#the cognitive dissonance between what the show tells us about john vs. what they show us.... it's maddening

[lakemichigans]

i haven’t been following any news about the supernatural prequel but i’m not going to watch it because i know they’ll be sucking john’s cock, balls and all as if we didn’t get enough of that in the show already

[mild-lunacy]

The Holy Grail of Headcanons

It’s not that I don’t headcanon. I mean, at base, we all imagine the story somehow, right? I don’t have a pipeline that beams the narrative fully formed from any author’s mind to mine, let alone one that’s been dead for a 100+ years. I’m sure there’s no such thing as an IC Odysseus... and what would that even mean (beyond certain broad strokes). Of course, until the Novel came along as an artform, the idea of characterization was very, very fluid. Take the Arthurian legends, for example. It’s more like, ‘a bunch of merry archetypes walked into a bar’.... In that context, I’ll happily say that (for example) my Arthur was a minor Saxon warlord fighting against the Normans. There was never any love triangle. But I accept the Lancelot/Guinevere headcanon. Why not? It’s all good fun, and the possibilities are endless (as long as you make it make sense, so it’s not out of nowhere or over-the-top, ‘cause Mary Sues are always annoying to me, especially with female characters).

I don’t mind fun. Okay, that sounds bad. Let’s just say, I definitely think it is fun. But when I’m taking it a little more seriously, suddenly I’m taking it a lot more seriously. And then, it’s looking for the Holy Grail or I wanna go home (to canon). Because to me, the Story is always real (even if the way it’s made real is inevitably through a reading, which in itself is a set of headcanons). These are tame headcanons, though. Canon-friendly headcanons, made of love and close attention to the story. Headcanons with one purpose: illustration.

I guess I also feel that those medieval bards making those fun AUs is fundamentally different than the sort of thing where you consciously deny canon reality in order to substitute your own, superior reality, where everyone’s relatable and/or non-problematic. I don’t really get that, on an intuitive level. Instead of play, it feels like... war. Like waging war on the narrative. On one side: the Fan. On the other: the Story. In this stand-off, the Fan unquestionably wins. It’s disturbing to me. In the end, I hate taking sides-- in my own way, I love fandom-- but if I had to choose, I choose the Story that I loved in the first place.

It’s not that I don’t get why it happens. Sometimes, you know, stories are problematic in some fashion, and it’d be good to fix it. I suppose these viewers (and/or readers) feel the story is waging war on them. There’s a good reason to find a solution. There’s a difference, though, between an actual solution and a headcanon that’s slapped on.

One would be rewriting Draco Malfoy’s or John Watson’s arc-- that is, giving them one. I would be into that. It’s true that the majority of book 6 (and Series 4, respectively) would indeed be different, but good different. Productive different. But that’s not a headcanon, is it? That’s a whole fanfiction epic. Back when I was in HP fandom, I’d been very much into the idea of fixing canon with canon-divergent but IC epics, although I’ve never seen or written one that fit my (maybe rather extreme) standards, haha. It’s probably impossible to write a fic that’s as good as the HP books, except includes H/D and a whole arc for Draco-- I mean, if you did that, you might as well change the names and sell your own YA fantasy epic or something. Anyway, my point is that I’m just a bit perfectionistic and thorough if I decide canon needs fixing. Just a tad. A smidgeon.

By contrast, a headcanon is just... an idea. An idea that may or may not make sense in context. Most people seem to feel that making sense isn’t as important as just hating the canon less, or being less uncomfortable. A fair enough point. I think for me, it’s just a lot easier to make the canon work with my own headcanons (I mean, used in congress with the text), than making other people’s headcanons work. The way I mean ‘headcanon’ here, it’s just a little bit of smoothing. I wouldn’t rely on it for anything-- the canon’s doing the work-- but I’d be using my imagination to fill in the blanks. That’s fine. Going with the flow of the narrative, behind the scenes-- when the canon’s not looking, so to speak-- you can make a number of creative alterations. Queer readings can flower. Little details take on new significance. The story is enriched if we look more deeply between the lines, imagining the history behind John and Sholto, details about Harry Watson, or creating a story behind the new skull painting in 221b.

