HIGHLA-L Digest - 22 Sep 2002 to 23 Sep 2002 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:34:42 -0400
There are 16 messages totalling 818 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Well & truly a slash thing now (4)
2. Well & truly a slash thing now (was--We're Not Just
ForFerrets....)
3. Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for much longer (7)
4. THANK YOU for the Highlander Animated Tapes!! & email addy change
5. THANK YOU for the Highlander Animated Tapes....SORRY ALL
6. Well & truly a slash thing now [SAMESEX warning?]
7. Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for muchlonger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:38:22 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Marina--
> The only way to know what
> was *meant* to be there is to ask the author.
OK--so ask the HL PTB. Oops--such questions are forbidden at cons, to avoid
upsetting the GoHs. Hmmm--why would they be upset about that....
> Or, what about Peter Wingfield
> thinking the Quickening scene in Rev 6:8 was homoerotic? Is
> that there, or not?
I am a bit vague on exactly how & when he addressed that, but I wonder if he
wasn't just throwing slashers a bone there, knowing what they wanted to
hear. Plus--it's a daring topic & I can see PW, who speaks long & well
about Methos & complex character motivation & the like, enjoying the sound
of it.
Plus--it takes 2 to tango. Would slashers cease & desist if AP said flat
out for the record that he (as actor & director in that scene) did NOT
intend for DM to have any sexual attraction for Methos? I rather doubt it
would make a bit of difference, so citing PW's lone comment as proof
PRO-slash isn't fair.
> But if I'm feeling
> in a slashy mood I might later see certain scenes and think they're
> slashy. But I know they weren't intended that way.
And I really don't get how you can agree there was no intent of slash (or
whatever), yet insist on your right to incorporate that into the fictional
universe you are using--w/o permission or compensation. Sorry--but that
type of attitude just does not compute w/ me.
> How so? Websites don't go around announcing themselves. Zines don't
> go around flapping at people yelling, "Read me! Read me!"
Of course they do, in both instances. Website owners join rings & otherwise
advertise themselves on lists, boards & the like. Fanzines promote
themselves--& usually charge people for the privilege of reading fanfic.
The distinction is private vs. public. Very few things are illegal/immoral
if done privately (& between consenting adults); do the very same things in
a public street & the cops come. NOTHING is more public than the Internet.
> We can sit around forever discussing that. (I like it, and it's
> fun. You're not allowed to. I don't care.
Which, as you know, always reminds me of kindergartens & prisons--those
people don't care what is right or legal either, just about what they want
to do.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
Save Farscape http://farscape.wdsection.com/index.php
Frell Sci Fi, just on principle.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:42:35 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now (was--We're Not Just
ForFerrets....)
ZK--
> At what point does attributing something - whether inner
> motivation or slashy urges or what "allegretto" really meant in
> 1815 - to a work (painting, poetry, prose, music, whatever) and
> have it not be misinterpretation, but valid interpretation?
Some time well after a mere 10 years from the work's inception, I think.
Definitely after the creators are dead & gone. Otherwise--just ask them.
>>>Is HL art? OK. ...
At what point does the insistence by the slash school of
thought that HL is populated by Canadians go from stubbornly
denying what TBTB intended, and turn into a branch of
interpretation of a work, even if the writers are still alive and
kicking?>>>
I really don't think your analogy works. People interpreting Shakespeare or
Degas are studying the masters. They aren't taking the artist's creative
work & using it as their own, like slashers do.
Re: slash, I've become convinced that it is NOT there onscreen, for anyone
to see--but more than that, slashers KNOW it isn't there & THAT'S why they
slash. Slash, due to its flying-in-the-face audacity & the attached sexual
controversy, makes more of an impact on the material created by others, so
slashing gives the fan-ficer the strongest illusion that she had a true hand
in the creation of the beloved fictional world. The more clearly a
character is portrayed onscreen as hetero, the more shocking it is when he's
slashed--so of course DM is an irresistable target; slashing him is an easy
way to grab attention. Actual slash nuances onscreen are irrelevant & in
fact would dilute the result of a slash story.
