What annoys me about fanfic meta about itself

[alias_sqbr]

(separated out as a tangent from Old school fandom: Can we fix it?)

There's a difference between "here are some flaws in X group"/"Here are some awesome things about my group" (both of which are valid) and "Let's think about the differences between X and my group. Well.. X has all these flaws. And my group is awesome. Because we are awesome people, and they are flawed people (apart from the ones who eventually realise how awesome we are and change sides)."

There is a jump from "there is an undertone of misogyny to some slash"/"There is an undertone of homophobia to some non-slashers behaviour" to "slashers are misogynistic"/"non-slashers are homophobic" to "If you really cared you'd write (fem)slash"(*).

One of things which made me feel excluded from fanfic fandom for years was this attitude that "A lot of fanfic works this way"->"This is What Fanfic Is"->"Everything that is not This sucks and is probably written and enjoyed by misogynistic and/or dull men". Yes, a lot of fanfic takes canon characters and puts them into a romance, but that doesn't mean that I'm Missing The Point of fanfic if I take the setting and write gen about some original characters. And the fact that male dominated fandom tends to be sexist and dismissive of fanfic doesn't mean there's a direct correlation between having tastes in line with conventional fandom and being sexist/narrowminded. Acting this way means female fans with "male" tastes get treated badly in both fandoms.

I'm not sure I've ever seen any "Let's compare stuff from fanfic fandom to equivalent stuff made by people outside" meta that didn't spend every second paragraph talking about how much more awesome and creative and feminist and postmodern "our" stuff is.

One of the things about online fandom (especially on lj) is it's much bigger and more finely delineated which makes it easier to avoid really obnoxious people and create your own space but also makes it easy forget that your like-minded friendslist is not all there is to fandom. When I see a comment like Ursula LeGuin fans could demonstrate a little of the progressive social values of Stargate:Atlantis fans I have to wonder if they count all the fans in mainstream male dominated fandom who think Teyla is hot and enjoy the explosions or whatever. And if they don't count, why don't I get to redefine "Ursula LeGuin" fans the same way? (And here I start shading into my next post :))

nb: I realise one of things fanfic meta does is tend to focus exclusively on fanfic (and specifically, boyslash) to the exclusion of other sorts of fannish creativity and I've kind of done that here. I guess I can't break out of the very mindset I'm criticising!

(*)These arguments annoyed me a lot less once I wrote some femslash, since now I'm one irrational-smug-moral-superiority level above the smug m/m slash writers :)

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I have from time to time met people who try to define what fanfic Is and get very upset with other people if they then don't write within those narrow boundaries. Indeed some of the most spectacular rows I have been involved with online have revolved around just that question. So if your formative experience of ficcers was of that sort of person - and especially if it was falling foul of that sort of person, then you have my sympathy. I don't know why it is so important to them to define fanfic so narrowly, but it clearly is for some reason, and some of them can get extraordinarily aggressive and unpleasant about it.

Meanwhile, people continue to write whatever the hell they want in whatever the hell way they want, as they always will. Thank God.

how much more awesome and creative and feminist and postmodern "our" stuff is
:snort:
Well one thing I can say with pride is nobody has ever accused my work of being feminist or postmodern. And the only person to ever call it misogynistic was me (I should know). I sometimes wish I could take the average metafandomer by the hand and lead them out to show them just how much of fandom - their fandom, all those female ficcers and viders and so forth - not only didn't care about all the stuff they talk about but don't even have a clue it is going on, or if they do have an inkling make a very conscious decision not to notice as far as possible. Fandom isn't a progressive social movement, its a bunch of people enjoying their hobbies.

[hlbr.livejournal.com]

Fandom isn't a progressive social movement, its a bunch of people enjoying their hobbies.

But can't it be both? I mean, I find the fact that not only the production of artworks (fiction, videos, music...) is now more accessible, but that their distribution also is, a very progressive social movement! It's decentralizing the collective imagination, sort of. I like it.

I don't know how feminist it is, I don't know how postmodern, but I very much appreciate the fact that many people who wouldn't have thought about writing and sharing that writing with others are doing so. And that's only what I live, because I'm a writer/beta/translator, and have practically no contact with the vidding community, for example, but I'm sure this happens across the board.

I also am incredibly appreciative of the fact that fandom (and the 'net in general--but I live it through fandom) is an international community that feels like a community.

