FAQ Maintainer's Notes: The Slash Debate
srat...@runet.edu
Maintainer's Notes, July 5, 1997
Changes to the FAQs
FAQ Introduction to Alt.StarTrek.Creative
Now in version 3.10
New June 21, 1997
Location of Archive:
ftp://aviary.share.net/pub/startrek
IP: 199.1.9.102
Location of Index:
http://aviary.share.net/~alara
http://www.cs.runet.edu/~sratliff/index/
http://lan070.internal.unicom.net/~startrek/
Current Contact List
Archive: Alara Rogers arch...@mindspring.com
FAQs: Stephen Ratliff srat...@runet.edu
Index: Stephen Ratliff srat...@runet.edu
ASCE FAQ Ruth Gifford eres...@cyberg8t.com
ASCE Summaries Carol Thomas lemm...@interlog.com
AFQ FAQ Mercutio merc...@europa.com
AFQ Archive Mercutio merc...@europa.com
Amagosa FAQ Richard Pugh rjp...@patriot.net
ASCA FAQ Natalie Bjorklund umbj...@mail.cc.umanitoba.ca
Mini-FAQ Schedule:
this week FAQ
---> 1st Msting on Alt.StarTrek.Creative
2nd Advice For Authors (all authors please read)
3rd The Mannerly Art of Critique
4th Advice For Authors
----------------------------
Message from the Maintainer:
----------------------------
What has been known as the slash debate has gotten out of hand. While I
don't want to perminatly ban any topic, I believe a long cooling off
period is needed. So I'm asking that for the next month and a half, the
following subjects be kept to yourself:
The merits of slash
Slash and ASCA
The Definition of Slash
Why people write slash
Why people hate slash
Why am I asking this? Well before the slash debate, ASC was a curtious
group. There was some debate, but people never took it personally and we
all remained friends. I'm not so sure that is true anymore. Frankly I
find this change a little distrubing. So I'm doing what I can to return
this group to that earlier feeling of community.
I'm also posting the winners for the ASC Awards. I've recently discovered
that my post in May after the revote did not get out. I'd like it if some
people began to comment on those and other works posted on this group. I
think such comments will help restore this group to the way it use to
be.
Live Long and Prosper,
Stephen Ratliff
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Frankie Jackson
Re: FAQ Maintainer's Notes: The Slash Debate
<8681260...@dejanews.com> srat...@runet.edu writes:
>
> What has been known as the slash debate has gotten out of hand. While
I
> don't want to perminatly ban any topic, I believe a long cooling off
> period is needed. So I'm asking that for the next month and a half,
the
> following subjects be kept to yourself:
Stephen, Stephen, Stephen
What *do* you think you are doing? An FAQ is supposed to reflect the
consensus of opinion on a group - there is no consensus on this subject.
Now we've got authors threatening to take their bats home
if you try to do just what you're trying to do now.
Personally I rather like the slash discussions, keeps the blood
flowing and the anti-narrowmindness muscles exercised.
Just because you do an excellent job (many excellent jobs in fact)
doesn't give you the right to attempt to enforce an unnatural silence
on debate. I intend to ignore this FAQ, I invite others to do
likewise.
Little hint for you - if you don't like the flames, don't read 'em
plenty of stories being posted in between the flames and the spam.
frankie
_______________________________________________________
Get Private Web-Based Email Free http://www.hotmail.com
Marlissa Campbell
srat...@runet.edu wrote:
>Mini-FAQ Schedule:
>this week FAQ
>---> 1st Msting on Alt.StarTrek.Creative
> 2nd Advice For Authors (all authors please read)
> 3rd The Mannerly Art of Critique
> 4th Advice For Authors
>----------------------------
>Message from the Maintainer:
>----------------------------
>What has been known as the slash debate has gotten out of hand. While I
>don't want to perminatly ban any topic, I believe a long cooling off
>period is needed. So I'm asking that for the next month and a half, the
>following subjects be kept to yourself:
>The merits of slash
>Slash and ASCA
>The Definition of Slash
>Why people write slash
>Why people hate slash
>Why am I asking this? Well before the slash debate, ASC was a curtious
>group. There was some debate, but people never took it personally and we
>all remained friends. I'm not so sure that is true anymore. Frankly I
>find this change a little distrubing. So I'm doing what I can to return
>this group to that earlier feeling of community.
Rather than banning or declaring a moratorium on particular topics,
might it not be more appropriate to add some guidelines to the FAQ on
"The Mannerly Art of Having a Civilized Debate on Controversial
Topics" ? It could be something similar to Peg's already included
essay, "The Mannerly Art of Critique." The principles are essentially
the same, some of the details, in practice, might be a bit different.
Just a thought.
Marlissa
srat...@runet.edu
In article <5ppp55$i...@usenet1.interramp.com>,
That's it! It's amazing someone comes up the solution that fits
perfectlty. I just wish It had come before I made a fool of myself. (Oh
well it had to happen eventaully) Any volenteers to help write this new
FAQ (I know the dangers of doing something like this on my own)
Stephen
anna wilson
In article <33C066...@geocities.com>, mac...@geocities.com wrote:
> What I do think folks should avoid at the present time (as on these
> topics, no one seems to be convincing their opponents--which means
> *discussion* is fruitless and leaves only fighting) are why people hate
> slash, why slash is invalid or wrong or anti-canon, and also why a.s.c.a
> should include slash. At some future point, the latter might be able to
> be reopened and discussed in civil fashion, but at the present time, I
> agree that it doesn't appear to be possible, given the recent flareup as
> proof.
Ummm, excuse me, but what you seem to be saying is that it is okay for the
pro-slash people to speak, but the anti-slash people have to remain
silent? Is this censorship of only one side? Remember that this most
recent flare-up appears to have been started by a pro-slasher making an
ANTI-anti-slash statement.
Sorry, but I disagree with you. Any slash moratorium should apply to BOTH
sides, since folks from both sides have engaged in the fighting.
Just my opinion.
JWinterEsq
>>>Remember that this most
recent flare-up appears to have been started by a pro-slasher making an
ANTI-anti-slash statement.<<<
What he is saying is that the slash debate - pro or con - should be put on
the back burner for awhile. Only the stories should be posted, and
stories, good or bad, is the REAL purpose of this newsgroup. It seems to
me that, in recent months, the focus has shifted AWAY from fiction and
towards a lot of idiotic name-calling over the presence of slash, the
start up of ASCA, and so on.
Stephen is very much right in asking for a moratorium on the entire
subject. No one complains, and no one defends against such complaints.
Why? Because this has become the single most collossal waste of bandwidth
since the invention of spamming.
So you see, the debate is accomplishing nothing. Pro-slashers will
continue to be pro-slashers. Anti-slashers will likewise be entrenched in
their opinion. And ASCA will continue no matter how many people decry it.
After the first five thousand tellings, this story goes 'round and 'round
'til folks like me, who don't give a damn about slash, find ourselves
deleting two thirds of the posts from their newsreaders in search of
fiction because every idiot on this group with a 286 or higher computer
has to get their two cents in over a dead topic.
Let's let it rest. Everybody knows how everybody else feels, and I, for
one, don't really care. I read stories. I write stories. I critique
stories. Did everyone forget that that's what we do here?
I certainly didn't. Those e-mailing me seem not to have. So let's drop
it. Otherwise, nobody wins.
J, wondering when this became alt.startrek.flamewars
Victor W. Wong
anna wilson (jan...@a.pub.com) writes:
> In article <33C066...@geocities.com>, mac...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>> What I do think folks should avoid at the present time (as on these
>> topics, no one seems to be convincing their opponents--which means
>> *discussion* is fruitless and leaves only fighting) are why people hate
>> slash, why slash is invalid or wrong or anti-canon, and also why a.s.c.a
>> should include slash. At some future point, the latter might be able to
>> be reopened and discussed in civil fashion, but at the present time, I
>> agree that it doesn't appear to be possible, given the recent flareup as
>> proof.
>
>
> Ummm, excuse me, but what you seem to be saying is that it is okay for the
> pro-slash people to speak, but the anti-slash people have to remain
> silent? Is this censorship of only one side? Remember that this most
> recent flare-up appears to have been started by a pro-slasher making an
> ANTI-anti-slash statement.
>
> Sorry, but I disagree with you. Any slash moratorium should apply to BOTH
> sides, since folks from both sides have engaged in the fighting.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
>
>
I am probably going to regret asking this question, but what the heck is
a slash?
