Reply in two parts, as well...apparently I'm equally verbose...;)
I think we're just having some difference on terms and descriptions, as well as a few philosophical issues, but are rather on the same page. But I don't think it's coming across that way.
I do, too. Though our personal tastes may very a bit, I don't really think our fandom philosophies do, at least not by much. I actually find you quite compatible with me, despite how this conversation might look to a casual viewer.*g*
1. The idea that gen lacks emotion connections.
This is the biggest misconception there is with gen writing. Whenever I see, it makes my blood boil. It really hits me at my core. Because it comes off almost like a statement of superiority -- that ship or slash fic is better because it deals with emotions while gen does not. As someone who proudly writes gen, I can attest that this is absolutely not the case.
See, I absolutely agree that this SHOULD BE TRUE! However, it simply has not always been my personal practical experience within the fandom. But I have no doubt AT ALL that there are plenty of gen writers and readers who DO think this way, and that I have merely encounter some of the more vocal factions who don't. I have always had issues with people who confuse friendship with romantic 'ship, and take away from the friendship for fear of the romance label. For me, the Sam/Jack scene at the end of "Death Knell" was a beautiful moment between friends and brothers in arms. It can be ready as 'shippy if that floats your boat, but I don't see why so many people were against it when it seemed to me just a lovely and believable moment between team members who have fought so many desperate battles together. That should be valid gen.
What gen does not have as its focus is romance. I scene where Jack comforts Sam because she was hurt offworld? That can be gen. It's still emotionally charged. A scene where Jack comforts Sam when she's hurt off-world, thinks how beautiful she is and longs for her?
Exactly! This is what I think it should be, but my personal experience has not allowed that without my being charged with 'shippiness. Which is really what I was trying to say about the use (or misuse) of the UST label.
Sam/Jack -- in the fandom -- does not fall into this category. Why? Because there is a debate on its state in canon. This is in part due to TPTB playing it coyly and because of the issue with the regs they've been dancing around. Me, personally, I can't speak for all gen people. But I acknolwedge that as of S4 they expressed some feelings towards each other. I saw that drop off as they put their jobs first.
Okay, in this light I can understand what you're saying, and I have to say, honestly, that in my experience with writers who limit themselves to gen, your above admissions are really the exception, and if they were all willing to say the above, I really wouldn't have these issues. It's amazing how many people will just outright say there has never been any Sam/Jack UST in canon, and I honestly do think that's just a selective perception. Some saw it continue, some didn't, and at that point I agree that we're getting out of canon into subtext. But even by your definition, I'd have to say that the subtle acknowledgement of those feeling in a fic set in season four, would still qualify as gen, because that IS canon and in keeping with the show.
I saw Sam move on and Jack move on. I saw Sam have doubts with Pete for reasons I don't think solely rely on Jack.
Absolutely it was NOT solely Jack, and was not portrayed as such, there were very obvious lines of dialogue implying other issues. But there was also a pretty blatent implication that Jack was a part of her issues (even if he wouldn't have been the deciding factor), so, to me, that kept the underlying "something" as a valid part of canon.
2. I dislike the term anti-Sam/Jack.
For the record, I was not using this term to describe YOU. I do not think of you as anti-Sam/Jack, but was referring to those folk who just plain adamently ARE and will attack accordingly. There are plenty of folk who appreciate the relationship in their own way, and I did not mean to include them in that term.
no subject
I think we're just having some difference on terms and descriptions, as well as a few philosophical issues, but are rather on the same page. But I don't think it's coming across that way.
I do, too. Though our personal tastes may very a bit, I don't really think our fandom philosophies do, at least not by much. I actually find you quite compatible with me, despite how this conversation might look to a casual viewer.*g*
1. The idea that gen lacks emotion connections.
This is the biggest misconception there is with gen writing. Whenever I see, it makes my blood boil. It really hits me at my core. Because it comes off almost like a statement of superiority -- that ship or slash fic is better because it deals with emotions while gen does not. As someone who proudly writes gen, I can attest that this is absolutely not the case.
See, I absolutely agree that this SHOULD BE TRUE! However, it simply has not always been my personal practical experience within the fandom. But I have no doubt AT ALL that there are plenty of gen writers and readers who DO think this way, and that I have merely encounter some of the more vocal factions who don't. I have always had issues with people who confuse friendship with romantic 'ship, and take away from the friendship for fear of the romance label. For me, the Sam/Jack scene at the end of "Death Knell" was a beautiful moment between friends and brothers in arms. It can be ready as 'shippy if that floats your boat, but I don't see why so many people were against it when it seemed to me just a lovely and believable moment between team members who have fought so many desperate battles together. That should be valid gen.
What gen does not have as its focus is romance. I scene where Jack comforts Sam because she was hurt offworld? That can be gen. It's still emotionally charged. A scene where Jack comforts Sam when she's hurt off-world, thinks how beautiful she is and longs for her?
Exactly! This is what I think it should be, but my personal experience has not allowed that without my being charged with 'shippiness. Which is really what I was trying to say about the use (or misuse) of the UST label.
Sam/Jack -- in the fandom -- does not fall into this category. Why? Because there is a debate on its state in canon. This is in part due to TPTB playing it coyly and because of the issue with the regs they've been dancing around. Me, personally, I can't speak for all gen people. But I acknolwedge that as of S4 they expressed some feelings towards each other. I saw that drop off as they put their jobs first.
Okay, in this light I can understand what you're saying, and I have to say, honestly, that in my experience with writers who limit themselves to gen, your above admissions are really the exception, and if they were all willing to say the above, I really wouldn't have these issues. It's amazing how many people will just outright say there has never been any Sam/Jack UST in canon, and I honestly do think that's just a selective perception. Some saw it continue, some didn't, and at that point I agree that we're getting out of canon into subtext. But even by your definition, I'd have to say that the subtle acknowledgement of those feeling in a fic set in season four, would still qualify as gen, because that IS canon and in keeping with the show.
I saw Sam move on and Jack move on. I saw Sam have doubts with Pete for reasons I don't think solely rely on Jack.
Absolutely it was NOT solely Jack, and was not portrayed as such, there were very obvious lines of dialogue implying other issues. But there was also a pretty blatent implication that Jack was a part of her issues (even if he wouldn't have been the deciding factor), so, to me, that kept the underlying "something" as a valid part of canon.
2. I dislike the term anti-Sam/Jack.
For the record, I was not using this term to describe YOU. I do not think of you as anti-Sam/Jack, but was referring to those folk who just plain adamently ARE and will attack accordingly. There are plenty of folk who appreciate the relationship in their own way, and I did not mean to include them in that term.
(see next comment)