HIGHLA-L Digest - 27 Sep 2002 to 28 Sep 2002 (#2002-159)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:00:02 -0400
There are 10 messages totalling 579 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Well & truly a slash thing now (10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:03:51 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Pat before--
> > > Sorry, but you can't use me to make your point. I'm not a slasher &
> > > never have been.
then me--
> >Well, you (& a few others) joined in the ongoing slash discussion
(welcome,
> >by the way) specifically to slash characters I mentioned.
Pat--
> Sorry, wrong again. I joined the discussion in response to Liser's post.
Actually, you included this in your 1st post--
> Pat (who thought Hank Reardon & Francisco d'Anconia made a lovely
couple)
And later you said this--
>>>Also, when I first read Atlas Shrugged decades ago I didn't even know
there
was such a thing as slash. I still thought Hank & Francisco had a
physical relationship.>>>
You slashed fictional characters.
> I replied that I'm not a slash-fan and still saw sexual overtones in the
> Chivalry nose-painting scene.
That's nonsensical. As I said before--
> >You slashed, therefore you are ... a slasher.
> Pretty nifty when you get to define the words as you go along, isn't
> it?
At least my definitions make sense. You seem to prefer eating your cake,
then denying it had any calories.
me, then Pat--
> >A film version of AS has been threatened for several decades now, & I
hope
> >it never gets made--& not only due to it being natural slash bait.
>
> Hey, you see it too! <g>
As others have mentioned, it is easy enough to see what will set slashers
off, even if to me it is totally hetero or simply a non-sexual thing.
Pat, then me, then Pat (follow along!)--
> > > (Not everyone fits into neat little boxes with pretty labels.)
> >
> >Sure they do--if one doesn't mind a bit of mess & has the right tools.
>
> Not if the victim refuses to co-operate and has tools of her own.
See--you've got the "I'm a victim" line down--you're a natural slasher.
Pat--
>BTW, how does
> seeing sexual overtones in a scene constitute "beating up" on Duncan?
In a couple ways, at least.
1st--the "beating up" is often quite literal in slash, especially HL slash.
The sex scenes can be quite violent, bloody & downright brutal. Next
morning, everyone's all healed & ready to go again--a perk of Immie healing
powers. The more disturbing variation may be when DM is cast in the
aggressor/brutalizer role in those stories, so then he gets all angsty w/
post-coital guilt. Really, it's not pretty, no matter who is literally
abused.
Also, there's the fact that most slash has not only homosexual sex, but it
has characters who are less than thrilled about it. NOT happy people,
enjoying their sexual lifestyle. For at least part of the story, they are
confused, inept, nervous, ashamed, guilty, or otherwise tormented. And,
often the relationship & sex is about all the story has going on, so DM, for
example, is reduced to lolling around in bed w/ another guy &, between the
ecstatic moments, feeling miserable about it. I don't think much slash has
DM being the DM we know (who, despite an overall angsty existence, at least
found uncomplicated joy in bed as a heterosexual) from the series, _except_
for preferring a man's company in bed. Slash changes & lessens him.
If you don't like my explanation, here's ZK's comment from a few days ago--
>>>I think that part of the reason for Duncan/anyone slash is that it
puts Duncan in the role of a - um - Immortal PoRA(tm) :::: giggling
::::. Duncan knew a great deal about a lot of things; I think we
lose track sometimes of just how widely he traveled, and how
sophisticated he was. Even if he couldn't sing a note, he knew
music from Gregorian chant to jazz. He was a quiet patron of arts
and education and could function smoothly in many different
cultures. He was always reading and learning. Putting him - um -
on the bottom of a slash relationship is putting him in a place
where he is inexperienced, ignoranat, and can be seen as weak and
pliable.>>>
Vicki joins in re: the above--
>Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd like to know the answer to
> that question, too.
I feel like there's some point YOU were trying to make. Maybe you could try
again.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
Save Farscape http://farscape.wdsection.com/index.php
Frell Sci Fi, just on principle.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:19:57 -0400
From: Morgan <morrigan13@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Nina says of Pat:
>Actually, you included this in your 1st post--
>> Pat (who thought Hank Reardon & Francisco d'Anconia made a lovely
>couple)
>
>And later [Pat] said this--
>>>>Also, when I first read Atlas Shrugged decades ago I didn't even know
>there
>was such a thing as slash. I still thought Hank & Francisco had a
>physical relationship.>>>
Nina:
>You slashed fictional characters.
