Fascinating comments! (And you're not the only one on the block to have read the book! I read it a decade ago, at least. I've also heard the author give a talk.)
Of course I found it fascinating reading, because here was this academic book discussing our "underground" fandoms!
I disagree with many of the author's conclusions. I think she looked into one specific subset of fandom (essentially gen h/c) and called it "the heart" of fandom, and she was wrong! (Possibly because of observer bias--which I find ironic, and I'll say why in a minute.) Gen or "relationship" h/c was the forerunner of slash, it was (IMO) slash wannabe. It was the male/male relationship taken "thus far and no farther." It was love that stopped short of the sexual relationship, usually for no good reason.
In other words, the characters were clearly lovers, they were each other's primary relationship, and that relationship would have obviated a satisfying mating relationship with anyone else (Kirk and Spock are a prime example, but there are others), but the
( ... )
I think she looked into one specific subset of fandom (essentially gen h/c) and called it "the heart" of fandom, and she was wrong!
I'm inclined to think she discovered these two particular categories of fanfiction (hurt-comfort and slash) that made her personally uncomfortable and then had to create a theory to explain why other people -- and other women especially -- found them so fascinating. Also, knowing that she disliked hurt-comfort, community members had 'hidden' those types of stories from her, which I'm sure only added to the impression that the stories were somehow more central to fandom. But I think it was her discomfort rather than something intrinsic to the genre that was making hurt-comfort seem like some sort of central mystery
( ... )
Which leads into the comparative analysis of older Mary Sues "the matriarch in the genre referred to as 'lay' stories," which I call het, because 'lay' sounds silly and I've never seen the term elsewhere (pg 103).The term's not used much anymore, but it's a fannish term. Stories which were written for the express purpose of getting a canon character laid were called lay-{character's name} stories, as in : Lay-Spock stories or lay-Kirk stories. These terms were used in print fandom a loooong time ago, and they didn't make the transition to the Internet
( ... )
Oops -- that was poorly phrased, in anticipation of having to distinguish the genre again later in the post. It was pretty clear that "Lay-Whomever" was actually the current and correct term as used by fans at the time the book was written, not created by the author. (Though I do stand behind my declaration that the term sounds silly. To me.)
i'm completely fascinated by your comments on this as well as the content you've cited here. i love this kind of shit. and i don't mind the mary sues, as i have said time and time again. i've never really written one, (really, swear!) but it's not that i haven't thought about (obviously) how completely smitten wolfwood would be with my real-life charms. however, i don't really need to read someone else's mary sues either. i'm with you regarding wanting to read about the canon characters. that's the whole point. i have much more to say on this but my sis and i are watching bruce springsteen storytellers so i'm not operating on a literal, but rather a musical level right now.
That's the thing -- I don't go on "Mary Sue must die" rants, but I just don't tend to READ them either.
And you don't need to write your Mary Sue, for you have a friend who's done it for you. Well, who set your avatar up on a date with Wolfwood anyway. ^_^
As far as my Mary Sue, I had this on-going Thundercats adventure in my head as a kid, complete with creating a stupid character name and defined relationship with a canon character. Really, really glad I didn't write it down -- I imagine it would be wince-worthy. And I did write, but thankfully not web-publish, what was clearly a MS for one of my earliest fandoms. I pretty much abandoned it when I realized that my OFC was the center of the story without actually contributing anything useful.
Comments 6
Of course I found it fascinating reading, because here was this academic book discussing our "underground" fandoms!
I disagree with many of the author's conclusions. I think she looked into one specific subset of fandom (essentially gen h/c) and called it "the heart" of fandom, and she was wrong! (Possibly because of observer bias--which I find ironic, and I'll say why in a minute.) Gen or "relationship" h/c was the forerunner of slash, it was (IMO) slash wannabe. It was the male/male relationship taken "thus far and no farther." It was love that stopped short of the sexual relationship, usually for no good reason.
In other words, the characters were clearly lovers, they were each other's primary relationship, and that relationship would have obviated a satisfying mating relationship with anyone else (Kirk and Spock are a prime example, but there are others), but the ( ... )
Reply
I think she looked into one specific subset of fandom (essentially gen h/c) and called it "the heart" of fandom, and she was wrong!
I'm inclined to think she discovered these two particular categories of fanfiction (hurt-comfort and slash) that made her personally uncomfortable and then had to create a theory to explain why other people -- and other women especially -- found them so fascinating. Also, knowing that she disliked hurt-comfort, community members had 'hidden' those types of stories from her, which I'm sure only added to the impression that the stories were somehow more central to fandom. But I think it was her discomfort rather than something intrinsic to the genre that was making hurt-comfort seem like some sort of central mystery ( ... )
Reply
Which leads into the comparative analysis of older Mary Sues "the matriarch in the genre referred to as 'lay' stories," which I call het, because 'lay' sounds silly and I've never seen the term elsewhere (pg 103).The term's not used much anymore, but it's a fannish term. Stories which were written for the express purpose of getting a canon character laid were called lay-{character's name} stories, as in : Lay-Spock stories or lay-Kirk stories. These terms were used in print fandom a loooong time ago, and they didn't make the transition to the Internet ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
And you don't need to write your Mary Sue, for you have a friend who's done it for you. Well, who set your avatar up on a date with Wolfwood anyway. ^_^
As far as my Mary Sue, I had this on-going Thundercats adventure in my head as a kid, complete with creating a stupid character name and defined relationship with a canon character. Really, really glad I didn't write it down -- I imagine it would be wince-worthy. And I did write, but thankfully not web-publish, what was clearly a MS for one of my earliest fandoms. I pretty much abandoned it when I realized that my OFC was the center of the story without actually contributing anything useful.
Reply
Leave a comment