--
Copyright (C) 1997 Victor W. Wong. All rights reserved.
Macedon
anna wilson wrote:
> Ummm, excuse me, but what you seem to be saying is that it is okay for the
> pro-slash people to speak, but the anti-slash people have to remain
> silent? Is this censorship of only one side? Remember that this most
> recent flare-up appears to have been started by a pro-slasher making an
> ANTI-anti-slash statement.
>
> Sorry, but I disagree with you. Any slash moratorium should apply to BOTH
> sides, since folks from both sides have engaged in the fighting.
Anna, I agree with you. That was my point: BOTH sides should cease
arguing. I belive you've made some assumptions which aren't justified
by my original post (or by any of my other posts on this topic),
resulting in a misunderstanding which then caused you to respond to me
in a somewhat hostile fashion (perhaps unintentionally). That's
indicative of the problem with the whole discussion.
What I'm trying to clarify is something else. First, since slash is
allowed by the FAQ of this group, it would be in defiance of the FAQ to
ask folks to cease posting slash stories (not that Stephen has suggested
such) or to place a moratorium on discussions of these slash stories.
There also doesn't seem to be any fighting regarding certain topics
related to slash, such as why folks write slash. The fighting arises
only when folks begin to debate the *validity* of slash, and that's what
needs to take a breather for a while until such time as folks can
respond without automatic hostility.
If, however, by your post above, you're suggesting that the moratorium
should forbid on the group *anything* related to slash, that would of
necessity include a moratorium on slash stories and discussions of these
stories, which would in turn be in defiance of the group's FAQ and
cannot be supported. The question is where to draw a temporary line on
general discussions of slash. I've suggested that the line not extend
further than the specific controversial topic: the validity of slash as
a fanfic genre (and, by extension, the validity of homosexuality as a
lifestyle). Why people write slash, for example, is not controversial.
It only becomes so when it shifts into a discussion of slash's
validity. I'm not sure a moratorium needs to be officially mandated,
but since Stephen posted a list of topics and invited response, I
thought I'd suggest narrowing the field to those areas which are
directly causing the continued controversy instead of including topics
which are not, in themselves, controversial.
That's enough said on the matter.
Macedon
JWinterEsq
Slash is that oddity in fiction where to regular or recurring characters
our featured in a homosexual relationship. The name "slash" comes from
the "/" used to describe them. They originated (I think, but I've been
wrong before) from a line in the novel to Star Trek I where Roddenberry
made reference in the narrative to rumors of Kirk and Spock being so close
that they were lovers. (Of course, they may have been Roddenberry
tweaking the nose of earlier slash writers.) The stories derived from
this (or referred to by it) were called "Kirk/Spock" stories. When other
characters started showing up in this fashion, especially after the debut
of TNG, they were simply referred to as "slash."
Most of it's pretty damn silly, and a number a gay friends have asked me
if straight people really think gays behave like that. Others, like
Killashandra's "Surrender" are actually well written and tend to make the
reader stop and think.
Right now, the argument over slash, and the argument over whether ASCA
should include slash, seems to be more popular than the actual stories.
The debate, I think, could use its own newsgroup.
J
Matthew R Blackwell
In <5pt8in$r...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Victor W. Wong) writes:
>
>I am probably going to regret asking this question, but what the heck
>is a slash?
>
>
>--
>Copyright (C) 1997 Victor W. Wong. All rights reserved.
It's the act of swinging a player's stick at an opponent, whether
contact is made or not.
Matt-Wandering by from RAtMM
Iain McNaughton
In article <19970708181...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, JWinterEsq
<jwint...@aol.com> writes
<snip>
>Most of it's pretty damn silly, and a number a gay friends have asked me
>if straight people really think gays behave like that. Others, like
>Killashandra's "Surrender" are actually well written and tend to make the
>reader stop and think.
Oh, what the heck ! I've been resisting saying this, since I've already
made the point ( to no effect whatsoever ) on alt.startrek.-
creative.erotica, but as a gay man I am frequently astonished by
"slash". Some of it is quite interesting, and some of it ( usually that
written _by_ gay men ) is actually quite good and quite representative
of the behaviour of real gay men, but the vast bulk of slash seems to be
written by women who have no real understanding of the nature of male
homosexuality, and are simply using Star Trek characters as puppets in
rather exploitative little vignettes. I actually doubt that these are
written solely for titillation: my suspicion is that many of these
stories are partial "Mary-Jane"s, at a subconscious if not a conscious
level, in which the writer is trying to envisage a relationship in which
both partners have the best characteristics of both sexes. I'm sure that
there is an element of socio-sexual compensation being invoked by many
slash writers: note how much slash fiction is written by women about
men, compared with the amount written by men about women. ( I don't
think I've seen a single piece by a male writer that slashes any of the
following: Janeway/Torres; Uhura/Chapel; Lestor/Rand; etc, etc... I'm
not sure, but I think I may have seen a male-written Troi/Beverley
Crusher. )
I sometimes think of slash writers as being like "fag-hags" - ( usually
straight ) women who hang around with ( usually younger ) gay men,
because they think that gay men are somehow sympathetic, sensitive and
somehow more satisfactory as friends than straight men. Like fag-hags,
slash writers have an idealised view of homosexuality which is not very
realistic.
By the way, I'm aware of the fact that some slash is written by
lesbians. I quite specifically claim that the lesbian experience is
different from the gay male experience, and that qualification to write
about lesbian matters does not imply qualification to write about gay
sexual behaviour. I suspect that sexual behaviour is more defined by
gender than sexuality. ( Though it's hard to judge on this, since I have
seen very little m/m slash written by straight male authors... The one
case that I can think of ( the "Salene" stories ) I rather liked ( some
parts were very good, but other parts less so ), but it's hard to
generalise from one case... )
Anyway, to respond to the posting at the top: Yup, I too, as a gay man,
don't care for a lot of the slash that gets posted, but the point is
that people should be free to post what they like. If you don't like the
subject of the thread, don't open the thread. ( God knows, I've ignored
enough "Q" fiction this way ! ) But the price we pay for a good,
insightful story, slash or otherwise, is to wade through a stack of the
second-rate stuff.
Comments ?
Iain McNaughton.
P.S. I'm aware that some people may regard this posting as a deliberate
attempt to pick a fight. It's not: I just wanted to get it off my chest
and see what other people think, though I'm aware that some of my
remarks will be seen by some people as contentious.
P.P.S. If you're going to flame me, please have the guts not to use a
re-mailing service ! ( You know who you are... )
--
Iain McNaughton
Carol Thomas
Iain McNaughton <i...@t956379207.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<much snipped>
>By the way, I'm aware of the fact that some slash is written by
>lesbians. I quite specifically claim that the lesbian experience is
>different from the gay male experience, and that qualification to write
>about lesbian matters does not imply qualification to write about gay
>sexual behaviour. I suspect that sexual behaviour is more defined by
>gender than sexuality.
You're opening a real can of worms with this one, Iain: "voice appropriation."
Does a writer have to be a member of a specific community to be "qualified"
(your word) to write from the POV of another member of that community? Can
a black writer write fiction from the POV of a white person? Vice versa? You
see the problem.
Personally, I think that a good writer can write from any POV. If you are
arguing that not all the writers here are talented enough to pull it off, I
won't disagree -- we have a wide range of abilities and that's one of the
strengths of a.s.c. But we have to be careful not to assume that lack of
membership in *any* community disqualifies a writer from writing well about
that community.
Carol Thomas
eer...@okway.okstate.edu
<Iain McNaughton>
>as a gay man I am frequently astonished by "slash". Some of it is quite
interesting, and some of it ( usually that written _by_ gay men ) is
actually quite good and quite representative of the behaviour of real gay
men, but the vast bulk of slash seems to be written by women who have no
real understanding of the nature of male homosexuality, and are simply
using Star Trek characters as puppets in rather exploitative little
vignettes.
<Ellen> I'm astonished, too, *especially* when it threatens my computer
with imminent meltdown....
My reading of what you're saying is that women of whatever orientation,
writing about two men have sex is exploitative of men, or gay men in
particular. Is it "exploitative" simply because it *is* often written by
women, about men? I fail to see on an individual level how gay men
writing about other gay men is any *less* exploitative, but then I've
never really bought the idea that it's okay to make malicious jokes about
a group of people as long as you *belong* to that group, either.