Pat:
>> I replied that I'm not a slash-fan and still saw sexual overtones in the
>> Chivalry nose-painting scene.
Nina:
>That's nonsensical. As I said before--
>> >You slashed, therefore you are ... a slasher.
Nina again:
>As others have mentioned, it is easy enough to see what will set slashers
>off, even if to me it is totally hetero or simply a non-sexual thing.
So what is the difference between seeing, as you say, Nina, "what will set
slashers off" and, as Pat says above, seeing "sexual overtones in the [scene]?
How does that make one person a "slasher" and one not?
Pat:
>> > > (Not everyone fits into neat little boxes with pretty labels.)
Nina:
>> >Sure they do--if one doesn't mind a bit of mess & has the right tools.
Pat
>> Not if the victim refuses to co-operate and has tools of her own.
Nina:
>See--you've got the "I'm a victim" line down--you're a natural slasher.
All "slashers" have delusions (thoughts, unjustified beliefs) of victimization?
!perverse(just looking for some clarification)
morrigan13@earthlink.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places.
--Ernest Hemingway
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:57:59 -0600
From: Donna Gum <djgum@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Nina:
>Also, there's the fact that most slash has not only homosexual sex, but it
>has characters who are less than thrilled about it... <cut>
So.
Let me get this straight.
You read slash because you're just doing research about what it's really
about so you can debate it on list???
djgum@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:09:31 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Donna--
> Let me get this straight.
> You read slash because you're just doing research about what it's really
> about so you can debate it on list???
No. I have read slash; I checked out slash along w/ quite a few other
things when I got online--as I would bet a lot of people do. I don't read
slash these days. Research--no. I'm on lists, etc. where slash is one of
many topics. I've been in a few of these discussions over the years.
Slash is supposed to be fandom's deepest darkest secret, but fans just can't
resist distributing it via the world's most public forum--the internet. The
contradiction really isn't my fault.
Would you prefer that slash not be discussed by anyone but its adherents?
Why?
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
Save Farscape http://farscape.wdsection.com/index.php
Frell Sci Fi, just on principle.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:14:09 -0700
From: Jen Allen <jen@jendaveallen.com>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
MacWestie wrote:
> Also, there's the fact that most slash has not only homosexual sex, but it
> has characters who are less than thrilled about it. NOT happy people,
> enjoying their sexual lifestyle.
Wow, are we reading different stories.
Sure, some people write that stuff, but I wouldn't say it constitutes
"most" of the stories in the genre.
Then again, maybe you've read a lot more of it than I have. I only go
for the stories that are recommended to me by people I trust, and they
rarely recommend the rape stories you discuss above.
Homosexual love DOES NOT EQUAL rape, any more then heterosexual love
does. Nor are all homosexual relationships initiated via rape. Sometimes
they stem from boredom, 'simple' curiousity, a need for release with no
other means available, a deep attraction for the other person that
overrides someone's usual gender choice, or a need for
comfort/validation due to external circumstances (external as in someone
other than their partner has hurt them either emotionally or
physically). Sometimes those relationships last and sometimes they
don't. Sometimes they're exploitive and sometimes not. The run the full
range, just the way het ones do.
Try reading a different sort of slash story and see how it goes.
Jen
--
, ,
/ \/ \
(/ //_ \_
.-._ \|| . \
\ '-._ _,:__.-"/---\_ \
______/___ '. .--------------------'~-'--.)__( , )\ \
`'--.___ _\ / | Jen Allen ,' \)|\ `\|
/_.-' _\ \ _:,_ Chronicler for JL Dawson " || (
.'__ _.' \'-/,`-~` Bryan Cutler and Jim O'Leary |/
'. ___.> /=,| http://www.jendaveallen.com |
/ .-'/_ ) '---------------------------------'
snd )' ( /(/
\\ "
'=='
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:11:24 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
>All "slashers" have delusions (thoughts, unjustified beliefs) of
>victimization?
Hey, that may even be true. If it is... gee, I wonder why?
- Marina.
\\ "I don't care about their different thoughts; ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// different thoughts are good for me." || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ - Tanita Tikaram ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey=====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=====|| \\
\\==============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"Great. Now I'm a slash enabler." - Nina
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 23:13:58 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Morgan--
> So what is the difference between seeing, as you say, Nina, "what will set
> slashers off" and, as Pat says above, seeing "sexual overtones in the
[scene]?
Experience, I guess, in various fandoms. A couple other people here (I
_think_ Liser & Wendy) said about the same thing lately. It isn't hard to
spot, even though the given scene/situation/comment doesn't seem slashy to
me. I do not think the characters were intended to or are attracted to each
other sexually, but I can just hear slashers whooping "aha!" & typing away.