Take Firefly, for instance. Judging from the lists, slashers have been at
work since the cast photos & character names were released. The recent
airing of the pilot was accompanied by immediate slash discussions & story
notices. No one I saw talked about any onscreen chemistry between whoever &
whoever. Really, the main criterion for who gets slashed seems to be how
appealing he is in a _het_ sense. Which is one of those bizarre things I'll
never get about slashers.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
Save Farscape http://farscape.wdsection.com/index.php
Frell Sci Fi, just on principle.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:45:52 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Marina--
>How boring it must be to watch something on one level only.
And how very condescending is that comment. Reminds me of all the times
slashers end up calling people small-minded & sexually naive. _Watch_ any
way you want--the point is what you do w/ what you see--or even what you
don't see & acknowledge wasn't intended to be there but wonder about on your
own.
> My argument is that any and all interpretations are valid.
Well, slash goes beyond interpretation. After all, slash (& fanfic in
general) isn't people sitting around like us talking about HL. Fanfic is an
intentional taking & use w/o permission or compensation activity, rather
than mere interpretation or discussion.
> We can't know what goes on in the minds of the writers, and
> we aren't always able to access interviews etc with them. In
> some cases, the writers are long since dead; in others, the
> audience might not have access to the Net or to magazines in
> which the writers speak about their work. And so people come
> up with their own ideas of what a work means, *based on the
> source material alone*. Which I will say they have every
> right to do, and shouldn't be discriminated against because
> they don't have the Net, or a lot of money to buy magazines.
Sorry, but none of that applies to HL in general, w/ PTB alive & accessible,
or to you in particular, who are well-informed.
> my play
> means; they will come up with their own ideas of that. And
> if someone by some miracle does actually speak to me about
> it, I'm not going to disabuse them of the notion that their
> interpretation is valid, even if it's not what I intended
> at all.
Interpretations & impressions really aren't the issue here. Fanfic is far
more than that.
Say someone saw your play & was so enamored of the characters & fictional
world you created that she wrote her own stories based thereon, but w/ a
controversial twist here & there of the sort to make you squirm & certainly
far from anything you ever intended. AND these stories about your
characters & grounded in your work were printed in mags she self-published &
distributed on a fairly large scale via regular mailings & at gatherings.
AND she had the stories on a website that got an impressive hit tally. AND
she & her like-minded friends (as to those controversial twists, at least)
had discussion lists teeming w/ chat about what used to be YOUR fictional
universe but is now very different, in ways you didn't intend & don't like.
She fan-ficed you, royally. How do you feel about that?
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
Save Farscape http://farscape.wdsection.com/index.php
Frell Sci Fi, just on principle.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:10:03 EDT
From: Liz Gerds <DzMzLzy@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for much longer
<Nina>
>
> I really don't think your analogy works. People interpreting Shakespeare
> or
> Degas are studying the masters. They aren't taking the artist's creative
> work & using it as their own, like slashers do.
<Mz. Lizzy>
OK, I'm gonna jump in the middle of this and hopefully avoid getting punched
by all parties.
"Studying the masters" is NOT what a lot of people are doing in interpreting
the works of such writers as Shakespeare, or any other playwright. Every
time a work is performed the director and the actors are shading the
characters as they see them. Some interpretations may be vastly different
from your own, but that doesn't make them invalid.
The same is true for watching a movie, TV show or music video. There are
things that are not part of the major plot that you may find your mind
filling in. Just because someone else sees things you don't doesn't make
them evil, just different. (If you want to see it in action watch Mystery
Science Theater 3000.)
When it comes to HL, the characters like DM are hundreds of years old, and
from very different cultures. What is 'moral' now was not necessarily
'moral' in all the places they traveled thru. A character as old as Methos
would almost certainly be bisexual especially if he was anywhere near Greece
during the classic era, or for that matter anywhere in Europe before the 13th
century.
Most fan fiction authors are aware that they are working with characters not
their own. Many of them use fan fiction as a practice board for their
original writing. Several well known authors, including Lois McMasters
Bujold, started out in fan fiction.
If slash bothers you, don't read it. If you are on a board where you don't
like the topic, find another one, or bring up a topic YOU want to discuss.
Arguing subtext is like trying to make someone else see what you do in a
Pollock painting.