I don't know, I think both of those are pretty revolutionary things.

[alias_sqbr]

I think fanfic fandom is one of those things where the majority of people aren't doing it out of any revolutionary agenda, they're just pursuing their own personal joy, but as a group we end up creating revolutionary things. Some people are actively pursuing political/social justice etc agendas, and I think the structure and culture of fanfic fandom can be really helpful to that, but you can't assume that your average fanfic fan cares about this sort of thing or is particularly progressive or whatever.

(Which is not to disagree with anything you said, just to riff on it)

[hlbr.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't actually think the general of fans are doing it with any agenda but having fun (and some, improving at their crafts, or getting feedback, or whatever). I--who by other measures do think myself as political--don't consider my involvement on fandom to be political in itself. I enjoy doing it, that's why I do it. It's not untouched by my political ideas, of course, but it's not entirely ruled by them.

Which is to say, yes, I agree. Heh.

[alias_sqbr]

:)

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Oh I thoroughly agree that fandom is taking part in revolutionary things. The internet is changing vast amounts of human experience in exciting ways, and fandom is undoubtedly part of that and using it. What I'm having a poke at are the type of metafandom commenters who seem to imply that every time a woman sits down and writes a bit of fic she is making some specific social statement rather than just having fun. To me, the word 'feminist' would have to imply a deliberate choice to try to advance the causes and aims of feminism (as opposed to just something that women happen to be doing). Post-modern is a far more difficult term because it can mean almost anything, but it does at the very least seem to imply a reaction against... something, and again I doubt if any serious proportion of fandom are reacting against anything at all. So while I agree that fandom is producing revolutionary things, that is a coincidental by-product of being involved in a revolutionary medium, not an inherent part of fandoms aims, and I do think that distinction is important.

Besides, the 'people telling stories about other people's stories' part of fandom is as old as stories themselves, and since women have always been doing it as well as men, that part at least isn't exactly revolutionary.

I also am incredibly appreciative of the fact that fandom (and the 'net in general--but I live it through fandom) is an international community that feels like a community.
Fandom has some similarities to RL communities, but it also lacks the organisational structures, especially many of the control structures, that we are used to in RL communities. That is one of several reasons, I think, why when stuff on the net goes bad it can go spectacularly bad. It is also one of the reasons it feels so liberating and exciting being on-line - there aren't many equivalent spaces where adults can play safely without much in the way of boundaries or consequences.

When I first came on-line (2001, for the record) I was blown away by the internationalism. Then I gradually became aware that being in ready daily contact with other nationalities can throw up some pretty glaring fault lines and that there are even bigger absences in who we are actually talking to. It has made me aware of what being British means in a way that I had never thought about before, and also about being part of the Anglosphere, the Western hegemony, and so forth. And these days I think of my on-line friends far less as part of an international community than just a group of friends who have some specific cultural things in common. Nothing wrong with that, and its great fun, but it isn't what I would define as truly international beyond the most trivial definition.

Which may mean I'm contradicting myself by holding one standard to one half of this conversation and another to the second half. :rolls eyes at self:

[hlbr.livejournal.com]

I do know that telling stories to each other is old as humanity, but, you know, I don't think the common (wo)man (by a very lax definition of common--I will touch upon this below) had access to distributing those stories to so many people and from so many places and ages before. That's... powerful in itself, to me. It does mean that the power of shaping the stories, the fiction, is more on the hands of the people.

Now, taking on this 'common men' nonsense, of course it isn't yet. The field has widened, but there's still a long way to go.

Oh, the communities I'm in feel very much like RL communities! Stringent laws and changes in powers, and some with more horizontal power schemes than others, but I'm aware that perhaps that's different in lj? That everyone has their own turf here must change things. But I'm only based on lj for a convenience issue. My only friends here are those I know for other means (in dw I'm getting more into the the journaling communities, but not that much).

It doesn't feel very consequences-less or any of that. It felt like that when I lurked, but then I wasn't acting, to have any consequences. When I began to participate, everything came into a sharper relief. Not to get personal nor any of that--but feeling at odds with my online communities felt as bad as it feels being at odds with my family. (I've never been at odds with other RL communities.) Perhaps I'm an oddity and I'm taking everything too seriously--it wouldn't be weird--but that's how I live it.

