Strange Bedfellows (APA)/Issue 008

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Strange Bedfellows (APA) · Issue 001 · Issue 002 · Issue 003 · Issue 004 · Issue 005 · Issue 006 · Issue 007 · Issue 008 · Issue 009 · Issue 010 · Issue 011 · Issue 012 · Issue 013 · Issue 014 · Issue 015 · Issue 016 · Issue 017 · Issue 018 · Issue 019
cover of issue #8

Strange Bedfellows 8 was published in February 1995 and contains about 114 pages.

There were 35 members sharing 23 subscriptions.

Mystery

Issue #8 includes several fans' comments about a long rant by M. Fae Glasgow that was supposedly in issue #7. Glasgow's trib does not, however, appear in that table of contents, nor in all copies. This may or may not have anything to do with the fact that all apas sent abroad went missing and had to be replaced, something that several fans commented upon.

This means that about four fans' tribs address, as they have read it previously. The fans who don't address it either didn't receive it, or chose not to engage in the discussion. The fans who hadn't read it yet were probably quite confused.

The missing trib was reprinted in #9 with the title: "Two Heads reprise (should have been in #7)," as well as this note:

A reprint of our SBF trib from Issue Number Seven. (If you're one of the lucky few who got a copy before, then you can ignore it. As for the rest of you — don't even begin to ask what happened to the original copies of the trib. As Captain Sheridan of Babylon 5 has said, "It's just one more mystery among many.")

Some Topics Discussed in "Notes from Tomorrow"

  • falling hard for MUDS, MOOs, virtual fan spaces

Excerpts from "Notes from Tomorrow"

For the uninitiated, MOO stands for MUD, Object-Oriented—and MUD is Multi-User Dungeon. When D&D-type role-playing games (RPG's) came into cyberspace, a special programming environment was created. MOO is what resulted when that environment was mobilized, not in service to a game plan, but just for the fun of it, with emphasis on creating interesting and amusing virtual spaces and interacting socially in them. There are new ones springing up everywhere (and dying just as rapidly, in some cases), but the oldest and best-established is LambdaMOO. [...] Suffice it to say, in a MOO, if you can describe it, it's yours, and everyone else will see it the way you described it. While there are still plenty of RPGers around, most of the people I've met are just interesting folks from around the world who meet to play in virtual reality. As I mentioned last time, there is a functioning Scrabble (tm) game in the MOO system, and I've enjoyed playing with people in England, Australia, Antarctica, Norway...and lots of West Coasters, too, of course... I have a cave and a cliff-top garden, a fantastic treehouse complete with a porch swing and a hot tub, a SoHo-style loft, and I'm working on a Riverboat casino and a Bed & Breakfast. And - I guess I should confess this too — there's an active slash contingent engaging in participatory erotica, an ongoing soap-opera involving some of our favorite characters in sometimes unexpected combinations (Avon/Sonny Steelgrave — who would have expected it??), which certainly is a factor in the fascination! So if I've intrigued anyone, and you want to know more, just email me about it and I'll send you a MOO 101 primer and set up a guided tour!

My latest tv fave is My So-Called Life, and I'm seeing some odd potential couples there...anyone else following this great show? My favorite wanna-pair is RaeAnn and Sharon... not to mention Rickie and Jordan... Oh, well, probably none of you are watching the show anyhow and I'm just whistling in the wind like I did with Thirty-Something. Come on, gang, there are worthwhile shows that don't involve cops, spacemen or the military! But of course, the other downer is that a show this good will never survive...and the fact that I love it pretty much guarantees cancellation...

I'm still watching and enjoying Forever Knight and X-Files, though I've gotten sporadic at catching Highlander and Babylon 5...I mean, after I've got more than twelve hours' accumulation of stuff to watch, I start feeling like I may never catch up....and of course why waste time on tv when I could be MOOing?

Some Topics Discussed in "Strange Tongues"

Excerpts from "Strange Tongues"

... about Al in QL, the girlfriend-of-the-week characters in Professionals or S&H aren't real options if the boys are looking for a lover rather than a lay. Slash in general is written to show that the couple would have chosen each other out of all the world; they're a fascinating partnership in their own reality because they were already perfect for each other and it only took the guiding hand of Cowley, the LAPD, or whatever power-that-be to combine them for explosive results. The a/u's where they're born as Romans, Atlanteans and so on demonstrate the same point.

You may be satisfied that a "woman" is anyone who defines herself as a woman, but I find some sympathy with the women's music festival organizers who want a bit more documentation than that [1]. If a a ten-year-old defines herself as an adult, are you going to grant her adult status (including the driving license, voting privileges and the expectation of earning her own living) on the basis of her opinion, however strongly held?) I'd want more indication than "wishing makes it so" that a self-defined woman in a male body was committed to being female.

I wanted to write an impassioned essay about how sex, while essential to all slash at least in implication, is not what makes us read the story just by appearing on the page. Male-oriented porn has sex; pansexual erotica has sex; some genre romances have exceedingly steamy sex these days; but we go to slash for a combination that includes sex and character interaction which can be read as intensely emotional as well as physical.

Now, when it comes to B7 slash, there are always at least three prominent male characters each of whom have as many lines as all of the female regulars put together and, on average, all female characters in a given episode. I do argue that the writers not only wimped out Jenna & Cally & Dayna & Soolin as adventuresome characters, but that the screen presentation features the men so much more than the women that it is far easier to notice and remember Vila (who is a witty weakling, showing off as cowardly in dialogue and action instead of, like Cally, seen briefly for plot purposes) than any of the women. Some exceptions may be made for Servalan, who is a villain and also enamored of the Head Star, Avon. Overall, as far as giving the women comparable characterizations independent of the men, B7 is a washout. It's a less complete washout than Classic Trek (and Generational Trek has other problems), I have to admit. But that's about all you can say.

