On Genre
Previous links are in the previous post.
Fay has another essay, some of which I addressed in the comments, but not the question of my literary disinterest in slash.
First of all, for my purposes genres or subgenres are self-identifying subsets of fiction into which stories can be classified by any reasonably aware reader. When someone posts a slash story to a slash-only list, or otherwise marks a story with the classification “slash,” then it’s self-identified as slash. Most fanfiction readers will classify any story featuring a non-canonical homosexual relationship as slash. For the purpose of classification, it doesn’t matter that some stories are better than others, or that some are smuttier than others, or even that a few stories are more difficult to classify than the majority. People who want to read slash will look for fiction identified as slash in some way.
Consider, for example, the genre of science fiction. Sci-fi is a self-identifying genre, in that short stories are published in magazines that accept only science fiction, and that novels are published by sci-fi houses and/or marked “sci-fi” on the spine. Readers can identify sci-fi by content even without these clues. Most sci-fi readers will classify any story featuring futuristic science as science fiction. It doesn’t matter that certain stories fall in between sci-fi and fantasy, or in between sci-fi and thrillers - the classification is still useful for people who want to read sf, and equally useful for people who don’t.
Before the pulps, there was no genre of science fiction. If you wanted to talk about sci-fi, you would have to refer generally to, say, the works of Verne or Wells. Now we can look back and classify those pre-genre works into the genre; in fact, we can’t help classifying them. The days in which a sci-fi writer could pass for mainstream are over. Likewise, we can’t help classifying slash as slash. The genre will not go away anytime soon, and the label functions to tell people that this is a subgenre with certain known characteristics.
I have a literary reason for liking science fiction: I read sci-fi for the exploration of futures and the heroic plots. In general what I consider to have merit in fiction is the heroic and skill in the depiction of a world, whether a future world, a past one, a fantastic one, or a slightly altered version of our own (eg., in Ayn Rand). People might dismiss sci-fi for literary reasons as well: usually such critics feel that the antiheroic has more literary merit than the heroic, or they want more attention to character and less to plot and milieu. People also dislike sci-fi for non-literary reasons - they have a visceral dislike of the fantastic or of the heroic.
So, as I’ve said before, people can have a literary or a visceral disinterest in slash. I ruled out moral disapproval of non-smut slash because literary works (as opposed to erotica) are not usually judged on a moral basis. In any event, moral considerations are not literary ones, so for those who think they apply they can be lumped into the visceral dislikes.
Fanfic is about playing with canon or fanon. What you do with them is a matter or literary or visceral tastes. As with sf, my interest is in the universe and the heroic plot, and also in humor, especially at the expense of either canon or fanon. So I prefer AU stories (particularly numbers 3, 4, and 6 from the Borg AU Classification), adventures, parodies, and filk, all of which are closely based on canon characterizations, canon events, and/or the canon universe as a milieu. I don’t care for angst, fluff, or slash, all of which are based on altering canon characterizations. (In the case of Buffy, the show’s level of angst is tough to top so the real crimes against canon occur on the fluffy side.)
So I have a literary disinterest in slash, because I have a more general literary disinterest in non-canon characterizations. Someone else might have an opposite literary interest in tweaking canon characterizations - this might include slash but would not be restricted to it, there being so many other ways to alter the characters. That leaves the question, can someone have a literary interest in slash alone? I’m not going to say it isn’t possible, but the pro-slash factors people usually cite are not, on the face of them, literary in the sense I mean it. “Pretty boys” is clearly a visceral taste, and the interest in slashy subtext would have to be accompanied by comparable interest in other kinds of subtext to be a general literary interest. I don’t believe in subtext, myself, but I hear people go on at length about alleged J/C subtext in Voyager episodes, and it doesn’t seem to capture the attention of the C/P crowd.
So instead I attribute the interest in slash to modern sexual politics - the romanticization of friendship, a certain J/C author would, ironically, call it. (Ironically, because J/C is exactly the same phenomenon, right down to the alleged canon subtext - why can’t these two friends be just friends?) I would call it the homosexualization of romance - because the opposite gender is no longer “other” enough, and romance is no longer star-crossed enough, the way to recapture that old troubadour spirit is to complicate relationships by making them same-sex. This theory explains (to me) why one particular kind of alteration to canon characterizations, making them gay, is so much more popular than, say, making them Mormons, or gourmet chefs, or hermaphrodites.
None of the above is a comment on the quality of slash or on the right of slashers to slash. It’s just an explanation of what it means to have a literary disinterest in slash as a non-canonical genre, something that is frequently said to be impossible.
April 6th, 2003 at 11:55 pm
Hi! I commented on your “Pretty Boys” post below, but thought this entry was more relevant to my questions.
You wrote: Any take on major points of character, such as sexual orientation, that is contrary to all evidence in canon, is, therefore, not canonical.
I’m not exactly sure how you define canon. Would you say extrapolating from later seasons to hint at character traits in earlier seasons to be breaking from canon? Such as a Willow fic set before “New Moon Rising” in which she shows gay tendencies? Would a Buffy/Spike fic in which Buffy shows sexual interest in Spike before “Once More, With Feeling” be uncanonical?
I don’t care for angst, fluff, or slash, all of which are based on altering canon characterizations.
This seems to be a bit of a generalisation. Like you say, angst in Buffy is certainly not “altering canon charactersations”. Neither is fluff when it’s a Willow/Oz (pre-”Wild at Heart”) or a Willow/Tara (pre-”All The Way”). Willow relationships are pretty fluffy to begin with.
