redux!

[thuviaptarth]

Sad you didn't snag yourself a vidder for Sweet Charity? Fear not! The Vividcon Auction is here to give you another chance! The generous vidders up for grabs are: dualbunny, heresluck, jmtorres, lithium_doll (who apparently does not sleep), and sisabet.

Unrelated: I quite liked rahirah's post on the role of "canonicity" in the "defining gen" debate:

There's an unspoken presumption running through all these arguments that the person who interprets canon or character differently than you do is doing so not because they honestly see canon and character in that way, but because they really, really want to annoy you. Secretly they know that you're right, and all that subtext stuff they keep yammering on about? They're making it up.

And then again, you know, sometimes with story variation stuff, I am making it up. Though not usually to annoy you.

Comments

[katie-m.livejournal.com]

And yet then you get the "I'm just saying 'they're so doing it, it's canon!' because I'm talking to other people who like the pairing! It's shorthand!"

Grump.

I don't know. I think that there's something to the argument that the canonicity and lack thereof of pairings tends to be an unnecessarily... fraught topic, much more so than other issues. (Did Willow take aerobics every Wednesday throughout high school? Who knows! Who cares? Could have been!) I think that's partly just because fandom is so pairing-and-sex-oriented, and partly, for me at least, because I make the assumption that if characters want to fuck it will come up at some point onscreen in... "reality." And that sense of reality means something to me--once it's lost, I lose my connection with the story, and I'm here for story rather than for text.

So... I don't know. It's important to me to reserve the right to roll my eyes forever at people who see subtext that I think is wacko, so long as I'm not rude about it. (I suspect it's partly vocabulary that's tripping me up here; if someone used the word "possibility" instead of "subtext" I wouldn't get that same urge to eyeroll, because sure, possibilities are infinite, right?) It's important to me to give some respect... no, actually, let's say acknowledgement. It's important to me to acknowledge the story that the writers are trying to tell, and I know, I know, I am desperately dumb and foolish and square for caring about intent, but I do. I do! I need the story to have an existence outside of my reaction to it, else I can no longer have a reaction to it--I stop caring. And I know that's not right, it's not acceptable, blah blah blah, but... I don't think it's changing anytime soon.

And that's why I never, ever considered being an English major. The End.

[untrue-accounts.livejournal.com]

Well, the converse is also true -- when I say I *don't* see subtext, I'm not just saying it to harsh your squee, I'm saying it because I don't see it and don't share your interpretation.

I don't think caring about intent is square, but I do think it's futile, beyond certain limitations, and also not ... well, intent isn't execution. Like, do I think the SPN writers intended "Heart" to say that women who achieve agency and sexual independence are then doomed to die because that empowerment makes them aggressive past their own ability to control? I don't think that was their intent at all. But I do think that's one of the things the episode *does* say.