andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2004-10-22 05:49 pm
andrewducker) wrote2004-10-22 05:49 pm
Some thoughts on slash
Slash is a subject that causes incredibly strong emotional reactions in people. Having engaged in numerous discussions about this, I've been thinking about why this might be, partially because it keeps cropping up on my friends list and partially so that I can get something vaguely final down in words and stop it going round in my head.
I'll be taking my definition of slash as 'Fiction written by fans of a work in which characters who are not canonically gay are written with the assumption that they are'. I would like to point out in advance that this isn't intended to come out either in favour of, or against slash. I firmly believe that people have the right to freedom of speech, and if they choose to write slash then that is their prerogative. I'm merely interested in why slash affects people the way it does, and why it's previously caused the reaction in me that it has.
Now, some people claim that they merely find the idea of slash to be a waste of time, but people waste time in many thousands of ways, and most people have nowhere near the amount of emotional reaction to golf that they do to slash. This argument is therefore easily discounted.
Slash has a tendency mocked in a juvenile "Ewww, that's gross" manner which would tend to indicate that the mocker finds gay sex to be intrinsically gross. This could, indeed, be a major source of the objections people have. It should be noted, however, that this doesn't automatically indicate a homophobic intent - people who aren't interested in sex tend to find the whole area of sexuality pretty icky - only changing this feeling when the instinct to engage in it overcomes them. Without the urge to engage in particular sexual acts, it's entirely possible that those acts still cause the same reactions - a pointer in this direction can be gained from the fact that many gay men find the idea of heterosexual sex somewhat disturbing.
However, this cannot the only reason. After all, I have had no problem with homosexual characters and situations in other works of fiction where they were intrinsic parts (most recently The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, where one of the major characters has his life grimly affected by the repressive attitudes towards homosexuality in 1930s America), but I have still had a negative reaction to slash. Nor can it be purely because most slash is erotica - there are many, many sites out there specialising in erotica and while there are people out there who do react negatively to gay porn, it's not something that I encounter nearly as often as people's reaction to slash.
People have an almost personal reaction to slash - as if some part of them had been violated. I believe the only way to explain this is to look at the way that people react to fiction and the characters within. People form emotional connections with the characters in their fiction, along with internalised ideas of who they are and how they behave. We feel (to a certain extent) as if they know them as people. After all, why would people watch most TV shows if they didn’t care about the characters and in some way empathise with them. When these characters then behave in ways that are perceived as uncharacteristic, people feel as if you’re portraying their friends in manner which is just plain wrong. The reaction here is probably somewhat similar to that evoked in horror movies where the characters are replaced by someone (or something) that acts almost, but not quite, the same as the original person – a feeling of unease and wrongness.
When we watched the last episode of Angel,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
green_amber was extremely upset at the act of one character, when they shot another one. She felt emotionally betrayed by the act – that character would _never_ act in that way. Never mind that the character doesn’t actually exist, or that the correct act for a fictional character is whatever the writer chooses for them to do, the way that the character had been written felt so wrong to her that she became quite irate at the way it was portrayed. I believe that it’s this reaction that is seen when most people encounter slash-fiction.
The question remains, however, why does homosexual sex seem so out of character for people that they have this strong reaction? It is, of course, not just possible but likely that there is some latent homophobia in the reaction – Kirk and Spock are heroes, manly men and gallant adventurers, thus obviously not homosexual. The fact that real-life adventurers and ‘manly men’ such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar had homosexual relationships is beside the point – surely Kirk and Spock wouldn’t do such a thing!
This reaction is seems obviously homophobic. If you don’t have a problem with homosexuality, why do you have a problem with your heroes engaging in it? But this response seems oddly simplistic – after all, the reader may not have a negative response to characters originally written as homosexuals (although there aren’t many of those about to have encountered). And if, after all, the character has never been shown to have any homosexual leanings, surely assuming their heterosexuality is perfectly reasonable?
Which is where the other part of the puzzle comes from – personal identification. People don’t just like Kirk – they want to be him, delivering two-fisted Kirk Justice, saving planets and kissing green-skinned women. They want to embrace the whole Kirk way of life. Suddenly discovering that this also means embracing Mr Spock comes as a bit of a shock. It’s as if the slash is telling them that _they_ are homosexual.