I do think, though, that the most important criteria for slash in general
are 1) that the males on a given show be attractive to _women_ & 2) show
zero interest in each other sexually. The less likely, the better. That's
generally irresistable slash bait.
> All "slashers" have delusions (thoughts, unjustified beliefs) of
victimization?
I doubt "all" of any group do anything. But, a common thread in
free-wheeling slash discussions (this one has been quite mild) is for
slashers eventually to bemoan their lot--no one understands us, you people
just refuse to see the obvious, you're being mean to imply we're doing
anything odd, how dare you say we're perverts, & (of course) any criticism
of us is based on homophobia. Marina sort of summed up the general idea
herself earlier, light-heartedly but still w/ a grain of truth, I think.
>>>Yeah, us poor slash fans, the pariahs of the fanfic world. It's okay.
We're used to it. Most slash fans are used to keeping quiet about
their "secret passion" on gen/het lists.>>>
Is their impression of victimization true or false? It seems to me they
don't like being called on doing what they do. My suggestion would be--OK,
so stop doing it. But they are having fun & really like slashing, so they
prefer that people stop _talking_ about what they do, I guess so they can
continue doing it w/ an easier conscience.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
Save Farscape http://farscape.wdsection.com/index.php
Frell Sci Fi, just on principle.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:03:56 +0100
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
MacWestie wrote:
> I do think, though, that the most important
>criteria for slash in general
> are 1) that the males on a given show be
>attractive to _women_ & 2) show
> zero interest in each other sexually.
>The less likely, the better. That's
> generally irresistable slash bait.
The Sentinel. yes for (1) but for (2) blooper tapes
besides it do depend on your definition of slash. some peoples
definition doesnt include same sex but does include non canon. My
definition just includes same sex. Buffy did its own slash.
what I personally would consider slash bait is any emotional
relationship between two same sex characters, preferably with lots of
touching or spending time together outside of the plot heavy areas of a
show (like outside of work). to take a friendship like that and have it
lead to a sexual relationship seems kinda natural.
another kind of invitation to fic is any glaring lack of relationship.
characters that are both on a show but rarely share screen time. Its
the same appeal as with crossover fic- put them together and see what
happens. sometimes what your minds eye sees is hot sex.
You get the full range of situations in slash that you do in stories in
general. so you get the loving cuddly happy type stories, the plot
heavy epics, the PWP smut, the angst fest, and the episodes + same sex
relationship. I couldnt point you at DM/whoever stories for each of
those (frankly the guy makes me go yeerk these days) but I'm fairly sure
they exist.
The rough sex in Highlander does exist, maybe more so than for other
fandoms. I guess the lure is to have total freedom, to do whatever you
want and still show no sign of it later. Like in Blade 2, the house of
pain? Bunch of vampires slicing each other up for fun. if you're going
to regenerate, its all just sensation. RL doesnt let you explore that-
you hurt someone, they need hospital treatment, its a whole nasty
thing. if no matter how much you hurt someone they will heal up
perfect, you would get Immortals like cory raines (?)(roadrunner
episode, money no object) who just think that hurting other Immortals is
a no harm no foul thing. why wouldnt that attitude carry over to sex?
so to write about it is a short step from the original premise.
logical, sorta.
and people write slash for the full range of reasons anyone writes
fiction- to be creative, to see what happens next, to interact with
their readers. slash just lends itself especially well to exploring
certain themes.
Sometimes slash fic is a way of highlighting the assumptions and
prejudices that a writer finds completely illogical, or suggesting some
kind of bisexual utopian alternative. Something I see in a lot of
mainstream SF is the tendency to reassess the social and sexual norm, to
put people in a different context and show normal is a matter of habit
rather than necessity. Or to show people their own assumptions by
turning them upside down. Highlander is also a good place for
presenting alternative social norms
because flashbacks can happen anywhere in any part of history. Some of
the best researched Highlander fanfic reads almost like a tour of sexual
mores through the centuries. One author I know writes fully referenced
fanfic and researches her settings exhaustively- if she has a
transvestite priest in ancient sumeria, or a same sex wedding ceremony,
the references will give the studies she used to back up the idea. Its
really great fun. (for the kind of person whos idea of fun is every
story leading to a new bookshelf for the bibliography and further
reading sections).
> Is their impression of victimization true or false?
> It seems to me they
> don't like being called on doing what they do.
