Slash vs Same-sex pairings

[aadler]

 
Last week, frogfarm and I did a brief exchange of e-mails, discussing various aspects of our attitudes toward fandom in general and fanfiction in particular. With that individual’s permission, I’m posting my last note, as illustrative of part of my outlook.

---

I offered to explain why your preferred pairing [frogfarm is an inveterate Faith/Willow ’shipper] didn’t fall within the category of things I dislike. You expressed interest in my opinion. That follows.

There is a tendency to interpret opposition to slash — not just “not to my taste”, but actual opposition and rejection — as indicative of or synonymous with that dread thing, “homophobia”. (A term I despise and the foundations of which I utterly reject. The word is just a way of saying, “Anybody who disagrees with me on this issue is stupid and wrong and repressed and hateful and bigoted and evil, and I don’t even have to prove those things because just applying the label automatically invalidates everything they say and everything they stand for and HA HA I WIN.”)

No, when I speak of disliking slash (and I truly do), I’m not talking about same-sex pairings per se, but using shorthand for something a bit more specific and limited. What I actually dislike and oppose, and for which I see no justification whatsoever, is the habitual, systematic, gratuitous, and artificial homosexualization of canonically heterosexual characters, for no good purpose. (Maybe the first time it was done, it was “breaking new ground”. Now it all seems to fall under self-titillation, pandering, jumping on the ho-yay bandwagon, or even deliberately designed to offend those benighted knuckle-draggers who dislike slash.)

Because of this, I don’t apply the same objections to Willow/Tara. Or Willow/Kennedy. Or even Willow/Faith. This is because those pairings are neither gratuitous nor artificial. Tara apparently was genuinely same-sex oriented. Willow (whether fundamentally lesbian, or a bisexual who thought it necessary to expunge any twinge of opposite-sex-attraction from her personality) was nonetheless canonically shown as part of two separate same-sex relationships. Faith, for all the fact that every bit of her demonstrated sexual activity was aggressively heterosexual, put out some deliberate and explicit overtures toward Buffy in Season 3. (Even if it could be argued that she didn’t mean it, and was just doing it as a kind of personal power-play, the fact remains that she did those things.)

As far as same-sex pairings are concerned, Willow is canonical. Tara is canonical. Kennedy is canonical. Faith is canonically plausible. I’m still not crazy about the whole business — for that matter, specific focus on ANY ’ship is boring to me — but those, and perhaps others, don’t require that familiar characters be twisted into knots to accommodate someone’s agenda.

So, no, I don’t have a lot of patience with femslash or any slash. For that matter, I have no interest in any story, same-sex or opposite-sex, that centers the story around sexuality; I have better things to do with my time. The [Willow/Faith] pairing you favor, however, while it doesn’t intrinsically appeal to me, doesn’t automatically trigger “don’t read” status.

And that’s where I come from.

Comments

[frogfarm]

Despite my own more than occasional embracing of eros for its own hopefully semi-literary but admittedly self-indulgent sake, I totally understand and respect where you're coming from (particularly in terms of safe spaces and two wrongs not making a right). On a more general note, as I said recently to someone else: It's not necessarily that there's anything 'wrong' with romantic and sexual themes, but they're only one (pretty much) out of so many possibilities. And with the entire infinite universe at your fingertips as a writer, why limit yourself? Doesn't seem too different from the 'Tijuana bibles', which like everything else had their occasional moments and were mostly mass-produced dreck. When all a writer can focus on is eros to the exclusion of agape, philia, storge and really anything else, it gets old fast. Only a teenager (physical or mental) revolves their life around getting laid.

See also Umberto Eco, "How To Recognize a Porn Movie":

A movie in which Gilbert did nothing but rape Gilbertina, front, back, and sideways, would be intolerable. Physically, for the actors, and economically, for the producer. And it would also be, psychologically, intolerable for the spectator: for the transgression to work, it must be played out against a background of normality. To depict normality is one of the most difficult things for any artist - whereas portraying deviation, crime, rape, torture, is very easy.

[aadler]

While considerably more articulate than my own observations, this touches on a principle I’ve observed before. If someone likes a particular genre, venue, pairing or category, they’re willing to tolerate a lot of looseness in narrative or characterization or just plain effective writing. If you DON’T like the general type of something however, it takes talent and skill for someone to produce a story of such a type that meets with your approval. That’s why, inherently annoyed by slash as I am, I keep citing Liz Estrada’s “the Way, Way Back” … because, my likes and dislikes aside, it’s just so powerfully told.