As for "real understanding of the nature of male homosexuality", is it
really accurate to imply that there *is* a single, monolithic "nature of
male homosexuality", any more than there is an single, monolithic nature
of *any* kind of sexuality? Do *all* gay men act alike? I've never
noticed that *all* of any other sexual grouping act alike, so I would be
surprised if this were so.
And I also wonder if some of this doesn't have to do with the different
ways in which a lot men and a lot of women read/write/enjoy erotica. I
know that I've found quite a bit of erotica written by men, either m/m,
m/f, or f/f, to be a *turn off* at most, and at the least, very different
from the majority I've read written by women. At the same time, however,
there are members of *both* sexes who don't fit into this huge
generalization. Maybe it's not so much a gay/straight thing, as it is
about the *types* of erotica different people enjoy. Maybe you don't
enjoy the slash you mention because it's not *your* type, as a *male*,
rather than as a gay man. But then, as I said to JWinter, I've read some
slash *by* gay men that was very similar to that by women that I enjoy,
so my suspicion is that *some* gay men enjoy the same type of slash I do.
As you mention, the sample of slash written solely by het men seems close
to nonexistent, (and in Macedon's "Jeu Parti" series, I *believe* that he
had assistance from his wife) and I don't think I've seen many if any het
men talk about reading and enjoying slash. Anyone?
<Iain> I actually doubt that these are written solely for titillation:my
suspicion is that many of these stories are partial "Mary-Jane"s, at a
subconscious if not a conscious level, in which the writer is trying to
envisage a relationship in which both partners have the best
characteristics of both sexes. I'm sure that there is an element of
socio-sexual compensation being invoked by many slash writers: note how
much slash fiction is written by women about men, compared with the
amount written by men about women.
<Ellen> This is always an interesting topic of discussion - why do so
many women write m/m slash? My experience is that any attempt to say "xyz
is why" is too simplistic (and no, I don't see you trying to do that -
much). Yes, some slash is "Mary Sue"; but then, so is some of the
action-adventure ST fic I've read around here. Do you see a difference?
Some of us are more interested in sex than in blowing things up. RE:
"solely for titillation" - oh, I suspect a *lot* of them are written for
that reason. Sometimes a cigar *is* just a cigar.
I've also heard the "equalization of roles", with the idea that m/f
relationships are inherently unbalanced (I've seen m/m sub/dom, and f/m
s/d, with the woman dominant, but m/f s/d with the male dominant seems
rarer in fic, perhaps for this sort of reason), and the related idea that
there aren't interesting female characters, (not true, in my opinion, but
maybe true for some) so two guys get used.
For some, just as a lot of het men seem to find the idea of f/f
relationships to be erotic, they find m/m scenarios hot. I've yet to
figure out exactly *why* the slash I like is erotic to me, but it is. I
suspect at least *part* of that is that it *is* written by women, writing
about what they find erotic and stimulating, whether they are personally
attracted to men, or not. For many that I've heard speak to the topic,
they are taking two *people* that they find interesting, or exciting, or
whatever, and dealing with how they relate to each other. Even most PWPs
I've read presume some kind of *relationship* is involved. And that may
be (in general) part of the distinction for me between a lot of male
erotica and female erotica - for me, the sex is great, but there has to
be some sort of emotional connection forged - I'm not (much) interested
in sex for the sake of sex.
And if studies are right, and women (in general) tend to be more turned
on by words, men by pictures (also in general), it makes sense to me why
women are more likely to write slash than men.
<Iain> I don't think I've seen a single piece by a male writer that
slashes any of the
> following: Janeway/Torres; Uhura/Chapel; Lestor/Rand; etc, etc... I'm
> not sure, but I think I may have seen a male-written Troi/Beverley
> Crusher. )
<Ellen>
I've seen some, and it wasn't *my* cup of tea.
<Iain>
> I sometimes think of slash writers as being like "fag-hags" - ( usually
> straight ) women who hang around with ( usually younger ) gay men,
> because they think that gay men are somehow sympathetic, sensitive and
> somehow more satisfactory as friends than straight men. Like fag-hags,
> slash writers have an idealised view of homosexuality which is not very
> realistic.
>
<Ellen> Some may be, who knows. Most that I'm aware of, however, really
don't seem to look at it that they're writing about gays, or not; they're
writing about two people who are attracted to each other. In general,
most of the slash writers I'm familiar with *seem* to have much less
constrained and less sharply delineated notions of human sexuality. It's
not an idealized view of *homosexuality* they're dealing with, it's an
idealized view of *humanity*, and its sexuality, instantiated in
particular stories as occurring between two men.
<Iain>
> By the way, I'm aware of the fact that some slash is written by
> lesbians. I quite specifically claim that the lesbian experience is
> different from the gay male experience, and that qualification to write
> about lesbian matters does not imply qualification to write about gay
> sexual behaviour. I suspect that sexual behaviour is more defined by
> gender than sexuality.
<Ellen> I quite specifically claim that *my* experience is different from
*anyone* else's experience - so what's your point? I don't think anyone
would claim that lesbians and gay men are interchangeable in *any* way.
Are you implying that you can't write well about anything you aren't?
How then does one "qualify" to write about anything, or manage to write
in a way that communicates? At an extreme, you're talking about solipsism
here - nobody can write about anything, because *everyone's* experience
is different. And so what if lesbians/bisexual women/het women/asexual
women slash writers *don't* "understand" the gay experience? How does
that invalidate what they *are* writing? I don't see anybody calling for
writers of oh, say, stories about ship's captains to show us their
"qualifications" for captaining space ships before deciding that they're
writing well.
And personally, I suspect that beyond the obvious *technical* aspects,
sexual behavior is more defined by individuality than orientation - which
is what I'm assuming you meant by "sexuality".
<Iain>
> Anyway, to respond to the posting at the top: Yup, I too, as a gay man,
> don't care for a lot of the slash that gets posted, but the point is
> that people should be free to post what they like...But the price we pay for a
good, insightful story, slash or otherwise, is to wade through a stack of
the
> second-rate stuff.
>
<Ellen> Ain't it the truth. Amen to all of the above. Except for the part
about the gay man, and caring for the slash, of course....
<Iain>
>
> P.S. I'm aware that some people may regard this posting as a deliberate
> attempt to pick a fight. It's not: I just wanted to get it off my chest
> and see what other people think, though I'm aware that some of my
> remarks will be seen by some people as contentious.
<Ellen> No, I can see that it's just something you *don't* get, but then,
I don't either, really, as I said. I've tried to figure out *why* I like
slash, and so far I've just had to accept that for whatever reason, I
*do*. I *really* do. But I don't find myself hunting for general m/m
erotica, so it's something particular to the fanfic genre for me.
Ellen
Carol Thomas
silv...@nospam.com (Beth S.) wrote:
<snip>
>Many fans and fanfic
>writers develop very intense (and unrealistic) "relationships" with these
>fictional characters and real-life actors; relationships that range from
>immature fantansies, to some that border on unhealthy obsessions.
>
>I think that fanfic may be a way for some writers to "fuck" the object/s
>of their desire. How else could a fan (especially a female) hope to
>"conquer" a powerful character like Picard or "connect" with an imposing
>actor like Patrick Stewart? Some writers try to justify their slash by
>claiming an interest in gay rights and other high-toned ideals, but I
>suspect that they are trying to disguise the fact that they simply like to
>write sex stories about characters that they are obsessed with.
You may not realize how this comes across, Beth, but I read it as a real
attack on the writers here on a.s.c. The ideas that they need to "justify"
their slash and that they are "obsessed" with the characters they write
about do a real disservice to people who frequently work for long hours
trying to make their stories the best that they can be. I believe it's in
rather bad taste to make such suppositions.
>Another thing: I have often wondered whether slash is a way (especially
>for some women) to humilate men? A way for women to "get even" for the
>disparity of power between the sexes, perhaps?
Again, this isn't particularly fair. I think making suppositions about
why other writers (not yourself) write their stories -- especially such
negative suppositions -- is rather rude.
>Funny that you would dare to mention "fag-hags." Recently, I was
>discussing the slash genre with some disbelieving friends, and the term
>"fag-hag" came up. I think that this is something that most slash fen
>will refuse to acknowledge; just as they won't admit that they can not
>really understand the subtleties of m/m relationships.
Is it really fair to make negative generalizations about a group in this
way? Especially when large numbers of said group are most likely going to
read your post?
