Once again, WTF?

[aadler]

 
I guess I just don’t get it.

A few days ago, I posted (here) a reprint of the final installment of an e-mail correspondence between me and frogfarm, in which I detailed the distinction I make between two different types of slash. The first type, I said, was one that included same-sex pairings between characters canonically shown to be same-sex inclined. The second type was one in which canonically heterosexual characters had their personalities and motivations altered — or simply ignored — in order to put them into same-sex relationships. I highlighted the distinction for the purpose of clarification: since I have several times stated that I dislike slash fanfic, I wanted to make it clear precisely WHAT I dislike, and why. Not same-sex pairings per se (though those don’t appeal to me either), but the distortion or dismissal of canonical personality traits in order to impose an artificial same-sex pairing.

I didn’t expect that post to get much response. It didn’t. It was, unexpectedly, recommended and listed at su_herald, which I suspected would increase the amount of attention it got … but, if that was the result, those who checked it out didn’t feel any urge to respond.

I suppose I should feel grateful for that, because even the limited response brought out something that, once again, had me scratching my head as I have done in the past.

Four people responded. One of them was frogfarm, whose comments were essentially an extension of our earlier discussion. One of them expressed agreement that the “slash” label shouldn’t be applied to the pairing of canonically same-sex characters; calling different things by the same name perpetuates imprecision and even confusion. One disagreed, on grounds that I didn’t see as being especially pertinent, but I wasn’t surprised, these things are going to happen.

The fourth one started out much the same way, the writer civilly presenting several points, to which I responded with every attempt at the same level of civility. (The only hmm? note was when she observed that she was the one who had recommended my original post to su_herald and that she had taken ‘a small amount of heat’ for so doing, and apologized to anyone who might have been offended. Really? ‘Heat’ for what reason? ‘Offended’ how? One of the things I just don’t get.)

No, the real disconnect came in her reply to my reply. The difference was so extreme that they might have been made by two different people … but seems to have been triggered by something she cited almost immediately:

I was given a history lesson about you. You are a former BNF who raised a stink ‘back in the day’ about gay people being represented in any fashion at cons. You believed that this sullied what should be a family affair and that it might taint the minds of young children who attended the con.

This is clearly a reference to the kerfuffle following my travelogue-report on WriterCon II. (At the time, I inadvisably posted it both at my LJ and on the WriterCon site, not knowing that it was considered proper etiquette to instead post a link to one’s own site. The discussion at the WriterCon LJ died out long ago — the ’Con itself was in July 2006 — and I’m content to let it stay dormant, so the link I have provided is to my site.) Her ‘history lesson’ is a fair summation of a lot of the things said about me in the aftermath of that post … but most of the things said about me were wrong, which means the summation was purified wrong.

Wrong. Wrong in just about every particular. (Except maybe that I was a BNF. Was I? It would be wonderful to think so, but this was the first I had ever heard of it.) I did not object to gay people being represented at cons, or being at cons; in fact, I never mentioned gay people at all. What I did — as I have done elsewhere — was express and explain my annoyance at turning-straight-characters-gay-in-order-to-produce-slash.

Repeat after me: Dislike of slash does not instantly and inescapably prove hatred of gay people. Whoever ‘educated’ the incensed responder to this later post, in referencing the earlier WriterCon II post, perpetuated the standard myth.

I don’t like faux-slash. (I can’t keep on saying ‘slash’ when I have realized, and stated, that it’s only a specific subset of slash that I object to, even if that subset probably comprises the majority, so henceforth I’m going to be more specific.) I don’t like the twisting of known characters to fit a pre-disposed preferred mold; yes, the twisting can be done with skill and sensitivity, but the author is STILL changing the character to suit him/herself. The impulse to do so makes no sense to me, and the enthusiastic propagation and celebration of such things offends me. But, damn it, I don’t hate anybody.

I wasn’t talking about gay rights. I wasn’t talking about gay people. I wasn’t talking about homosexuality at all. I was talking about fanfiction.

How hard is that to understand?

Comments

[aadler]

You have always made every imaginable effort to avoid unnecessarily giving offense, in every interaction that has ever taken place between us. You never have angered or offended me, and — on the very reasonable assumption that you will continue to behave as you have till now — I foresee no likelihood that you ever will.

You’re correct in your memory of my expressed opinion at WriterCon. I wasn’t misremembering in the above post, however, I just didn’t see any necessity of going into detail, since 1) those details were (in my opinion) covered in general by my statement of having expressed annoyance at what I now call faux-slash, and 2) the objection to overrepresentation of slash writers on a panel on writing accurate characterization was like everything else I said in having nothing whatsoever to do with those things of which I was accused five years after the fact.

As I said: it’s about fanfic, the reading and writing thereof. Those who disagree with me are free to do so, but (and I am specifically NOT talking about you on this) I would appreciate their staying with the actual facts.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

I think what ends up happening when discussions become heated is a battle of perceptions. What I was attempting to point out, perhaps erroneously, is the sweeping nature of the original objections. From your point of view, it is the same argument that faux-slash annoys you. From the point of view of those taking the opposing viewpoint it was viewed by some as a condemnation of those particular authors and thus the argument became very personal very rapidly.

Sadly, once emotions are engaged, logical argument ceases to be effective. The more personally important a topic is, the more difficult it is to remain objective.

[aadler]

I indeed have not forgotten the sweeping nature of the original objections. So many people were attracted to the controversy, the accusations (along with that of homophobia) wound up including misogyny, assertion of male privilege, and trying to make it ‘all about me’.

Five years later, however, the summary has been distilled down to something that was never there: my purported claim that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to attend — be “represented in any fashion” — at fan conventions. Not only did I never make any such statement, directly or by implication, but I don’t even remember it being a subject in the original round of accusations.

Eventually everything comes back to the central point of the above post: that disagreement in a particular area should be followed out along the original subject line, not in a baseless change of venue with no actual connection to what was said.