International wise... I don't know what is the lack you're feeling? I have betaed for Chinese, Indian, American, Chilean, English and Australian people, and been betaed by Polish, American, Belgian, and Spanish people. I read people of all those places (most in English, some in Spanish), and talk with people from all these places. My two best buddies are my own age (exactly to the year!) but one in Portland and the other in Barcelona (I'm in Buenos Aires)--every time we chat together it means two of us are desperately late for their bedtime.

And yes, that the language be English does impose some limits--but what else would you do, with an international community? You need a common language to talk. At some point French was used. I have no problems with that--I have had French in high school and I'm sure I could get it back. Or Chinese, which is the language of the world's majority; I sure would want to learn the language of our** new overlords. I wouldn't mind. But English it is, by history and current politics. It's not even my language, and yes it's deeply problematic that I'm losing proficiency (somewhat) in my own language because I spend so much of my time writing and reading in English, but... I prefer the international community to perfect proficiency in my mother language. Truly.

**Argentina's. A joke.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I do know that telling stories to each other is old as humanity, but, you know, I don't think the common (wo)man ... had access to distributing those stories to so many people and from so many places and ages before. That's... powerful in itself, to me. It does mean that the power of shaping the stories, the fiction, is more on the hands of the people.
I completely agree. The internet has completely rebuilt the power structure in publishing and hence what stories can be heard, but that of course is not something restricted to fanfic. What fanfic maybe does do is provide a convenient entry point for people who otherwise wouldn't have considered writing and then provides them with a support system and a school for that writing.

the communities I'm in feel very much like RL communities! Stringent laws and changes in powers, and some with more horizontal power schemes than others
My theories about communities and how they relate to online social groupings are complex and I'm not sure I've got space for them here. But in very, very brief summary, the online community has no legal system or police to impose socially agreed upon laws, so the only method of social control is by social pressure (stigmatisation, shouting down, fear and guilt culture, etc.) Those methods work well in small enclosed communities where an individual's well being depends on them joining in the local consensus, but it works very badly in any large community where an individual can simply walk away and find different companionship elsewhere. So in effect the only available means of social control are useless; hence: anarchy. Not that anarchy is necessarily a bad thing, but its certainly not a restful one.

International wise... I don't know what is the lack you're feeling?
Well, obviously each individual has their own experience, but in my fandom (as opposed to on-line generally) I can't bring to mind anyone from any continents other than North America, Europe and Australasia. This doesn't actually surprise me - we are in the fandom (Buffy) because we share an interest in an US TV show and we are using English to talk about it. I'm sure there are plenty of people from other places in Buffy fandom and 'fandom' generally, but they certainly don't exist in sufficient numbers to make their presence strongly felt. If I was to consider 'fandom' truly international I think it would have to feel far closer to the real balance of the world's population. Or at least far closer to the real balance of the world's internet population. But in fact language and cultural barriers keep us pretty fragmented. I've actually met a far wider range of nationalities in feminist/ant-racist discussions than in all my time in fandom itself.

[hlbr.livejournal.com]

About internationalization--perhaps it's a matter of self selection. My circle tend to be pretty international, but then I am 'international' in a sense.

About communities, I don't see any problem with the organization being anarchical? Problem in the sense of an issue in they being communities. Perhaps because I know communities (in RL) that manage to be anarchical communities. Self selection to belong to a community is a pretty good thing, in my opinion, and what used to happen in traditional 'anarchical' communities.*

*I'm the daughter of two anthropologies. Both the cultures they study had (and largely still have) an anarchical organization.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

perhaps it's a matter of self selection
Could be. It's certainly not very conscious on my part but it might still be going on. And it has been pointed out to me that I am so British I practically wear a red coat and a union flag waistcoat, which could well be keeping some people from other nationalities at a distance. Hard to say. Or it could be just that there aren't that many people outside the Anglosphere and certain European countries who are into Buffy. But whatever the mechanism the fact is that there is a mechanism, and my experience of fandom is not a truly international one.

What communities do you know that are anarchical?

[hlbr.livejournal.com]

Tobas, wichí, and pilagás organizational system* would be what I call anarchical. But then perhaps we're using different definitions of the word.

*They are still in place somewhat. It doesn't work so well when you have the country's governement asking for representatives and all that shit. Things do not work out so well now.

[hlbr.livejournal.com]

Ah, and I forgot about fandom!

They may still be there, you know, but not talking much. Not all people who can read in English can write it, and I find that we tend to lurk more. Unless the site is owned by a self proclaimed non-English speaker, and then it's made obvious how many international people are.

