I think the 'subversion' aspect of slash is an accident of sociology, not a raison d'etre
Jesus Christ, yes. That's where this post rubs me the wrong way. I don't go out there saying "ooh, I'm gonna be edgy and write myself some slash."
Sure, one can use the definition that slash=non-canon, but in that case Modesty/Willie is slash and the whole slash/het/gen breakdown (which is actually understandable 95% of the time) is pointless and wrong. I'm not wild about this idea.
The way I see it, I write fanfic. Sometimes that fanfic involved non-canon pairings. Sometimes it involves same-sex pairings. The fact that I use the term "slash" for the second category rather than the first doesn't in any way mean I want to "fictionalize" real same-sex relationships, any way than my use of the word "het" means I want to fictionalize real opposite-sex relationships. And I'm really, really not keen on the idea of trying to determine people's views on sexual politics by their use of one frickin' word.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-21 06:22 pm (UTC)Jesus Christ, yes. That's where this post rubs me the wrong way. I don't go out there saying "ooh, I'm gonna be edgy and write myself some slash."
Sure, one can use the definition that slash=non-canon, but in that case Modesty/Willie is slash and the whole slash/het/gen breakdown (which is actually understandable 95% of the time) is pointless and wrong. I'm not wild about this idea.
The way I see it, I write fanfic. Sometimes that fanfic involved non-canon pairings. Sometimes it involves same-sex pairings. The fact that I use the term "slash" for the second category rather than the first doesn't in any way mean I want to "fictionalize" real same-sex relationships, any way than my use of the word "het" means I want to fictionalize real opposite-sex relationships. And I'm really, really not keen on the idea of trying to determine people's views on sexual politics by their use of one frickin' word.