And again we come back to asking – if these people aren’t homophobic, why can’t they identify with people who are homosexual? If, after all, we can identify with people who are balding, a bit tubby around the middle and Speak!…Like!…This! then surely we can identify with someone who has sex with men? The answer seems to be that none of those other things seem as intrinsic to our personalities as our sexual identity is – people can base huge decisions about their lives (or, indeed, their whole lives) on their sexual identity, it’s something they care deeply about, and in the majority of cases seem to have little control over. Sexuality seems to be something you are, not something you do, and thus when made into an overt part of a character is too prominent to simply glide past.
This overtness also seems distinctive to slash – while I have encountered a few instances of heterosexual Trek fanfic, it seems much, much rarer. The occasional kiss or ellipsis seems to be all that fans require in the way of sexual content. It’s possible that most people don’t want to think of their heroes explicitly sexually _at all_, and that this also contributes to their reaction.
So the answer seems to be that slash takes characters we emapthise with and/or identify with and changes the depiction of them to act overtly in a way that many of the people encountering it find impossible to empathise/identify with. It’s likely that the strongest reactions (that aren’t merely coming from actual homophobes) will come from those people who are unused to thinking about their role-models in a sexual way at all, let alone in a sexual way that they themselves do not feel any affinity towards. Those people that have less of an emotional attachment to heterosexuality, or who care less about fictional characters will have a correspondingly lower negative reaction to it.
The question remains – why are so many of the slash writers women? Any suggestions?
I'll be taking my definition of slash as 'Fiction written by fans of a work in which characters who are not canonically gay are written with the assumption that they are'. I would like to point out in advance that this isn't intended to come out either in favour of, or against slash. I firmly believe that people have the right to freedom of speech, and if they choose to write slash then that is their prerogative. I'm merely interested in why slash affects people the way it does, and why it's previously caused the reaction in me that it has.
Now, some people claim that they merely find the idea of slash to be a waste of time, but people waste time in many thousands of ways, and most people have nowhere near the amount of emotional reaction to golf that they do to slash. This argument is therefore easily discounted.
Slash has a tendency mocked in a juvenile "Ewww, that's gross" manner which would tend to indicate that the mocker finds gay sex to be intrinsically gross. This could, indeed, be a major source of the objections people have. It should be noted, however, that this doesn't automatically indicate a homophobic intent - people who aren't interested in sex tend to find the whole area of sexuality pretty icky - only changing this feeling when the instinct to engage in it overcomes them. Without the urge to engage in particular sexual acts, it's entirely possible that those acts still cause the same reactions - a pointer in this direction can be gained from the fact that many gay men find the idea of heterosexual sex somewhat disturbing.
However, this cannot the only reason. After all, I have had no problem with homosexual characters and situations in other works of fiction where they were intrinsic parts (most recently The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, where one of the major characters has his life grimly affected by the repressive attitudes towards homosexuality in 1930s America), but I have still had a negative reaction to slash. Nor can it be purely because most slash is erotica - there are many, many sites out there specialising in erotica and while there are people out there who do react negatively to gay porn, it's not something that I encounter nearly as often as people's reaction to slash.
People have an almost personal reaction to slash - as if some part of them had been violated. I believe the only way to explain this is to look at the way that people react to fiction and the characters within. People form emotional connections with the characters in their fiction, along with internalised ideas of who they are and how they behave. We feel (to a certain extent) as if they know them as people. After all, why would people watch most TV shows if they didn’t care about the characters and in some way empathise with them. When these characters then behave in ways that are perceived as uncharacteristic, people feel as if you’re portraying their friends in manner which is just plain wrong. The reaction here is probably somewhat similar to that evoked in horror movies where the characters are replaced by someone (or something) that acts almost, but not quite, the same as the original person – a feeling of unease and wrongness.
When we watched the last episode of Angel,
green_amber was extremely upset at the act of one character, when they shot another one. She felt emotionally betrayed by the act – that character would _never_ act in that way. Never mind that the character doesn’t actually exist, or that the correct act for a fictional character is whatever the writer chooses for them to do, the way that the character had been written felt so wrong to her that she became quite irate at the way it was portrayed. I believe that it’s this reaction that is seen when most people encounter slash-fiction.The question remains, however, why does homosexual sex seem so out of character for people that they have this strong reaction? It is, of course, not just possible but likely that there is some latent homophobia in the reaction – Kirk and Spock are heroes, manly men and gallant adventurers, thus obviously not homosexual. The fact that real-life adventurers and ‘manly men’ such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar had homosexual relationships is beside the point – surely Kirk and Spock wouldn’t do such a thing!
