In other words, the critical criteria for success would change hugely, eliminating the very thing many readers and writers seem to come to slash (or fanfic generally) to obtain: characters who closely mirror their own emotional and other concerns.
It's my impression that an enormous amount of fanfic, both gen and slash, consists of hijacking the original characters to carry out the psychological agendas of the fan writers.
Absolutely, and as you say this isn't either good or bad. On the other hand, making it original fic would remove or greatly alter the whole critical motive; the bit where sometimes what the writer wants to say it
'okay, so why in the original source material does this guy behave in a way that can only be justified by assuming he has the inner life of a thirteen year old girl?'
(The old debate in Hornblower fandom is Horatio Hornblower: Complete Emotional Defective, or just Really Really Gay? Many fandoms have one of these characters.)
Not sure I agree about "primary defining characteristic is that it subverts...", however. (Possibly because the longer I look at that sentence, the less sure I am what it means.) (Actually, I may not have correctly understood what you meant by the first part, either, now I reconsider.)
Hmm. Let me try that puppy again.
The primary defining characteristic of slash seems to me to be not that it portrays same-sex desire or relationships, but that it responds (antagonistically or semi-antagonistically) to various tropes in how culture portrays men and male relationships.
Which is not realistically, and in most of the most-slashed shows and books is deeply unrealistic, but is in fact a largely male fantasy of what men are like.
(Yes, I know there are more and more female creators. I notice mildly that their works are, outside of romance, less and less slashed. I have as yet not a big enough sample here to even begin to address that. it's a bit of slack in my system for now.)
You can even subdivide that into a fantasy version of the sort of man who appeals to men (male watchers, the 'buddy'), and a fantasy version of the sort of man who appeals to women (female watchers, the heroine).
And there are, at least to my eyes, vast deep pools of anxiety about portraying male characters with other male characters and to male viewers in a lot of pop culture, because male characters are sort of by definition objects to be looked at, and if possible desired as well as identified with. But that desire is all extremely subterranean; they tamp it down with a sledgehammer in buddy shows, for example, to make up for having two attractive men alone together a lot.
And slash grabs that anxiety by the, well, by the balls and hauls it out and makes it explicit, which is a response.
Subversion is a word I'm starting to be deeply wary of, but I see it as subversive in that, as we saw an example of recently, it
a) cuts the rug out from under a certain widely accepted model of male affection as 'surpassing the (sexual therefore impure) love of women'. (It doesn't, actually, cut the rug out from under genuine male friendship, though it can sure feel that way for a bit, I grant)
and b) normalises it. Turns the world upside down and says 'yeah, and if they are so frigging what?'
As matociquala and truepenny both very reasonably point out, in real life, this isn't and shouldn't be subversive. As a response to works in pop culture... it really is.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
Re: Reposting for Lois
Date: 2006-12-20 04:40 am (UTC)It's my impression that an enormous amount of fanfic, both gen and slash, consists of hijacking the original characters to carry out the psychological agendas of the fan writers.
Absolutely, and as you say this isn't either good or bad. On the other hand, making it original fic would remove or greatly alter the whole critical motive; the bit where sometimes what the writer wants to say it
'okay, so why in the original source material does this guy behave in a way that can only be justified by assuming he has the inner life of a thirteen year old girl?'
(The old debate in Hornblower fandom is Horatio Hornblower: Complete Emotional Defective, or just Really Really Gay? Many fandoms have one of these characters.)
Hmm. Let me try that puppy again.
The primary defining characteristic of slash seems to me to be not that it portrays same-sex desire or relationships, but that it responds (antagonistically or semi-antagonistically) to various tropes in how culture portrays men and male relationships.
Which is not realistically, and in most of the most-slashed shows and books is deeply unrealistic, but is in fact a largely male fantasy of what men are like.
(Yes, I know there are more and more female creators. I notice mildly that their works are, outside of romance, less and less slashed. I have as yet not a big enough sample here to even begin to address that. it's a bit of slack in my system for now.)
You can even subdivide that into a fantasy version of the sort of man who appeals to men (male watchers, the 'buddy'), and a fantasy version of the sort of man who appeals to women (female watchers, the heroine).
And there are, at least to my eyes, vast deep pools of anxiety about portraying male characters with other male characters and to male viewers in a lot of pop culture, because male characters are sort of by definition objects to be looked at, and if possible desired as well as identified with. But that desire is all extremely subterranean; they tamp it down with a sledgehammer in buddy shows, for example, to make up for having two attractive men alone together a lot.
And slash grabs that anxiety by the, well, by the balls and hauls it out and makes it explicit, which is a response.
Subversion is a word I'm starting to be deeply wary of, but I see it as subversive in that, as we saw an example of recently, it
a) cuts the rug out from under a certain widely accepted model of male affection as 'surpassing the (sexual therefore impure) love of women'. (It doesn't, actually, cut the rug out from under genuine male friendship, though it can sure feel that way for a bit, I grant)
and b) normalises it. Turns the world upside down and says 'yeah, and if they are so frigging what?'
As
(comment limit; continued on next rock)