I know what you mean.

Does this make it badfic? by Calista on 2010-06-17 07:59:00 UTC Reply

OK, I've been encountering this issue somewhat often lately: Characters who are not, in canon, capable of falling in love for some reason or other, are wedged sideways and without explanation into romantic relationships.

For example: Peter Pan falls in love, without growing up and without any explanation other than that the Mary Sue is ridiculously beautiful and can out-fight the Villain of the Day. Sorry, but it's been tried with both Tinkerbell and Wendy, and neither one managed it... Similarly, I've seen very young children forced into romance that's got more in common with cheap romance novels than with cute puppy love.

Other examples include teen and adult characters who are canonically established not to have a sex drive, and are put into romantic relationships with little or no explanation as to why they're suddenly interested. It's especially irritating if they're "married" to something else, like their job for example, and they just randomly ditch their former passion for their love interest.

I'm asking about whether this is a badfic trait, because I'm a bit biased--I'm asexual and very aware of the fact that it is quite possible to be happily uninvolved in romance, and I get more than a little annoyed when the few examples of such characters have that unique trait destroyed exclusively because the author wants the character to be involved in a romance, with little or no explanation given for why the character is suddenly interested in getting it on with either Mary Sue or whoever the author's decided to slash them with today...

Yes. Yes it does. by Eclectus on 2010-06-17 17:49:00 UTC Reply

It's the main reason I don't read slash. Well, also because slash has a tendency to get graphic, and that just squicks me out. But it's one of the big reasons.

Romance is hard. A lot of people don't think it is, but romance is very, very hard to write in a plausible way. At least for me it is. Many of the people in the Pit think they can write romance, when they really can't and should never even be allowed near someone else's canon. But then again, that's what we're here for...

My personal pet peeve is when a young protagonist is arbitrarily paired with his/her father figure/mentor. Say, Luke Skywalker/Obi-wan Kenobi, or--I actually found a fic with this pairing the other day--Mr. Miyagi/Daniel. Eurgh. Not only is it squicky for age reasons, it destroys a perfectly good nonromantic relationship.
OOC-ness is bad, yes. by Wide Eyed Idealist on 2010-06-17 16:55:00 UTC Reply

But even if a character doesn't have a love interest in canon, that doesn't mean they don't want romance ever. Life isn't divided into "asexual" and "sex-crazed," and although yeah, you can't make someone just ditch their canonical passion, that doesn't preclude the possibility of romance. The first example that comes to mind is Lightning from FFXIII, who has no real love interest and didn't have much of a life outside her military career, but defrosts over the story and could conceivably end up with somebody. On the other hand, if it's someone who can't feel or can't love, like Peter Pan, I am totally with you.
I know what you mean. by Silikat on 2010-06-17 10:26:00 UTC Reply

In some of my fandoms, established asexuals are always forced into romance, just because the Suethor fancies the actor, or thinks it would be 'really cute' if two characters got together. That does make it badfic in my opinion, because they are out of character - we have the Department of Bad Slash dealing with people turning heterosexual characters homosexual (amongst other things)so maybe that should be included in there?

Re: I know what you mean by Elemarth on 2010-06-17 14:14:00 UTC Reply

Bad Slash usually includes Bad Het, as I remember, since they're very similar.

Didn't know that, sorry. (nm) by Silikat on 2010-06-17 17:17:00 UTC Reply

If the relationship makes the character OOC by IndeMaat on 2010-06-17 10:35:00 UTC Reply

it's either bad slash or bad het, depending on who the other half of the badfic is.

Would be more interesting if the OC fancied the character and found her attempts of woowing him twarded by desinterest. But then the OC wouldn't be a Sue.

Agreed. by Sedri on 2010-06-17 12:31:00 UTC Reply

I don't think there's a more specific charge than OOCness, but OOCness alone can qualify something as a badfic, so I suppose that's an answer to your question.

In terms of missions, perhaps one of your agents could make a specific point of complaining about or taking missions that have this particular flaw (or, more likely, the Flowers send said agent on such missions just because it's sure to drive them mad)?

Yes, that would work... by Calista on 2010-06-18 16:51:00 UTC Reply

I do have one agent who is probably asexual. Kind of, anyway. It's normal for a LotR dwarf.

Now to see about actually getting permission. Should have time to work on that tonight.

As a fellow asexual, I feel your pain. by anamia on 2010-06-17 08:20:00 UTC Reply

And I think it is. It seems to be a trait of badfic writers to think that asexuality doesn't exist, and it's just the matter of finding the "right" person. (Or they've never heard of it, which amounts to the same thing.) As a slash writer myself, I can't be too critical, as my writing tends to take assumed heterosexual male characters and pair them with other assumed heterosexual male characters, but I do try to make note of that and explore at least a little why they're in danger of changing their assumed orientations.

Anyway, to stop rambling, I think it is a charge and a common trait. It's also lazy. Puppy-love is wonderfully cute when it's well done, but it's Gods' awfully hard to do well. Mithros knows I've tried...

--anamia