However, an idea that’s isolated or used against the text can’t actually fix canon, whether it’s a question of representation or characterization in general. Only a retold story can be equivalent to the canon story. You can’t say either ‘John is bisexual’ or ‘Gansey is bisexual’ without telling the story showing that he is; that is, you can (and people do) certainly see it, but it has to be a deep, internally consistent reconceptualization of the entire narrative. At that point, it’s not an idea or a headcanon, so much as an entire reading. A full story, if only told to yourself. I think that’s why I was so drawn in by some of the meta behind TJLC (as opposed to any other Grand Theories in Sherlock fandom). TJLC spoiled me, because it is absolutely unique in that it’s a fully realized reading that creates that internally consistent, epic continuity I said I was looking for in HP. Perhaps it was actually impossible in HP. As I once said, if TJLC is fanon, and perhaps especially if it’s fanon, then it’s the apotheosis of fanon: fanon as it’s meant to be. A reading that works with and improves upon the text. That’s the Holy Grail. The only thing I’d be satisfied with. TJLC or canon: accept no substitutes.

Naturally, none of this is necessary, because you can imagine whatever you want. All I’m saying is that the ordinary stuff-- your everyday headcanon-- does nothing for me but constantly induce cognitive dissonance. It seems like an exercise in denial, sort of like fake news. I couldn’t believe in most what I see even if I wanted to: it’s obviously false. The fact that other people want to is thus a source of bewilderment and some pain. Mostly, that is due to the social nature of fandom. To some degree, participating in fandom these days means interacting with other people’s headcanons (or fanon, essentially). When the majority of headcanons are of the ‘fake news’ variety, it’s a constant exercise of staging mental defenses or using mental resistance to reassert what I know to be real. It’s... not fun.

I can’t help but feel that just because you call a square a circle doesn’t actually make it a circle, even if it’s fiction. Most people do have an issue when stories don’t make sense (a source of many headcanons!) but they don’t really have an issue where the ‘fix’ itself has to make sense in context. If the viewer feels it works, then it works: that’s the nature of a headcanon. It’s why they usually drive me insane. I probably interrogate canon less than fanon, because canon has stylistic and at least some assured plot/characterization continuity. It’s easier just to understand what canon was doing, rather than inventing a whole storyline from whole cloth to fix it (as any fic writer can tell you, it takes a lot of work-- a lot more work than a headcanon patch, anyway). For most people, it seems that headcanons are different. If one works in the fan’s mind, it’s real enough. At that point, the entire fannish enterprise feels pointless to me except for perpetuating that seemingly eternal conflict: us, the Fans vs. the Story.

I think to me, TJLC was the Holy Grail ‘cause it squared the circle. It’s the fanon story that enriched and transformed, more than the sum of its parts. Naturally, it could only happen because people were only describing what we saw rather than trying to ‘fix it’. I think when you simply say what you genuinely see, and you read closely and honestly, usually it makes sense. And if it truly does make sense, it’s real. It’s true, the way great stories always are.

[rwise]

“This isn’t a utopian revolution. This is business.”

Ten Key Takeaways from SXSW 2017

With his against-the-grain quip, Cyberpunk novelist and futurist Bruce Sterling best captured the spirit of this year’s SXSW Interactive. There was no cut-through announcement of a startling new social media platform. President “gets-it” Obama was the keynote speaker last year, so last year, and the raucous Trump era has begun in earnest. “As you walk around here today, you’re just at another trade show, really. And if you look with the eyes of historical insight then you realize that there isn’t such a big difference between Amazon and Sears & Roebuck.” Sterling was speaking as a social visionary but for those in the brand-building business, it’s a good reminder to not be so star-struck with digital innovation that we forget: it either contributes to building the business or it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, then it’s a fascinating distraction at best.