Beth, I doubt you intended to hurt anyone's feelings, and you certainly
haven't hurt mine. However, you might want to re-think how you phrase your
opinions in the future, to avoid the possibility of stomping all over the
feelings of some of the hard-working writers on this group.
Regards,
Carol Thomas
Macedon
eer...@okway.okstate.edu wrote:
> And I also wonder if some of this doesn't have to do with the different
> ways in which a lot men and a lot of women read/write/enjoy erotica. I
> know that I've found quite a bit of erotica written by men, either m/m,
> m/f, or f/f, to be a *turn off* at most, and at the least, very different
> from the majority I've read written by women. At the same time, however,
> there are members of *both* sexes who don't fit into this huge
> generalization. Maybe it's not so much a gay/straight thing, as it is
> about the *types* of erotica different people enjoy. Maybe you don't
> enjoy the slash you mention because it's not *your* type, as a *male*,
> rather than as a gay man. But then, as I said to JWinter, I've read some
> slash *by* gay men that was very similar to that by women that I enjoy,
> so my suspicion is that *some* gay men enjoy the same type of slash I do.
> As you mention, the sample of slash written solely by het men seems close
> to nonexistent, (and in Macedon's "Jeu Parti" series, I *believe* that he
> had assistance from his wife) and I don't think I've seen many if any het
> men talk about reading and enjoying slash. Anyone?
Three points:
1. Yes, JEU-PARTI was a work by both I and my wife. The original,
"Orfeo" was by me alone. It was never intended to have a sequel, and
certainly not a slash sequel. "Eye of the Storm" was her idea and the
first draft was her writing. I then overwrote it, in an effort to keep
the tone closer to "Orfeo." Some of the ideas are mine (particularly
Jake's reactions to Salene's revelations about his sexuality) based on
my *own* experiences in gay bars. "Anslem" was about 80% or more my
wife's work. Due to time, among other things, I had more to do with
that at an idea level (all the pscyhobabble is mine, for instance) than
at a writing level. Several folks have noticed the tone difference
between it and "Orfeo," and even EOS.
2. Speaking frankly, as a straight man, slash doesn't do anything for
me. By in large, I don't find the same tone in slash and gay fiction
and that may be one of the reasons slash doesn't appeal to me. I've
read and enjoyed a lot of gay fiction, despite the fact I'm not gay. I
don't tend to enjoy slash because it pushes all the wrong buttons. <g>
Then again, as slash is written largely by women for women, that's
probably no surprise. Some of it does bother me (for reasons I won't go
into due to space), but for the most part, it simply doesn't *interest*
me.
So yes, I agree with Iain. The majority of the slash I've read (even
some of the better written stuff) doesn't read like gay fiction and the
characters don't act like the gay men I've known. And yes, I think the
difference has something to do with the gender of the writers. The real
question might be whether or not the writer's *goal* is to write gay
fiction. ;>
One problem in evaluating stories is when the reader misses the goal of
the writer. If a slash writer's *goal* is to make her story sound like
gay fiction and to make her men *sound/act* like men (gay or not), then
a lot of it fails and the author needs to go do a little more research
(see below). But if that's not the goal, then the author hasn't
necessarily failed.
The biggest danger in slash, to my mind, might lie in readers taking
away an unrealistic vision of gay men and current gay culture. If folks
think most slash portrays gay life, they're sadly mistaken. But again,
I'm not sure the readers of slash necessarily assume that, either.
3. On men writing women and women writing men.... This comes up all the
time, in SF and out. Yes, it is more *difficult* for one sex to write a
character of the other--just as it's difficult for a white to write a
believable black, for a Japanese to write a believable Indian...etc.
They have to step outside their own personal experience. No, it's not
impossible. An example of a male writer who can't do women to save his
life is John Varley. His "women" are men with tits. (The same could be
said of Heinlein; great writer, bad grasp of women.) A male writer who
I think (and have been told) does *great* women is Clyde Edgerton. His
book RAINEY has a female protag. Playwrite Sam Shepherd also does
believable women. There are others.
Men CAN write women, if they do their "homework": i.e. talk to women,
read things written by women, try to get inside the *heads* of the
opposite sex. Likewise women CAN write men--if they do the same thing.
In some ways, it's easier for women, I think, because they're forced to
live in a male world. Men *can* go their whole lives without ever
learning jack shit about women. Women, for the most part, can't do the
same with men. Yeah, sometimes I think women and men are difference
species! Ha! But maybe not so much as we think, and maybe not in the
*ways* we think. When I've written women characters, the corrections
offered by female readers are sometimes on *unexpected* things--not the
stuff you'd expect.
The belief that women can never "get" men and men can never "get" women
is--IMO--bunk. "Write what you know" taken to an absurd extreme. If
that were the case, none of us would ever write anything but
autobiography! Some writers advocate something akin to that. I think
they're full of it. *Balance* is the key. Yes, write what you
know--and if you don't know *research like hell*. That's a writer's
DUTY. A writer who doesn't think s/he ever needs to research anything
is, IMO, plain ol' LAZY. I don't have any respect for them or their
stories, which are often simply silly and unrealistic.
But the exclusivism displayed in the attitude "Only ____ can write about
____" simply isn't borne out by reality. Otherwise, no one could play a
trick like James Tiptree did (a woman writing under a male pseudonym who
had all the critics and skeptics convinced she was a man).
So yes, it's *harder* to write something which is outside your direct
experience--and dammit, if you're going to try it, DO YOUR HOMEWORK--but
it's not impossible and shouldn't be considered so. The goal of ANY
good writer, just as with any good actor, is a high degree of empathy,
enough to "be" someone else. Some people do it better than others, and
I think it pays authors to be honest with themselves about their
abilities. If a female author finds it difficult to understand men,
*don't write them.* If a white author finds it difficult to understand
blacks or has never had opportunity to know a black person or talk with
someone about what his/her life experience has been like, *don't write
them.* But I think we should all try to reach across the differences
between us, *learn* about others, try to understand other realities as
well as we can.
Macedon
Beth S.
> In article <5q3t57$s...@news.interlog.com>, lemm...@interlog.com (Carol
> Thomas) wrote:
> You may not realize how this comes across, Beth, but I read it as a real
> attack on the writers here on a.s.c. The ideas that they need to "justify"
> their slash and that they are "obsessed" with the characters they write
> about do a real disservice to people who frequently work for long hours
> trying to make their stories the best that they can be. I believe it's in
> rather bad taste to make such suppositions.
>
> Again, this isn't particularly fair. I think making suppositions about
> why other writers (not yourself) write their stories -- especially such
> negative suppositions -- is rather rude.
>
> Is it really fair to make negative generalizations about a group in this
> way? Especially when large numbers of said group are most likely
> going to read your post?
>
> I doubt you intended to hurt anyone's feelings, and you certainly
> haven't hurt mine. However, you might want to re-think how you phrase
> your opinions in the future, to avoid the possibility of stomping all over
> the feelings of some of the hard-working writers on this group.
I thought that Iain McNaughton had brought up some intriguing comments
about slash and I had been wondering what a gay male might have to say
about the subject. True, this topic has been talked to death here, but
McNaughton touched on some areas that I had never seen discussed before.
Do you dislike my suppositions because they might reveal some unpleasant
aspects that some may not care to acknowledge? My suppositions are
factually-based, I DO know fans and fan writers [in ST and other fandoms]
who ARE very obsessive about "their" characters, and I DO know others who
try to justify their interest in slash and sex stories by touting
lofty-sounding ideals.
As for feelings, what about the readers who read/wade though these
stories? I suppose their opinions and feelings mean nothing? Don't you
care that gays might be offended by some [if not a lot] of the material
[and depictions of m/m and f/f relationships] found here?
And as for my future opinions, if any, I will phrase them any way I wish.
If you think you might be offended by my posts, then you are free to
ignore them. Are we permitted to discuss only "shiny, happy" topics
here? So much for any truly serious discussion or introspection, then.
In closing, let me just state that, as a lesbian, I find that a great deal
of the m/m and f/f slash IS rather exploitative. Perhaps this doesn't
really matter, since people are writing fantasy-based material, and
"realistic" depictions of same-sex relationships are not what they are
striving for in the first place. I believe that everyone should have the
freedom to write and post whatever they want to. Of course, this also
means that everyone is ALSO free to read and to comment on whatever they
please.