I am often perverse and wicked, but it doesn't have that much to do with X-Files. More seriously, my point is exactly that XF doesn't have a character combination that makes male/male slash an easy reading, yet it fascinates the fannish (if not, in all senses, the slash) sensibility. Perhaps it raises the idea of breaking a boundary in the sense of breaking not the homosexuality taboo, but the m/f romance mandate. (We can discuss what to call it later.) A flavor of slash, including the element of breaking categorizations about sex, may pervade the Scully/Mulder relationship as it is because they're not carrying on any hint of a romance, even though they are a mixed-sex pair of leads in a TV genre drama. Fanfic that expands the relationship to include sex, still without showing "romance" in the sense of a stereotypical male/female relationship, could have many of the same factors and attractions as slash — for some fan readers, if not for those whose reading fetish is for m/m alone. I point it out as another combination of the elements which have gone into making slash so popular in some quarters. In fanfic's practical terms, there are quite a few problems to solve here, among them finding a reason that the screen relationship hasn't been shown as sexual if there is sex involved, and depicting the relationship between between a man and woman who are independent social beings but choose to have sex because they please to. Still, XF (and to some extent a few earlier shows such as Avengers) suggests that it doesn't take two men to achieve that typical slashy buddies partnership, when it can show a woman who's allowed to hold her own in the partnership on nonsexual, non-gender-role, merits.

A gay- or bi-assumed-normal universe requires a same-sex love story's conflict to be based on external difficulties or else on individual personalities in conflict. This is where I want to argue that fanfic that shows the characters as strongly individual personalities capable of individual conflicts is at least as valid as fanfic that depends on stock types and social taboos. The one-dark-one- blond-beleaguered-lovers formula as the lowest common denominator, not the apex, of slash writing, and routinely plotted stories are the dross, not the gold," of fanwriting. They may be accepted because they do fulfill the basic slash requirements; they do nothing else of what makes fanfic so interesting. A good story shows the characters as differentiated personalities - preferably personalities with some intriguingly close relationship to what their screen originals looked like, with something to argue about besides being afraid of being gay. A bisexual-society background may eliminate those by-the-numbers stories as workable, but it won't make a solidly characterized story any less exciting.

The [Quantum Leap slash] options: take away the screen situation, or take away any regular possibility for physical sex. Since these constitute, roughly equally on average, the two reasons fannish slash is written, QL slash often has a sort of half-or-half appeal, being able to deliver one or the other component but not, usually, both. Taking the characters outside the show's framework doesn't have to cancel the characterizations built by the tensions of the show's device, of course, and a/u's or the likes of PGP stories are popular in virtually all fandoms; but making little else possible does remove the main core of slash as written in the more apt fandoms, where the characters as we see them on screen (in all the various ways fans see them) fall in love and into bed. Or at least into bed.

You may be right that the emotional distance, as well more obvious assets, of male characters make slash what it characteristically is. In fact, that is one of the factors built into the usual screen situation where the partners' concern for each other must, be conveyed by subtext since their scripted dialogue and actions conform to the standards of macho restraint. When the message of caring for each other is put into subtext, it is much more fluid, can be interpreted with greater intensity or less according to the viewer's assumptions, and thus can support slash in a way that the scripted, limited-to-friendship interaction does not.

Got the Chekov slash story [2]... a couple of weeks ago as I write this, and many thanks. [...] The Treplev/Tregorin story is an oddity, Chekov being so unlike fandom's usual sources, but within its terms evokes the characters and finds a reason for their actions. It's deliberately derivative fiction with male/male sex; it's untraditional, but it's slash for Anton Chekov [sic] fans...

I'm with you on the quest for the universe where bisexuality is the assumed norm, both in phrasing and - in story-telling. One could, of course, write CI5 or MV or whatever in the actual real-world universe where bisexuality is an unstated, unacknowledged norm instead of on TV where it's an unstated, unacknowledged subtext; in fact, you do. Future or fantasy backgrounds where the characters don't have to state these things because they've assumed them to be true from infancy are delightfully relaxing. Have you seen 'Sing the Four Quarters,' Tanya Huff's latest book? She's a little clearer on the concept than Diane Duane, though Duane didn't actually leave too much room for improvement.

Enjoyed the list of reasons for pairing Spock with Kirk instead of McCoy, in spite of thinking the latter more suitable. The 1st is most likely, the 2nd an unacknowledged force in fandom and the 3rd is clearly your wishful thinking, which doesn't mean it wouldn't make a terrific story if it were done seriously. The nearly contradictory, self-defeating premises you (kinkily) prefer would challenge most fanwriters, let alone the ones who just want a nice happy ending. Don't stop.

Last distie contained a number of replies to a speculation of mine, that shows like Quantum Leap and X-Files that show some hints of respecting women as real characters, make slash unnecessary. As many of you pointed out this theory is incomplete at best, though it did make you think about the idea, now didn't it! As far as slash is an effort to find love, romance and (of course) good sex in a relationship between two characters we can believe are heroic, complex and three-dimensional - usually male in our little TV world of today - finding female characters who are patently heroic, complex and three-dimensional should at least offer a viable alternative to slash, as far as slash itself was an alternative of sorts to stultifying male/female romances along the lines of captain's-woman or girlfriend-of-the-week. (There were noble exceptions to this generalization; perhaps I'll discuss them below.) And male characters who demonstrate that they consider women as heroic and complex characters are not restricted to finding their emotional support and complementary heart-partner in a man. In the same way that screen evidence in homosocial buddy shows supports a gay reading, screen material can support a hetero reading in shows where women aren't totally trivialized.