In an attempt to change the subject, a friend (Kris) was recommending a story
on another list and I'd like to pass along the recommendation everyone should
read "Them Mean Ol', Low-Down, Lando Calrissian Blues" by Yahtzee, if only
for the explanation of Strom Thurmond. It's a multi-universe crossover
happening in the West Wing White House and it's a hoot! you can find it at
http://www.smallvillefanfic.com/archive/4/themmean.html
Mz. Lizzy
Enjoy!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:13:49 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Nina wrote:
>I really don't think your analogy works. People interpreting Shakespeare or
>Degas are studying the masters.
What about stuff like 'Rosencrantz & Gildenstern Are Dead'?? (Or is
that okay 'cause Shakespeare is dead and can't sue?)
>Re: slash, I've become convinced that it is NOT there onscreen, for anyone
>to see--but more than that, slashers KNOW it isn't there & THAT'S why they
>slash.
Okay, you caught me. Actually, I don't think you're wrong. Notice
that stuff like Queer As Folk don't have that much slash, compared
to stuff like HL, Sentinel, etc. I think you're wrong about the
motive for writing it:
>slashing gives the fan-ficer the strongest illusion that she had a true hand
>in the creation of the beloved fictional world.
but I wouldn't read slash for a show that had gay characters. What's
the point if it's done for me??
>Actual slash nuances onscreen are irrelevant & in
>fact would dilute the result of a slash story.
Yes. That's the challenge, if you like, of slash - to see if you
can make it believable. There are lots of slash pairings that I
can't see and never will, because I've never read any stuff that
makes a slash pairing believable.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:23:19 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Nina said:
>And how very condescending is that comment.
Well, sorry. It wasn't meant that way.
>_Watch_ any
>way you want--the point is what you do w/ what you see--or even what you
>don't see & acknowledge wasn't intended to be there but wonder about on your
>own.
That was my point, actually.
>Well, slash goes beyond interpretation. After all, slash (& fanfic in
>general) isn't people sitting around like us talking about HL. Fanfic is an
>intentional taking & use w/o permission or compensation activity, rather
>than mere interpretation or discussion.
I've conceded your point on this. My point originally had nothing to
do with slash. I try to avoid slash (or at least not get into it too
deeply) for fear or starting that whole argument up again. We might
as well just post a "regular slash discussion" to the list with our
points at regular intervals.
>Sorry, but none of that applies to HL in general, w/ PTB alive & accessible,
>or to you in particular, who are well-informed.
Not to me, no, but I do believe a work should be able to stand on
its own and be understood without extraneous information being
necessary.
>Interpretations & impressions really aren't the issue here. Fanfic is far
>more than that.
No argument here; I was trying to stay far away from the fanfic
issue, as it is guaranteed to have the two of us (and several
innocent bystanders) immersed in a rather large batch of flames
and that's just... unpleasant.
>Say someone saw your play & was so enamored of the characters & fictional
>world you created that she wrote her own stories based thereon,
>She fan-ficed you, royally. How do you feel about that?
I think I'd be flattered.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:53:42 EDT
From: Billie Lee <McCelt2000@aol.com>
Subject: THANK YOU for the Highlander Animated Tapes!! & email addy change
Hey Tarryn,
WOW, am I glad you posted and I checked my email.
I moved, but the tapes got to me. Thanks so very much for having them
transferred to NTSC format and sending me the PAL originals as well.
That was most kind.
This AOL account is about to become defunct for me. If you want to write to
me, please use:
mccelt2003@aol.com
Thanks again, Tarryn, and take care.
Yours,
Billie-Lee
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:06:15 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for much longer
Liz wrote:
>OK, I'm gonna jump in the middle of this and hopefully avoid getting
>punched by all parties.
I don't believe anyone has ever gotten punched here. Disagreed with...yes. Mauled...certainly. Savaged...without a doubt. But never "punched". <eg>
>Every
>time a work is performed the director and the actors are shading the
>characters as they see them. Some interpretations may be vastly different
>from your own, but that doesn't make them invalid.
For me, the issue isn't whether any given interpretation is valid or invalid. I really don't have any trouble with someone looking at a TV show and deciding that two heterosexual-as-portrayed characters should be "slashed". If, for example, the idea of Joe Dawson and Methos naked in the shower with a jug of chocolate syrup makes your day...more power to you. What I object to is the claim that some (and only some) fanfic writers make - that there is evidence on screen to support a Joe/Methos pairing. Everyone's imagination is free to run wild ... claiming it is *not* all in your imagination is what ticks me off.
