(no subject)
May. 11th, 2005 10:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swatkatLovely post here that you all might want to read. I'm definitely one of the Cold Pricklies the OP is talking about. *g* "All slashers make the homoerotic subtext of their canon explicit, but not all think it's appropriate to also make the emotional subtext explicit" - this articulates the very reason that a *lot* of the fic in my favourite pairings (slash *and* het) have me gritting my teeth and pressing the back button.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Oh, boy. Can of worms. Opened.
Date: 2005-05-12 05:44 am (UTC)Weepy!Michael aside (because really, that's just bleurgh)- could you clarify this a bit more? Because I read a lot of maleslash, and while there are many different characterisations of most of the characters out there, most of the characterisations make sense in the context of the story and canon in general, even though I don't see the character that way. Which fandoms throw up this problem for you? Have you encountered this in HP? (because then I will make amends with recs)
Swatkat
Re: Oh, boy. Can of worms. Opened.
Date: 2005-05-12 04:35 pm (UTC)could you clarify this a bit more?
I can try! Okay, there are *at least* two components of how I got to this observation.
The first was confronting my inner 12 year old's heel dragging, kicking and squirming reaction of "nononononono!" to a lot of the (most? 98%?) m/m slash in LOTR and Horatio Hornblower fic. I turned to these to fandoms after LFN, on the seemingly sensible position that these are two canon sources, books and movies, that I know well and love (well, the books more than the movies, but anyway). I know them well, in part, because I read both, repeatedly, in my childhood, tweens and teens. (This is important, I realized).
The second is that my one of my main RL subjects of study, for two decades now, is the history of masculinity and manhood.
So - okay, there I was, wanting desperately to grok the cool kids and their love for the m/m. I turned to fandoms where I believed I knew the source well and would be receptive, read the most highly rec'ced stuff I could find - and disliked almost all of it, even though, highly rec'ced as they were, these were for the most part very well written pieces that made excellent use of the canon source material and relied on characterizations that did make sense in the context of the story and canon in general.
So - was the problem me and my latent homophobia at last coming to the surface? Since that is often the first charge hurled at those who voiced the same cringing reaction I had to the m/m - I wrestled with the possibility that this was indeed my problem. For a long time. But as I read more widely, and further abroad, I realized that I did not have the same cringing reaction to m/m outside of these two fandoms. I'm not sure I could call myself a true fan, but not only did I not cringe, I think a lot of the stories are good and I enjoy reading them. Which narrowed the initial problem, at least in part, to my attachment to certain personal canon readings of LOTR and HH. I'm now pretty satisfied with this - afterall, my base line for 'good' LFN fic is how the fic treats Nikita. Why shouldn't it be the same for other fandoms? And, why shouldn't sexuality and sexual choices be a part of how you/I see a character? It doesn't make the others wrong, just, not my cup of tea.
However, on the way to this understanding and highly personalized framing, I spent a lot of time at the more general level of "why don't I like m/m stories?" on theory that I had to come to terms with and then excise my latent homophobia. Which took me deep into the stories, as I tried to pinpoint what it was about these well-written stories that had me shaking my head in silent opposition throughout. The answer I came too was a combination of characterization and fidelity to the fictional universes - which rolled into my understanding of manhood and masculinity as specific historical constructs that change over time, just as our understanding of womanhood and femininity change over time.
The upshot of this was my sense that - in those fictional universes and given the characters as I saw/read/understood them - the choice to love another man in the same way that one might love a woman would be a deeply fraught and tension producing choice on the part of men who wished to see and understand themselves as men in their worlds. The stories don't have that tension.....and then I realized that there are other stories, notably in the LFN universe, where weepy Michael is also free of this concern......that he is presumed to take his manhood so for granted that he can turn into a puddle of self-hating goo at the drop of a hat with no stress about his identity as a man. This doesn't ring 'true' for me, any more than Boromir weeping at Aragorn's feet at any time up until the ring nearly broke him - and the weeping itself as a sign that the ring had indeed been at work and that his manhood had been damaged as a result.......