I don't think you being English would put people off? I've never heard of it happening, but then Arg. was never a British colony. Uhm. (Though we do have that soccer and war things going on with you all, so perhaps it should put me off ;))

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I just want to note I find this comment interesting and thought-provoking, but I'm holding myself back partly because I'm currently trying to avoid getting into metafandom discussions which have spun off RaceFail that aren't about race. I think there's a big overlap in stuff I agree with you and disagree with you about. But not really about race - except as you note that the oh-so "international" fandom net is heavily anglophone and anglophone-nations dominated.

[alias_sqbr]

I agree with hele that I think there are aspects to fanfic fandom which tie in with social justice: the fact there's so many women makes it a lot easier to discuss feminist ideas than you can in mainstream fandom, it creates more space for international communication (between the three of us we circle the globe :)), allows for groups like FOC to organise, etc.

But the fact that it creates space for those things, and is perhaps (though perhaps not) more feminist etc in general doesn't mean that that's all there is to fanfic fandom, that people who aren't interested in those things are Doing It Wrong(*), that people who aren't in fanfic fandom can be assumed to be unfeminist etc, or that fanfic fans can be smug about how awesome they are if they haven't done anything particularly worthy as an individual.

Which is to say: I don't think that Fandom, overall, is a progressive social movement. I think that by it's existence it can have some progressive social effects, and create a network that helps those who are trying to create a social progressive movement, but most people do just see it as a hobby and there's nothing wrong with that.

(*)I mean if someone writes sexist fic or whatever then I think that's bad, but it's not inherently less fanficcish.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I think my answer to hele has pretty much covered this (in other words: I agree).

I mean if someone writes sexist fic or whatever then I think that's bad, but it's not inherently less fanficcish.

That is actually an interesting question, because I undoubtedly write sexist fic - and when I started I was doing it accidentally without any real notion of what I was doing or why. But lately I have come to realise that the sexism is a very important part of what I am enjoying about fanfic, and hence I am pushing those boundaries, exploring gender by being deliberately sexists and seeing what happens. I know a few feminists who would have a fit if they saw my current stuff - and a few who would smile quietly and say 'now P's getting it'. And beyond just me (fascinating as I am ;) I think I can see signs of that in other people's work. I am beginning to suspect that one of the many revolutionary things going on in the fic community (I really have no experience of art or vids) is a reaction against PC and hence people are exploring beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable in every way - not just the commonly defined social norms but the newer social norms of PC, social justice, call it what you will.

But it is happening as a by-product of having fun, of just people writing what they want to write, normally without too much thought about why they are doing it, which in many ways makes it far stronger. Because let's face it, nobody has ever really managed to make writers write anything other than the things they naturally and instinctively wanted to write anyway, least of all the writers themselves.

Which brings us back to to your comment. If somebody actually wanted to use fanfic as a medium for social change, they would fail. Because fanfic is too free, too uncontrollable, too independent of anything, and that most certainly includes any social justice activists who might fancy using it for their own agendas. But social change is still a by-product of fanfic, and since the general drift of society is in that direction, fanfic will be swept along in the tide and become part of furthering the causes of social justice. But it might do so in some very unexpected ways.

[alias_sqbr]

I am beginning to suspect that one of the many revolutionary things going on in the fic community (I really have no experience of art or vids) is a reaction against PC and hence people are exploring beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable in every way - not just the commonly defined social norms but the newer social norms of PC, social justice, call it what you will.

Heh. I have this whole rant about the twin meanings of PC as "Basic human decency with regards to caring about the effect of your words on other people" and "Counterproductive dogma". This is particularly relevant to "sexist" fanfic by women since it messes so much with the id, for example some feminists define anything pornographic as sexist and evil, while others define anything pornographic by and for women as feminist, and both decry the other as "sexist" and/or "too PC". But yes, fanfic does give us all a chance to explore things which would be condemned elsewhere (for whatever reason, and for good or ill)

But social change is still a by-product of fanfic, and since the general drift of society is in that direction, fanfic will be swept along in the tide and become part of furthering the causes of social justice. But it might do so in some very unexpected ways.

Agreed.

That said, I think people can use their own fanfic for social justice, same way as they can use music or art or whatever. They just can't use ALL of fanfic fandom.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

(Disclaimer: I am hugely brain tired today, but I need to answer because I will be very short of time starting next week and I don't want to leave it until I am time rich again.)

I think people can use their own fanfic for social justice, same way as they can use music or art or whatever. They just can't use ALL of fanfic fandom.

Agreed. Nobody can steer the herd, whether from outside or within it, but they personally can run whichever way they want, and sometimes the herd will chose to turn with them. All anyone can do is try and see what happens.

I have this whole rant about the twin meanings of PC as "Basic human decency with regards to caring about the effect of your words on other people" and "Counterproductive dogma".
I think it is one sign of how far we have come that a lot of stuff that twenty years ago was considered PC is now classed under 'bleeding obvious requirement of good manners' and the term PC is left lumbered with some pretty fringe weird and wonderful dogma.

I look forward to reading your rant some day.

This is particularly relevant to "sexist" fanfic by women since it messes so much with the id
I have to admit I am having trouble understanding this sentence. If you could unpack it I would be grateful.

[alias_sqbr]

Well, I'm no psychologist so my usage of "id" is a very loose probably totally theoretically wrong one I've picked up from fanfic meta. I have no stake in the whole Freudian thing about the Id being biological or whatever, I just mean "The part(s) of the mind that responds to basic wish fulfillment/sexual etc stuff in a very simple intense way".

So, my argument with more unpacking: a lot of fanfic is blatantly self indulgent, either wish fulfillment or sexual kink etc (as a writer and reader of gen I don't like the assumption that this is all sexual: my "Disney Princess creates democracy" and "Gu'uald is trapped in a cats body" stories were more about the Id than my femslash, at least as I define Id) And a lot of what women really deep down want to read or write has some disturbing sexual dynamics, often playing into sexist stereotypes etc. So either you try and put limits on it and as a result police women's sexuality, or you don't and you encourage the production of stories which perpetuate sexist ideas, and both of these actions can be seen as pretty sexist and result in incredibly heartfelt and intense responses (as I'm sure you have seen).

rec

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I think you'd find ellen_fremedom's ideas about the Id Vortex very relevant.
http://ellen-fremedon.livejournal.com/325780.html
It'll possibly help you understand Sophie when she talks about the id, too.

Re: rec

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Thanks, an interesting link.

A lot of my trouble with the id thing is I can never remember what the damn word means. I can obviously look it up in a dictionary, but I can't seem to keep a grasp on the wider cultural usage which is necessary to understand its full meaning in conversation. Hence its simpler for me to ask alias_sqbr to unpack it than to attempt to remember the possible meanings and try to work out which nuances she is using in this context.

id

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: This isn't meant to be a lecture on 'how dare you not remember what 'id' means', but more my mind meandering around how complicated 'id' is, and no wonder it's hard to keep a grasp of!

***************

I've had a bit of a think and I'm not sure you can get a grasp on the wider cultural usage of "id", or at least that it'd be a consistent concept you were grasping. It comes from Freud, who divided the personality into id, ego, superego, which I've heard described as child, adult, parent. Or alternatively, id are the "base emotional urges" unfiltered by civilisation and culture. In ellen_fremedon's usage, I think she's particularly thinking of raw sexual desire, selfish and untrammeled by what is "right and proper".

But there's at least two assumptions here I have problems with. Firstly, to assume that the 'base emotional urges' of a human being are entirely selfish (which is what most uses of 'id' seem to me to assume) - it seems to me that it's a very basic human emotional urge to interact with other humans, seek connections and relationships; and secondly that, for example, 'base sexual urges' aren't strongly influenced by upbringing, culture and civilisation. For example, ellen_fremedon describes the effect on her of Hawkeye/Mulcahy fic, which means nothing to me because I've never watched an entire episode of M*A*S*H. (I know enough to recognise the names and be aware of the cultural importance of the show to many other people.) And it's going to then become very hard to compare ellen_fremedon's 'base sexual urges' with my 'base sexual urges' and determine that, at base, they are somehow unaffected by culture, when to even evoke them strongly seems to require incompatible cultural references. (I admit I don't know what fic might surf the Id Vortex of my sexual desires. But I'm guessing it wouldn't do It for her, just like this fic doesn't do It for me.)

And yet I feel I get what it is ellen_fremedon is trying to point at when she talks about surfing the Id Vortex, and the writing techniques she describes (in the follow-up post) sound exactly right, like "yep, I must be thinking of much the same thing she's thinking of if these are techniques for doing it".