> My suggestion would be--OK,
> so stop doing it. But they are having fun
>& really like slashing, so they
> prefer that people stop _talking_ about what they do,
> I guess so they can
> continue doing it w/ an easier conscience.
my impression is people dont like being flamed for what they do. slash
is flamebait because you get all the fanfic issues plus all the same sex
issues.
my impression of this discussion is every time someone gives an answer
someone else sort of ups the stakes, brings in another issue entirely.
like going from talk about slash, to do you slash real people, to actor
fic. that to me is bringing in new topics just so you can find fault
with them. which reads like trying real hard to turn a discussion into
an argument.
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212
The Secret of a Balanced Life is Reverence and Mirth in
Equal Proportion
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo
Fans are viewers who speak back to the networks and the producers, who
assert their right to make judgments and to express opinions about the
development of favorite programs.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:50:25 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
Nina wrote:
>Is their impression of victimization true or false? It seems to me they
>don't like being called on doing what they do. My suggestion would be--OK,
>so stop doing it. But they are having fun & really like slashing, so they
>prefer that people stop _talking_ about what they do, I guess so they can
>continue doing it w/ an easier conscience.
I don't think that's the case. I *like* talking about the various
aspects of slash. And I certainly don't only want to talk about
slash with people who agree with me. How boring is that? If I
disliked talking about slash I would have kept my mouth shut.
(Uh-huh - you know how likely *that* is.)
I'm not even sure that our discussion could be termed "being called
on what [slashers] do". Every discussion makes me think more about
why I like slash: why I read it, why I used to write it, why I feel
compelled to defend it, etc. And my conscience is certainly clear.
I don't want people to stop talking about it, but I understand if
some people feel uncomfortable being asked continually why they like
slash, and people implying there is something wrong with it. I don't
think there is, although YMMV. I'm here for the discussions; if I
didn't want to be part of them, I would keep quiet.
And come on, this has turned into quite a long-running thread. We
should be proud. :)
- Marina. (Back to the old padded room now.)
\\ "I don't care about their different thoughts; ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// different thoughts are good for me." || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ - Tanita Tikaram ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey=====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=====|| \\
\\==============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"Great. Now I'm a slash enabler." - Nina
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:16:43 -0500
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Well & truly a slash thing now
>Nina again:
>>As others have mentioned, it is easy enough to see what will set slashers
>>off, even if to me it is totally hetero or simply a non-sexual thing.
Morgan:
>So what is the difference between seeing, as you say, Nina, "what will set
>slashers off" and, as Pat says above, seeing "sexual overtones in the [scene]?
>
Speaking only for myself here (okay, maybe for the dogs, too). And
I'm...having a hard time defining the line that you're wanting
explanation of. I think it has more to do with being able to train
oneself to see things from a different perspective without actually
*buying into* that perspective. I think, for me, anyway, it comes
from having so many slash discussions over the years and listening to
so many people point to what they see as evidence of slashy subtext.
Because I have heard Marina and others talk about the things they see
as representative of slash, I've learned to identify them myself.
It's sort of like reading a poem in a Lit class, I guess. I can read
it and get one thing out of it and then my Prof can make the argument
that the red wheelbarrow is really a symbol of communism. Given the
"symbol key" that she's shared, I can go back and say "Okay, I can
see how this might be representative of that", but it doesn't mean
that I truly believe it. Marina (and others) have given me a symbol
key to slash over the years and I'm now capable of interpreting a
work that way on a purely academic level. I could write a paper
about the slashy intonations between Methos and Duncan throughout the
series, but I wouldn't buy a word of it.
>How does that make one person a "slasher" and one not?
I think this boils down to the level that you accept the slash at. I
can recognize the pieces of the work that will be taken and turned
into slashy interpretations, but I don't *believe* that they are
truly indicative of slash. I, personally, could not write a slash
story based on any of them and I, personally, have a hard time
swallowing the concept of slash between the characters in question.
Slashers, obviously, do not have that problem. :-)
Does this mean that I see those "sexual overtones" that Pat
mentioned? I suppose that if you want to get technical about it,
yes. But I prefer to think that what I see is the *potential* for
such. Or, rather, the potential for certain actions or words to be
*interpreted as such* by those inclined to do so.
Liser
(suddenly feeling kind of zen-like)(Ommmmmm)
--
L Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
"I find tongues in trees, books in running brooks,
sermons in stones, and good in everything." Shakespeare: As You Like It
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 27 Sep 2002 to 28 Sep 2002 (#2002-159)
***************************************************************