Any writer must acknowledge and respect his/her primary audience. If you can please and impress those who are NOT your fans, however, you know you’re really cooking.

[frogfarm]

Exactly; when an author writes something I like despite the presence of elements I generally consider neutral or negative, that's more of an achievement than if I go in fully expecting to have a good time. Although I'm pickier than most people and it's pretty easy for someone to write pairings I like in a way that I don't, whether in terms of characterization or the quality of their prose. Like my own writing is some stellar example, and I'm not one to subscribe to the labor theory of value, but I do try to take care in my craft and produce pulp that isn't pap or crap. And I always find it slightly more rewarding when someone says something to me like, I never thought I'd buy into this but you made me a believer. Of course it goes without saying I'm not trying to convert anyone; in my case, my primary audience is myself, and if anyone else wants to come along for the ride then I'll certainly enjoy the company.

(And on that note, keith5by5 is my freaking hero because I don't know if he gets a ton of feedback in email, but I see little to no comments on his posted stories and yet he just keeps putting it out there, hell or high water, year after year, and he's not even doing one series because I lost count of how many he had going. And no matter what else can be said about his work, good or bad, I admire that persistence and do my humble best to emulate it. If I could achieve even half his output without compromising my dubious quality, I'd seriously consider selling my soul. Or at least my left pinky.)

[ladycallie.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I have my thoughts about the inaccurate application of the title "slash" to canon gay characters like Willow HERE (http://ladycallie.livejournal.com/182646.html#cutid1) on my LJ, with additional regards to how the term "ship" is jumbled up in slash. And I agree with you that there is a negative association with slash, from both perspectives.

Oh, I'm here by way of su_herald. :)

[valyssia]

Oh, I'm here by way of su_herald. :)

Yes, something for which I’ve taken a small amount of heat. My apologies to anyone I’ve offended by making this ‘recommendation.’

However, what I hear Aadler saying is that he/she dislikes the slap dash nature of some slash fiction. Though this is somewhat confused by his/her support of Willow/Kennedy. That relationship is constructed in such a ham fisted manner that it is as slap dash as any in canon save for perhaps Spike/Buffy or Spike/Anya in Season Six. Those ‘relationships’ are built as much on passion and angst as any comparably offensive pieces of ‘slash’ fiction. Likewise, Buffy/Satsu from comic canon smacks of this.

It would be nice if all of these things could be viewed in the same light, but I know better than to ask for too much.

Instead, I resign myself to be counted among the ranks of the lowly ‘slash’ authors, though I despise the term. It carries such negative connotations that a percentage of my potential audience is put off before they’ve even read my first words. I’m not judged by my merits as an author, nor by my abilities to construct a plausible, loving relationship grounded within the roots of canon. I’m judged by the meaning of a dated piece of nomenclature.

However, if I was writing about an unconventional heterosexual pairing, that bias would not exist. It truly is a double standard.

This is further muddled because ‘slash’ is a catch all term used to describe both gay and lesbian pairings. Comparing the two things is like comparing a pomegranate to a banana. ‘Yes’ they’re both fruit, but that’s where the similarities end. Yet authors of both distinctly different things are commonly jumbled into the same hat for the sake of ease when fan fiction is judged.

This segregation does nothing to support the art of any of the involved works. Instead it seems likened to a ‘coloreds only’ bathroom stall.

The bias actually exists in our want to label things. Were we able to say, “Two people meet in passion,” or “Two people meet to form a loving relationship,” and simply be satisfied with that, then there would be no prejudice. Instead, we toss labels that have developed offensive connotations via the same slant of bigotry. We’re made to warn our audience as in the past we might’ve warned them because the two people in question were one of brown skin and one Caucasian.

Perhaps in time the public eye will grow tolerant to the distinction as it has with the latter example. Pity that time isn’t now.

[baudown.livejournal.com]

I'm confused about a number of things in this post.

First, I am curious about the comment re: rejecting the "foundations" of the term homophobia. Do you mean that you don't believe that aversion, negativity and hostility (possibly fear-based) to homosexuality exists? Or are you simply objecting to the manner in which the term can be over-used or misused? It would be difficult to agree with the former. As for the latter, I agree that the throwing around of loaded terms to preclude argument is unproductive. Everyone should be careful about this.