>When it comes to HL, the characters like DM are hundreds of years old, and
>from very different cultures. What is 'moral' now was not necessarily
>'moral' in all the places they traveled thru. A character as old as Methos
>would almost certainly be bisexual especially if he was anywhere near
>Greece during the classic era, or for that matter anywhere in Europe before the
>13th century.
Ah ... seems like old times<eg> The perennial "if you live long enough, you will do and enjoy everything" theory. What is Methos was in Greece during the classic era, got felt up by Socrates, and headed out of town as soon as he could to avoid further "depravity"? What if he buggered only enough boys to fit in but hated it and was ever so happy when customs changed? What if he had a really nasty experience in the Bronze Age and decided he would never do "that" to anyone else no matter what? What if he kept a pretty boy next to him when customs required it but actually slept with the boy's sister?
My point is (in case I haven't hammered it home sufficiently yet ) is that people might well do whatever is necessary to survive in any given situation without enjoying it and stop doing it as soon as it was safe to do so. What Methos may -or may *not* - have done in a culture now long dead says nothing concrete about his sexual preferences when left to his own devises.
>If slash bothers you, don't read it. If you are on a board where you don't
>like the topic, find another one, or bring up a topic YOU want to discuss.
>Arguing subtext is like trying to make someone else see what you do in a
>Pollock painting.
New around here?
It seems to have escaped your notice that Nina *does* want to discuss this topic. Telling her to delete or start a new topic is ...off base. What you are really telling her is "shut up" ... which isn't very nice. Disagreeing with someone on a topic is *not* the same as wishing the topic would go away. We have been known to disagree on lots of things ... often loudly and for days and weeks on end. This isn't the first time we've argued "subtext" ..may not be the last time either. Just because there is no "correct" answer doesn't mean we won't expend a few thousand words trying to find one.
>In an attempt to change the subject
My question is...why do you feel the need to change the subject?
Wendy(If last week was "slash", does that mean this week is "Cassandra"?)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:08:43 EDT
From: Billie Lee <McCelt2000@aol.com>
Subject: Re: THANK YOU for the Highlander Animated Tapes....SORRY ALL
Oh Good Lord,
That message was obviously supposed to go to Tarryn privately.
My sincerest apologies to all.
Billie-Lee
mccelt2003@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:04:43 -0400
From: Ace!Miracle <ke731458@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now [SAMESEX warning?]
(The subject already says "Slash," but just to be safe...)
Marina said:
> The only way to know what was *meant* to be there is to ask the author.
Uh-oh, the dreaded "authorial intent." This is so tricky that within the
field of lit. studies, we don't, as it were, even go there. We will never
really know, for example, what James Joyce meant in _Finnegan's Wake_.
(I maintain that not even James Joyce knows what he meant in _Finnegan's
Wake_, but that's another discussion.) Even if we study an author's
papers, and even if she says "I meant [this]," I'm not sure we can trust
them. TS Eliot was famous for misleading people about the meanings in his
poems.
The problem with words is that behind the meanings the author is using,
there are other meanings that s/he may not be, but these meanings are
still present. They never go away. The director and the actors complicate
the words even more, because they might bring some of these meanings out.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, KLZ3 wrote:
> At what point does the insistence by the slash school of thought that HL
> is populated by Canadians go from stubbornly denying what TBTB intended,
> and turn into a branch of interpretation of a work, even if the writers
> are still alive and kicking?
But HL *is* populated by Canadians. I can't believe no one else sees
it. You think they imported all those extras from LA? I'm betting the
whole crew were Canadians. And half the writers were Canadian, so I'm sure
some of their "tendencies" manifested in the scripts.
--Miracle, ducking Canon [sic] blasts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What a show. The Barry Williams show. It's my show. Dysfunctional excess
is all it took for my success. And when the punches start to fly, the
ratings always reach so high."
--Peter Gabriel, "The Barry Williams Show"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Major Miracle: Time Lady, Jedi Knight, Occasional Grad Student
COMING SEPTEMBER 24: PETER GABRIEL'S "UP"!