However, this doesn't erase the possibility that those buddy partners are indeed all to each other, sex included. It also doesn't change the fans who know and love the specifically male/male dynamic, as many of you have said you do, the women who could invent Holly/Valens slash or Paganini/Liszt slash or Letterman/Carson slash, whether Kirk and Spock had ever crossed their reading lists or not. So at least one of the reasons slash is written isn't affected by the presence or absence of women in the source material. It's hard for me to believe that anyone could be turned on only by men, specifically by male bodies, but I guess that's what "straight" means.

Early ST fandom, before slash dared to speak its name, did give rise to some stories and series which showed female characters as competent, complex and capable of sexual rapture. Lorrah's Night of the Twin Moons should be mentioned here, Lois Welling's novels, Susan Crite's Games of Love and Duty, and probably others that I never found. However, it wasn't easy to think or write of female characters who knew themselves as men's equals, and for many fans it was impossible to read female characters in that way from either screen or fanwritten contexts. TV programs that showcased a woman in the lead, yet focused more on her emotional reactions to her male second lead than on her ostensible career (Remington Steel and Moonlighting spring to mind here), did more to undercut the point than to support it. They were romantic, and something of a halfway point in showing a woman at least trying to put a career first; they were not slash.

Someone last distie did me an huge favor by quoting a line of Edi Bjorklund's [in Thinking About Slash/Thinking About Women ] that I've been dying to refute ever since I first read it, years ago, and this is the perfect forum. The comment is, in effect: 'Who would be seriously interested in the formative experiences of the first Jewish woman admiral in Starfleet?' While this doesn't define a slash story and is therefore not a large topic of interest in slash-qua-slash fandom, the remark came off a little oddly, since in ST fandom alone I can cite you two well-written, and much-discussed, story series in fandom that detail exactly that, namely Valjiir and Tales of Feldman. (That's without even checking the bookcase. There might be others.) Unless Bjorklund reads nothing but slash, she can hardly have avoided hearing about one or both of these, in ST fandom of the early 80's. That comment is an example of why some reasonable questions exist about slash fen being actively misogynistic. And while I take the "Jewish" as meant to imply character interest, rather than a reason no one would want to read about her, perhaps not everyone would share this interpretation of a sentence which frankly does a disservice to all of fandom.

Agree that Vas/Dex stories, which are written by fans in fandom for other fans and are in the pattern of traditional slash, are difficult to term anything but slash (in the stories in which the characters are lovers, that is 3/4's of the material is gen instead) even though they were developed to be original characters instead of taken directly off a screen. Other experiments of this sort don't seem to have been very successful, however, though I've seen one or two. In general the fans who write in fandom accept and usually enjoy the exercise of transferring a screen character to print; or else take the easier path of declaring an a/u to a specific universe; or if they ignore both those options yet insist on staying in fandom, aren't very good. Vas/Dex is a shining exception, not a rule.

[M F G]: Hmmm, your diatribe comments to [T] and [L] undoubtedly contain grains of truth, but there seems to be a bit of overstatement operating here in excess of that needed to make the point... Mainly, I understood [T] to be restating the obvious point that a writer selects and arranges all the elements of her stories; you contributes everything that appears in yours, whether it was learned by observation, experience, research, or was synthesized out of imagination (which also depends on the senses' and intellect's input). I doubt that someone as self-aware as you are would pull the kind of fast one on herself that male TV producers do regularly, when they create homosocial narratives which they think contain no possible homoerotic implications, which nevertheless reek of slash. But for many fanwriters, it would be possible.

[T] makes a point that the reader decodes a story according to her own psyche, just as the writer chooses how to construct it according to hers; this is far cry from claiming that a reader can or should determine anything directly about the author from the writing.

If "identifying" with a character (whether as writer or reader) means wanting to be everything that character is, the fans of disaster and horror novels, not to mention conventional romances, are in deep trouble. I would be very surprised if Thomas, in using that term, intends the simplistic connection between your fiction and your life that you deny so vociferously. The phrase "sexual extensions of ourselves" implies a similarity that is impossible for female readers and writers of male characters; within slash, the comparison is necessarily less than literal and there is no reason to take it as such.

No doubt there are fans who write fairly direct wish-fulfillment, though the most obvious examples are stigmatized heavily; fans must use indirection of some kind or superlative quality in such a story to make it acceptable. Thomas may even be making the mistake of assuming there is no other method of fanwriting, instead of merely citing the undeniable and legitimate connection between your experiences throughout life and the knowledge and style you bring to story composition; she does omit any mention of other fiction-writing styles than the one she discusses.

However, only in light of that style being a "we write what we know" method would I care to assume that she uses it herself — your own argument suggests that she wouldn't have to prefer a writing style for herself to explain it in text as something fans use.

[...]

So why on earth that two-page screaming tantrum (though it was entertaining)? Okay, I'll answer that question. Both [T] and [L] state their opinions as received truth, with little or no suggestion that there are other alternatives. And, clearly, you've received direct and intentional criticism as the result of similar theories. And if fans, even you, are scared of being told what to do, perhaps we have good reason at the moment. The appearance of absolutism is threatening, and I am only sorry that this is as true in fandom as anywhere.