While I can certainly understand that slash is not everyone's cup of tea, I don't understand "opposition" to it. Why is it something that even registers if you're not into it? No one is being forced to read it. No one is pushing slash on non-slash readers. It's posted at sites aimed at slash writers and readers; avoid them if you don't want to read it! If you've friended someone who's writing slash, you can de-friend. It's not a phenomenon with the social or cultural or political power to threaten the fabric of our culture, or even of fandom, in any way.

I don't understand the meaning of "systemic" homosexualization of characters. What system are you referring to? And what is meant by homosexualization "for no good purpose?" Isn't the purpose of all fan fiction entertainment for the writers and readers? Isn't it all based in a kind of wish-fulfillment, i.e. wanting to see something that was not specifically portrayed in canon? Further, I can't imagine that anyone is writing slash for the purpose of offending those who dislike slash. They are writing for themselves and for like-minded fans.

I don't believe slashers are twisting characters into knots to suit any particular agenda (and I'm not sure what that agenda would be). Slash writers and readers may interpret text or subtext differently than non-slashers. This is a matter of experience and perspective and imagination. Fan fiction isn't merely an exercise in re-hashing canon, which would be pretty dull. To say that a homosexual relationship shouldn't exist in fan fiction because we haven't seen those characters engage in same-sex relationships in canon ignores that these characters have a imagined pasts, presents and futures that also have not been portrayed on screen. It ignore the fluidity of sexuality and sexual behavior. It would preclude so much wonderful writing, both in het and slash fic, if all a writer could do is re-write what has already been done.

You're post lists homosexual couples that you deem "acceptable" based on canonical plausibility. I don't know if you were limiting yourself to female couples. But certainly, it would be hard to ignore the canon-based legitimacy of a past relationship between Angel(us) and Spike. It pretty much goes beyond subtext and directly into text in AtS. And while there is certainly a lot to debate on the subject of writers' intentions versus viewers' interpretations, it's hard to ignore Joss Whedon saying that A/S had sex.

I generally don't read a lot of PWP, although it can be very enjoyable, especially if well-written. But I do love fan fic focusing on relationships. Love and sex are two of the most powerful human drives, so stories about sexuality and romance are very interesting to me. This is true both for same-sex and hetero relationships. I like Spuffy, as well Spangel and Spander, as long as the work is good, although I've come to prefer slash overall.

There's room in the world, including fandom, for a host of preferences and opinions. Enjoy yours! Try not to worry about the rest!

[aadler]

That’s the crux of my overall observation. There are two types of same-sex pairings: those utilizing characters who are canonically same-sex oriented, and those which alter a character’s (or both characters’) orientation in order to accommodate a same-sex coupling. The second type is fairly labeled slash, but I really do wish there were a similar yet distinct label for the first. To me, there is a genuine difference in the essence there, and that difference strongly affects my overall attitude.

[aadler]

Hmm. Several observations.

>– … something for which I’ve taken a small amount of heat. My apologies to anyone I’ve offended by making this ‘recommendation.’

Just curious: heat on what grounds?

>– However, what I hear Aadler saying is that he/she dislikes the slap dash nature of some slash fiction.

‘Slapdash’ can be fairly applied to some of the things to which I object, but is inapplicable to others, and overall is less precise. What annoys me and elicits my disapproval is the widespread practice of turning straight characters gay for the purpose of turning them gay.

>– Though this is somewhat confused by his/her support of Willow/Kennedy. That relationship is constructed in such a ham fisted manner that it is as slap dash as any in canon save for perhaps Spike/Buffy or Spike/Anya in Season Six. Those ‘relationships’ are built as much on passion and angst as any comparably offensive pieces of ‘slash’ fiction. Likewise, Buffy/Satsu from comic canon smacks of this.

Spike/Buffy was a disaster, and was never presented as anything else (regardless of how passionately the B/S ’shippers might have wished otherwise). Spike/Anya was a one-time drunken revenge-sex fling, and was never presented as anything else. For all that I liked Tara enormously more than I will ever like Kennedy, Willow/Kennedy — though done quickly — was pushed on the viewing audience in a far less ham-fisted fashion than was the initial Willow/Tara. All of that is beside the point, however, because those relationships are canonical. When I refer to slash, I’m talking about fanfiction. The relationship is one-way; fanfic is derived from canon, and is (or should be) responsible to it, while canon owes no such allegiance to fanfic.

