Presumptions of Heterosexuality
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Presumptions of Heterosexuality |
| Creator: | Mo |
| Date(s): | 2005-07-06 |
| Medium: | Online |
| Fandom: | multifandom |
| Topic: | Slash |
| External Links: | On livejournal, Archived version |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Presumptions of Heterosexuality is a 2005 meta essay by Mo that discusses the way characters and the worlds they live in are assumed to be heterosexual unless stated otherwise. The main thrust of the essay is that writing a presumed-canonically-heterosexual character as gay isn't necessarily OOC or going against canon. The comment section also delved into authorial intent and alternate universes.
Some Topics Discussed
- Slash
- Applying worldbuilding to characterization
- Whether interpreting a character as homosexual makes them OOC
Excerpts
penknife focussed on presumption of canonical heterosexuality in the reader or viewer. She pointed out that many readers will see certain behaviors exhibited in characters or see other behaviors not exhibited and see those as determinative of heterosexuality of orientation, when they aren't necessarily. I agree with her on that, but I'm a little more interested in the presumption that occurs in other places. I'd like to focus on three of those places here:
* the presumption of heterosexuality within the universe of the fandom, specifically within fandoms set in current North American society or in a society much like current North American society
* the presumption of heterosexuality within the character himself
* the presumption of heterosexuality (or the fear of exhibiting openly homosexual behavior or desire) in the producers of canon.
In those fandoms set in current society or in a society as heteronormative as our own, I think it's worthwhile for fanfic writers to think about how that presumption of heterosexuality affects our characters. I think that examining the effects on our characters and interpreting their behavior in the light of that examination helps us to understand them. We can, for example, reasonably conclude that there is pressure on some characters to behave in a heterosexual manner even if their core orientation is otherwise. Same sex desire in some of the canonical characters may be deeply hidden - hidden from the supposedly canonically heterosexual character's intimates, hidden from the narrator, if there is one, consequently hidden from the reader or viewer. [...]
[...] The closer the society is to the one we live in, with its presumptions of heterosexuality, the more likely it seems to me that some individuals will hide their homosexuality and appear canonically heterosexual.
In fanfic the situation that brings about the realization is extra-canonical, but I don't think that makes his homosexual desire anti-canonical. In skillfully written "I never knew I was gay before" stories, he's still the same person he was in canon. Canon was the story of what happened before he found this out about himself. [...] I think fanfic can convincingly be written where the guy just doesn't know what he liked until he tries it.
As fanfic writers we can make our universe more credible by populating it with some non-heterosexual characters, even if the producers of canon didn't show us that part. We can view that lack as reflective of their omission rather than a canonical stamp of heterosexuality on all canon characters. I think even stories that are not slash per se gain verisimilitude when some gay characters are included, even if only on the periphery.
Comments and Reactions
Comments on slash & the essay
[eveningblue]
[...]
Authorial intent may not matter, but even if it did, how can we even know what authorial intent is if it's stifled by social norms of the time?[1]
[mo]
[...] Anyway, I think you're quite right about authorial intent being hampered by publishing or movie conventions. I think that's more true at some times and places than others and more true in some media (comic books, children's books) than others.
I also just don't care so much about authorial intent. Or, rather, I think it can be an interesting topic to discuss but don't think it should be a directive we need to follow as fanfic writers. As I said on penknife's journal, I'm not a fan of the Original Intent argument in either fanfic or Constitutional Law. So, I come down on the side of authorial intent doesn't matter. What matters to me - as a reader and a writer - is that the fiction be consistent with canon and that it give me something beyond canon. If it only repeats what's in canon, well why read fanfic?[2]
[mo]
[...]
Anyway, far from the initial topic of the post, but I'm just musing. And - to get back on track - I do think that, for some, heterosexuality feels essential to the characters and that's why they don't read slash. Clearly, I'm not one of them :-).[3]
[Anonymous ("CC")]
Hi, it's CC! Very interesting discussion here on many topics. The presumption of heterosexuality is endemic in society and therefore throughout our media and literature, that is of course true, And that many of us have an investment in the sexuality of our characters is true because in many ways we identify with those characters or even have a 'crush' on them. And, of course, there are reasons of bigotry or prejudice. But, I also think that sometimes there is just 'I really can't see that'. I don't, in general, have that much of an investment in that aspect of the characters I enjoy reading about. But sometimes... I mean there is no way on God's green Earth [to me] that Kirk and Spock are doing it. But maybe that's just me.
I think that there are also characters who are easier to slash than others because of the way we have seen their characters interact, even while living heterosexual lives. For instance, Jim and Blair from the Sentinel. Those were some touchy feely guys and even the very macho Jim held Blair in his arms after he had been overdosed on drugs and almost shot. Plus, they lived together. And the actors had a great chemistry with each other, better than the females they were paired with. Currently, I think that latter point is also true of House and Wilson on House.
[...]
But, I think that OOC also ties into why alot of writers fail in successfully slashing their characters. Too many writers demonize the previous women (or in the case of Buffy's Willow and Oz - men) in their character's lives: SG1-Sara. X-Men-Jean, The Sentinel-Carolyn, Buffy-Buffy, and so on. Unlike Due South where we are shown a very problematic relationship between Ray Kowalski and his wife and Fraser's ex-girlfriend was a thief and a murderer, we are often shown warm relationships or memories of these women. Why that must be destroyed because a character has now realized [or admitted] their bi- or homosexuality is beyond me. And it usually leads me to not read the story unless this character change is accounted fro in the narrative and is part of the plot.[4]
[mo]
And that many of us have an investment in the sexuality of our characters is true because in many ways we identify with those characters or even have a 'crush' on them.