Some Topics Discussed in "Lions and Tigers and Trucks, Oh My! (Darkling Zine)"

  • comments on Red Dwarf, Miami Vice, Interview with a Vampire, the televisions show "Salmonberries"
  • comments about the movie on French television, "The Cavern of the Rose of Gold"
  • French television: "We only have five channels around here. It can be increased with satellite and cable, but not incredibly so. So our TV programs don't look like phone books yet."
  • comments about gay porn movies
  • comments about monks, lesbians, and C.S. Lewis
  • some Robin of Sherwood, Robin Hood meta
  • lyrics to "Bend Over Greek Sailor" from the filk tape, Scaring the Sheep

Excerpts from "Lions and Tigers and Trucks, Oh My! (Darkling Zine)"

As to ST:TNG, there is a description, in a story by a friend, M.A. JOHNSON, which sums up the spirit of ST:TNG for me: "No matter how many times she passed through them, she could not believe the degree of uniformity worked into the ship's corridors; metal and plastic alloys worked into the most plain colours known to humanity: right angles and simple curves from floor to ceiling: computer panels and pictures of the ENTERPRISE scattered sparingly about. And these halls, - these horrid regulation halls- led to every possible destination on the ship, which meant that they led absolutely nowhere at all."

Gee, I'm smart. Ifs only after I read your reply to [L] that I realised that the reaction I felt when [L] (Hi, [L]!) seemed to generalise about her own preferences in slash, is how she must react when she hears that "we love each, other but we're straight" is something one overcomes when one overcomes internalized misogyny, or some such: Yikes! There's somebody out there trying to theorise what you find fun away! People wallowing in the pleasure of their own perversions, and lecturing you on the appropriateness of you enjoying yours. That's neither productive, nor fair! (or, is it politically correct for a woman, to like to be tied up in black leather, insulted and humiliated by a man in uniform, even though she's a vegetarian? Or should she resist because it is evil, er politically etc...?)

Castillo is too wise and reasonable to make him exciting to me. Castillo/Crockett is so unequal: Martin having power, wisdom, being older, in most C/C stories I've read, he has to be equipped with hidden emotional vulnerability for 1°) making him appealing 2°) finding a reason he should need Crockett at all. However, the "Dark, Strong, Noble with a Hidden Soft Core" is not a favourite combination of mine. (That's why I don't like Bodie, really.)

"Hush" sounds good. I greatly enjoy gay porn, but find the defects glaring. Often the filming conditions and light are appalling. As to the action itself, the people filming are no filming professionals, nor are they porn professionals: Like filming a concert, and constantly missing when, say, the clarinet or the triangle player are going to do their bit. So I don't expect to find something both arty and pornographic. Did Maplethorpe ever do movies?

When I first saw Red Dwarf, I saw Camilla, and didn't think that much of it. Much later I saw more. And when I saw "Terrorform" I fell for Arnold Rimmer. He's such a rigid minded pathetic asshole. How could I resist him? Of course, beer milkshakes and general sloppiness have their charms, and the Cat is Cool and Creamy, but Arnold Rimmer makes television worth existing ((Ghost writer [A] interrupting: and she did not even mention Lister! HE'S that makes Red Dwarf worth existing. First, he's the only human on board of Deep Space Nine... oops. Wrong fandom. Then, it's not a reason if the actor is in jail, accused of rape, to dismiss the character. Last, he's as awkward and sloppy as I am ... Well I love Lister, even if Rimmer is not bad.

[...]

Al and Rimmer? You are a women of keen insight, and an impeccable sense of the perverse. Rimmer (and delightful he is too) is the exact opposite of Sam. It is resourceful candor, optimism and integrity against embittered self-centeredness and blinkered pessimism. As an Admiral, Al vastly outranks Rimmer, and with Rimmer's neurotic respect and desire for rank, Rimsy is going to be frantic about impressing Al. And wanting to impress brings all the worst obnoxiousness out of Rimmer. You so make me wish I could hear them argue and squabble. Yes, through some sort of singular accident Arnold Rimmer is whisked away from the red Dwarf, and has to, more nilly than willy, collaborate with Sam and Al, so that Sam can jump, and Arnold can be released. And Rimmer's idea of co-operation is half his charm.

Saw INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE. I was right. Tom Cruise was knickers wetting perfect for the role of LESTAT. Brad Pitt was enthralling to [A]. As to the one who played Armand, he was so utterly dark and charming, he seemed to have walked right out of a manga (And I have the precise manga in mind, but I'm at [A]'s and my stuff is back home.). [A] found Claudia a pathetic, intriguing case. I will have to reread the book now. My first vision of them was too weak. I fear the movie blew my memory of how I first saw them away. The movie was so funny, so ambiguous, such a rich source of dream and fantasies.

Some Topics Discussed in "Menage a Deux: From H J"

Excerpts from "Menage a Deux: From H J"

I take your point about readers being able to enjoy a slash story without having seen the source product. I have certainly had that experience. But I wonder whether our knowledge that it is based on a source product and if we pushed hard enough we could see some episodes changes how we respond to the story in some fundamental ways. Would we react the same way if we perceived it as original fiction? And don't we recognize a difference in the way that it is written, given that the writer can be more vivid and particular in discussing the characters because she has such a vivid mental picture of them and can draw on program background to flesh them out. I find that it is often easy to tell what is in the original series and what the writer added even if I have never seen the original series. Of course, the better the writer is, the harder it is for me to be sure.