“We are so clever, we have made ourselves obsolete.”

Bruce Sterling’s big point is that the future belongs to those who control the AI and the algorithms, making entire layers of the population increasingly unnecessary. In developed economies and the cultures that engendered them, there is a flagging of human purpose. It’s all been worked out for us and Guaranteed Basic Income might well be around the corner. Marriage rates and childbirth are in steep decline. Alcoholism, drug abuse and obesity are all on the rise - powerful indicators of a basic failure of existential conviction. Brands with a strong purpose can call us back to real human life with all its appetite and strife. Wasn’t that what made Apple’s “Think Different” so epochal? But even less grandiose brand ideals like Smirnoff’s purpose of making the world more inclusive can spur us to reconnect with our basic humanity as Diageo’s CMO Syl Saller pointed out.

Behind the brave and the bold is deep insecurity.

Brian Sullivan of Sabre Corporation (the travel booking distribution system) was talking about selling to the C-Suite. Many of us find this intimidating and by letting ourselves give in to fear, we forget how to be real and just make a good case for the high-stakes recommendation we are making. “Remember,” he said, “the bigger the ego, the bigger the insecurity.” In other words, they’re just as nervous as you are, even if they don’t look like it. Cory Booker, the insanely talented adventurer/photographer for National Geographic who climbed Mount Everest, live on SnapChat, without supplemental oxygen, said the same about himself: “What kept driving me was a deep personal insecurity.” Which is perhaps why a comedy series about a very cool black girl in LA is aptly entitled “Insecure.” Those of us on brands that appeal to the young and the cool need to remember this: even the bold among us are looking for confidence boosters as long as they’re not fake or stagey.

The never-ending power of stories.

Today’s neuroscience has taught us that story telling is inherently more attention getting than the presentation of facts and that it lights up more areas of the brain than almost any other form of engagement which means that it will not only get more attention, it will also be more memorable. As Nancy Harhut explained, “the story is the ultimate Trojan Horse for your marketing message.” Our activations that seek to place a product difference in the consumer’s mind will always benefit by putting them in a story form. Who came up with this? What were they seeking to do? What was the barrier to success? How did they overcome it? What’s the result? How do you know it has worked? What do other people experience? How do they describe it?  This is always more involving and memorable than the simple product function and benefit.

Everything old is new again.

Content and digital marketing managers, average age 28.5, all listened with bated breath to Nancy Harhut, a brilliant behavioral scientist/creative director who did for them what John Caples did for David Ogilvy three generations ago: learn tested techniques of attention, recall and persuasion. Nuggets like these:

-The brain zeros in on the new, unusual, out of place: put an emoji in the subject line of your email and you can get a 30% lift in your open rate. 

-Our emotions become 400% more vivid when triggered by a surprise. 

 -We are 68% more willing to complete a task if the reward is uncertain. 

 -Stories activate the Zeigarnik Effect – the nagging desire to know how it ends.

 -Once we write something down, we feel compelled to live up to it- otherwise we get cognitive dissonance – so get people to tell what they eat when they drink Rioja and the next time they eat that thing they will drink Rioja. 

 -Significant Objects: with a story, a piece of junk that cost 59 cents at a yard sale becomes worth $60 on Ebay. 

 -Framing: describing something as “a small $5 fee” improves response by 25% vs “a $5 fee.”

A treasure trove of such insights and facts can be found on slideshare/nancy harhut.

Unfinished is the new real.

We visited an expensive and exclusive SXSW event featuring Aaron Franklin, founder of arguably the most famous BBQ restaurant in the world where people wait for hours in line and pay a fortune to have his brisket: it was by normal luxury standards a disaster. Chaotic, smoky, snarky…and supremely real, totally worth bragging about, unbelievably delicious. Production values are a huge part of the Airbnb success but Alex Schleifer from Airbnb reported that, while professionally produced videos do well for them and their brand, the obviously homemade video “here’s something that’s going on today at Airbnb, we just thought we’d capture it,” can outperform their professionally made content by up to 300%.