Yes, I think that's true. Now, if someone is against all slash, then I'm more likely to think there's an element of discomfort with homoeroticism. But if someone just abhors certain slash pairings, it's more likely - as you say - an investment in the character. That's no different to me than my dislike of stories where Scott's "cured" and can take off his glasses. His dependency on them feels to me a key part of his personality.
[...]
On the crush thing, though, that kind of goes both ways, depending on the reader in question. There are a number of slash fen who only want to read slash if reading about the objects of their crushes. And, similarly, I think some straight women like to read slash with the characters they most identify with. Yk, since they like sex with men, they want the guy they identify with to like sex with men.
Too many writers demonize the previous women (or in the case of Buffy's Willow and Oz - men) in their character's lives: SG1-Sara. X-Men-Jean, The Sentinel-Carolyn, Buffy-Buffy, and so on.
I agree with you there. It seems a kind of cheap trick or something, a way to get the guy having TEH HOT HOMOSEX with no guilt about the loving woman he left behind. Sex without responsibility. [...][5]
[executrix]
[...]
Personally I save a lot of time and trouble by slashing characters that I have NO trouble in believing are attracted to members of their own sex. There are also characters who I think fundamentally wouldn't care about either sexual orientation or anybody's version of respectability (like Farascape's Chiana) or who would put up with a lot for a cuddle (like Blakes7's Vila) or can't see why somebody would pay him to suck HIS cock but figures a blowjob plus some coin beats a plain blowjob (Jayne in Firefly).[6]
Comments on AUs
[eveningblue]
I, too, want fanfiction to take me somewhere else, somewhere not explored in canon, while remaining true in some basic way to the characters. I find AUs to be possibly the most fascinating kind of fanfic, in the hands of a talented writer, because very often the writer is exploring just how different she can make the world in which the characters exist without changing the essence of the characters. So that, of course, leads to the question, what *is* the essence of these characters? Is their sexuality essential? Or is it more fluid? Always an interesting question.[7]
[mo]
I mostly don't "get" AU. They're very popular in TPM fandom - Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan in Ancient Rome or whatever. I guess the question is what is the essence of the character, as you say. I think I find the characters and the universe they inhabit kind of inextricably bound up.
[...]
Still, I want what I see as the essence of the X-Men or Star Wars or [Insert Fandom Here] universe maintained, because for me that is part of what is basic to the characters, or at least to my love for them. It's the sense of being immersed in that universe that attracted me to the fandom in the first place, and nourished my love for the characters.[3]
[Anonymous ("CC")]
I think that the main problem I have with AUs (don't get me started on 'how the Hell can they have the same name in Ancient Rome, alien civilizations, the far flung future of Earth, etc.)is that alot of writers also then make the characters OOC so I agree with you there. [4]
[midnitemaraud_r]
Just an observation about AU's in general.
There's a huge difference - to me at least - between an AU where, like in Harry Potter, an author writes a story on the premise that Sirius never went to Azkaban and Peter was caught instead, and an alternate reality universe where, like you mentioned in TPM fandom, having Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan in Rome, or taking any fandom set in modern times and writing the same characters in a Victorian Era setting, or a Western (1800's America) setting.
To me, the latter aren't AU's, but rather AR's - alternate realities. I define an AU as changing one tiny aspect of the canon story/plot and writing a "what if" scenario - more like an alternate timeline that branches off to the side and runs parallel to canon. Like those "What if Qui-Gon didn't die" fics you mention.[8]
[mo]
Yeah, you're right. I was kind of lumping them all in together. I haven't seen any consistent usage for terminology although it certainly makes sense to have a distinction between AU and alternate reality, as you present them. Unfortunately I've seen them used exactly the opposite way, too - AU meaning the whole universe changes and AR meaning just one bit. We never seem to have consistent definitions in fanfic. Hell, we can't even agree on what "slash" means.
I look to fanfic to answer one or more of the following questions:
What happened before the book/movie/series started? What happened in the parts they didn't show us? What happened after it was over? What would have happened if X were different?
The last one is what you're calling AU, and I think it's really fertile ground for fanfic.[9]
[midnitemaraud_r]
That's so true! Even within fandoms! We can't agree on the definition of "gen" either! And I also agree with your 'purposes for fanfic'. There are people who attempt to write what they think the author(screenwriter) would write as well, and I so rarely read those. I mean, what's the point of trying to mimic authorial intent when, to me, the point of fanfic is to use our own imaginations? If we tried to write exactly how we felt the author would write, well, first, in the case of JKR, we'd have a lot of adverb abuse in fanfic (or in the case of George Lucas we'd have abominable dialogue) *g*, and second, it would be very dull and limiting. It's one thing to keep the characters...well, in character. It's quite another to limit ourselves to scenarios that occur (or we think will occur) in canon. [10]
References
- ^ eveningblue, here. July 7th, 2005.
- ^ mo, here. July 7th, 2005.
- ^ a b mo, here. July 7th, 2005.
- ^ a b Anonymous/CC, here. July 8th, 2005.
- ^ mo, here. July 8th, 2005.
- ^ executrix, here. July 9th, 2005.
- ^ eveningblue, here. July 7th, 2005.
- ^ midnitemaraud_r, here. July 9th, 2005.
- ^ mo, here. July 9th, 2005.
- ^ midnitemaraud_r, here. July 9th, 2005.