The big news on this front is the release in March of Science Fiction Audiences! Watching Star Trek and Doctor Who...the new book which I have co-authored with John Tulloch, an Australian based scholar. Tulloch has spent the better part of two decades studying Who, its producers, its episodes, and its audiences in England and Australia. While I was still in grad school, Tulloch asked me to contribute chapters to his book on American star Trek audiences. I did three case studies — one looking at the romance genre in fanzine stories, specifically looking at Jane Land's Demeter and Kista, two Chapel-Spock novels which I particularly admire; a second looking at Star Trek at MIT, specifically looking at the more technological/scientific orientation of MIT male fans; and third, a close examination of the Gaylaxians' letter-writing campaign to get a queer character on the series. The book also includes a brief history of Star Trek fandom and a chapter looking critically at the place of the series in the history of science fiction. If Textual Poachers looks at a fandom which incorporates many different series, I wanted to look here at the many different fandoms that surround Star Trek and the differences in how they approach the series. I have had mixed feelings about this project all along. In many ways, Tulloch and I come from different perspectives on fandom. His view is not necessarily negative (though he takes some critics of media science fiction more seriously than I do) but he also is less prepared to embrace fandom from within and we have had a lot of disagreements in writing the book. On the other hand, I consider the Gaylaxian essay to be one of the best things I've ever written and a particularly important contribution to work on media audiences.

cover of the book, "Science Fiction Audiences! Watching Star Trek and Doctor Who"
My ambiguities have gotten worse over the past few months because of fights that I had and lost with the publishers about [Science Fiction Audiences: Watching Star Trek and Doctor Who's] cover. I had originally wanted to get Jean Kluge to do another cover for the book. Routledge balked, fearing it would look too much like Textual Poachers and I tried to convince them that Kluge worked in many different styles and it was important to have fan art on the cover. Finally, they said yes, provided that I could get art from Kluge in something over a month. This, of course, proved impossible with an artist as busy as Jean. So, they insisted that they would get their in-house designers to do the cover with constant consultation with me. I had real misgivings and spelled out to them some of the things I did not want on the cover, ranging from rubber Spock ears to tables full of collectables or adults playing with Star Trek toys, explaining to the artist the range of stereotypes that Newsweek, Time, and the other mundane media perpetuate. They said they wanted to use "models" in this new color-saturated technique that is taking off on record covers and Aids posters. I was even more apprehensive, trying to verify that they did not mean toys or action figures. They assured me that they meant the expensive models sold at specialty shops and I said that the only way I thought this would work would be if it was impossible to tell they were models (i.e. to achieve an effect not unlike the special effects on the program) and suggested that if they wanted to do color saturation, they should work from stills from the program. They said they understood my concerns and would meet them.

Then, a month later, the cover came. It is monstrous. The "models" are the 3.95 action figures sold at Toys'R'Us and it shows. There is no mistaking what they are. The color saturation only makes them more lurid. For "artistic effect," they are out of focus, so much so that neither I nor Tulloch could tell who the female figure was. It turns out that it was Troi, an "excellent" choice, just one notch up from putting Wesley on the cover. Tulloch and I sent rather strong letters to the press protesting the cover and spelling out chapter and verse why we felt fans would find the cover offensive. They insisted to me that they had consulted their research and marketing departments and were reassured that there was no way that anyone could find this cover offensive. After all, I had just written two books for that company on the fan community and been a part of it for almost two decades. Their research and marketing departments obviously knew more about fans and their tastes than I did. They pointed out that my contract did not give me a veto power over the cover and that they were going forward with the cover over my objections. In a last gasp negotiation, I got them to agree to let me write an "About the Cover" blurb for the inside, which I used to signal some of the ways that I felt the cover stereotyped fans and how it differed from the book's views, though the version that passed their approval is far too tame.

I wanted, therefore, to make the dispute public here and hope that you will help me disclaim the cover in fandom. I want to apologize to any fan who finds it offensive and just remind you that authors do not always have control over what goes onto their covers. If, after seeing the cover, you felt moved to write a protest letter to Routledge, I will be happy to forward it for you.

Well, what do people think of Voyager? I know it is probably a minority opinion but I think each Star Trek series has gotten a little better than the one before and that the more we move away from Roddenberry's control, the more the series is able to do interesting and meaningful things. I've seen three episodes of Voyager at this point and like it more and more. For one thing, they seem to have restored a lot of the slash potential missing from recent efforts. There are multiple sets of characters who I could easily slashed (I count at least three good male pairs and one female couple.)

[...]

Finally, there is the pairing between our older captain and the younger engineering officer. In the second episode, there was already signs of a close bonding between these two women, much closer than the relations between any two women in a SF or action series I can recall, and they spent the whole episode setting it up. There is still pretty good evidence that it is still running strong in the third episode, suggesting that it will be a recurring theme in the series. It will be interesting to see whether female slash emerges here given the fact that Star Trek is at least providing heroic and bonded pairs of female characters. And I think the age difference and cultural backgrounds could make for some interesting encounters, if Janeway can only forget her dog, and oh yes, the man she left behind.) The producers seem to be devoting a lot of screen-time to defining the character relationships and even more remarkably to establish the basis for character conflict and disagreement. (I hope that they don't smooth out the tensions between the two crews too neatly or too quickly, though by the third episode, there is already signs that they are going to do so, despite some internal sparing on the Prime D.) Janeway makes a great captain and there is so much satisfaction in seeing both the top command and engineering jobs being performed by women. (Both will be important in establishing role models for future female MIT students.)

