It's interesting that in reviews for the recent adaptions on the "Jane Austen Season", I saw a lot of people making it a point of superiority that they were NOT purists. As in, "I know the Austen fans will hate this, but I'm no purist, so I was able to appreciate the angst in Sally Hawkin's portrayal of Anne Elliot." Implying that not being a purist gave a higher and more sophisticated insight into the artsiness of the adaptation.
I always called myself a purist too, but now thinking about it, there is a difference between adaptations and fanfic. I am a purist when it comes to adaptations. (What is the point of adapting the novel if you're going to ignore characterization and miss the entire point of the plot?) On the other hand, I expect fanfic to play with the original in creative ways. But in a way, I'm also a purist when it comes to fanfic, in that I expect characterizations to be consistent. Maybe that's not really purism, though. It might just be good writing. I don't agree with the shy!Darcy theory for the book, but I don't care if you want to make him shy in your fanfic, as long as you explain it in a logical and believable way.
no subject
I always called myself a purist too, but now thinking about it, there is a difference between adaptations and fanfic. I am a purist when it comes to adaptations. (What is the point of adapting the novel if you're going to ignore characterization and miss the entire point of the plot?) On the other hand, I expect fanfic to play with the original in creative ways. But in a way, I'm also a purist when it comes to fanfic, in that I expect characterizations to be consistent. Maybe that's not really purism, though. It might just be good writing. I don't agree with the shy!Darcy theory for the book, but I don't care if you want to make him shy in your fanfic, as long as you explain it in a logical and believable way.