Slash, of course, is a different matter. Other than Willow/Tara (and to an extent Giles/Ethan, and Darla/Angel/Dru/Spike), none of the Buffyverse characters have ever been in a gay relationship that we know of. I’m just not ready to say that, just because we don’t see it, it is therefore uncanonical. We simply don’t know, just like we don’t know Angel’s human last name. But we can make pretty good guesses.
(I forgot to outline what I considered canon in my last post.) I believe that everything we see on screen is canon. But I also believe we don’t see everything on screen. I view the Buffyverse as a universe of characters independent of my consumption — meaning Buffy still slays vamps in Sunnydale even when I’m over in England with Giles or in L.A. with Angel.
I prefer fanfic that extrapolates from canon. In fact, the further from canon, the less I tend to enjoy a fic. But all fanfic is uncanonical in the strictest sense. Slash is the same thing. We take Wesley’s obvious devotion for Angel, and we ponder “what if?” in a slash story. We’ve had several canon moments in which Cordelia and other characters question the straight-ness of Angel and Wesley, implying that they’re kinda gay. Not one of these times have Angel or Wesley set the record straight with: “No, we’re 100% straight.” Until they do say that they’re 100% straight, it’s a fallacy to assume they are. Especially when they have absolutely no problems with Cordelia, et al. thinking/saying otherwise.
Canon is Buffy’s middle name being “Anne”. Canon is Xander is a construction worker. Not-canon is saying Angel is an atheist. Not-canon is saying Willow is 100% straight. And I do believe it would be not-canon to say that Andrew is 100% straight when we have evidence to the contrary — despite the fact he has never said, “I am gay.”
(Sorry, this turned out a lot longer than I expected! And it’s all JMHO.)
April 7th, 2003 at 12:12 am
I don’t believe in subtext, myself
That, in the end, explains why I had such a hard time understanding where you were coming from. I certainly do believe in subtext or else the only VOY pairings I would care for and/or accept as valid (for lack of better term) were P/T and C/7.
April 7th, 2003 at 9:54 am
Just hopped in here from FayJay’s link.
I’m interested in what you have to say about SF rather than
your comments on fanfic, hope you don’t mind.You say
Consider, for example, the genre of science fiction. Sci-fi is a self-identifying genre, in that short stories are published in magazines that accept only science fiction, and
that novels are published by sci-fi houses and/or marked “sci-fi” on the spine. Readers can identify sci-fi by content even without these clues. Most sci-fi readers will
classify any story featuring futuristic science as science fiction. It doesn’t matter that certain stories fall in between sci-fi and fantasy, or in between sci-fi and thrillers -
the classification is still useful for people who want to read sf, and equally useful for people who don’t.
Personally I don’t think that is necessarily true in the modern world. SF has become simply a
marketing classification which bears little relation to what readers think of as SF. When a ‘literary’ known
author publishes a novel with an SF theme it is most often not acknowledged as such e.g. Doris Lessing or Jonathan Carroll.
Whereas an SF known writer oublishing a non SF books is froever labelled SF even if the books aren’t e.g. Iain Banks. SF readers
tend to be wide and voracious readers and so seek out the unlabelled stuff. Those avoiding it are often shocked to find the literary novels
they are reading are thought of as SF by those who actually know what SF is about. I believe SF is a far larger genre than futeristic science
and it may not even be about science at all IMO SF is far more about people and relationships than it
it about technology. Though a good case could be made for much of it being about what it is to be human.
The days in which a sci-fi writer could pass for mainstream
are over.
I think the opposite is true. The divisions for readers (if not for the marketing depts of publishing companies)are breaking down, at least in the eyes of SF readers
who read far wider than the delimited genre and recognise the themes of SF whoever writes them and whatever it is
listed as in the publishers catalogues.
April 7th, 2003 at 2:23 pm
Like many others, I found the phrase “I don’t believe in subtext” very enlightening. (Myself, I’m a film major and an amateur actress. If I didn’t believe in subtext, I couldn’t work.)
But there were also other things that makes me draw certain conclusions, and I would like to test if those conclusions are correct.
There are, in general, the kind of ficcers who want “more of the same”, i.e. the same *kinds* of things that happen on the screen (Buffy slaying, Neelix cooking) if not the exact same things (different demons, different courses). There are also the kind of ficcers who want a twist - they like what they see, but something is missing. Perhaps everyone is unhappy all the time, and so they write a fic where the characters are happy instead, to see what would happen then.
I have a feeling you’re the first kind of ficcer, while I and most other people who occasionally write slash are the second kind. Is this correct?
If this is the case, the entire discussion can pretty much be scrapped and started over. :-) To a “twist” person, “uncanonical” means things that *could not conceivably happen* rather than things that haven’t happened. Neelix has prepared food. This is canonical by both standards. Seven of Nine has never tried to seduce the Captain, which makes it uncanonical by the first standard but not necessarily by the second. (”I have read about this thing called lesbianism. I find it very intriguing. Would you like to attempt it with me?”) Tom Paris declaring himself completely uninterested in history is uncanonical by both standards - we know he’s a history buff.
Obviously, when these two standards are confused, it means that person #1 is puzzled because s/he thinks person #2 argues that a character is gay on screen (which I agree that they’re usually not), while person #2 is puzzled because s/he thinks person #1 argues that these characters could never engage in homosexual behaviour under any circumstances and anyone suggesting otherwise, up to and including TPTB, is committing character rape.
Does this make any kind of sense or am I way off base?
April 7th, 2003 at 11:23 pm
My responses were getting long, so I put them in the next entry.