Both Voyager and Deep Space Nine seem to be taking more radical political stances this season than previously, suggesting that Roddenberry's weak-kneed liberalism is finally declining, just when we need Star Trek to come out swinging against Newt and the other reptiles in Congress.

I CAN SLASH, TOO: After thinking about it for years, I finally wrote my first slash story this summer. It is going to appear in a zine that Joan and Meg are editing. I was a bit nervous about tackling anyone's fandom so I wrote a literary slash story with an unusual couple: Scrooge and Marley (inspired by Patrick Stewart's Christmas Carol. I had always been interested in the Marley character, the guy must go through hell literally in order to come back and deliver his warning to Scrooge, yet we see none of their previous interactions together in the story, don't find out much about their relationship. What we do learn is significant: Scrooge not only refused to remove Marley's name from the company's sign, but he also moved into Marley's house after he died. So, I wanted to look at what might have happened between the two of them — or more to the point, what didn't happen. One of the problems I ran into is that the nature of the story suggests a less than happy coupling, given the darkness that clouds Scrooges' life and the suggestion that runs through the book of his constant alienation and isolation, his inability to maintain a meaningful relationship. And, here I ran into a conflict that must confront other slash writers. I know that [M F G] has touched on it before. What do you do when your insight into the characters suggest strong desire but not sexual fulfillment? Can slash stories exist without sexual consummation or without sexual satisfaction and gratification? In a sense, it depends on why you read and write slash. If you read it primarily for character insights, then, it seems legitimate to write a story about characters who don't satisfy each other, even as they feel strong passions towards each other. It can tell you a lot about the characters to try to understand why they couldn't make it together and what the impact of that failure was upon their lives together. If you read slash looking for "realistic" presentations of queer relationships, then surely bad sex or sexual frustration/incompatibility is part of real sex. If you read slash primarily for romance, then, it seems that bad relationship stories ...run against the core romantic premises of true love, forever and ever, amen. If you read slash, well, with one hand, then, the absence of a hot sex scene would definitely be felt to be a flaw in the core story. I wonder what people think about this.

Some Topics Discussed in "Menage a Deux: From C J"

  • many comments about defining child pornography, nudity in photography
  • comments about Quantum Leap
  • writing female characters
  • admiring other fan's fannish passions

Excerpts from "Menage a Deux: From C J"

... about the lack of female characters. It's been said before, but it's worth saying again. The attitude of fans towards such characters is one of the primary deterrents. If I released a story with one or several female characters I would be annoyed and made a bit uncomfortable by the legions of fans who would want to stick dismissive labels (like "Mary Sue") on them. It's not simply that I write slowly and sporadically. It's that I choose which of the stories I think out to write. There are stories I have thought through with female characters. They just aren't the ones that get written. I doubt I am unique in this way.

Isn't it great to be caught in the throes of passion? Your first couple of paragraphs warmed my soul even if I may have to read U2 slash before I understand why I would want to. I am, however, willing to try anything once. If you and [M F G] are writing it, I may be willing to try it half a dozen times on general principle.

Some Topics Discussed in "Vice Files"

This fan's trib is dated November 1994, and she admits it is quite late.

Excerpts from "Vice Files"

Even if women are portrayed as equals, slash won't become obsolete completely - there are gay male slash writers, and there are those of us who like slash anyway.

X-Files zines & "No Slash", no, I think that's just that the publishers are all the "No Slash" types. They're not "afraid slash would be badly characterized", they think it's ICKY. *sigh*.

I like your view of Scully having to re-interpret her beliefs/worldview as similar to the process in slash. Never thought of it that way.

Kung Fu TLC, it is an entertaining show, but there really are some times when I'm convinced Carradine's gone on vacation in the middle of his lines...I like Peter, but I find his constant surprise/disbelief at the mystical elements a little annoying. I find myself yelling at the screen, "After everything you've seen you can still ask THAT?" when he asks how Caine knows or did something.

My two favourite episodes so far have been "Dragonswing" I & II. I love the spy in-jokes, especially in II - that was hysterical!

I really miss Lansing though — that goodbye episode made me cry, because all I could think of when it was airing was that they all must have known he was dying. I would never have been able to get through filming that scene.

... it looks to me like they've keen pushing the LaCroix/Nick relationship towards father/son. I don't know if they're trying to avoid the erotic nature of vampirism, realizing what people would assume about their relationship...

Re X—Files not being conducive to slash, well, there's always Krycek this season, despite his allegiances, which I suspect began to change before they disappeared him. (Actually, he may have gotten out himself while the getting was good — he realized he was only important as long as he's useful, & so he rabbited. There's rumours that he might be back during the later part of the season...

Odo & Quark — ok yes, we agree totally. Its another of those relationships where one can't stand the other, but they're still drawn to each other (Brody & Ford in seaQuest DSV are another pair like that...although recently they've keen really toning down the dislike part of it, which disappoints me. DS9 has had a number of slash possibilities — Kira/Kira, Kira/Dax (recently

had a scene where the two of them had a 'date' to go hang gliding or something in one of the holosuites...), Bashir/Garak (they've made Garak more 'swishy' again - during the end of last season they'd toned him down a lot...), and Odo/Quark...

In the FAQ for B5, they mention that on the net there was discussion about certain anatomical parts of some characters, where the words 'censored' (by the posters) as "T*TS" and "D*CK" which becomes "TOTS" and "DUCK", hence a discussion about Sinclair's duck... Okay, so I'm easily amused.

We're not - the Commander and I are not dating." — Jerry Doyle (Garibaldi) on a Sci-Fi Buzz interview...

