Yeah, I have that limit, too, that looking at something too critically, or critically in the wrong way, can spoil my enjoyment of it -- the line is set further back for me, but I definitely do have it! (Among other things, I am really sensitive to mocking out of love vs mocking out of dislike. Like, a lot of my intensely fannish shows that I think are sort of trashy, I will not watch with non-fans. To the point of turning the TV off when people enter the room, as if I'm watching something E-rated ^^;;; I find it deeply uncomfortable because I can't squee if I feel like the source of my squee is being judged. Like, when I was really into SGA, I showed it to a friend who was a fan of SG-1, but she hated SGA, she hated Rodney, and while I thought her criticisms were valid, it still wasn't a fun time watching it...)
Look, the general consensus in fandom these days, as far as I can tell, is that SGA is terribly written. And I look back sometimes on me circa Jan. 2015, rereading and rereading my SGA fic and trying as hard as I could to find the terrible in it, and crying my eyes out -- like, literally sobbing for days -- because I couldn't find it
Hah, yeah, this is where I have such a major disconnect, because -- I do think SGA is largely not a very well-written show. But I think the fanfic for it is fantastic, the level of quality of fic for that fandom was unusually high. I honestly think I became a better writer writing fic for SGA because I was trying to match the level of creativity and development and such that was in so much of the fic.
But I still don't think the show SGA itself is that well-written. And some of that is because, yes, there is a difference between "good" and "well-written" and "inspiring" and "marketable"; those are all different if interrelated qualities. Also in the case of SGA, it's a TV show, so writing is not the only element at play. E.g. I don't think SGA is that well-written but I do think it was fairly well-acted; several of the actors brought way more to the characters than the writers put there. Also the writers who created those characters, and the universe, were not the writers of most of the show, so that makes a difference too -- who do you credit for what writing? Can a show have both good and bad writing? (of course it can!) And then, a lot of the fic was building on itself; the fanon version of Atlantis I personally feel was way more interesting than the version we saw on the show, and I don't feel that's to the credit of the show writers but to the fan writers. So the SGA fanfic output was greater than the sum of the TV show's parts, imho.
I'm torn about the idea of popular means it's good. I mean, I'm undecided, I don't know!! Because there's a certain degree it's true, that yes, something that grabs the attention of a whole bunch of people has to have *something* to it. But then, something like 50 Shades of Gray, that didn't just happen in a vacuum; the writer had the connections to get it published and distributed. And then a huge part of it is luck, that this is the story that people read, that builds momentum until everyone is reading it.
At the same time -- I think reading fic has given me a very broad appreciation of "good" and how subjective it is. I sometimes read fic that have basic SPAG errors but I still plow through because the writer just *gets* the characters in really satisfying and creative ways. And then there are fic by really popular writers that I will agree are technically beautifully written but leave me cold. But I wouldn't say either is badly written...
So yeah...I don't really think there is an absolute objective "good." At the same time, I personally do differentiate between "things I like that I think are good" and "things I like that I think are less good". It makes a difference in how I recommend them and who I recommend to, and how I relate and fan on them. And for me, thinking something is "less good" doesn't mean I think it's worthless or pointless. Often, it just means I think something has potential, but it could be better (and for me, writing fic and coming up with meta and so many fannish things is one of those ways to make it better!)
no subject
Look, the general consensus in fandom these days, as far as I can tell, is that SGA is terribly written. And I look back sometimes on me circa Jan. 2015, rereading and rereading my SGA fic and trying as hard as I could to find the terrible in it, and crying my eyes out -- like, literally sobbing for days -- because I couldn't find it
Hah, yeah, this is where I have such a major disconnect, because -- I do think SGA is largely not a very well-written show. But I think the fanfic for it is fantastic, the level of quality of fic for that fandom was unusually high. I honestly think I became a better writer writing fic for SGA because I was trying to match the level of creativity and development and such that was in so much of the fic.
But I still don't think the show SGA itself is that well-written. And some of that is because, yes, there is a difference between "good" and "well-written" and "inspiring" and "marketable"; those are all different if interrelated qualities. Also in the case of SGA, it's a TV show, so writing is not the only element at play. E.g. I don't think SGA is that well-written but I do think it was fairly well-acted; several of the actors brought way more to the characters than the writers put there. Also the writers who created those characters, and the universe, were not the writers of most of the show, so that makes a difference too -- who do you credit for what writing? Can a show have both good and bad writing? (of course it can!) And then, a lot of the fic was building on itself; the fanon version of Atlantis I personally feel was way more interesting than the version we saw on the show, and I don't feel that's to the credit of the show writers but to the fan writers. So the SGA fanfic output was greater than the sum of the TV show's parts, imho.
I'm torn about the idea of popular means it's good. I mean, I'm undecided, I don't know!! Because there's a certain degree it's true, that yes, something that grabs the attention of a whole bunch of people has to have *something* to it. But then, something like 50 Shades of Gray, that didn't just happen in a vacuum; the writer had the connections to get it published and distributed. And then a huge part of it is luck, that this is the story that people read, that builds momentum until everyone is reading it.
At the same time -- I think reading fic has given me a very broad appreciation of "good" and how subjective it is. I sometimes read fic that have basic SPAG errors but I still plow through because the writer just *gets* the characters in really satisfying and creative ways. And then there are fic by really popular writers that I will agree are technically beautifully written but leave me cold. But I wouldn't say either is badly written...
So yeah...I don't really think there is an absolute objective "good." At the same time, I personally do differentiate between "things I like that I think are good" and "things I like that I think are less good". It makes a difference in how I recommend them and who I recommend to, and how I relate and fan on them. And for me, thinking something is "less good" doesn't mean I think it's worthless or pointless. Often, it just means I think something has potential, but it could be better (and for me, writing fic and coming up with meta and so many fannish things is one of those ways to make it better!)