I really do think a big chunk of fandom is about exploring the issues present in the text - and then meta-ing them, or thinking about "it is but what if it wasn't and how would that change everything" scenarios. It doesn't require hand-waving the problems away! For me the bright line test just comes with "am I still having fun or is this stressing me out" which is 100% subjective.
But I also think there are the people who take the total opposite direction with this, a la many of the Rogue One antis, who insist that the text should be otherwise and since the text is not Specifically The Thing They Came Up With, it's evil and should be burned at the stake. Which is...a strange take on fandom! By all means, let's not brush the issues with the characters or the movie under the carpet, but...that's different from insisting that flaws by definition make a text worthless (er, so, welcome to like, all media ever?) Especially when many of those ~flaws (e.g. Bodhi should have been the central character) are subjective preference versus canonical inconsistencies or challenges within the text itself.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2018-12-13 07:54 pm (UTC)But I also think there are the people who take the total opposite direction with this, a la many of the Rogue One antis, who insist that the text should be otherwise and since the text is not Specifically The Thing They Came Up With, it's evil and should be burned at the stake. Which is...a strange take on fandom! By all means, let's not brush the issues with the characters or the movie under the carpet, but...that's different from insisting that flaws by definition make a text worthless (er, so, welcome to like, all media ever?) Especially when many of those ~flaws (e.g. Bodhi should have been the central character) are subjective preference versus canonical inconsistencies or challenges within the text itself.