Pairings, wave theory, interpretive communities
People have been talking about how certain relationships in a story make them go "huh?" and demand an explanation for why A and B hooked up, and other people have been talking about interpretive communities, and how, to fans of the A/B pairing, it's completely obvious and doesn't need explaining, necessarily. It's in various comments here, and is explored more here, and some aspects of the conversation reminded me very strongly of this post. Yes, this post that you're reading now. It looks new, but it's been sitting in the drafts folder for ages; I've started and abandoned it several times over the years because I couldn't decide if it was boring and pointless or not.
(That's like those horrible this story sucks author's notes, isn't it?) (But I think Lucy is totally right when she says that it's better to post questions and open-ended bits of theory and speculation than perfectly-crafted essays that are all eggshell-smooth and polished and don't invite people in. I'm also starting to think that it's better to post something, anything, than not to post at all for fear of being boring, which is my usual habit.) (People might think I've died. But I digress.)
The discussion I referenced up there was about all pairings and no pairings (or rather, all pairings or no pairings), but here I'm sticking mostly to talking about m/m slash. Write what you know, and all that.
Where does a slash story start? Not in terms of plot, but in terms of attraction. Every writer chooses a starting point -- maybe the story starts before one or both of the guys has even realized the other one has a great ass, or maybe it starts when they've been together for years and are having lazy morning sex. And no matter where a story starts, someone's going to look at it and say, but, hey. Why are these guys in love?
And part of it is about the reader buying the premise to start with, and part of it is about the writer building the premise in the story. And this is where the wave theory comes in.
So, what is the wave theory of slash?
Well, to start with, you can read it here, since palo_verde was kind enough to post it last time I rambled about it, a fairly long time ago. In brief, the theory talks about four waves of slash fan fiction, where the first wave is writers who do "character-based stories with slash," stories that start with the assumption that here are two canonically heterosexual men who have a very special bond, and work at building a believable relationship progression based on that premise, and the fourth wave is writers who do "multimedia slash," where the writer might actually write in more than one fandom, and doesn't have a solid grounding in gen or friendship stories before setting out to get these guys, who are probably not all that overwhelmingly straight, laid.
And yes, I'm summarizing and being facetious and leaving out details like anything. *g* I don't actually want to debate the wave theory, as interesting as it is, I just want to get to the next part.
The wave theory in my head
the_shoshanna told me about the wave theory back in '98 or so, and I didn't exactly take notes. Instead, I twisted it around in my head a bit. The idea that writers could be classified by what wave they were didn't sit right with me, apparently, and so my version of the wave theory was/is about stories instead.
A first wave story, then, would be one where the writer builds everything, including sexuality, from the ground up, explaining within the text that yes indeed, these guys have never shown any sign of being attracted to other guys, BUT, and then detailing the attraction and the reasons behind the attraction and how this ties in with piece one, two, and forty-seven of canon.
A second wave story would start from the position that the guys' potential sexual interest in each other doesn't need to be justified, and just work on building the relationship and showing why and how A and B, specifically, would be falling in love.
Third wave, hm, third wave would be where the story just posits that they are in fact in love/attracted, without trying to explain it through references to and extrapolation from canon, and goes from there.
And fourth wave would be the "omgnownow" PWP. Or should fourth wave be established relationship stories?
I think possibly my version could use more than four waves. Maybe I'll just call it a spectrum. My point is, anyway, that to me it makes more sense to look at stories this way, going from a "cold start" to the ones that practically start mid-fuck, or mid-declaration of everlasting love and devotion. I think most writers who write a pairing tend to write in at least two places on the spectrum, unless they are on a strict diet and eschew PWPs and schmoopy vignettes.
In other words, you could say that nearly everyone is a fourth wave writer these days. And yes, "nearly everyone" is a cheerful exaggeration, but while there are people who are completely monofannish, it's difficult to not at least be aware of other fandoms, and the fans thereof. That's another reason why the theory works better for me applied to stories than to writers.
It's not you, it's me
But this isn't just about the stories, it's about the readers, and how they look at things as individuals and as parts of an interpretive community. Me, I'm a John/Rodney fan. The pairing makes sense in my head, and there's a sizeable group of other people who feel the same way, and we sit around and talk about it, and read and write about it, and the more we talk and read and write, the more the pairing solidifies and sort of takes on a life and a gestalt of its own, independent of any one individual who is part of the talking and reading and writing.
For John/Rodney, and some of my other pairings of choice, I'm a fourth wave reader. I'll read a PWP without wondering where the spark of physical attraction came from; I'll read an established-relationship story without questioning that they could have reached that kind of understanding. The writer doesn't have to build the relationship from the ground up -- but of course that doesn't mean I mind seeing that. Bring it on. *g* The point is, though, I'm a sympathetic audience; I don't really need to be wooed, although I quite enjoy when it happens.
But there are other pairings where I'm strictly first wave. I won't believe unless you show your work, and maybe not even then. Stories that treat attraction between X and Y as a given will just leave me shaking my head.
To the dedicated readers and writers of X/Y, though, it makes perfect sense. They have their own interpretive community revolving around X/Y, the rightness thereof, and they don't want to start from scratch in every story just so it makes sense to me, nor would I expect it of them. Maybe they read it once and that was enough; maybe they'll write it one day when they get around to it; maybe they don't think it's necessary to write it at all. Obviously X and Y are in love -- just look at them!
Long story short
We don't just read a story about A and B or X and Y, we read through the lens of everything we think, and have previously read and written and discussed, about A and B and X and Y. And by we I mean that everyone has their own lens and their own way of looking at things, whether they're part of an interpretive community or not. You say potayto, I say potahto, I say PWP, you say WTF.