So - on to part two because I'm a wordy bitch today......
Re: Oh, boy. Can of worms. Opened.
Date: 2005-05-12 05:11 pm (UTC)Swatkat
Re: Oh, boy. Can of worms. Opened.
Date: 2005-05-12 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-13 04:46 am (UTC)Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2005-05-13 08:02 am (UTC)(up awake in the middle of the night because I can't sleep)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-13 01:53 pm (UTC)(Can I have some of that insomnia? I seem to be suffering from sleeping-sickness lately.)
Swatkat
Part II
Date: 2005-05-12 04:45 pm (UTC)This is the element of masculinity that is, largely, absent from the m/m fic I've read. Not the fear of feminization, which is only the most extreme version, but rather the concern for being ranked high or low on the manly scale - which is a complicated nexus of power, class, race, physicality, and personality and character. And the ranking itself? A highly competitive endeavor - requiring lots of rules and score keeping – things that western men have been obsessed by since the time of Ancient Athens, at least. Even men who reject this system understand it and have to wrestle with it, in the same way that women who reject dominate readings of womanhood still have to wrestle with them. Which should make a m/m relationship more or less exactly as complicated as a f/m relationship, yes?
So, an otherwise excellent fic like Lulleny's Boromir/Eomer pre-fellowship story, was undercut for me because none of her main characters, all sons of kings or stewards who would be or already were leading other men in battle against terrible foes, seemed in the least concerned with how other men viewed them. Or how, still more problematic, how their own kings/stewards viewed them. Last of all, they didn't seem concerned with how they viewed themselves as men. They didn't perform their masculinity for anyone - and that is an essential aspect of 'maleness' that was missing for me. They were, oddly enough, somehow ever so faintly neutered - despite the boyloving going on. At least, in my highly personal reading.
This is a subtle thing, I acknowledge, and it isn't one that most readers are going to care about - or value. But, given my RL pursuits, one that does matter to me.
"Realism" is most definitely not a goal for lots and lots of fanficcers (which makes the obsession with 'realistic' m/m sex pretty funny in its own way), and *if* you view fanfic as a female activity designed for other female fans, then the act of imagining and writing a fictional space where gender does not have to be constantly performed and challenged and measured is in some ways a powerfully feminist activity.
It just doesn’t satisfy my story-desires, which are generally to explore the complexity of human relationships/identities rather than erase them. (This bleeds over into my frustration with all the short to extremely short stories out there – not much time to do more than gesture at complexity....and yet, do I have time for sagas right now? No, I don’t. Fickle thing, I am.)
Reacting to this, in a general way
Date: 2005-05-12 06:28 pm (UTC)I never had a cringing or even particularly negative reaction to any m/m slash, and because of that I never really worried whether I was dealing with latent homophobia. The issue for me, in contrast, was that I *didn't* react to m/m stories -- my typical response was something along the lines of, "Meh. Really well-written, but...meh."
This lack of reaction really bothered me, because I saw people all around me -- whose intelligence and taste I respected -- become highly enthusiastic about these stories, and I couldn't understand why I was missing the point. After all, I like fanfic, I like men, I like erotica -- shouldn't the combination of all these things be something I embrace? But every time I sat down to read an m/m story, even if highly recommended and beautifully written, I felt like someone forcing herself to eat a serving of brussels sprouts because after all, they're good for you!
But the questioning I did was mostly of myself, rather than of m/m slash as a genre -- I felt *I* was the aberration, and I wanted to know, well, what was wrong with me. It couldn't be a sexual preference issue, because I'm *attracted* to men, and besides, there are a significant number of lesbians writing m/m, so there's obviously something far more complex going on than a simple equation of women writing slash because they're interested in male bodies.
I answered my question by taking a very close look at what fanfic I *do* like, and asking myself what I get out of it. The answer turned out to be what I described above -- my imagination is captured most strongly by fanfic (and actually books, too, now that I think about it) that provide me with material to explore the different types of female life experiences. M/m, no matter *how* good, isn't going to give me that. In fact, quite a lot of het isn't either, because large chunks of it really seem to be motivated by an idealization and romanticization of the male love object, which leaves me just as cold and "meh" as m/m does.