The new look of high tech is denim and plywood.

The near future isn’t cold, plastic and impersonal. Perhaps the coolest new device introduced this year was wearable computing from venerable Levi’s in a JV with Google. The $350 Commuter jacket will come out this Fall that gives you haptic signals and features a cool-looking button allowing you to play music and the like. It will look good paired with playful SnapChat spectacles which are doing for wearables what Google Glass failed to do: be fun and look cool. Perhaps the coolest live activation at SXSW ’17 was JAPAN FACTORY from Sony. Showcasing one amazing gaming and media technology after another, they were displayed in an environment built of plywood and decorated with graffiti. Curvy, shiny plastic is so 1999. Be transparent: this is a pop-up; don’t try to pretend it’s a museum. Perhaps the most advanced stuff doesn’t try too hard to look like it is.

Influencers are the new mass media.

As Neiman Marcus’s CMO Carrie Fisher reports, 26% of sales to Neiman Marcus via Instagram are driven by influencer content. And 82% of consumers reported they were likely to follow a recommendation made by a micro influencer.

For brands it’s all about building relationships that are true, deep and long-term. You’ll get the kind of results enjoyed by the Dollar Shave Club if you carefully research your influencers to make sure their brand values overlap your own and give them free reign to keep their communication on their own brand as they see it. To build credibility, the endorsement, even if paid, has to be on-brand for the influencer. You can see this truth even affecting the style of the Priceline commercial starring Kelly Cuocco. Most people recognize her as one of the stars of the hit TV show Big Bang Theory. But look how she talks and makes everything involving with a personal touch – much like an influencer would talk to their fans.

Our new heroes are heroines.

As Leo Burnett’s Yousef Tuqan reports, in 2011 the Arab Youth Survey showed 11% agreement with the statement, “Traditional values are out of date.” But by 2014 that number had jumped to 47%. (And, remember, 68% of the population of MENA is under 35.) Which accounts for the 14 million views of the hilarious spoof of the Saudi ban on female driving, “No Woman, No Drive.” (here) We’re at a tipping point here and Nike’s “What will they say about you” is pitch perfect in this respect (here). In the West, Millennial women now outpace men in education and professional career development. They’re being cheered on not just by themselves but by men as well. For brands that stand for individualism or progress, the opportunities are rife – see for example, Acura’s new commercial, “Drive Like a Boss.” (here) And Reckitt’s resurrection of Woolite with “Dress for Success.” (here)

And we’re all Hollywood now

People love stories. People want to relate. And they love videos more than ever. As Seraj Bharwani of Visible Measures reports, mobile video viewership is skyrocketing. 500 million video ads have been since 2007. Viewership is up 61%. Movies, series, live videos, videos with captions, Vines, it really doesn’t matter what the format is or how long the length, we’re eating it up in record numbers. So if you’re in the marketing business, you’re a filmmaker.  Those videos you make to impress your board, where are the ones you made to move your fans? Maybe those should be the ones you show to your board. Make them real, not slick, make them tell human stories not corporate balderdash…but, above all, make them and make them discoverable.

[mild-lunacy]

What Characters Deserve: Projection vs Empathy

Projection is something I've long struggled with in fandom. I've actually recently reblogged an illustration of how it works, which is a bit over-the-top but nevertheless accurate. There's definitely a progression of attitudes, from the mildly transformative to the wildly appropriating. I'd like to note that it's all *natural*; I'm not saying there's a right or wrong way to be a fan, obviously. I'm just saying that I personally struggle with the predominant nature of this approach in fandom and the role it plays in typical fan discussions, because I think it leads to a lot of discourse about what went 'wrong' when canon fans are disappointed. It is a pervasive attitude, but one that's pretty much impossible to argue or push back against effectively. Also, the fact is that I would generally *prefer* there was more of an emphasis on empathy in reading or responding to fiction: that is, asking the question of 'how can I put myself into this fictional character's shoes' instead of asking, 'how can I put myself *into* this fictional character'.

