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

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

I didn't respond to your first post on the whole slash topic because a) we've had this conversation and, I hope, agreed to disagree respectfully.

I'm probably doing something very wrong by not going back and reading the thread on your previous post before commenting but my comments are mainly aimed at what is stated here.

Your commenter no doubt got the story from someone who what incensed about the whole thing "back in the day" and time only exacerbates such things in my experience. The commenter may have no actual first hand knowledge of what was and wasn't said and is speaking based on someone else's perceptions. Whether that makes them more or less culpable I cannot say.

I do think you are misremembering in one particular. I'm actually not sure this was part of the original post, it may have been part of the subsequent "discussion" which was lengthy and not diverse.

As I remember it, one of your primary objections was what you percieved as the overrepresentation of slash at the con. This included unhappiness with the number of panelists who wrote slash, even if slash was not the topic of the panel.

I really, really, really do not want to bring the whole thing up again, but should that discussion continue it is better to be speaking of the same thing at least.

[frogfarm]

From what a friend tells me, Axis Powers Hetalia fandom makes this look like puppies and rainbows. Imagine Japanese anime with nation-states who are being anthropomorphized as individual people. In other words, politics wank PLUS sex politics. ("FRANCE IS BISEXUAL! IT'S CANON!") It's like the canon was constructed for maximum wank.

[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.

[aadler]

The venue sounds enormously entertaining for the kind of people who enjoy such things, and the attached controversy sounds like something I’m happy to have nothing to do with. Makes me glad my focus is almost totally on Buffyfic.

[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.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

I don't understand the problem. You were talking about characterization, not sexual orientation -- and by the way, I agree with you.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

I'd have been entertained by the discussion right up until it devolved into arguing. If I want arguing, I'll go to a family reunion.

[aadler]

If I could figure it out, I wouldn’t be making ‘WTF?’ posts. I can understand disagreement, but I’ll never be able to understand people getting mad at me for things I didn’t say, rather than addressing what I did say.

[ozma914.livejournal.com]

I don't understand the point of getting mad at all ... funny how people get mad about stuff that really doesn't matter, and can't seem to work a sweat over really important things in life.

[miss-peg.livejournal.com]

Hello,

I came across your posts quite randomly having seen someone post a response on their own LJ.

I consider myself to be bi and yet I don't buy into the faux-slash that you talk about. I dislike it, but of course, I do not dislike gay. In the fandom I mostly write for there is a huge gay aspect, two of the characters are gay and so they became instantly popular for many. But of course, for some reason, 2 out of the other 3 main girls were also dragged into it. Why? Probably so that many of the fans can live out their fantasies of these straight characters being gay.

Something I hold most significant in the argument against anything goes slash is characterisation. In my opinion, characterisation is what makes fanfiction feel 'real' and when people mess with sexuality, they're not staying true to that fictional character. They're twisting who they are to suit their means. It's like making the sweetest, kindest, most loving character kill someone in cold blood for no apparent reason.

So really, I wanted to thank you for sharing your views on this matter. I feel like so many people don't understand where I'm coming from. And quite frankly, I'm appalled that anyone would bring homophobia into the matter. It's not about homophobia, it's about characterisation and staying true to the characters we all know and love. Fantasies are not fanfiction.

[aadler]

I have, on a number of occasions, raised the same issue; as a matter of fact, it’s usually the focal point of my objections. The argument has not, however, enjoyed a sympathetic reception. Usually, the objection comes in one of two forms (though it’s neither unheard-of nor infrequent for someone to apply both simultaneously).

The first objection is that, with sufficient attention and skill, a change of sexual orientation can not only be done consistent with prior characterization, but can even deepen our understanding of the character. The second is far more fundamental: there is a sense in which some people are offended by the mere suggestion that a casual, gratuitous shifting of sexual orientation is in any way out-of-character.

My response — to the extent that anyone gives it any recognition — is that, no matter how carefully and plausibly an author shifts a character from straight to gay, the question still arises as to exactly why did they want to do so in the first place? Most of the time, there doesn’t seem to be any good reason; in most cases, in fact, the shift in orientation seems to be the reason for the story, rather than the structure of the story providing any reason for the shift to take place. That is to the first objection. To the second … well, you’ve already indicated that you agree with my opinion, which is that a shift of sexual preference IS a major shift in characterization.

Honestly, I think that the objection to our disagreement is either ideological (“If you’re not delighted with each and every instance of gayness everywhere, including the forced conversion of straight characters to gay, that can only be caused by, and direct proof of, bigotry and hatred”) or self-serving (“I love slash pairings, and anything I like must be okay — because I like it so much — and anybody that doesn’t agree with me is just stupid”).

At any rate, I appreciate hearing from someone with “skin in the game” who can recognize the point I was trying to make, and grant it some legitimacy.

Thank you.