Listen to "The Barry Williams Show" at petergabriel.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:23:12 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for much longer
Wendy (hi Wendy) wrote:
>I don't believe anyone has ever gotten punched here. Disagreed
>with...yes. Mauled...certainly. Savaged...without a doubt. But
>never "punched". <eg>
You left out whapped with a large flagpole.
>What I object to is the claim that some (and only some) fanfic writers
>make - that there is evidence on screen to support a Joe/Methos pairing.
>Everyone's imagination is free to run wild ... claiming it is *not* all
>in your imagination is what ticks me off.
I can think some scenes are slashy and still know that they
weren't *meant* to be slashy. But how do you explain the fact
that hundreds of fans will all think the *same* scene is slashy?
(I know - we're all depraved? More likely the HL slash community
isn't that big and we all influence each other?)
>(If last week was "slash", does that mean this week is "Cassandra"?)
Oh, please, no. Although, we've already had the Anne discussion.
I don't think we've actually had the *slash* discussion. We've
been having the "authorial intent" discussion (well, I have. Nina
has been having the fanfic discussion.). We could have the slash
discussion now (come on, give me an excuse to get out my tape of
"Chivalry"), then maybe we could get on to Cassandra next week.
Or "Aisle Nine, Silas," maybe?
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:43:49 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for much longer
Wendy:
> >What I object to is the claim that some (and only some) fanfic writers
> >make - that there is evidence on screen to support a Joe/Methos pairing.
>>Everyone's imagination is free to run wild ... claiming it is *not* all
> >in your imagination is what ticks me off.
Marina:
>But how do you explain the fact
>that hundreds of fans will all think the *same* scene is slashy?
>(I know - we're all depraved? More likely the HL slash community
>isn't that big and we all influence each other?)
Collective unconscious? (She said, only half-kidding.)
I think there is a...quality that slash fans look for in a given
scene. I'm not sure what that quality *is*--how to name it--and
there are certainly more than one, total. But I think those
qualities are somewhat universal in slashdom.
And...this isn't making much sense, is it? Hmm.
How about this? I, whom no one would call a "slash fan", have
learned to identify scenes that people who ARE slash fans will point
to and say "this is evidentiary of slashy subtext". I don't *see*
that subtext in the scene, but I can recognize that others *will* see
it.
This suggests to me that there is something (that elusive quality
that I mentioned above) inherent to those scenes that people who are
inclined toward slash pick up on. Of course, there is also
interpretation to play into things.
One of the most famous "evidence of slashy subtext" scenes in HL is
the nose-painting in Chivalry. People who are inclined toward slash
interpret it as couched in sexuality. People who are
not...well...don't. So, perhaps that quality that I mentioned above
is really more of a mind-set?
To repeat Marina's question:
>But how do you explain the fact
>that hundreds of fans will all think the *same* scene is slashy?
I think the important factor in this is that hundreds of SLASH fans
will interpret it as sashy. The rest of us don't. Slash fans are
pre-disposed toward the genre and, perhaps go into a show *looking*
for evidence to support their choices in fic. This rings especially
true to me given the fact that slash is so very often the topic of
heated debate in fandom of any flavor. It makes sense that slash
fans would want ammunition (so to speak) to support their side of the
the argument.
I'd be curious to know whether or not someone like me--a non-slash
fan--has ever watched a show and decided independent of outside
(fandom) influence that any two given characters must be homosexually
interested in one another, despite the fact that it's never displayed
as such on the show.
Liser
--
Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
--
Guinness is my anti-drug. -Greg
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 12:55:05 -0400
From: KLZ <kzimmerman3@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for muchlonger
Thanks for the analysis, Miracle. You said what I didn't know how
to.
Marina is brandishing her flagpole:
> Or "Aisle Nine, Silas," maybe?
>
Marina, Marina, Marina. You had to bring that up, didn't you? Do
you have *any* idea how I had to do contortions to avoid use that
one in my last garbling?