No, I don't know why they felt it necessary to mention this fact, although I DO have my suspicions...Like word got out that folks are speculating in that direction as well as in Talia/Ivanova's direction...Grin.

[...]

Re: same-sex kisses on TV, this is why I wish they'd make Garibaldi the bi on B5 -- gay and bi women are 'cool' now, but gay & bi men freak out the TV folks...(On an amusing aside here, I had theorized that they'd changed Garibaldi's "personal problems" to alcoholism during the gap between the pilot & the series. After re-rewatching the pilot, I thought I was wrong when I realized he never actually had any of the drink he was playing with after the council voted to let the Vorlons take Sinclair. Well, I actually may have been right - I got a copy of the script that has the parts that were cut for time, and he is drinking in there, with no mention from anyone about alcoholism, problems, or anything of the sort...Hmm...) *sigh* Now the end of the first season has passed, and still Talia hasn't been "outed". Although in a recent "Starlog" article, the actress does mention the character is bi; and in the end of the latest episode she visits Susan Ivanova in her quarters, bringing a bottle of wine...Ivanova, who's had a long day, was ready for bed & wearing an incredibly sexy nightgown & rote. Hmmn...

[...]

If anyone sends/tells you about Babylon 5 slash, please let me know! I'm working on my story, but part of "Chrysalis" has complicated things considerably — and I'm not talking about G's injury or S's leaving.

[...]

I've got "Taking Risks" almost finished — I still need to pry a yes or no out of Sinclair — things got seriously complicated by him proposing to Sakai in 'Chrysalis' ('Risks' takes place after 'Babylon Squared', since if it took place before it, the entire "Fasten - zip" conversation would have gone quite differently...)

We're an APA, not the 'Net. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, all parts of my section are for all members to read. It'd be pretty stupid for me to assume someone wouldn't read a comment ever, just because it was addressed to someone else...

Some Topics Discussed in "Ghost Speaker"

  • mentions about issues of this apa not arriving in Scotland and having to be resent
  • many comments about AIDS, education and public awareness
  • comments about feminism
  • comments about the zine series, E-man-uelle
  • comments about the zine, Interface #5, see that page
  • British and American Blake's 7, differences, evaluation

Excerpts from "Ghost Speaker"

Well, yes, you're right; I do see you and me and [first names redacted] and all the other queer slash fans as being essentially the same sort as gay slash characters - apart from the minor detail of the penis... and that can be dealt with. (Bobbit, bobbit...) I discovered slash at about the same time as I came out, and have therefore always seen it as gay fiction - which of course straight people are welcome to read, write, play with, and enjoy, but which they have no right (snarl) to start saying is really 'straight', which was the feeling I got (probably self-inflicted) from [L]'s piece. I doubt if it's as clearcut as that, though; slash fandom (at least this tiny corner of it) seems to have progressed somewhat from the days when "everyone knew" that straight women wrote slash because they fancied both men. To me slash has always been gay; since there exist gay porn stories which consist of two supposedly-straight men having sex together, and even more where the experienced gay man seduces/rapes the virgin straight man, it is obviously a common sexual kink - just not one I happen to share. The little logic demon pops up at the back of my mind and says "But if she wants you then she's not straight, and if she's straight, then she can't want you." (Sometimes I hate my little logic demon, but there it stays.) But this is only my quirk; just as two straight men fucking like bunnies is only [L]'s quirk; and no more unlikely, than Doyle-the-wittering-pagan of Cat Tales.

I'm not sure quite how to take your comments on the differences between American and British B7 fiction. Given that 90% of everything is crap, I will say that American and British fans managed to produce roughly equivalent quantities of crap in fairly different directions, but that I have never read anything quite as awful as E-man-uelle anywhere.

[...]

This is an off-the-top-of-my-head critical evaluation; I don't have the time to do the extended research that this topic obviously requires. But maybe the difference is that American stories tend to be glossier than the British? I don't mean production values; I mean a difference in emotional perception. The British writers tend to create dusty rather than sticky stories.

I wrote (in "touched") a series of killer reviews on E-man-uelle, in which I gave the stickiest stories (mostly by a character called M.C. who I wish was fictional but is [is not]) slush ratings. Lacking a proper field for critical comparison (like, I'd seen hardly anything else), I knew I hated the E stories, but did not know quite how much I loathed the sheer terminal awfulness of the writing.

The good slash or almost-slash I had read had been drier, quieter, nastier; it wasn't until our Annie got going with Southern Comfort that I read lots of sloppy slushy stories that were, nevertheless, really quite good.

In the abstract, if I'm going to read A/V, I'd rather read the sort of story where Avon seduces Vila because it seems the most efficient way of manipulating Vila into doing something extremely dangerous, but Vila doesn't know this is why Avon is doing it and cheerfully falls for Avon, and Avon finds to his well-concealed pain that he has fallen in love with Vila but that Vila must still be manipulated into going to his death because it is necessary (and Sebastian never finished that story, damn her, she got warped into writing Avon/Blake instead.)

It's easy to divide that into American and British styles; but I would put you in with the dry writers of slash, and M. Fae Glasgow very definitely in with the sticky.

I'd be very interested to know where you place me.

I know I said I wouldn't bring it up any more, but there you go. Perhaps one reason why I don't care for slash stories in which both of him believe himself and his future lover to be straight (but see Appendix A, Exception Two: Unless it's written by M. Fae Glasgow, of course.) is because I do like stories where the two lovers have to overcome gothic dragons and flaming barriers, in order to achieve their magical, touched moment. But if the two are supposed to believe themselves straight, then the dragons and barriers will be mainly or entirely those created by this belief.