>– Instead, I resign myself to be counted among the ranks of the lowly ‘slash’ authors, though I despise the term. It carries such negative connotations that a percentage of my potential audience is put off before they’ve even read my first words. I’m not judged by my merits as an author, nor by my abilities to construct a plausible, loving relationship grounded within the roots of canon. I’m judged by the meaning of a dated piece of nomenclature.

Sorry, that’s just how it goes. Even in original fiction, if you write within a recognized genre (e.g., Western, mystery, romance novels, science fiction, bodice rippers) you will to some extent be judged according to the genre. The same goes for slash and ’ships and mpreg and all the other specialties. It doesn’t matter how good the writing is in a romance novel, I don’t like romance novels and I don’t read them; the genre itself, and all the conventions attached to it, annoy and repel me. And (except for inexpressibly rare exceptions) the same is so for slash.

I see no need to respond your subsequent observations, because by my own prior statement these are things that don’t matter to me. Slash afficionados may be deeply concerned about such matters, but — since I don’t read slash — they simply have no significance for me.

[aadler]

So, essentially, you disagree with everything I said.

Okay.

[valyssia]

Funny, what you said about genres. Homoerotic fiction (note that a kinder term exists) is the one 'genre' that can encompass all of the genres you listed and more. I write romance. I write tragedy. I write horror. I write fantasy. I write adventure. I've not written a western yet, though that could be fun.

No matter.

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.

You are no longer of any consequence and this makes you a bitter man who is filled with hatred for something you don't understand. You beat your little drum from time to time and drive even more people away.

It was put to me that you refuse to except the label 'homophobe' because the suffix indicates that you might fear gay people. It can also be said that for someone to hate something they don't understand so openly there must be some element of fear.

Such the pity as hatred begets hatred and the cycle continues.

You cannot wish us out of existence because we just are. We will always be. The predilection is as natural as the occurrence of blonde hair or green eyes. That would be why over many thousands of years of recorded history 'faggots' and 'dykes' have appeared to trouble 'clean living' people such as yourself.

You can't beat us out of being. If you eliminate one, another is born. In these more civilized times, you can send us off to your little boot camps to be conditioned into normalcy. The end result is that we'll either be gay or miserable. Such the expression of love to send someone to be tortured into behaving the way you expect them to. What a marvelous way to show your children the approval, attention and affection they crave.

You will have no further trouble from this little lesbian. You no longer exist to me.

Keep running your mouth and there'll be no one left to listen.

[aadler]

May I note that your being ‘given a history lesson’ about me entailed you hearing someone else’s version of my statements and activities? We’ve never met, and our discussion — while we clearly disagree on several points — was civil. You’re under no obligation to check factual histories before deciding you no longer want to communicate with me, but you really should check before passing judgment on me and signing off with a flurry of insults.

– So, I was once a BNF? I’m happy to hear that, since no one let me know I had ever held such a status.

– All this time, we’ve been talking about slash, and suddenly it’s about what we weren’t talking about, to wit, homosexuality in society. If I ever feel like arguing about that subject, I’ll open a post on that subject. This one was about fanfic, and it wasn’t me who changed the discussion.

– I don’t hate anybody. (Except jihadis, and I generally reserve that sentiment for when I’m in a combat theater, or when they’ve once again demonstrated their moral superiority by murdering a bunch of civilians.)

– I have no desire to wish you out of existence.

– You were not troubling me, so long as we were engaged in a civil exchange of views on aspects of fanfiction.

– And, if I ‘no longer exist’ for you, does that mean you’re trying to wish me out of existence? since, apparently, you regard that as a bad thing.

You might want to reserve your passion for people who are actually taking part in the argument, because this one was never mine.

[raynejelly.livejournal.com]

I disagree with you, but I am sorry that you seem to be under fire for stating your opinion here. I think the discussion is, at least, interesting.

I am curious, however, if you take umbrage at the idea of relationships that are not canonically plausible, do you also have issue with Alternate-Universe [or Human AU] stories, or stories that begin early in the series arc and change the course of canon?

[aadler]

I actually came very close to citing all-human AUs as an offshoot example, something different that I disliked for much the same reasons. It’s as if someone said, “Ohh, Buffy the Vampire Slayer! I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer! And there’s all this Buffy fanfic around, so here’s what I’m going to do: I’ll write a BtVS fanfic of my own, and because I love Buffy so much, I’ll completely change the characters, make them totally different people in a totally different setting and a totally different situation. If that isn’t love, nothing is!”