:::: looking around for Claire and her canon cannon ::::
But since you brought it up, that's the perfect example. To fill
in PoRA(tm): I don't know if she's still here, but when Rev. came
out, at least one listee heard "I lied, Silas!" instead of "I liked
Silas!" If the script says "I liked Silas", and the writers say "I
liked Silas", and most of the people who watched heard "I liked
Silas" (I'm not sure what CC showed), is it valid to believe that
Peter Wingfields actually said "I lied, Silas", and to build
arguments/discussion on that basis? Or did I really just like
salads?
ZK (I'm on vacation next week.)(Maybe we could schedule "did
Wryschyiee really get whacked?" for when I'm far, far away?)(row,
row, row your boat, gently down de Nile...) :::: running after
Miracle ::::
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:02:13 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for much longer
Lisa wrote:
>How about this? I, whom no one would call a "slash fan", have
>learned to identify scenes that people who ARE slash fans will point
>to and say "this is evidentiary of slashy subtext". I don't *see*
>that subtext in the scene, but I can recognize that others *will* see
>it.
So we've corrupted you? <g> Why does that make my slashy little
heart glad?
>One of the most famous "evidence of slashy subtext" scenes in HL is
>the nose-painting in Chivalry. People who are inclined toward slash
>interpret it as couched in sexuality. People who are
>not...well...don't. So, perhaps that quality that I mentioned above
>is really more of a mind-set?
I can go with that. I sometimes watch stuff and think, "If I
was a fan of this pairing, this scene would be very slashy,"
even though I might not think so if I'm NOT a fan of that
pairing. (Does that make any sense?) I was just watching an
episode of "The Practice" in which Lindsay was telling Helen
she was going to move out and there was lots of hugging and
so forth. If I liked f/f slash, I would have been salivating.
Now I don't like f/f slash, but I could certainly see how
someone that did would interpret that scene.
Which makes me think that Peter Wingfield is inclined toward
slash too, or at least not bothered by the idea. I'm sure
someone has the transcript of whichever con it was where he made
the comment about how, if Duncan had painted some woman's nose,
then the audience would have known exactly what it meant.
>It makes sense that slash
>fans would want ammunition (so to speak) to support their side of the
>the argument.
That makes perfect sense.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:14:25 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for much longer
I said:
> >How about this? I, whom no one would call a "slash fan", have
>>learned to identify scenes that people who ARE slash fans will point
>>to and say "this is evidentiary of slashy subtext". I don't *see*
>>that subtext in the scene, but I can recognize that others *will* see
>>it.
Marina:
>So we've corrupted you? <g> Why does that make my slashy little
>heart glad?
Define corrupted? I think I have acquired this skill in...self-defense. :-)
>I can go with that. I sometimes watch stuff and think, "If I
>was a fan of this pairing, this scene would be very slashy,"
>even though I might not think so if I'm NOT a fan of that
>pairing. (Does that make any sense?)
It makes perfect sense to me. I am not a fan of the Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan
pairing, but I watched that death scene in TPM and just KNEW people
were going to slash the hell out of it. :-)
>
>Which makes me think that Peter Wingfield is inclined toward
>slash too, or at least not bothered by the idea. I'm sure
>someone has the transcript of whichever con it was where he made
>the comment about how, if Duncan had painted some woman's nose,
>then the audience would have known exactly what it meant.
Personally, it makes me inclined to think that Peter knows how to
work a room. :-)
Liser
--
Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
--
Guinness is my anti-drug. -Greg
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:31:59 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now but hopefully not for much longer
Lisa wrote:
>Define corrupted? I think I have acquired this skill in...self-defense. :-)
Everybody does, eventually. :)
>It makes perfect sense to me. I am not a fan of the Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan
>pairing, but I watched that death scene in TPM and just KNEW people
>were going to slash the hell out of it. :-)
But wasn't it a lovely scene? There's more emotion in that one tiny
scene in TPM than in the entire AotC *movie*. IMNSHO, of course.
(Not that I read Q/O slash; it was just a lovely scene on general
principles.)
>Personally, it makes me inclined to think that Peter knows how to
>work a room. :-)
So by making slashy comments he tantalizes his audience? Works for me.
:)
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"There is a Daniel Jackson-shaped hole in that show." - My brother,
about the sixth season of Stargate SG-1.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 22 Sep 2002 to 23 Sep 2002 - Special issue (#2002-152)
*******************************************************************************