Although I do have definite likes and dislikes in slash, much of it centered around what strikes as either authentic or unauthentic1, I don't for one moment consider slash to be a (gay) man's realm. It isn't. It's written by and for women; I'm just a guest here.
That said, I don't think slash is immune to the standards of good writing. Or at least it shouldn't be. Women may of course choose to make their characterization as wildly unrealistic as they wish, but if it doesn't (for example) retain internal consistency, then there's a problem with technique. The vision however is totally their deal.
Not that you said differently, of course, but I have often seen the defense that everything counts as wonderful because it's whatever person's vision. And while that counts as self-expression, which is terrific, it doesn't necessarily count as good.
Which is, um, an opinion on something you didn't even mention. ::cough:: I'll go away now.
1 And I don't mean "would a real gay man do (blank)". For me, it's more a matter of would a human being actually do or say (blank). Fanfiction based on an extant source is a little different however, because then the author is (supposedly) working off of existing characterization, and there are things most fans would agree Jim Ellison would probably never do or say.
Which sort of goes back to why women write fanfiction though. Believable Jim Ellison characterization may be way down on their list of priorities. I sometimes wonder why an author is writing fanfiction at all if she's completely unconcerned with meshing her vision with canon, rather than simply writing a piece of original erotica, but whatever. I'm confused a lot.
Hee! My post was actually prompted by internal musings brought about by your post on why you like slash *g*.
Anyway, there is indeed a big distinction between discussing slash, good slash, and good writing. Good writing isn't something I wanted to address in this post, but I see it's hard to distinguish from discussing good slash in some ways. If the characterisation or the premise is too removed from our own preferences, then it's hard to consider it 'good'.
I saw something else today that contributed to the mix of thoughts I had - it was some sort of mpreg fic, I think. Anyway, I couldn't for the life of me work out why that author would want to see those characters in an mpreg situation. Then I realised, it didn't matter what my rection was - she was writing it for herself. She enjoyed it, and that's what mattered.
No, I wasn't going to read it, but plenty of people will! And they'll love it. It will totally satisfy them. And suddenly I felt very good for them, happy that they were doing something that rocks their world.
It wasn't my choice of genre, but it works for them. A LOT of readers wouldn't touch my genres with a ten foot pole! That's okay.
I agree with you on the characteristation thing - I prefer my Jim to be behaving in certain readily identified ways. I'll pick and choose between stories, knocking back the AUs one night, devouring them on another. *shrug* I'm not saying I'll suddenly start reading the fairytale allegories, for instance, if I'm not in the mood. I tend not to enjoy them at any time, but that's just me. For other people they are fabulous things.
The point is, I think... I think... *g*, that if two men discussing their emotions together over a candlelit dinner is unlikely in someone's real life, it doesn't matter if a slash story has them doing it. It makes the author happy, it's what she wants to write. And I know that's obvious - I'm just getting it properly into my headspace. ;-)
Eep. Well I hope I'm not one of the aggressive, negative guys you mentioned above. I mean, yes, I do have likes and dislikes, as does everyone, but mine aren't any more valid than anyone else's; they're just mine, is all. I won't even say that my great preference for gritty, realistic stories is due to my status as a gay man, because I'm certain that if we polled gay men in fandom we'd get wildly different responses.
If the characterization or the premise is too removed from our own preferences, then it's hard to consider it 'good'.
Eh, I'm not sure I can totally agree with that, at least not without a redefinition of 'good'. If it's based on an extant source, then I think there is most definitely characterization in fic that either works or doesn't, because it's based on something. That doesn't mean there aren't droves of women who won't love it, but writing quality aside, those characters with those names arrive at a story with their own personalities. This isn't a straitjacket however, as I've seen all kinds of great divergence from canon characterization work, but the options aren't infinite.
But if by 'good' we mean only that "someone out there likes it", then the concepts of good and bad lose all meaning. Which is probably your point, isn't it? lol
I hope I'm not one of the aggressive, negative guys you mentioned above
Nope *g*.
the concepts of good and bad lose all meaning
Quite likely. I have my own preferences - and they seem to match in well with your own, but that's beside the point - and my version of 'good' is idiosyncratic to *me*. Yours is of value to you, and so on. I've seen stories recced from here to eternity that I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, but they're considered 'good' by a lot of other people.
I'm not defending the indefensible. There are always stories that will be really, really poor, for all the reasons you've mentioned.
I'm simply saying that we pick and choose what we like according to our preferences, and my preferences had been coloured by a standard that I don't think is valid.
Which sort of goes back to why women write fanfiction though. Believable Jim Ellison characterization may be way down on their list of priorities. I sometimes wonder why an author is writing fanfiction at all if she's completely unconcerned with meshing her vision with canon, rather than simply writing a piece of original erotica
My ex used to ask me a similar question. He told me I was cheating, by using a preset universe, too lazy to create my own. Maybe.
I tend to think it's more that we've emotionally bonded with these characters, and we want to use them as vehicles to explore a lot of things. If the resulting story sticks with canon, then that's more likely going to be regarded as good slash, I suppose. If it doesn't, the author is still exploring issues that are meaningful to her, and letting her affection or attraction she has for the characters be the means with which she achieves it. If she's also a good writer, then that AU or AR story can still be just as highly regarded.
It's highly regarded by her at any rate, no matter what else is said and done. *g*
He told me I was cheating, by using a preset universe, too lazy to create my own.
Personally, I find writing within a universe that's already been established WAAAAY more difficult than starting from scratch, because it has boundaries that I didn't set, and that I don't always agree with.
Really? *thinks* Then I guess I must not disagree with the way my fandoms' universes are set out *g*.
That said, I do try and do a little original work now and then - it's usually not well received. ;-) So I return to the safe and known worlds of Hogwarts or Smallville or Cascade or...
I must not disagree with the way my fandoms' universes are set out
lol I do this stupid thing where I kind of require even my fantasy worlds to make sense, and they so often don't. For instance, I've been working on this super-long Sentinel story which I'm positive I'll never actually finish, much less show anyone, and I keep getting caught up in trying to portray Jim's senses in a way that makes biological sense, which is stupid, because they make no sense at all. They couldn't possibly work the way they're shown to, assuming senses heightened to that extent were even possible.
I've checked out anatomy books and books on optics and all this crap, and while I've scotch-taped together a version of his senses that might possibly work in the real world, it practically reads as original fiction. I'm just... I'm such a dork, L. lol Anyway, yes, I find working within the boundaries the show sets to be problematic. It doesn't help that I'm so preoccupied with trying to portray canon accurately, either.
*nod* I've seen people get completely wrapped up in 'accurate portrayal' of a fictional reality in a lot of fandoms *g*. There's nothing wrong with it, and it seems to be quite fun and challenging for the writers involved. Everyone has an approach that suits them best *g*.
I quite like the sound of what you're doing. Actually, it's put me in mind of Francesca's Nature series, which to my mind is *madness* to suggest to a TS newbie as an intro to TS (as it was to me). It isn't canon! It has Blair with his own abilities, but it's so.well.drawn and researched and executed. She built a new reality. I was disappointed when I finally saw the eps, and found Blair wasn't as described, LOL.
Dude. It just occurred to me that I may have been a giant killjoy here, which I totally did not intend. I find this kind of this interesting, and I didn't stop to consider what effect my comments might have had. Sorry about that. :)
You're not being a killjoy at all! I'm glad you've chimed in, and it's excellent to have a balance of perspectives in this discussion.
As I see it, you are making reference to that externalised 'standard' - but I'm stating that that value system is irrelevant to me for the terms of this discussion. We are making our own system of values here. Irregardless of technical abilities, or adherence to canon characterisation, slashers are writing that which interests them. And *that* is the basis of my terms of value. The will to explore themes in the style which best satisfies the needs of the writer. It's simply a shift in perspective, changing nothing concrete. The stories stand as they always have. My acceptance of them is the point of change.
That said, I don't think slash is immune to the standards of good writing. Or at least it shouldn't be. Women may of course choose to make their characterization as wildly unrealistic as they wish, but if it doesn't (for example) retain internal consistency, then there's a problem with technique. The vision however is totally their deal.
Not that you said differently, of course, but I have often seen the defense that everything counts as wonderful because it's whatever person's vision. And while that counts as self-expression, which is terrific, it doesn't necessarily count as good.
Which is, um, an opinion on something you didn't even mention. ::cough:: I'll go away now.
1 And I don't mean "would a real gay man do (blank)". For me, it's more a matter of would a human being actually do or say (blank). Fanfiction based on an extant source is a little different however, because then the author is (supposedly) working off of existing characterization, and there are things most fans would agree Jim Ellison would probably never do or say.
Which sort of goes back to why women write fanfiction though. Believable Jim Ellison characterization may be way down on their list of priorities. I sometimes wonder why an author is writing fanfiction at all if she's completely unconcerned with meshing her vision with canon, rather than simply writing a piece of original erotica, but whatever. I'm confused a lot.
Reply
Anyway, there is indeed a big distinction between discussing slash, good slash, and good writing. Good writing isn't something I wanted to address in this post, but I see it's hard to distinguish from discussing good slash in some ways. If the characterisation or the premise is too removed from our own preferences, then it's hard to consider it 'good'.
I saw something else today that contributed to the mix of thoughts I had - it was some sort of mpreg fic, I think. Anyway, I couldn't for the life of me work out why that author would want to see those characters in an mpreg situation. Then I realised, it didn't matter what my rection was - she was writing it for herself. She enjoyed it, and that's what mattered.