I just don’t get it. It doesn’t offend me, because I don’t read it, but I can’t understand WHY it would even remotely appeal to anyone. Take Buffy and make it not-Buffy, as a Buffy writer and posted for Buffy readers … Nope. I don’t get it at all.

[raynejelly.livejournal.com]

I think it's only fair to tell you that one or two of us have decided to carry the debate elsewhere, largely because we think it's an interesting question.

I invite you to read some of our thinking on why we find slash so engaging:here (http://raynejelly.livejournal.com/30299.html).

[aadler]

I did take a brief look at the entries there, and — without intending any offense — they lost me quickly because the fundamental feelings there are entirely alien to me. I find nothing even vaguely interesting in the fact or process of turning a straight character gay, and other people explaining why it so interests them just manifests to me as meaningless noise because the disconnect is total.

You’ve been civil. I appreciate it. I hope I have succeeded in being equally polite … but there will never be any meeting of the minds here, because we’re speaking to one another from different universes.

Insofar as the discussion continuing, I have no objection, but I’m frankly happy about it moving elsewhere. I never intended to start a discussion at all; it was just that, so many people having condemned me for what they believed my attitudes to be, I wanted to clarify what those attitudes are.

[raynejelly.livejournal.com]

I think you'll find that's what I said. Granted, I'm a bit verbose, but what you read as civility was, in fact, sympathy.

"I think writing primarily male characters is an interesting exercise because women, who are broadly understood to be a construction of “the other,” create a different “otherness” in gay men who were, in canon, straight, perhaps in an unconscious effort to sublimate the dominate culture. ... I think the primary reason that aadler has difficulty with slash is because he is a heterosexual man [which makes me sound like a man hater. I’m not, I’m really not, but if you’re a member of a sub-conscious dominant paradigm, then attempting to embrace the radical opposite of that paradigm is counterintuitive]. His major objection was the habit of writing straight characters into gay ones simply for the sake of writing slash fiction, and if you’re not interested in subverting the dominant thinking, I can see why that would be problematic. In fact, I can pretty easily see where he’s coming from; when we write fanfiction, we’re using pre-established characters and doing interesting things with them, so to fundamentally change an aspect of a character suggests that we might as well be writing original fiction. However, that assertion carries the unfortunate corollary thinking that a singular aspect, in this case sexuality or sexual orientation, is all that makes a character [which we know not to be true], so I think the argument is invalid, and his real issue is one of characterization. Unfortunately, when characters are awkwardly written, or not very well developed, the story tends to lack something, but that problem of characterization is not limited solely to slash fiction and most frequently manifests in very inexperienced writers."

[legendarytobes.livejournal.com]

I actually cannot believe the su_herald linked to this. This isn't really traditional meta-analysis. It's not the least bit scholarly. It barely cite examples and does leave out huge chunks of confirmed canon from Joss in that A/S have had a sexual relationship when still Aurealians and everything that happened, fling or not, annoying or not for the new slayer's status as being a used means to an end, with Buffy/Satsu in season eight.

I think I'd maybe understand more if the diatribe talked about not liking "non-canon" things or talked about random pairings like shoving Jonathan/Cordelia or like Riley/Anya together because someone had a curious moment with no textual support and just slapped two characters of a heterosexual inclination together haphazardly.

I do have to say, I get the feeling what you loathe is that even if you have confirmation via comments from showrunners---after all who would know more about Angel/Spike or Angelus/Spike than Joss himself---is any ship you didn't see onscreen, except, apparently Willow/Faith because Faith, naturally, played the eroticized bad girl bits of sending overtures---in taunt or not---at Buffy in season three. I suppose if it scintillates, then it might be passing your "test" or if we just ignore very hard that Buffy's now canonically (like or loathe it) bisexual and Angel and Spike are as well.

Of course, your complete stated hatred of things I already liked and confusing standard for what's hamfisted with Willow/Tara and Willow/Kennedy lead me to believe you don't have very much worth saying anyway.

[aadler]

I didn’t ask for this to appear on su_herald, and I wish it hadn’t. I also didn’t ask for your commentary, and no more will be welcome. In fact, I’m freezing this post, because I’m tired of all the crap.

Oh, and while we’re at it: you can go straight to hell.