Carol Thomas
silv...@nospam.com (Beth S.) wrote:
>> In article <5q3t57$s...@news.interlog.com>, lemm...@interlog.com (Carol
>> Thomas) wrote:
>
>> You may not realize how this comes across, Beth, but I read it as a real
>> I doubt you intended to hurt anyone's feelings, and you certainly
>> haven't hurt mine. However, you might want to re-think how you phrase
>> your opinions in the future, to avoid the possibility of stomping all over
>> the feelings of some of the hard-working writers on this group.
>
>I thought that Iain McNaughton had brought up some intriguing comments
>about slash and I had been wondering what a gay male might have to say
>about the subject. True, this topic has been talked to death here, but
>McNaughton touched on some areas that I had never seen discussed before.
Agreed; it's an interesting area of discussion for fanfic readers and writers.
>Do you dislike my suppositions because they might reveal some unpleasant
>aspects that some may not care to acknowledge? My suppositions are
>factually-based, I DO know fans and fan writers [in ST and other fandoms]
>who ARE very obsessive about "their" characters, and I DO know others who
>try to justify their interest in slash and sex stories by touting
>lofty-sounding ideals.
I'm sure there are individuals like that, and didn't deny it. My only
problem with what you wrote is that it came across as an attack on some of
the a.s.c. writers. There are many beginning writers here and in general,
the group has always tried to stick to the "criticize the story, not the
writer" approach -- to spare people's feelings.
>As for feelings, what about the readers who read/wade though these
>stories? I suppose their opinions and feelings mean nothing? Don't you
>care that gays might be offended by some [if not a lot] of the material
>[and depictions of m/m and f/f relationships] found here?
Of course those feelings have as much validity as anyone else's! Absolutely.
But those feelings can be as easily expressed by pointing out what *in the
stories* is hurtful/offensive, rather than by speculating about the writers'
personalities and faults.
>And as for my future opinions, if any, I will phrase them any way I wish.
>If you think you might be offended by my posts, then you are free to
>ignore them.
Of course. I can't censor you, and wouldn't.
>Are we permitted to discuss only "shiny, happy" topics
>here? So much for any truly serious discussion or introspection, then.
No, that's not what I'm trying to get across here. It's just a tact issue:
making points without necessarily hurting feelings. It can be done.
>In closing, let me just state that, as a lesbian, I find that a great deal
>of the m/m and f/f slash IS rather exploitative.
I do find this an interesting topic; as a bi woman, I have also read material
that I found... "demeaning" to bi/gay women? I'm not sure if that's the right
word, but it bothered me. I'd love to discuss how portrayals of characters
in slash writing differ from those in gay writing (of which I have read some,
but probably not enough to draw firm conclusions). Could you elucidate on
some of the differences? (Peace proposal here.)
>Perhaps this doesn't
>really matter, since people are writing fantasy-based material, and
>"realistic" depictions of same-sex relationships are not what they are
>striving for in the first place.
Perhaps... although realism in characterization usually contributes
positively to any fiction. An interesting point.
>I believe that everyone should have the
>freedom to write and post whatever they want to. Of course, this also
>means that everyone is ALSO free to read and to comment on whatever they
>please.
Absolutely.
Regards,
Carol
Melinda J Loges
On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Macedon wrote:
(Earlier points snipped for brevity)
> One problem in evaluating stories is when the reader misses the goal of
> the writer. If a slash writer's *goal* is to make her story sound like
> gay fiction and to make her men *sound/act* like men (gay or not), then
> a lot of it fails and the author needs to go do a little more research
> (see below). But if that's not the goal, then the author hasn't
> necessarily failed.
Good point. I think several folks here have said specifically that they
are *not* trying to write gay fiction, but instead are writing about a
certain pair (or trio, or...well you get the point <g>) that happens to
intrigue them, regardless of gender, and that they have assumed that
gender is not a consideration in whether the pair in question hooks up, or
in how they act afterwards. Not always--I think stories about Kim, for
instance, do concern themselves with his, ah, hangups, for lack of a
better word.
I usually have a host of reasons for writing a particular pair-up (if that
pair-up is the topic of the story, of course), but I doubt if any of them
comes near the reasons that might cause someone to write a piece of gay
fiction. The very phrase "gay fiction" carries with it all of the subtext
that "gay" or "homosexual" do in our culture. This is a marginalized
group, of course there will be special dynamics involved. But, in writing
slash, I think most of us have assumed that in the 24th c. being
homosexual or bisexual or asexual or quasisexual or whatever other label
one can conceive will not carry *any* stigma or cachet or be a matter of
any kind of concern (besides a private one) whatsoever. That saying "he
likes to date men" will have no more implications than saying "he likes
to date brunettes."
And when one suggests that a character does not act like a "gay man," I
think one *has* assumed that being gay, as opposed to straight, has
implications--to some extent, pivotal implications. IMHO, a lot of slash
makes the opposite assumption--on purpose.
> The biggest danger in slash, to my mind, might lie in readers taking
> away an unrealistic vision of gay men and current gay culture. If folks
> think most slash portrays gay life, they're sadly mistaken. But again,
> I'm not sure the readers of slash necessarily assume that, either.
I think it's a scary thought that they might. Slash, to a large extent,
seems to be romantic fantasy--predicated on a TV show. That is not a
recipe for reality. It can be done, of course, but if a romantic fantasy
comes out as realistic, then I think you'd have to question whether it's
actually fantasy. Not all fiction is meant to be realistic. A lot is
meant to heighten a particular emotional state or idea to a pure,
unadulterated form--to reify it. IMHO, that's where the kick--the stuff
that makes you cry or laugh or throw up or what-have-you--comes in.
That's the catharsis. I mean I love, say, _Romeo and Juliet_, but
honestly, how many of us--in final analysis--would kill ourselves rather
than live without a loved one? Especially one we had just met? It's a
beautiful idea--and that's the point of it. Not realism.
> 3. On men writing women and women writing men...
(snipping for brevity)
> The belief that women can never "get" men and men can never "get" women
> is--IMO--bunk. "Write what you know" taken to an absurd extreme. If
> that were the case, none of us would ever write anything but
> autobiography! Some writers advocate something akin to that. I think
> they're full of it. *Balance* is the key. Yes, write what you
> know--and if you don't know *research like hell*. That's a writer's
> DUTY. A writer who doesn't think s/he ever needs to research anything
> is, IMO, plain ol' LAZY. I don't have any respect for them or their
> stories, which are often simply silly and unrealistic.
Well-said and excellent points. I agree, research is a duty, and if it
hasn't been done, it shows. But...
IMHO, there are limits to research, and there is a point where a little
more research is too much. I don't think you actually meant this,
Macedon, but to me, this calls up a vision of the sociologist in the
proverbial hut of the proverbial aborigine assiduously taking notes on
what kind of bamboo tea is served for breakfast. Not that there isn't a
place for this--there is. But I think the kind of research that's
relevant for characterization (versus plot or description) is more akin
to general observation, i.e., people-watching. You have to be in touch
with what makes people tick, to be in tune to the world around you.
But if research for characterization is taken too far, I think, you
can reach a point when you doubt you can write about anyone (and if you're
thinking too hard, have had too much coffee and not enough sleep, even
doubt whether you can write about yourself <g>.)
I mean, I write almost exclusively about Data. He's a bleepin' android,
for heaven's sake, not to mention the fact that he had no viable emotions
for most of his life. There's no way I can research that. And neither
could Brent Spiner. He's said himself that the character (beyond
Roddenberry's brief sketch) was based on his and the writer's
imaginations. And in my writing my imagination jumps in, too, and we
have a bloody free-for-all. I write from Data's POV; in my current
story, I even do interior monologue for him. And the only research I've
done is to watch the show.
(more snips)
> So yes, it's *harder* to write something which is outside your direct
> experience--and dammit, if you're going to try it, DO YOUR HOMEWORK--but
> it's not impossible and shouldn't be considered so. The goal of ANY
> good writer, just as with any good actor, is a high degree of empathy,
> enough to "be" someone else. Some people do it better than others, and
> I think it pays authors to be honest with themselves about their
> abilities. If a female author finds it difficult to understand men,
> *don't write them.* If a white author finds it difficult to understand
> blacks or has never had opportunity to know a black person or talk with
> someone about what his/her life experience has been like, *don't write
> them.* But I think we should all try to reach across the differences
> between us, *learn* about others, try to understand other realities as
> well as we can.
That's the gist, I think, the empathy. Slippery little sucker, hard to
pin down, even harder to grow it from scratch, but vital for any kind of
artistic enterprise (eeks, bad pun, sorry :-)) that's really gonna touch
people. But, ultimately, I think it has to do with asking "what if?" a
lot, a talent that I think lots of folk on a.s.c. (slash aficionados
definitely included) show in abundance.
OK, one more point and I'll shut up. I know I'm beating a dead horse
here, but I think it bears repeating. When I write ST fan-fic, I make a
conscious assumption that there *is* no gay "experience", no black
"experience", no Chicano "experience", etc. I assume that the
differences between men and women are no more salient than menstrual cramps
and facial hair. I write about the *human* experience, or the *android*
experience, or the *Klingon* experience. That's where my empathy comes
to full light (if it does at all, of course, but that's a whole other can
of gagh, so to speak <g>.) I know I can only speak for me, but I think a
lot of others feel the same.
> Macedon
Thanks for the insightful comments (as usual); this is meaty stuff--and
food for thought--and I think I'm getting hungry. Must have been the
gagh reference <real goofy g>, sorry to inflict my horrible sense of humor
on the innocent public, I should really be going now...
Cheers,
Melinda
ann...@aol.com
In article <$advyGAA...@t956379207.demon.co.uk>,
Iain McNaughton <i...@t956379207.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh, what the heck ! I've been resisting saying this, since I've already
> made the point ( to no effect whatsoever ) on alt.startrek.-
> creative.erotica, but as a gay man I am frequently astonished by
> "slash". Some of it is quite interesting, and some of it ( usually that
> written _by_ gay men ) is actually quite good and quite representative
> of the behaviour of real gay men, but the vast bulk of slash seems to be
> written by women who have no real understanding of the nature of male
> homosexuality, and are simply using Star Trek characters as puppets in
> rather exploitative little vignettes.>
Oh, what the heck, also. I have tried, really tried to not reply and I
just can't help it.
My first question is, how do we (speaking for women writers of slash) NOT
understand the nature of male homosexuality? Are you speaking of the, er,
mechanics of it or of the emotional side?
Now my next question is, and I think someone else asked this, is are we
to assume that only gay men can write accurate (whatever that is) m/m
slash, that only blacks can write about the black experience?
I find this an extremely narrow viewpoint, if that is your assumption. A
person is not just gay or black or whatever. A person is a complex set of
parameters. A gay man cannot be defined only by his gayness. He is also
the product of a background that is very different from another gay man,
he works in a different enviroment, deals with his gayness in a different
manner, relates to others including his family and partner in a different
manner.
Therefore, while I as a female may not be able to relate to perhaps the
mechanics of m/m sexuality, I can possibly relate to that characters
background, say as an abused child or even being from Kansas. And it is
those characteristics I can write about.
anne in chicago (waiting to see what kind of flame war she's started
now <g>
Andy Gural
Hi:
Here's a blast from the past when someone suggested segregating stories
by male and female writers on this group. Someone responded:
From: ZRM...@prodigy.com (Pam North)
Subject: Segregate stories by sex of author
Date: 1 Jun 1995 20:52:42 GMT
Hey guys, why don't we divide this post in two - one for male authors and
one for females. It would greatly help some of us eliminate the stories
we don't want to read without having to download them first.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed the vast differences in what
guys think is erotic, and what women find sexy.
Each to his own, but I don't want to wade through the male-cum-rough-
stuff to get to the slower, more character-driven romance that women
write.
Am I alone, or am I just gonna get flamed???
From: Palin...@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Segregate stories by sex of author
Date: 4 Jun 1995 11:37:19 GMT
Palindromeąs response
Dividing the stories here on the basis of each author or
authoressąs sex is a good idea. The reasons for it are simple
and elegant. Keeping things simple will allow us to make sweeping
statements and gross generalizations.
1. To each her or his own.
Having to deal with things outside your expectations is inconvenient
and often leads to uncertainty and complexity. The more we can divide
ourselves into smaller and smaller sub groups that donąt stray from their
own thickets to places over the hills and far away, the easier it will be
to convince ourselves we know what we want.
2. You just donąt get it.
Men and women are distinct. Moreover, sex has nothing to do, what so
ever, with the union of women and men. Babies come from cabbage patches
and storks and are thawed from blocks of ice in the spring. Marriage has
nothing to do with people living together. In addition, all coins are one
sided and down no longer has anything to do with up.
Why on Earth would anyone want to understand what is common to both
sexes? The relationship between the sexes should not move beyond the
finger-pointing stage. There should be chick movies and guy movies and
nothing in between.
3. Ease of composition.
Resorting to cliche is easiest. Having to move beyond the dull, vapid
faster-harder-deeper-more typical male thinking as both readers and
writers involves effort. Having to move beyond the dull, vapid Madame
Bovary sacharine daydreams typical female thinking as both readers and
writers involves effort.
No, no. We should want to think in cliche and never stray from beaten
trails.
Palindrome.
.emordnilaP
I might have added:
"Men write action stories while women write character studies that are
elegant studies of the nature of gentle eroticism and power of creation as
housed in that great source of mystery called the human figure."
This presumtive, infantile bias is beneath contempt.
It makes the assumption that is sexist and defeating to intelligent
discourse and it also makes the assumption that what women write, in every
case, in every instance, without exception, is in every way morally
superior. It is sexist because it does not allow women to fail.
One might better put it that many men write violent drivel. While this
is true, that they are male is irrelevant if the work is garbage to begin
with. And yet, let us be fair. In an age of increasing‹one hopes‹gender
equality, let is give wome the freedom to write poorly.
Women should be as free to write adolescent, narcissistic crap that is
painful to read as the nonsense produced by men. Yet, they have to be
ready to take their lumps when itąs ignored or criticised or challanged,
and not retreat behind the skirts of Victorian defenciveness and appeal to
mercy because of their gender.
For example:
Venus: What do you think of my manuscript?
Mars: Its loaded with spelling mistakes and the plot is predictable.
Venus: Youąre adhering to a system of rules created by others to
maintain power. You are not respecting the perspective that is given to me
by my sex.
Mars: Why, then, did you give me this to read?
Venus: I wanted to be appreciated and understood.
Mars: I canąt understand what youąve written. And I canąt appreciate
what is not worthy of appreciation.
The muses, the guardians of the arts, enter. Theyąve been listening
from behind the door. The nine pick Venus up and throw her in the pool.
Mars (continued,): Has *anyone* seen that Hornblower book I was
reading? Theyąre a cracking good read. Lots of fire and thunder. Hmm?
No-one, eh. Well, who wants to go into Hades and throw more fire crackers
down Idi Aminąs trousers?
Andy.
By the way, what ever happened to those Palindrome stories? Those were
a cracking good read.
Katisha
Carol Thomas wrote:
[snip]
>
> You're opening a real can of worms with this one, Iain: "voice appropriation."
> Does a writer have to be a member of a specific community to be "qualified"
> (your word) to write from the POV of another member of that community? Can
> a black writer write fiction from the POV of a white person? Vice versa? You
> see the problem.
We had this problem in Australia. A writer won a literary award, down
here, by writing a book about WWII, claiming to be a Ukrainian (I think)
immigrant. Then they found out that she was of Anglo-Saxon descent, and
no more recently immigrated than most white Australians. So some people
said she shouldn't have the award. Why? It was a good book (well, I
thought so). It had views that could have been thought of as racist,
but because *she* had said them, they weren't - until it was discovered
she wasn't who she said she was. It stirred up quite a bit of hatred.
Nobody seemed to see the point, that it wasn't *what* she wrote, but how
she wrote it, which *was* what the literary award was for. So you can
write from the point of view of another group, but you'd better be
carefull what views you ascribe to them. For that matter, look at all
of those stupid books about witches, by people who aren't witches, and
have never *met* a witch, and seem to think, in spite of evidence to the
contrary, that there is no religion that is not "established" as they
see it, and that anything else is just a myth cooked up by undeveloped
civilisations. For that matter, read Virginia Woolfe's *A Room of One's
Own*, for a list of books about women, written by men, without even
consulting women or using them in the research! What? Drifting away
from the point? Me?
Katisha (and then there are all those people who say Gilbert and
Sullivan wrote musicals - Sullivan was obsessed with opera, and Gilbert
*hated* musicals, for their information).
Zepp
On 9 Jul 1997 20:14:22 GMT, lemm...@interlog.com (Carol Thomas)
wrote:
>Iain McNaughton <i...@t956379207.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><much snipped>
>
>>By the way, I'm aware of the fact that some slash is written by
>>lesbians. I quite specifically claim that the lesbian experience is
>>different from the gay male experience, and that qualification to write
>>about lesbian matters does not imply qualification to write about gay
>>sexual behaviour. I suspect that sexual behaviour is more defined by
>>gender than sexuality.
>
>You're opening a real can of worms with this one, Iain: "voice appropriation."
>Does a writer have to be a member of a specific community to be "qualified"
>(your word) to write from the POV of another member of that community? Can
>a black writer write fiction from the POV of a white person? Vice versa? You
>see the problem.
Personally I have always felt that that entire line of argument is
pure-D bullshit. Writers get inside other people's heads for aliving.
When we do it right, we take the reader along with us. We ALL write
some characters outside of our own physical experience. So what.
Not only that, gender doesn't necessarily have a damn thing to do with
what sort of plumbing the meatware has.
]
>Personally, I think that a good writer can write from any POV. If you are
>arguing that not all the writers here are talented enough to pull it off, I
>won't disagree -- we have a wide range of abilities and that's one of the
>strengths of a.s.c. But we have to be careful not to assume that lack of
>membership in *any* community disqualifies a writer from writing well about
>that community.
>
>Carol Thomas
Right on, Carol, couldn't have said it better m'self.
Greywolf the Wanderer, Feisty Tonight
--borrowing Zepp's account.
--header munged to foil spambots; remove the extra "p"
L. McCabe
And...@Hawknet.ca (Andy Gural) wrote:
>Hi:
> Here's a blast from the past when someone suggested segregating stories
>by male and female writers on this group. Someone responded:
>
>From: ZRM...@prodigy.com (Pam North)
>Subject: Segregate stories by sex of author
>Date: 1 Jun 1995 20:52:42 GMT
>Hey guys, why don't we divide this post in two - one for male authors and
>one for females. It would greatly help some of us eliminate the stories
>we don't want to read without having to download them first.
>I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed the vast differences in what
>guys think is erotic, and what women find sexy.
>Each to his own, but I don't want to wade through the male-cum-rough-
>stuff to get to the slower, more character-driven romance that women
>write.
>Am I alone, or am I just gonna get flamed???
>From: Palin...@anon.penet.fi
>Subject: Segregate stories by sex of author
>Date: 4 Jun 1995 11:37:19 GMT
>Palindrome零 response
> Dividing the stories here on the basis of each author or
>authoress零 sex is a good idea. The reasons for it are simple
>and elegant. Keeping things simple will allow us to make sweeping
>statements and gross generalizations.
Both points have merit for serious discussion. Segregation by gender
of the authors will allow for gross generalizations, it is the nature
of the human brain to behave in such a manner. If you disagree, it
can be looked it up in any Social Psychology, or Social Cognition
Text.
But I think Pam might have been talking about formula (for lack of a
better word,) but she just didn't know it. I am not suggesting that
we need to add more codes to the subject heading of a new story for
formula. I am just reminding everyone that the subject header is the
cover of their book when posting a new story.
Lor
Iain McNaughton
In article <Andy_G-1207...@x42hawk.hawknet.ca>, Andy Gural
<And...@Hawknet.ca> writes
>Hi:
> Here's a blast from the past when someone suggested segregating stories
>by male and female writers on this group. Someone responded:
>
>
>From: ZRM...@prodigy.com (Pam North)
>Subject: Segregate stories by sex of author
>Date: 1 Jun 1995 20:52:42 GMT
>
>Hey guys, why don't we divide this post in two - one for male authors and
>one for females. It would greatly help some of us eliminate the stories
>we don't want to read without having to download them first.
<snip>
I'd vote in favour ! ( I must have missed this thread when it first
appeared, although I was tending just to lurk at that time... )
You could obtain the same effect by just asking authors to note their
genders in header line, couldn't you ?
Comments, anyone ?
Iain McNaughton.
--
Iain McNaughton
JWinterEsq
>>>>Hey guys, why don't we divide this post in two - one for male authors
and
>one for females. It would greatly help some of us eliminate the stories
>we don't want to read without having to download them first.<<<
This is a VERY bad idea. It's the same as asking us to say whether were
gay or straight, black, white, Asian, or whatever, or wht nationality.
Essentially, you're saying we should use the author's gender as a basis
for reading stories? That's not a valid way to judge a story. You're
opening another can of worms here, almost as bad as the slash debate.
J
Annchgo
It's 90plus degrees here and I feel testy. So, if this post makes everyone
pack up and leave this newsgroup, I don't care.
<insert sarcasm>
Okay, nexttime someone posts a story why not do it this way
Example-This story was written by a mixed heritage (Latino& Irish) female
between the ages of 35 and 40 while under the influence of too much
coffee, has four ferrets, lives in Illinois and has an income of . . .
Her sexual preference is gay but might be swayed if James Kirk appeared in
living room.
She uses a PC Pentium chip computer and is right handed.
Trek preferences include TOS and VOY.
Etc. etc. etc.
If we do it right, the disclaimers could get to be longer (and maybe more
interesting than the stories)
anne in chicago
Pegeel
J>>>>
Peg falls to the floor in giggling hysteria.
No, no, no, no, no! Oh, lordy me, no! Whatever would Macedon and I do
then? Post to female, because I am? Post to male, because he is? Try to
cram both into one subject line, and fall through the cracks? Declare
ourselves neuter, which would come as a great shock to our respective
spouses? (I can't speak for Macedon's "J", but my own David would go into
deep mourning if I suddenly became convincingly neuter....)
No, no, no. A story is a story, and while one can often tell what gender
wrote it, and what gender it's intended for, one just as often can't. In
the long run all that matters is whether, on opening it, it calls to you,
or not. If you're judging material based on the putative gender of the
writer, you're not reading the *story.* And the story is what counts.
(With a sad, respectful tip of the hat to the memory of James Tiptree Jr.,
aka Alice Sheldon, aka Racoona Sheldon... the ultimate literary
gender-bender, and writer extrordinaire. May s/he rest in peace, and her
stories live longer than she did.)
Peg
AmBonner
Pegeel wrote:
>>(With a sad, respectful tip of the hat to the memory of James Tiptree
Jr.,
aka Alice Sheldon, aka Racoona Sheldon... the ultimate literary
gender-bender, and writer extrordinaire. May s/he rest in peace, and her
stories live longer than she did.)<<
Indeed, James/Alice's legacy lives on....each year (or so), the James
Tiptree Jr. Award is given to the best work dealing with gender in science
fiction. The 1997 award went to Ursula LeGuin for her short story,
"Mountain Ways," appearing in the August, 1996 Asimov's, and to Mary Doria
Russell for her great first novel, "The Sparrow," both of which I
heartily recommend to one and all.
Amanda Bonner
JWinterEsq
>>>No, no, no. A story is a story, and while one can often tell what
gender
wrote it, and what gender it's intended for, one just as often can't.<<<
Right, so if my story features a parade of female crewmembers in TOS-era
skants being satisfied by their oh-so-patient (and, apparently strong in
stamina) captain, it has nothing to with my testosterone. Well, OK, it
does, but that's story inspiration (and a very messy keyboard), OK?
Seriously, though, nine times out of ten, I don't give the author's name a
second glance until its feedback time. Even then, I don't think gender
comes into play. Besides, for all you people know, I'm a psychotic,
red-haired roller skating bitch from Los Angeles who likes to stalk one of
the cast members of TNG. (Ouch! I actually know someone like that!) But
all you "see" is some beer-drinking technogeek from Cleveland with a wife
and too many credit cards. Peel back the facade still more, and...
Dammit! Left the blue tights at the cleaners again. And the big letter
"S" is starting to peel. I wonder if I should switch to bat trunks? I'd
need a new car, and chicks would dig the car.
J
eer...@okway.okstate.edu
In article <19970714004...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
peg...@aol.com (Pegeel) wrote:
No, no, no, no, no! Oh, lordy me, no! Whatever would Macedon and I do
then? Post to female, because I am? Post to male, because he is? Try to
cram both into one subject line, and fall through the cracks? Declare
ourselves neuter, which would come as a great shock to our respective
spouses?