The answer, then, is that what I'm looking to get out of fanfic is completely different than what many other fans want -- but now that I finally understand this, I'm not so paranoid about what "my problem" is, and can relax and see that what other fans are doing are, in a completely different way, just as empowering of females. So these days I no longer worry about why I'm an apple when so many others seem to be oranges. Especially now that I see there are so *many* different motivations that we've got an entire produce section represented. *g*
Re: Reacting to this, in a general way
Date: 2005-05-12 06:46 pm (UTC)And this was certainly a powerful element in my own questioning:
This lack of reaction really bothered me, because I saw people all around me -- whose intelligence and taste I respected -- become highly enthusiastic about these stories, and I couldn't understand why I was missing the point. After all, I like fanfic, I like men, I like erotica -- shouldn't the combination of all these things be something I embrace? But every time I sat down to read an m/m story, even if highly recommended and beautifully written, I felt like someone forcing herself to eat a serving of brussels sprouts because after all, they're good for you!
Only as far as I was concerned, the brussel sprouts were overcooked and cold.
I think my quetsioning/self exploring went differently than yours because my reaction wasn't just 'meh' but more actively negative, even in some cases downright hostile.
Not unlike my reaction to particularly horribly rendered Nikitas! But while this has never once made me worry about whether or not I liked women (!), given the arguments that have raged over m/m, my hostile reaction to some of it made me quite worried about the darker recesses of my own soul. Especially when measured up against the tastes and experience of those fans of whom I had formed good opinions....
no subject
Date: 2005-05-13 04:47 am (UTC)Oh, you and I have a very similar, and yet very different way of responding to fanfic and books, it seems. " provide me with material to explore the different types of female life experiences" - this is exactly what I do, except for the 'female' bit. I read fiction because it allows me to live many lives, experience many things that I wouldn't be able to do in RL. And when I read, I need a character to identify with – male or female. While it is a fact that there are more women characters I identify with than male ones, I *do* identify with men as well. I want to read about human experience, period. *g*
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2005-05-13 05:17 am (UTC)I can certainly understand that perspective. But I think there are some specific RL reasons why I prefer the narrower focus in my choice of fiction.
I am, in RL, completely surrounded by men. It wasn't even until I started responding to this thread that I thought about just *how* much that is the case. I live with a man. Share a business with a man. My four or five closest friends, and the ones whom my social life centers on, are all men. I am constantly interacting with them and dealing with male energy -- not that I think this is a bad thing, mind you, but that's the simply environment I live in.
My interests in fiction, I believe, are probably in part aimed at balancing that gender equation out a bit, at thinking about that other half of humanity who happen to be like me -- not because I don't like the men I spend my time with, but just because examining women's lives through the stories I read satisfies a curiosity and internal need that I don't get satisfied in RL.
Does that make any sense?
no subject
Date: 2005-05-13 05:36 am (UTC)When I was growing up, I was this incorrigible tomboy who would have nothing to do with girls. I had many girl friends, I did (got along pretty well with both boys and girls) - but I was always the outsider who didn't quite get them very well. And no, I didn't think I was missing anything - I was comfortable enough in my own dreamworld. Until the time I learnt to become comfortable with being a girl. And then it was all a very new experience (it still is sometimes; sometimes, surrounded by my closest girlfriends, it's difficult to believe how *much* I enjoy their company), and reading fiction certainly helped me a lot - to understand, to figure things about myself (I'm still doing that) and about being a girl. That's something I still do, which is probably the reason why I identify so easily with female characters. But there are experiences and sentiments that don't depend on gender, and I'm interested in them too, because it's all a part of knowing more about myself.
Which is my long-winded way of saying that I understand what you mean.
