ext_1888: Crichton looking thoughtful and a little awed. (Default)
ext_1888 ([identity profile] wemblee.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] truepenny 2006-12-24 12:53 am (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I'm all for subversion, and I'm all for not labeling same-sex relationships subversive just because they're same-sex, but...

There is a sort of slashy... aesthetic, I feel. Buffy/Spike, before it became canon, felt slashy, even though Buffy's a woman and Spike's a man. Willow/Tara felt slashy to me, because it went from (just barely) non-canonical to canonical.

I like to write stuff that gives me that slashy "zing," for lack of a better word -- stuff that, yeah, tries to subvert the genre by gaying it up. While it's not slash, exactly, 'cause it's not fanfic, calling it slashy at least lets me describe what I'm going for to fan-type people.

Also, I agree with whoever it was above that said that slash fiction's subversive qualities are, more often than not, "an accident of sociology." The main draw, for better or for worse, is the same-sex relationship. I don't think most slash fans really care if the pairing they're currently obsessed about is subversive or not; I mean, just check out the latest wank over a fan trying to generalize why fans write slash, and the avalanche of responses to the tune of, "Because it's PORN."

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting