Sex, desire and fanfiction

[delphipsmith]

Thanks to squibstress for the link to a quite good and thought-provoking article by Foz Meadows on sex, desire and fanfiction.

Meadows' article is in rebuttal to this piece in The Guardian, which attempts to be a sort of primer for the fanfic novice by defining some common terms. It gets some of them right but some of them laughably wrong, such as

Comments

[chthonya]

*nods*

I saw that article yesterday, and she makes some good points. It's great to see people who actually know fanfiction publishing in non-fannish places; eventually perhaps the mainstream will wake up to the fact that there's some really good writing here and stop just slagging it off.

[delphipsmith]

Yes indeed. Not to mention, as several many people have pointed out, that "fanfic" has been around literally for centuries. It's not like it's new. Isn't it cute when the media "discovers" something that's been around for ages, acts like it's a huge revelation ("Oooh, look at this new thing!!!") and then proceeds to get it all wrong?

[chthonya]

"Cute" would not be my first choice word. 'twould be amusing were it not so sad (heck, if they can be condescending so can I). But so many young people now are used to remixing in this way - once that generation is entrenched in the media I'm sure we'll see quite a shift in public attitudes. Should be interesting!

Not least, it should be interesting for libraries. I've seen suggestions that they should be moving from information access points to places where local culture can be created and uploaded, but there's a long way to go there.

[delphipsmith]

"Your local library: A hotbed of transformative works!" Heee...

[dreamy_dragon73]

I find the term "mommy porn" incredibly annoying, too. It's derogative, misogynist and apparently if vilifying a woman's desire doesn't work anymore in certain contexts, belittling it obviously still does.

Meadows' point about why fanfic works for women is a really good one and it makes a lot of sense :)

[delphipsmith]

Yes, the more I think about it the more annoying I find it. At first I thought it was just a kind of cutesy sound bite, but it IS derogatory, quite right. At least the phrase recognizes the fact that it isn't like man-porn, but why "mommy porn"? All women are not mommies (despite what certain politicians apparently wish to happen) and we are not cutesy, to be condescended to. Grrr.

[chthonya]

Am amused/horrified to see GP Taylor's take:

"I think if you're offended by a book you shouldn't read it but because of the cultural phenomenon Fifty Shades has become and calling it "Mummy porn" to sanitise it is not right because we're not thinking of the consequences.

Mummy porn is a label that sanitises? Oh, of course, because Motherhood is a Good Thing. *headdesk*

"People have spoken out against online pornography but this book is fairly graphic - written images are just as powerful as visual ones."

Well, at least he got that last bit right. :)

[delphipsmith]

Heh -- I know, that sanitization comment is just ludicrous.Newsweek had a quite good piece on SoG a few weeks bac, by Katie Roiphe of NYU. She calls it a "watered-down, skinny-vanilla-latte version of sadomasochism" and says, at the end:

"In fact, if I were a member of the Christian right, sitting on my front porch decrying the decadent morals of working American women, what would be most alarming about the Fifty Shades of Grey phenomena, what gives it its true edge of desperation and end-of-the-world ambience, is that millions of otherwise intelligent women are willing to tolerate prose on this level."