Swatkat
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-13 04:46 am (UTC)Yes, certainly. I see Sirius Black as gay – to the point where I have difficulty reading Sirius-het (except when it's Blackcest, but that's a different thing altogether *g*). That doesn't necessarily mean someone else can't see him as staunchly heterosexual.
Interestingly, Sirius is perhaps the only character in the Potterverse who I think of as gay, gay, gay. With everyone else I am more flexible – which is probably the slasher in me showing.
in those fictional universes and given the characters as I saw/read/understood them - the choice to love another man in the same way that one might love a woman would be a deeply fraught and tension producing choice on the part of men who wished to see and
understand themselves as men in their worlds
I have absolutely no knowledge of HH, but with most fantasy universes, authors often assume that the gender equations in the 'verse do not mirror that of the real world. This is certainly true with the Potterverse; I've come across fans from both sides of the camp. It is – as you said – a matter of individual reading.
and the weeping itself as a sign that the ring had indeed been at work and that his manhood had been damaged as a result.......
Hmm – I'm not sure if I agree with you here. While the LOTR men ride on horses and play with swords, they also sing songs and weep at the drop of a hat. I'm not saying that this is the proof of the lack of gender politics in the 'verse, but I don't find weeping to very OOC for Boromir.
This is a subtle thing, I acknowledge, and it isn't one that most readers are going to care about - or value. But, given my RL pursuits, one that does matter to me.
Ah, I understand. This isn't something that's particularly important to me, to be honest. *g*
Swatkat
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-13 09:21 am (UTC)There is - to me mind you - a huge and vast difference between "gender equations do not mirror the real world" and "no gender equations."
In the case of HH, for instance, it is set in a 'real' historical environment - late 18th and early 19th century Great Britian. While the particular behaviors associated with manhood and manly behavior are slightly different than those of, say, the modern United States, and understandings of homosexuality were quite different than our own today, there were *very* definite understandings of what made for a manly man and for a womanly woman - and to deviate from those would be to court social and possibly economic disaster. For a young man like HH, from a poor background striving to make his way in the world through the parital - and only partial - meritocracy of the British Navy, viewing himself and having others view him as the manliest of manly men was absolutely central to his personality. It doesn't especially matter what the content of 'manly' is here, only that there very definitly was a proscribbed 'manliness' - and HH cared very much that he be viewed as manly - by the men he was surrounded by. Almost everything he does is driven by his need to prove himself, over and over, as a manly guy so as to further his own personal ambitions. Which were to be an admiral and so achieve, finally, financial and social security. Any relationship with any other man has to be understood as a constent set of equations about 'how will this act affect x's view of my manliness, and my view of his manliness?' which will all depend on who x is in relationship to HH. Not that this is necesarily a constant forebrain activity - just that it is always there in the same way that it is always there between men and women in het romance.
Potterverse is - to take your other example - is set in modern Great Britain, with lots of interaction with the muggle world and a steady influx of muggle-born wizards, or half muggle wizards - which definitely suggest plenty of mingling. How could modern ideas of sexuality *not* have filtered into the wizarding world? In fact, given that the wizzarding world appears to lag about a century behind the times in many respects - why wouldn't their ideas about sexuality and gender be even more confused and confusing than in the 'real' world?
Dorlores Umbridge was certainly massively concerned to present an almost appalling image of feminity, the girls all appear to be boy-obsessed, the boys all girl-obsessed, they all carry strong - if not clear - images in their heads of how they are supposed to behave and what they are supposed to strive to become, including their gender identities. These may not match up point for point with the muggle POV, but there are going to be assumptions about what it is to be a man, and what it is to be a woman - and given the whole obsessive score keeping mind set of the wizzarding world - at least as we know it in Hogwarts - I can't help but guess that the boys are constantly testing and measuring themselves against the other boys (and not at all incidently the men against the men - see Sirius and Snape sniping), not only in terms of grades or quidditch skills or who they're dating or the points they score for their houses, but also in the subtle and not-so-subtle realm of 'how am I doing on the road to manly now?' This isn't going to go away once the boyloving begins, anymore than such conerns go away when the m/f loving begins. Both partners are always going to be affected by making sure their love object views them as admirable and desirable when measured against whatever the standard is.
