ratherastory: (Crash and Burn)
ratherastory ([personal profile] ratherastory) wrote2011-01-09 07:29 pm

Gen Fic, for SCIENCE!

This is something of a follow-up to a conversation in my post about the hypothetical Gen Big Bang, in which I discovered to my shock and dismay that not everyone agrees on what constitutes gen fic!

Thus I am conducting a poll for SCIENCE!

Please spread the word, I am really curious to hear opinions on the subject.

[Poll #1666301]

[identity profile] greeneyes-fan.livejournal.com 2011-01-10 12:44 am (UTC)(link)
If there is no explicit sex and the main plot of the story is not sex/romance related, it's gen in my book. Gen fics may involve incidental Dean/Random Chick, or references to canon pairings, but I consider that character development. If I write a story where Dean/Chick is the main idea, that's het. If I write 5,000 words about Sam and Dean hunting a ghost and the many complications of their partnership and throw in 50 words about one of the boys flirting (or even having offscreen sex), that's gen.

[identity profile] ratherastory.livejournal.com 2011-01-10 12:48 am (UTC)(link)
That's pretty much how I view it too, but comments in my other post suggested that even mentioning in a sentence that one of the boys went off with a girl to get laid automatically made the fic het, even if it's one sentence in a 75K-word fic.

So, clearly, there needed to be a poll.

[identity profile] katwoman76.livejournal.com 2011-01-10 01:08 am (UTC)(link)
ITA. Just because the story isn't focussed on Romance or any kond of pairing, doesn't make the boys monks. I mean, if you can mention Dean's love for the Impala or food, you can also mention him flirting or having sex. It's just part of his personality. And just because a story is gen, it could still include the fact that Sam dated Jess or John and Mary are a couple.
If it's just a mention at the side, but not really something that the story focusses on in a main- or subplot, the story is still gen in my eyes.

And honestly, why does it always have to have ONE label. What's the problem with mixing it up a little.

[identity profile] ratherastory.livejournal.com 2011-01-10 02:29 am (UTC)(link)
Labels are important! How else will people know what to read? ;)

[identity profile] greeneyes-fan.livejournal.com 2011-01-10 03:02 am (UTC)(link)
After all, it would be catastrophic if I read something that didn't perfectly fit with my preformed boxes.

[identity profile] blacklid.livejournal.com 2011-01-10 01:53 am (UTC)(link)
I concur.

And oddly enough, this definition combined with a plot that fits inside the mytharc of the show would be what I refer to as "canon-compliance".
Edited 2011-01-10 01:58 (UTC)

[identity profile] yggdrasilian.livejournal.com 2011-01-10 03:46 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, this is how I've always viewed it.