I think alias_sqbr is talking about a related, overlapping issue - our sexual desires are what they are, and for most of us are hard to change even if they're not PC or feminist or otherwise "desirable". And for example lesbian feminists insisting other women aren't real feminists as long as they're sexually attracted to men - those other women are going to take that pretty hard, right? Particularly in a culture where the mainstream is only aware of male sexual desire and it's often a long hard slog for women to connect with their own sexual desire and reclaim it, and themselves as sexual beings, not just objects of sexual desire to men.

And then other women come in and say to them "your reclaimed sexual self is distorted by your years of only experiencing yourself as a sexual object" (which is actually close to my gut feeling about at least some m/m fic) and yeah, no wonder outside observers wonder if feminists can ever change the world when we're so busy arguing amongst ourselves about fundamental issues of self-identity and self-acceptance.

I think "messy" is really the important word here :-).

Re: id

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Ah yes, now I remember why I can never get a handle on the whole id, ego, super-ego thing - it's because the whole thing bears no resemblance to my world view. The closest I can get to the idea of an id might be some sort of time-scale thing, whereby humans or primates or whatever had particular instincts and behaviours earlier than others, but all that does is beg the question of what is the cut off date? And I agree, there are enough studies showing the advantages of cooperation as a behaviour, as well as numerous examples showing cooperative behaviour in other primates, to reject the idea that everything primitive must be selfish.

I took ellen_fremedon's 'Id Vortex' to be referring to fic kinks, and possibly their interaction with squicks, and she was making some nice points about how fic writers can be better at writing that stuff than pros because we have developed a toolbox for doing so. Whether kinks are primitive sexual urges (whatever that might mean) or modern cultural accretions would be pretty irrelevant to her argument.

I'll let alias_sqbr explain for herself what she meant in her own comment, should she so wish, but to address the points in your own:

our sexual desires are what they are, and for most of us are hard to change even if they're not PC or feminist or otherwise "desirable". And for example lesbian feminists insisting other women aren't real feminists as long as they're sexually attracted to men - those other women are going to take that pretty hard, right? Particularly in a culture where the mainstream is only aware of male sexual desire and it's often a long hard slog for women to connect with their own sexual desire and reclaim it, and themselves as sexual beings, not just objects of sexual desire to men.

Well, when I was describing my own writing as sexist I wasn't actually thinking in terms of sexuality which is a slightly different kettle of fish. I was mainly talking about how I started out writing from a male POV, which incidentally marginalised women, and worrying about it; and now I have gone to a place where I very deliberately marginalise the female characters, pushing to see just how far I can marginalise them and take away their place in the society I am creating. This is partly done as a historical exercise (I write Buffy the Vampire Slayer fic set in the late nineteenth century, focussing on the vampire characters) so I am matching the female roles to existing historical stereotypes (wife, mother, daughter, charity worker, socialite, whore etc.). And it is partly because it is fun. It is relaxing away from the requirement to make every female character a powerful women with agency, individuality and intentions. It allows me to give my male characters some downright misogynistic lines, which is huge fun when you are identifying with them, and generally lets me let rip.

And what is fascinating is that in the process my female characters have come more alive and achieved far greater focus (and there are also numerically more of them) than there were when I was nominally at least nodding to the PC rules and worrying about 'neglecting' them. They have also achieved a surprising amount of power and agency for themselves that they never had before - but it is a far far more historically accurate form of power and agency.

This probably mainly goes to show that writing is a freaky business.

no wonder outside observers wonder if feminists can ever change the world when we're so busy arguing amongst ourselves about fundamental issues of self-identity and self-acceptance.
I just started to say some very rude things, but have reined myself in and am leaving this quote here as a memo to myself not to indulge even if the conversation continues.

Re: id

[alias_sqbr]

I think there's definitely a place for fiction which explores and maybe even celebrates "bad" stuff like sexism etc without explicitly hitting the reader over the head with "THESE ATTITUDES ARE NOT ENDORSED BY THE AUTHOR". That said I think it can be done badly, and think a lot of authors do it too unthinkingly so that it feels like they're saying "These attitudes ARE endorsed by the author". But not having read your fic I'll just assume it's the sort I like :D

Re: id

[alias_sqbr]

See above: I think my definition of "Id" is a loose, poorly defined cousin of the technical one :) But otherwise, yes that's pretty much what I'm saying.