Shipping in the Pokemon Fandom: Author Intentionalism versus Reader-Response Criticism
Shipping is a popular pastime in the Pokemon fandom, to the point where fans must devise and update long, complex lists of all the shipping names just to keep everything straight.
Still, it really is fascinating how such a large group of fans can collectively understand what terms such as "Wishfulshipping" or "Palletshipping" mean when these words are created entirely by the Internet fandom; you don't gain that knowledge by watching the show. It is, in a sense, the creation of a new language; it can be learned, but it's almost exclusively understood by only those in the fandom.
Shipping has also given rise to passionate fans who will defend their preferred pairings tooth and nail. It doesn't happen as much anymore, but occasionally, World War III will break out among Pokemon fans over rival ships and which is the more "canon" pairing (see: Advanceshipping versus Contestshipping).
Then there's fans who scoff at pairs such as Sommeliershipping or Pearlshipping with declarations that they're "just rivals" or "only friends." Other pairs like Ikarishipping are criticized for having "no evidence."
The chaos is at times amusing — and other times, it's a massive headache. It seems that Pokemon shippers often grow frustrated because they can't understand why anyone wouldn't like their preferred ship, because it's so obviously canon.
To them.
In literary criticism, there are two terms that the Pokemon fandom ought to understand: author intentionalism and reader-response criticism.
Now, I know the Pokemon series is not literature. But, it is a form of popular media — making it a form of art, and therefore subject to many of the types of criticism used when studying and analyzing literature.
Author intentionalism refers to the author's intent as it is presented in his or her work. In the Pokemon series, this would raise the question, "What were the writers and animators purposefully trying to convey?" Authorial intent can also pull from secondary sources — that is, sources outside of the show itself — to argue a point. These sources can include interviews with the writers, merchandise, even Pokemon Smash. Anything that isn't the show itself.
It's not entirely possible to know what the authors of the Pokemon series intend in terms of shipping. However, in my personal opinion, there are only three pairings in the whole Pokemon series where the intent of the writers is absolutely clear.
The writers intended Ash to be Misty's love interest, intended Drew to develop feelings for May, and intended Kenny to have a crush on Dawn. Everything else, while some certainly have more evidence than others, is more subjective. But, I believe the above three points are pretty inarguable.
Before anyone angrily jumps on me — 'how dare this blogger claim the legitimacy of these three points and undercut my favorite shippings?!' — you may be surprised to learn that many modern literary critics consider author intentionalism close-minded when it's the sole method used to analyze works. Reader-response criticism is the more popular method of examining works.
If you've ever sat in a high school English classroom and scoffed at something your teacher said because it's "obviously not what the writer intended," you're subscribing to the ideas of author intentionalism. Your teacher, however, likely follows the idea that reader-response criticism is key.
Reader-response criticism focuses primarily on the experience of reader and his or her interpretations or impressions of the work, in contrast to the author and their intentions in writing the work.
In the Pokemon shipping fandom, we would probably call this "shipping goggles." Tons of ships became plausible or even close to canon when we're wearing our shipping goggles. Does Cynthia ship Ash and Paul? Hell yeah she does, thanks to our shipping goggles and reader-response criticism.
It's all about perspective. It's why that one scene in DP186 "Familiarity Breeds Strategy" can be interpreted as either supportive of Ikarishipping, Pearlshipping, or even Comashipping — and any of those interpretations are totally legitimate.
Of course, this doesn't mean we should automatically dismiss authorial intent. Subscribers of reader-response theory vary on their views of author intentionalism, but for the most part, author intent and reader responses are supposed to be synthesized into one analysis. We shouldn't dismiss one and focus solely on the other.
These are just some things to keep in mind the next time you get into a shipping fight, or roll your eyes at someone who supports a less popular ship. Shipping is meant to be subjective, and it's OK to ship things that aren't necessarily what the writers intended.