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

[alias_sqbr]

I actually don't think there's anything untrue about ataxi's statement (eg there's plenty of sexism I am able to see past in books I like), the problem is that it's the converse of my statement rather than the contrapositive and thus not so much a refutation as a sidetrack. I thought about calling him on it but I decided that simply refusing to be sidetracked was as good a response (perhaps it wasn't)

Still, I do agree with ataxi that the way you expressed yourself didn't invite a very productive discussion on the subject :P

alternatively, does this belong on DW

I posted this here by default without thinking since it's fanfic meta first, gender etc meta second. But in retrospect, maybe, but I don't think there's much to be gained by moving it now.

(Also, it's not that big a deal, but I have a lifelong Thing against people calling me "Sophia" since it's not my name and people often assume it is. See also "Sarah", for some reason :))

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

To respond to the general query anyway:

"See past" was a poor choice of phrase on my part and one that invites criticism, because it's much easier for a privileged reader like myself to "rise above" (note sarcasm) the mire of prejudice harboured by a lot of fiction. Almost all of those embedded barriers and structures of exclusion and disempowerment don't affect me.

1. Almost all literature harbours prejudicial values of some sort.

2. It's not my belief that the people most affected by the prejudice of which literature is often a vehicle want to entirely devalue the compromised works. That, however, will vary.

3. I personally am able to enjoy many works despite finding evidence -- even seemingly blatant evidence -- of prejudice.

Although it's not my role, or within my authority to classify works or writers as prejudiced or unprejudiced, or to justify or damn any particular writer, the class of writers whose works blatantly enfold prejudice almost inarguably includes white males with a huge influence on the whole category of published works, such as Tolkien, Howard, Lovecraft, Kipling, Dunsany, and many more. These are all writers whose works I have enjoyed at different times for different reasons.

Whilst I still am not following debate on representations of POC in genre fiction closely -- a distance I'm able to maintain as a consequence of my position of privilege -- it's my understanding that most of the participants, both POC and other, are readers of genre fiction. It's also my understanding that one of the goals is to transform the representations of POC in genre fiction so that they no longer reinforce and enable oppressive prejudice. This is a desirable goal but one that is expressed within a framework that seems to endorse the overriding value of literature, even flawed literature. If it did not then why seek to transform genre fiction, rather than simply argue for its abandonment? So I'm bound to assume that the participants in the debate see something worthy of redemption in the genre's extant flaws.

And that's also my point: that I believe there's still something to be said for, some value to be assigned to, many books that harbour prejudicial values. A view stated from my acknowledged position of privilege, and one that's undoubtedly much easier to state from such a position.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

In retrospect, I think it was precisely the "see past" phrasing that made me angry. So if you agree it's problematic I don't think we have much argument at all.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Thanks for being fair-minded about it.

I think we ran across one another once before on alias_sqbr's journal, which was probably, you know, one of those other times I was an ass. Most days in other words.

[alias_sqbr]

I believe there's still something to be said for, some value to be assigned to, many books that harbour prejudicial values

And I don't think anyone objects to that idea in principle. There's actually been quite a few POC saying "A lot of my favourite books/shows etc are incredibly racist, in fact my own writing has a lot of dodgy racist subtext. Saying "this has a dodgy racist subtext" is not the same as saying "This is worthless"". The point is: it's a flaw, and like any flaw needs to be pointed out and avoided (especially since it hurts some people way more than others), and while all fiction is flawed sometimes an individual work is so bad that you just can't put up with it, regardless of it's other merits. The privilege comes from saying "Well I'm not bothered by the racism in this book, therefore anyone who is is being oversensitive".

For an example regarding sexism, see for example me and "Dollhouse".

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

"And I don't think anyone objects to that idea in principle."

Yes, well. I'm only in this latest phase of conversation at all because aquaeri appeared to object with the whole "show me a remotely convincing argument for it" thing. That's now been retracted.

"The point is: it's a flaw, and like any flaw needs to be pointed out and avoided."

Pointed out, yes, but I'm not so sure about avoidance: because that's ultimately down to the conscience of the artist, and audiences can't tell artists and distributors / publishers what to produce, they can only protest, boycott and critique. The idea that a charter of acceptable aspects of art should or could rigidly curtail the real process whereby art reaches an audience is ... unworkable? Silly?

It strikes me as very similar to the "bill of rights" issue, where I lean towards the view that rights are too blunt an instrument, that even the detail of the law itself is often too blunt. Principles rigidly adhered to become themselves the toolkit of power politics. Better to establish and strengthen open, equal communities of criticism and readership that frame the reception of artistic works, and build consensus standards of content that are fit to guide most thoughtful artists away from unacceptable work, or at least make them aware of the consequences to their audience and to themselves.

"sometimes an individual work is so bad that you just can't put up with it, regardless of it's other merits."

Regardless? Very, very debatable. I do agree with the slightly more moderate notion you're probably trying to express though!

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Sorry, getting very straw-mannish in the middle there. I read that idea that society can control artistic production at a fine-grained level a little too deeply in the word "avoided".

[alias_sqbr]

*nods* It's very easy to see the threat of censorship in this sort of argument, but that's not what I'm arguing for.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Ouch about the name. I'm terribly sorry. I know what it's like to be misnamed. I suspect part of my problem is that I think of you as sqbr :-).

[alias_sqbr]

Heh, that's ok. I get other people' names wrong too often to get too up in arms when it happens to me :)