fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5961 ]

[ SECRET POST #5961 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5961 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #852.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Cool then! Yes you are wrong and always have been. Shipping is about the investment as a fan. Assuming shipping a ship means you want it canon leads to all sorts of purity hand-wringing over messed up ships.

For example! I ship multiple hero x villain pairings but if those relationships actually became canon it would throw the story completely off. I ship it like burning. I never want it to be canon.

But yeah, no, wanting something to happen and shipping something are often related but not actually the same thing.

What? no! shipping is what OP says - you want a relationship to happen between these characters. "I ship them" has ALWAYS been about "I want them to get together." get right out with this investment bullshit, no one in fandom has ever said that.

wanting them to become canon is not the same as wanting them to be together.

Educated guessing dictates that I've been in fandom longer than most people here, which probably includes you, and I would actually call the thing you insist is not shipping and has always been wrong to call shipping, "casual shipping"! One wouldn't look at a pair of characters you'd like to see get together in canon but aren't invested in for fandom purposes and go "OMG OTP!!!!!" But one would, and this has always been true in my experience, perhaps say something like "I ship them casually I guess."

Yeah, the word "ship" has never implied any particular level of investment in the pairing, it literally just means "I would like to see these characters in a relationship." Not sure where AYRT is getting that from.

Another fandom old here: I agree with AYRT. I've always understood shipping as fandom participation. If you want them to get together but you don't talk about it with your fandom friends, write meta, or read or write about it - you don't ship it.

Adding to the chorus - this take is wrong. Shipping is about wanting a relationship to happen, whether or not it's canon and regardless of the level of investment.

No. I've shipped several pairings that I absolutely did not want to happen in canon.

"Whether or not it's in canon" would mean you ship it whether you want to see it in Canon or just in fandom.

AYRT

Which is a level of investment. If I want the relationship to happen, but don't do anything about it in fandom - i.e. I don't write about it, I don't read about it, I don't talk about it with fandom friends, I don't write meta about it - I am NOT shipping it.

What is it with this thread and people making up weird definitions for things?

Ss someone else as said, if you want a relationship to happen because you think it's cute but have a very low level of investment in it, that's 'casual' shipping or just a ship you can explain that you don't feel strongly enough.

How strongly you feel about a ship is largely irrelevant to whether it happens in canon. In fact, many fans (who may or may not have been burned by various shows stuffing up their main will-they-won't-they couple by having them get together too early, OR who recognise their amazing ship would probably not fit organically into the rest of the canon as established) do not really care about the canonisation of their ship.

To recap:

1. Shipping is not about the type of fan you are. It merely describes a single behaviour - wanting a relationship to happen on some level. You can then grade shipping on a scale of investment. Mild investment is still shipping. While the level of investment can be an indicator of what type of fan you are in general, shipping itself is not defined by minimum level of investment.

Shipping is also not defined by whether you want a ship to be canon. This is often a hallmark desire of an obsessive shipper, which can make things confusing, but it is not the only way to ship.

"wanting a relationship to happen on some level" is not a behavior. Talking about it, writing about it, reading about it - those are behaviors.

Shipping is an active verb.

LOL, no. My mother always texts me about the things she ships in the shows she watches. She doesn't participate in fandom at all.

Talking about it with you IS participating in fandom....

DA

...? No. Shipping is a verb, yes. But why do you assume it should be an "active" verb?
This is something YOU are deciding.

Here are some definitions https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ship
Everyone has their idea of "shipping", but I agree with AYRT that shipping means basically "to want a relationship to happen".
It doesn't matter if you are taking any "action" to show your love for the ship. Just watching a TV show and silently hoping a couple will kiss or fantasticating about a fanon or canon romance between two characters while alone without consuming any fanfiction or talking with someone else is shipping.

Like, if I watch a TV series that nobody watch and has no fandom and I ship (as in want them to be together) two characters, but then I don't produce anything and don't talk about it with anyone else because I assume nobody watched it, does it mean that I never shipped the ship?
It doesn't make sense to me.

AYRT

I don't disagree that shipping is a verb. I just don't understand your point, as talking, writing and reading are all also verbs.

Are you perhaps making a distinction between external and internal responses to stimuli? If so, pedantic but I get Werther you're coming from.

Or is it about behaviour the word itself being a noun? If so, behaviour is a noun that means what someone does. What someone does is described through verbs. In the same way 'activity' is a noun, 'skiing' is an activity, but 'to ski' is a verb.

I also don't understand what you mean by 'active' verb. Grammar fiends, correct me if I'm wrong, but active and passive in grammar in relation to verbs is about sentence construction and how the verb relates to the subject or object of the sentence. I have no idea how that concept is relevant here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5961 ]

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?

Re: Has the definition of shipping changed recently?