Not just, do they think I'm cool, but do they think I'm a cool *boy/man*? - using whatever standards for 'boyness/manliness' are avaible.
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-13 02:24 pm (UTC)Swatkat
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-13 03:56 pm (UTC)I, um, didn't 'get' it.
I mean - I got the point of the exercise well enough, but I thought the reverse gender qualities assigned were fairly random.....?
And didn't take into account the way many fans would react to Harriet the same way they react to Buffy or Nikita - which would be to belittle Harriet while building up Herman as the noble saviour in times of trouble?
So, maybe I didn't get the point at all?
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-16 09:12 am (UTC)And didn't take into account the way many fans would react to Harriet the same way they react to Buffy or Nikita - which would be to belittle Harriet while building up Herman as the noble saviour in times of trouble?
This reminds me of another lovely post I'd read sometime back... *goes to look*
Swatkat
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-13 09:53 am (UTC)Ah, I was not specific enough with the kind of scene I was thinking of - it's all about that matrix of who, what, when and where.
Take the crying. There are lots of rules about when different boys/men get to cry in the LOTR world. Sam cries, in the books, all the time, espcially early on. But this crying is usually presented as a way of showing us that Sam is not just younger than Frodo, but also of much lower social standing and education and power in relationship not just to Frodo, but to *everyone* else in the fellowship. It's Frodo's job to comfort Sam, usually by bucking him up in some sort of manly'ish way. Frodo himself rarely cries.
Our most admirable men - Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Faramir - hardly ever or never cry - and when they do it is, again, only under conditions of extreme stress or certain very proscribed 'you can cry here' places. The hobbits in general get to cry more it is true, but they are fully established as 'lesser' and, to the big men, childlike in their emotionality. They also get to laugh more, which is also something that Aragron, et all, don't get to do all that much.
So, to me, it all depends on what Boromir is weeping about, in front of whom. Tearing up at a moving ballad of manly bravery and death, especially after a tankard or three of beer in a smoky hall after a day's worth of orcs are dead? Ho rah. Absolutely. Crying when a beloved comrade falls in battle? Then, and later at his funeral? Ho rah.
Rolling around in the dirt sobbing your guts out in front of the man who is coming to take your birthright leadership of your beloved city and your nation away from you and your only hope of maintaining any sort of dignity in the future is if he makes you his second in command in the great war that is coming? Not so much. No. Not at all. Not until the manhood Boromir was at such great pains to demonstrate has already shattered - and much of the weeping would be about that as much as anything else.
But - again - this is me, and most of this is not forebrain sorts of stuff. It's more a missing tension in the story telling, a recognition that Boromir sobbing in a non-proscribed spot represents something very powerful for him, and much bigger than his crush on Aragorn. And Aragorn would understand this, and react accordingly. Probably not with pity sex.
In my view, anyway. *g*
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-13 02:15 pm (UTC)Pity sex? No. Boromir doesn't want anyone's pity, least of all that of Aragorn. I can see friendship sex, hate sex, we're bored and have nothing to do sex, but not pity sex. Was this what the story was about?
I should read some Aragorn/Boromir. *makes note*
Swatkat
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-13 04:33 pm (UTC)He might very well make others......but, not that one. Does this make any sense at all?
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-16 08:10 am (UTC)I definitely wouldn't be wanting to read pity sex in this pairing, though. Pity sex is not my thing. Most of my characters are very, very proud people, and the last thing they want is pity.
Swatkat
Re: Part II
Date: 2005-05-16 01:35 pm (UTC)If they thought it consciously, all the time? Yes - though I think a rather large number of men do think that thought fairly consciously at one point or another in their lives. Manhood - as I understand and conceptualize it - is not a given. It is a self-conscious performance, tested against behavior and current notions of manliness in different and competitive environments.
Let me find the two stories I'm thinking of and try to show you by example what I'm talking about.