<Ellen> *Obviously*, we would have to create new gender specific groups,
and ya'll could go in a *combined* group. (please, no, this is *not* a
slam at ASCA!) Or post your story to the female group, then his to the
male group, and we'd all have to just interpolate what happened in
between, because obviously, as a female, I wouldn't be interested in
anything a *man* had to write (and I just sent off that adoring note to
Macedon...oh, *and* his wife, so there I am in trouble again) And where
would poor Greywolf go to *read*?
Besides, how do we *know* you're who (what) you say you are, concerning
which JWinter makes a very good point...oh, right, you do a good Janeway,
you *must* be female.
I dated a man many years ago who held the opinion that female writers
were *intrinsically* less interesting to read, for him at the least, as
an absolute at worst. It was at that point that I realized that *I* had
an unconscious bias against female writers, as well, whether because my
school reading growing up didn't include many women, or because I read a
great deal of scifi, where there seemed (at the time) to be a bias
against women writers, I don't know. At that point I began deliberately
seeking out female authors, with wondrous results. But I find any
implication that I should decide my reading material (mainstream, fanfic
or slash) based on the gender of the person involved ludicrous. I prefer
to make my individual censorship choices *personally*, since I find that
literary talent and creativity are not assigned on the basis of gender.
And as I said in an earlier post, one of my favorite slash authors (in
another fandom) *is* a gay male, so I don't even find the "men/women find
different things erotic" argument to be persuasive. As for Anne's
suggestion concerning the extremes of author self-identification to which
we could go - I kind of like the idea, but then I'm nosy, and I *like* to
know things about the authors I enjoy - makes them seem like (gasp) real
people, and it makes this place seem even more like a community.
And then I could stop reading anything written on a Mac....
Ellen
Maz
Iain McNaughton wrote:
Old post dragged up for discussion:
> >Hey guys, why don't we divide this post in two - one for male authors and
> >one for females. It would greatly help some of us eliminate the stories
> >we don't want to read without having to download them first.
>
>
> Iain McNaughton wrote:
> I'd vote in favour ! ( I must have missed this thread when it first
> appeared, although I was tending just to lurk at that time... )
>
> You could obtain the same effect by just asking authors to note their
> genders in header line, couldn't you ?
>
> Comments, anyone ?
This whole thread IS a parody right? Someone please say yes so that I
don't have to get into a screaming frenzy about it.
Thanks
Maz
m...@mazarak.demon.co.uk
>
>
Iain McNaughton
In article <5qfsk0$cj8...@cpe.Sydney.aone.net.au>, Robin Lawrie
<Rob...@s054.aone.net.au> writes
<snip>
>I think I've seen the Trek ep of this. Wasn't it a TNG one, something
>like 'Darmok and Jelad at Tenagra'? Where everyone talked in metaphor
>and totally trashed the idea of universal translators. It took our
>beloved Captain to figure it out.(natch)
Can I just check: Was I the only person in the world who thought the
underlying premise of this episode was complete b*llocks ?
Edward McArdle
Iain McNaughton <i...@t956379207.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I think I've seen the Trek ep of this. Wasn't it a TNG one, something
> >like 'Darmok and Jelad at Tenagra'? Where everyone talked in metaphor
> >and totally trashed the idea of universal translators. It took our
> >beloved Captain to figure it out.(natch)
>
> Can I just check: Was I the only person in the world who thought the
> underlying premise of this episode was complete b*llocks ?
>
> Iain McNaughton.
No, you are not. The episode was nonsense.
--
Edward McArdle.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
- me, my tennis club, photos, verses, a novel....
JWinterEsq
>If we're establishing codes, I would like to establish codes for good
>stories. I don't want to waste my time reading bad stories, so I think in
>the header we should include things like:
I don't NEED to put such codes on my stuff. Just my same bespeaks
literary greatness. (Insert smiley emoticon for the terminally anal.)
>By the way, I also think that people who read other people's ironic posts
>and then don't get them because there was no smiley probably are
>funny-looking and smell of elderberries.
Uh... I don't get this? Why are you attacking the intellectually
challenged? Are you some type of moron? That's mean and inhuman and you
should be banned from ASC!
Irony's thick today, ain't it, folks?
(By the way, for those of you who don't get this, let me quote the great
Foghorn Leghorn, who stated so eloquently, "That's ah joke, son! Yer
s'posed to laugh!")
J
Zepp
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 11:18:47 -0400, Macedon <mac...@geocities.com>
wrote:
<responding to another person>
>Second, I think you missed some posts in the middle. The original
>exchange was a *repost* of a conversation that took place way back in
>'95 and ended in a *jest*, a very tongue-in-cheek one, but a jest
>nonetheless--which was, I presume, the point in reposting it. Your
>irony alert should've been beeping. ;>
>
>Folks, there *is* no flamewar here, okay? It was just a *repost* of a
>VERY old conversation. Please don't attack someone who hasn't been
>around for a long, long time over a conversation thread that was killed
>several years ago.
>
>Macedon
>
Ah, so! <Greywolf hurriedly goes to the outbox and deletes a message
wherein I fell for it too, hook, line, and sinker! ;-)>
Whew!! Thanks, Macedon, ye just saved me from making an even bigger
fool of meself. Now -- git back to yer keyboard, eh? Ye've got a job
to do, haven't yer then!! <evil grin>
Greywolf the Wanderer, who *also* has a job to do and is playing hooky
tonight... ;-)>
Pegeel
>
>I don't NEED to put such codes on my stuff. Just my same bespeaks
>literary greatness. (Insert smiley emoticon for the terminally anal.)
(Peg storms forth, shaking a fist Much gesturing and gesticulating
follows.)
How do you support that statement, sir? Can you give me a canonical
reference? Name a single episode in which it was indicated that your name
bespeaks greatness? *Other* characters who go by alphabetical cognomens,
possibly; but I defy you to show me one instance, anywhere in canon, in
which a *sane and normal* individual could possibly draw the conclusion
that "J" was synonymous with greatness. Your reasoning, sir, is shoddy,
and I think you should remove yourself from the presence of your betters
until your grasp of the obvious implications of the canon, as intended by
the PTB and accepted by the majority of viewers. (Or, of course, you
could start your own group for people who *want* to read egotistical and
self-serving wish-fullfilment like this!)
>Uh... I don't get this? Why are you attacking the intellectually
>challenged? Are you some type of moron? That's mean and inhuman and you
>should be banned from ASC!
AH-HA!!! See? See? You *prove* your intellectual inferiority! You have
misinterpreted an obvious piece of standard ASC humor, and have used it as
a soapbox for your hidden political agenda. Well I won't have it, hear?
ASC is *not*, I repeat *not* anti-intellectually challenged. We're for
all the intellectually challenged folks we can bring in. We all wish *we*
were intellectually challenged, and when we really want to, we work hard
and just *imagine* how meaningful it would be to be intellectually
challenged. Sometimes the really talented and empathetic posters are even
*mistaken* for being intellectually challenged. That shows just how
open-minded *we* are. We've even been told by some Downs victims that,
watching us, they are ashamed to admit to being intellectually challenged,
because we do it so much better than they do. So there.
>
>Irony's thick today, ain't it, folks?
Stop changing the topic. What does the weather have to do with anything,
anyway? This *is* a newsgroup for Star Trek fan fic. If you want to talk
about the news, go to some other meteorologically focused newsgroup.
Um, BTW (cute little smiley face), what *is* 'irony', anyway? Something
like freezing rain? Or fog? Really, really hard fog?
>
>(By the way, for those of you who don't get this, let me quote the great
>Foghorn Leghorn, who stated so eloquently, "That's ah joke, son! Yer
>s'posed to laugh!")
>
(Peg comes down from the rafters, and returns to her normal self --
acerbic, fallible, and working to laugh.)
Yeah, J. But Foghorn usually had to slap folks on the back *hard* to get
away with that line. His verbal material was the pits. He had to go in
for slapsick. <BG> (Peg camps up a very "Queen Victoria" face.) "We are
not amused, J. You will have to make another attempt!"
Peg
JWinterEsq
>>>Um, BTW (cute little smiley face), what *is* 'irony', anyway?
Something
like freezing rain? Or fog? Really, really hard fog?<<<
Element Fe, used to make steel, hurts when you get hit by it. Also a
critical ingredient for rust.
J
CWilson980
I'm still trying to figure out where the stories my neutered female cat
would post....