No, I wasn't going to read it, but plenty of people will! And they'll love it. It will totally satisfy them. And suddenly I felt very good for them, happy that they were doing something that rocks their world.
It wasn't my choice of genre, but it works for them. A LOT of readers wouldn't touch my genres with a ten foot pole! That's okay.
I agree with you on the characteristation thing - I prefer my Jim to be behaving in certain readily identified ways. I'll pick and choose between stories, knocking back the AUs one night, devouring them on another. *shrug* I'm not saying I'll suddenly start reading the fairytale allegories, for instance, if I'm not in the mood. I tend not to enjoy them at any time, but that's just me. For other people they are fabulous things.
The point is, I think... I think... *g*, that if two men discussing their emotions together over a candlelit dinner is unlikely in someone's real life, it doesn't matter if a slash story has them doing it. It makes the author happy, it's what she wants to write. And I know that's obvious - I'm just getting it properly into my headspace. ;-)
Reply
If the characterization or the premise is too removed from our own preferences, then it's hard to consider it 'good'.
Eh, I'm not sure I can totally agree with that, at least not without a redefinition of 'good'. If it's based on an extant source, then I think there is most definitely characterization in fic that either works or doesn't, because it's based on something. That doesn't mean there aren't droves of women who won't love it, but writing quality aside, those characters with those names arrive at a story with their own personalities. This isn't a straitjacket however, as I've seen all kinds of great divergence from canon characterization work, but the options aren't infinite.
But if by 'good' we mean only that "someone out there likes it", then the concepts of good and bad lose all meaning. Which is probably your point, isn't it? lol
Reply
Nope *g*.
the concepts of good and bad lose all meaning
Quite likely. I have my own preferences - and they seem to match in well with your own, but that's beside the point - and my version of 'good' is idiosyncratic to *me*. Yours is of value to you, and so on. I've seen stories recced from here to eternity that I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, but they're considered 'good' by a lot of other people.
I'm not defending the indefensible. There are always stories that will be really, really poor, for all the reasons you've mentioned.
I'm simply saying that we pick and choose what we like according to our preferences, and my preferences had been coloured by a standard that I don't think is valid.
Reply
That makes total sense. ::nods::
Reply
My ex used to ask me a similar question. He told me I was cheating, by using a preset universe, too lazy to create my own. Maybe.
I tend to think it's more that we've emotionally bonded with these characters, and we want to use them as vehicles to explore a lot of things. If the resulting story sticks with canon, then that's more likely going to be regarded as good slash, I suppose. If it doesn't, the author is still exploring issues that are meaningful to her, and letting her affection or attraction she has for the characters be the means with which she achieves it. If she's also a good writer, then that AU or AR story can still be just as highly regarded.
It's highly regarded by her at any rate, no matter what else is said and done. *g*
Reply
Personally, I find writing within a universe that's already been established WAAAAY more difficult than starting from scratch, because it has boundaries that I didn't set, and that I don't always agree with.
Reply
That said, I do try and do a little original work now and then - it's usually not well received. ;-) So I return to the safe and known worlds of Hogwarts or Smallville or Cascade or...
Reply
lol I do this stupid thing where I kind of require even my fantasy worlds to make sense, and they so often don't. For instance, I've been working on this super-long Sentinel story which I'm positive I'll never actually finish, much less show anyone, and I keep getting caught up in trying to portray Jim's senses in a way that makes biological sense, which is stupid, because they make no sense at all. They couldn't possibly work the way they're shown to, assuming senses heightened to that extent were even possible.
I've checked out anatomy books and books on optics and all this crap, and while I've scotch-taped together a version of his senses that might possibly work in the real world, it practically reads as original fiction. I'm just... I'm such a dork, L. lol Anyway, yes, I find working within the boundaries the show sets to be problematic. It doesn't help that I'm so preoccupied with trying to portray canon accurately, either.
Reply
I quite like the sound of what you're doing. Actually, it's put me in mind of Francesca's Nature series, which to my mind is *madness* to suggest to a TS newbie as an intro to TS (as it was to me). It isn't canon! It has Blair with his own abilities, but it's so.well.drawn and researched and executed. She built a new reality. I was disappointed when I finally saw the eps, and found Blair wasn't as described, LOL.
Reply
Hee! That was the very first TS fic I read as well. I loved it, but when I started reading other fic and watching the actual show, I was so confused.
Reply
Reply
As I see it, you are making reference to that externalised 'standard' - but I'm stating that that value system is irrelevant to me for the terms of this discussion. We are making our own system of values here. Irregardless of technical abilities, or adherence to canon characterisation, slashers are writing that which interests them. And *that* is the basis of my terms of value. The will to explore themes in the style which best satisfies the needs of the writer. It's simply a shift in perspective, changing nothing concrete. The stories stand as they always have. My acceptance of them is the point of change.
Reply
Leave a comment