Why are these characters in love? Hell if I know. But if you tell me you see it, I'll believe you, even if I don't see it myself. You don't have to write a first wave story to make me happy, or to justify your preferences; you don't have to explain why they're in love unless you really want to. (But if you do want to, go ahead! And send me a link. *g*)
And elynross supports me in email.
(That's like those horrible this story sucks author's notes, isn't it?) (But I think Lucy is totally right when she says that it's better to post questions and open-ended bits of theory and speculation than perfectly-crafted essays that are all eggshell-smooth and polished and don't invite people in. I'm also starting to think that it's better to post something, anything, than not to post at all for fear of being boring, which is my usual habit.) (People might think I've died. But I digress.)
The discussion I referenced up there was about all pairings and no pairings (or rather, all pairings or no pairings), but here I'm sticking mostly to talking about m/m slash. Write what you know, and all that.
Where does a slash story start? Not in terms of plot, but in terms of attraction. Every writer chooses a starting point -- maybe the story starts before one or both of the guys has even realized the other one has a great ass, or maybe it starts when they've been together for years and are having lazy morning sex. And no matter where a story starts, someone's going to look at it and say, but, hey. Why are these guys in love?
And part of it is about the reader buying the premise to start with, and part of it is about the writer building the premise in the story. And this is where the wave theory comes in.
So, what is the wave theory of slash?
Well, to start with, you can read it here, since palo_verde was kind enough to post it last time I rambled about it, a fairly long time ago. In brief, the theory talks about four waves of slash fan fiction, where the first wave is writers who do "character-based stories with slash," stories that start with the assumption that here are two canonically heterosexual men who have a very special bond, and work at building a believable relationship progression based on that premise, and the fourth wave is writers who do "multimedia slash," where the writer might actually write in more than one fandom, and doesn't have a solid grounding in gen or friendship stories before setting out to get these guys, who are probably not all that overwhelmingly straight, laid.
And yes, I'm summarizing and being facetious and leaving out details like anything. *g* I don't actually want to debate the wave theory, as interesting as it is, I just want to get to the next part.
The wave theory in my head
the_shoshanna told me about the wave theory back in '98 or so, and I didn't exactly take notes. Instead, I twisted it around in my head a bit. The idea that writers could be classified by what wave they were didn't sit right with me, apparently, and so my version of the wave theory was/is about stories instead.
A first wave story, then, would be one where the writer builds everything, including sexuality, from the ground up, explaining within the text that yes indeed, these guys have never shown any sign of being attracted to other guys, BUT, and then detailing the attraction and the reasons behind the attraction and how this ties in with piece one, two, and forty-seven of canon.
A second wave story would start from the position that the guys' potential sexual interest in each other doesn't need to be justified, and just work on building the relationship and showing why and how A and B, specifically, would be falling in love.
Third wave, hm, third wave would be where the story just posits that they are in fact in love/attracted, without trying to explain it through references to and extrapolation from canon, and goes from there.
And fourth wave would be the "omgnownow" PWP. Or should fourth wave be established relationship stories?
I think possibly my version could use more than four waves. Maybe I'll just call it a spectrum. My point is, anyway, that to me it makes more sense to look at stories this way, going from a "cold start" to the ones that practically start mid-fuck, or mid-declaration of everlasting love and devotion. I think most writers who write a pairing tend to write in at least two places on the spectrum, unless they are on a strict diet and eschew PWPs and schmoopy vignettes.
In other words, you could say that nearly everyone is a fourth wave writer these days. And yes, "nearly everyone" is a cheerful exaggeration, but while there are people who are completely monofannish, it's difficult to not at least be aware of other fandoms, and the fans thereof. That's another reason why the theory works better for me applied to stories than to writers.
It's not you, it's me
But this isn't just about the stories, it's about the readers, and how they look at things as individuals and as parts of an interpretive community. Me, I'm a John/Rodney fan. The pairing makes sense in my head, and there's a sizeable group of other people who feel the same way, and we sit around and talk about it, and read and write about it, and the more we talk and read and write, the more the pairing solidifies and sort of takes on a life and a gestalt of its own, independent of any one individual who is part of the talking and reading and writing.
For John/Rodney, and some of my other pairings of choice, I'm a fourth wave reader. I'll read a PWP without wondering where the spark of physical attraction came from; I'll read an established-relationship story without questioning that they could have reached that kind of understanding. The writer doesn't have to build the relationship from the ground up -- but of course that doesn't mean I mind seeing that. Bring it on. *g* The point is, though, I'm a sympathetic audience; I don't really need to be wooed, although I quite enjoy when it happens.
But there are other pairings where I'm strictly first wave. I won't believe unless you show your work, and maybe not even then. Stories that treat attraction between X and Y as a given will just leave me shaking my head.
To the dedicated readers and writers of X/Y, though, it makes perfect sense. They have their own interpretive community revolving around X/Y, the rightness thereof, and they don't want to start from scratch in every story just so it makes sense to me, nor would I expect it of them. Maybe they read it once and that was enough; maybe they'll write it one day when they get around to it; maybe they don't think it's necessary to write it at all. Obviously X and Y are in love -- just look at them!
Long story short
We don't just read a story about A and B or X and Y, we read through the lens of everything we think, and have previously read and written and discussed, about A and B and X and Y. And by we I mean that everyone has their own lens and their own way of looking at things, whether they're part of an interpretive community or not. You say potayto, I say potahto, I say PWP, you say WTF.
Why are these characters in love? Hell if I know. But if you tell me you see it, I'll believe you, even if I don't see it myself. You don't have to write a first wave story to make me happy, or to justify your preferences; you don't have to explain why they're in love unless you really want to. (But if you do want to, go ahead! And send me a link. *g*)
And elynross supports me in email.