For example, I'm a fan of slashing characters, because for me it starts with the canon and plays with it based on its unexplored potentials in fanon. Sometimes people slashed the canon randomly or invented OCs, just for fun, but the history of slash is primarily one of a romantic reading of existing close male friendships. Conversely, I get frustrated by pure queer headcanons of het canon source texts lately, which seem to happen through a fundamentally different process than the way classic slash was done. There's a difference in approach between 'this is fun and/or it fits' (empathizing) and 'this is how it *should* be' (projecting). The latter would state that queerness is good and *therefore* a given canon character is queer (or a POC, or a different gender), even if the whole story is actually based heavily around a het romance (this is the case in 'The Scorpio Races'). That headcanon is thus absolutely independent of the text, and involves pure projection, often combined with a sort of pushy, moralistic bent. Suddenly, any tiny thing about the characterization that's not, I dunno, completely boring and meaningless is a 'queer sign' to be decoded; and of course that's fine, when there's actual queer-coding. It's just... sometimes there simply *isn't* any. One would need to transport themselves to a less ideal, less comfortable universe to appreciate that book. That's a worthwhile task, in my opinion, given the book is well-written and otherwise worthwhile.

It's worth meeting the story where it lives. To pretend there is coding where none exists would be to strip the text of its context and reduce it to a purely modern and 'good' or moral text that has a properly extensive and broad amount of representation. However, as a fan I'm all about appreciating what's there. If I can't, why would I even be a fan? Consequently, it's hard for me to relate to the idea of characters who 'deserve better'.

I realize I get a bit knee-jerky about it, which is ironic, I suppose, 'cause people I related to and was friends with in HP fandom said this about Draco Malfoy all the time. And I guess I try to excuse it and say Kavinsky isn't like Draco to *me* for various reasons, and not every antagonist or character is equivalent and they certainly don't all deserve the same things. I'm pretty blase about minor characters of any sort 'deserving' any more development, especially in narratives that don't rely on an ensemble cast or are otherwise telling a different story. I'm even relatively chill about the storylines of major characters not turning out how I wanted, or even how anyone would want. I'm not even talking about stuff like explicitly canon Johnlock; look, Gansey and Blue are the major het couple (and probably major couple, period) of The Raven Cycle, and Maggie Stiefvater said they still can't actually kiss at the end, 'cause it's still true that if she kisses her true love, he'd die. The problem you learned about on the first page is still there on the last page (so... worse than BBC Sherlock in that sense). Everyone in fandom hates that and rejects that reality to substitute their own, it seems-- except me. I'm okay with it (and it's kind of frustrating 'cause it's easy to feel pretty deeply isolated even among fellow shippers, 'cause literally *no* Blue/Gansey fan seems to accept what Stiefvater said).

It's not because I don't care about Bluesey (or Johnlock, obviously). I ship them both hardcore. You could say it's that I'm just... a huge canon-whore, more than like 95% of fandom, and that's true. But it's also true that I think I relate to fiction differently. Partly its that anyone who ships or likes Bluesey at all seems to want it to be happy and to get emotional satisfaction from canon. That's the 'warm fuzzy' orientation to stories, as Julad once wrote; I'm 'cold prickly' all the way. I'm cool with implicit resolutions and subtext. I'm also relatively cool with not being 'satisfied' directly at all, given it's not too bleak or depressing. Besides that, I generally don't project onto the characters; I *empathize*. I value their story, their needs and wishes. I accept that they are not me. I'm *interested* in that difference. So if they're satisfied by the end, I'm satisfied. I don't tell fictional characters what's supposed to be enough for them, you know?

Possibly, an even better example than the Bluesey kiss issue is how many people in the Raven Cycle fandom have said Blue 'should have' been gay, and either have been platonic with Gansey or have Gansey be a girl. Like, I've literally seen people claim they were 'robbed' (though perhaps a bit ironically). This sort of projection is not atypical of fandom attitudes; it's probably more correct to say it's actually typical, but this is an extreme case. Seeing canon Johnlock is obviously not the same as aggressively genderbending Gansey and then blaming the author for not doing that, because, well, the narrative itself supports Johnlock. It's not out of thin air or based entirely on wish fulfillment. However, *some* arguments aren't that different in kind, because naturally, fandom discourse is what it is, as is fandom in general.

Of course, you could argue that all this is splitting hairs (and I know it). It's certainly vaguely ironic 'cause you could certainly also argue certain critiques of BBC Sherlock I have sympathized with essentially say (not in so many words) that John and Sherlock's characters deserved better. How do I justify this?

First, just 'cause I sympathize and integrate other people's viewpoints doesn't mean it's my natural response. It's also different 'cause in BBC Sherlock, the story arc is deeply integrated with John and Sherlock's relationship. To the degree I do wish there was explicitly canon Johnlock, my concern is that the story wasn't all it could have been based on its own structure, not that my favorite romance or character got short shrift. But then, I can see how other people feel it's just a ship like their ship, and given they don't see the arc-- and the arc remained subtextual/implicit rather than part of the surface text-- I can't expect everyone to share my context or to read texts correctly when the show-runners (more or less) didn't read the (potential of the) text correctly either. Or at least, it certainly seems very possible at this point. At the same time, while I'm tempted to say JKR didn't read the potential of Draco Malfoy correctly, I certainly hesitate to do so, 'cause I really am a canon-whore to the end. There's definitely some cognitive dissonance involved here, 'cause people's favorite argument about Kavinsky in TDT is that Stiefvater didn't understand her antagonist's potential or read her own character correctly. And that upsets me! But how could I say this is true sometimes but not others, given I love all these stories and think these are great (if flawed) narratives.

I dunno if I really thought Draco Malfoy 'deserved better', and ditto for John and Sherlock, anyway. I don't really think in those terms, even if I sympathize. I think in terms of 'does this make sense' or 'does this work in context', and if it doesn't make sense at first, I try harder. I also just enjoy complexity in characterization, which generally involves some unresolved or even unresolvable threads... granted the narrative doesn't constantly set up a resolution (like Sherlock's constant tango with 'romantic entanglement'). In general, I like characters who struggle and make mistakes, without necessarily needing them to be overtly 'fixed' or corrected, though. I don't need, say, John Watson to always be admirable, or Sherlock Holmes to be the perfect consulting detective who really does value 'cold reason' above all other things. I think I just like characters that are *interesting*, storylines which are dramatic and unusual.

The major way I think characters 'deserve better' is if they're underutilized. A lot of people say this about, say, Noah Czerny in The Raven Cycle books, but he was a huge part of the plot! Huge. The only concern is that he didn't get a happy ending, even though, you know... dude is *dead*. It's too late. Sometimes there is no way out, and facts are facts: Noah is always dead. And sometimes there *is* another solution, but the author thinks the difficult one is more interesting, unexpected and creative: so Blue and Gansey still can't kiss after the end of TRK, and John Watson hit Sherlock even though he didn't absolutely *have* to in TLD. And sometimes, well, *sometimes* the story the writers are telling us is *really* not the story you may have wanted, and they take the characters in a nonsensical or unworkable or just-- badly executed direction. That's sort of what happened with BBC Mary Morstan, I think. Every character deserves to be written well, and the truth is that sometimes they... aren't. To be frank, usually I don't care if it's a minor character or the plot or character arc of the main characters is well enough served. I don't have the mental energy to care specifically about minor female characters just because they're female; the thing is, though, is that I don't particularly need to *project* onto female characters to feel at home. I don't feel like I need a female avatar in any given story, but especially if I'm fond of one of the leads. So for me, the question of how they treat Mary or Molly and how they treat, say, Anderson isn't that far off. Of course, as far as I can tell, this is atypical. By and large, people want to read about themselves, and by 'themselves' they mean... whatever is the next best thing to being literal.