This reaction is seems obviously homophobic. If you don’t have a problem with homosexuality, why do you have a problem with your heroes engaging in it? But this response seems oddly simplistic – after all, the reader may not have a negative response to characters originally written as homosexuals (although there aren’t many of those about to have encountered). And if, after all, the character has never been shown to have any homosexual leanings, surely assuming their heterosexuality is perfectly reasonable?
Which is where the other part of the puzzle comes from – personal identification. People don’t just like Kirk – they want to be him, delivering two-fisted Kirk Justice, saving planets and kissing green-skinned women. They want to embrace the whole Kirk way of life. Suddenly discovering that this also means embracing Mr Spock comes as a bit of a shock. It’s as if the slash is telling them that _they_ are homosexual.
And again we come back to asking – if these people aren’t homophobic, why can’t they identify with people who are homosexual? If, after all, we can identify with people who are balding, a bit tubby around the middle and Speak!…Like!…This! then surely we can identify with someone who has sex with men? The answer seems to be that none of those other things seem as intrinsic to our personalities as our sexual identity is – people can base huge decisions about their lives (or, indeed, their whole lives) on their sexual identity, it’s something they care deeply about, and in the majority of cases seem to have little control over. Sexuality seems to be something you are, not something you do, and thus when made into an overt part of a character is too prominent to simply glide past.
This overtness also seems distinctive to slash – while I have encountered a few instances of heterosexual Trek fanfic, it seems much, much rarer. The occasional kiss or ellipsis seems to be all that fans require in the way of sexual content. It’s possible that most people don’t want to think of their heroes explicitly sexually _at all_, and that this also contributes to their reaction.
So the answer seems to be that slash takes characters we emapthise with and/or identify with and changes the depiction of them to act overtly in a way that many of the people encountering it find impossible to empathise/identify with. It’s likely that the strongest reactions (that aren’t merely coming from actual homophobes) will come from those people who are unused to thinking about their role-models in a sexual way at all, let alone in a sexual way that they themselves do not feel any affinity towards. Those people that have less of an emotional attachment to heterosexuality, or who care less about fictional characters will have a correspondingly lower negative reaction to it.
The question remains – why are so many of the slash writers women? Any suggestions?
no subject
I didn't see any reason for the bit in ROTK where Elrond basically tells Aragorn that he has to stop Sauron or Arwen will die. Because saving the world isn't a good enough reason - he has to be doing it for his girlfriend!
no subject
But that's not the same thing as an sexualisation of their relationship.
Aragorn and Arwen canonically have a relationship that is acknowledged on both sides as sexual in the future tense (at least, one trusts that marriage includes sex, even in Tolkien's world).
What made Elrond's speech in RotK unwarranted was the distortion of motive, as if the filmmakers couldn't believe anyone would believe Aragorn was saving Middle Earth because he's a noble and heroic hero. (Maybe it was the scruffy hair.)
no subject
The sexualisation of the relationship would probably be Mulder/Scully.
no subject
I like Mulder/Scully hetfic.
Well, okay, I like it when it's faithful to the relationship as we see it on screen.
no subject
*You know my views on that fucking waste of three hours of my life, so I'll leave it there.
;)
no subject
Tell me more about your afflication.
no subject
One of the other things that really made me dislike the first film was that the first film was so fucking good. The second was bad, but the third was just so badly done - the ending that never ends. You kow, when I went to the cinema and watched it, when the ending came on, I thought "oh thanks god, it's finally ending. Hopefully they'll zip to the Grey Havens and it'll be done". But no. It ended and ended and ended for the rest of my life, or so it seemed. They could have cut huge amounts of vaguely homoerotic hobbits bouncing on beds and put in the scouring of the Shire.
And the Ents didn't look like trees. I mean, really. They're supposed to look like -trees-. TREES. Not stick insects! Not logs with spindly twigs attached!
I'm sure there's more I'm missing, but can't be bothered to type it all. Basically, there was the chance for it to be good, and it made me bitterly disappointed.
To me, this is a far worse travesty than The Phantom Menace.
no subject
And I thought the endings were all necessary too :->