I don't begrudge people this, really. I treat it as a fact. People's interest in fiction is mostly useful for them for very personal reasons... even escapist or fantasy/romance fiction, or perhaps *especially* that. Most fantasy fans seem to want to escape into a world where they exist and matter, as a general rule of thumb. A world where they are important, perhaps stronger, more beautiful or smarter than in reality, but.. present. To be clear: I've never felt like this. I've just wanted to escape into a place that was truly *different* and magical. Not that I didn't want to be powerful, but I just never felt particularly constrained by the facts of my actual life, except insofar as they were what I wanted to escape. In the end, those facts were boring and I'd easily forget them at the first opportunity. That said, there's a great variety of female characters with many of my personality traits in fantasy novels (INFPs are probably one of the most typical fantasy protagonists), so.... Who knows, I might feel differently if I was a fan of superhero comics, PC games or even just mainstream movies. I just... wasn't. You probably also get a different attitude reading epic fantasy than those comics or mostly watching TV at a formative age. Although I did watch sitcoms growing up, it wasn't anything I was invested in emotionally (I loved Star Trek, Buffy and X-Files, all of which obviously had strong female characters but also other kinds of characters). Maybe I was a bit spoiled.

Anyway, it is true that stuff like sitcom type shows on TV and superhero comics are obviously directed at certain audiences: there's a lot of sorting of titles by type of protagonist and expected audience. With hundreds of superhero titles, you start to want one for your 'team'. You don't really do that with epic fantasy. You just have the genre, and fun tropes within the genre... and a lot of generic Mary Sues, probably. With science fiction, the whole point is to mess with the established social customs and experiences in the Real World, so there's no point in transferring things wholesale. Everything is up for grabs by definition, though in retrospect I'd have definitely enjoyed if it was more gay.

In the end, I think it's clear that human subjectivity creates projection when imagination (and one's sense of self) is involved at all. Naturally, both these things are heavily involved in fiction. That's sort of a reflection of mirroring: the fundamental ability people have to mimic others' emotional states or body-language. I'm not entirely trying to fight windmills, nor do I wish to destroy this dynamic: I just think that empathy could fill the role of projection, and I personally would certainly enjoy fandom a lot more if it did. It would be great if people were more interested in characters (and other people!) for the ways in which they're different, but still *human*. What a wonderful world that would be. And, I admit, a more comfortable environment for me personally, with less cognitive dissonance to go around (not that this is anyone's concern but mine, of course).

For a concrete example of what would change with more emphasis on empathy, there would be less heteronormativity, I think, 'cause people wouldn't so strenuously project their own personal and cultural norms onto characters they like. On the other hand there would also be less yelling about headcanons on how a character is actually and/or 'should be' canonically queer/black/etc, and any dissent is unacceptable. Perhaps with a loosening of the bonds of heteronormativity, the need for such assertive pushback would be obviated. More fans could... relax, maybe. At least, I know I would. People are people, so there'll always be wank; I'm just talking about how *more* empathy chosen instead of projection would mean *less* fan conflict and heteronormativity, among other things.

I don't know *how* to actually positively support or encourage empathy rather than projection, aside from being in a teaching role with children, while their relationships with fiction are still forming. Nevertheless, I wish there was something I could do productively. As it is, I rant and ramble about this at intervals to let off steam, but I'd like to make a difference. I don't want to change human nature... but it'd be nice to encourage certain responses over others. To some degree, empathy is important in real life now more than ever before, since the world is so connected and so very tense about it. The question of 'how do we appreciate the Other without appropriating or dismissing?' is an important one, even if its fannish version is just one fangirl's eternal lament.