[...]

... ignoring all the other twisty barriers and complicated dragons which may prevent the two halves of a magic couple from: touching, and pinning it down to just one, that both of them believe they're straight- and the other one is straight, is rather a dreary way to go about constructing even a series of technical journals on rear-drive powertrains.

I enjoyed Judith Seaman as a fan (she did wonderful detailed analyses of the human relationships on the Liberator and off it) but not so much as a writer (because for all the wonderful detailed analyses, etc, she just didn't seem able to get inside them and write the Avon and Vila she obviously knew so well). Also, she was virulently anti-slash, which is always unpleasant. But then a lot of British fans were, thanks perhaps to [the zine] E-man-uelle.

Some Topics Discussed in "Paradoxical Ramblings"

Excerpts from "Paradoxical Ramblings"

Led Zep news: Well, if you're a fan, you know that they got together and did the No Quarter album and the Unledded special that aired in October. If you're not, try imagining your guys, who've been on the outs for 15 years, finally getting back together, making a zillion public appearances, being referred to by all the press as a "married couple", and just being incredibly giddy and cute. They're in love, no doubt about it. They've been interviewed everywhere from the New York Times to trashy guitar mags. Also, they've doubled the amount of video available of them in just a couple of months. It's fantastic. Sandy and I did a vid to Rock and Roll, and I'm trying to finish a Jimmy vid to Bob Seeger's Turn the Page. The first zep vid we did (to Promises by Eric Clapton) won Best Technical at Virgule.

Slash in a vacuum: I encountered a woman on the Led Zep internet list who managed to admit to me (without ever seeing me, or hearing of slash) that she thought Jimmy & Robert were in love. Needless to say, we've been communicating quite heavily, and having a blast. I sent her For All The Gods Departed (the Tris/Alex novel) and she loved it. She thinks that Pam Rose and Nancy Arena could sell it an make a fortune. I keep hoping that she's right.

Some Topics Discussed in "Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon"

Excerpts from "Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon"

...Sting and John Lennon, and really for that matter any other public figure with a persona, was completely fair game for my own interpretation of their music and their lives. This was even before I was a slash fan. But I hardly ever read or watch interviews with my favorite musicians for the reason that they have a tendency to ruin their music for me. I much prefer the narrative I make up for myself about them from their music to whatever they might offer as interpretation. So, finally months later and thanks to you, I think "real-person slash" is OK.

Part of what has excited me about Star Trek: Voyager is that in the second show the women saved the ship. THE WOMEN SAVED THE SHIP!!! By being smart and creative and leaving all the male characters wondering what exactly was happening. The men were at least a half step behind, every one of them, and it was wonderful. I watched the scene again just to extend the delight. I couldn't ever remember seeing such a thing in a show when I was a younger person. I was forever having to imagine that I too could be brave as strong as men and readjust my understanding of the show to include a brave, smart, usually related, female.

I think the prohibition for XFiles stories with a sexual relationship between Mulder and Scully as to do, at least in part, with a fear that Scully will be lessened by a sexual encounter with Mulder. I say this with an eye toward a conversation with a friend who I think has the soul of a slash fan stuck in a body that has only just discovered television. I can be patient... We talk only about XFiles in the most general way, but she is writing a story and was discussing plots with me when I suggested Scully and Mulder could perhaps have a more developed sexual relationship. She reacted as though this idea were too terrifying for words, even though she herself loves Mulder. Go figure. But loss seemed to be her primary concern and that brings me to your thoughts about the end of slash. She doesn't appear to identify with Scully in a way which would provide her vicarious enjoyment of a Mulder/Scully tryst. Still, she is attached to Scully in a way which is wary of making Scully a sexual person, at least in the context of the show and her story. I think that there has been such a dearth of female characters to respect and find admirable that no matter what else happens, it can only be a good thing for younger women to see such different types of women, even if they are still written in the main by men.

After about 18 months of steady reading in Pros fandom, I feel as though I have some grasp of the basic literature, and have begun to think seriously about what I really like and what is distinctive in relation to the majority of stories I have read.

Following [B]'s thinking that slash is what women write when they write what they want, as well as being a dialog wherein different authors follow out similar scenarios and come to differing conclusions, a major part of that writing is encoding female experience. While slash is also a form of pornography and media-fan fiction, in my mind it is first and foremost women's writing. Certainly a portion of female sexual experience involves being penetrated, though I realize there are lesbian fans and others who would not put penetration at the center of female sexual experience.

Whatever individual practices we may engage in on our own, stereotypical women are the passive, emasculated bottom. I am interested in what qualities make women's writing about sex, and men having sex, different from men writing about men having sex, and women.

To make a contribution to the discussion on what slash is and why, I want to suggest that more recent slash writers, for example M. Fae Glasgow and Sebastian, in a way distinct from their predecessors H.G. and O. Yardley, wrestle with the idea of penetration as significant to the relationship in a way which was not done in the earlier Pros writing. That is, in a reversal of more traditional understandings of homosexual sex, with the penetrator having all the power in a given sexual relationship, M. Fae Glasgow's story Wrong End of the Stick and Sebastian's story Perfect Day portray the penetrated as having the greater power within the relationship. [See those stories for the extended comments].

Some Topics Discussed in "With Friends Like These..."

  • a description of being newly-online
  • "I'm quite fond of The X-Files still, though its slash potential is practically nonexistent."
  • a book review for "Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition" by B.R. Burg
  • Gilgamesh and Enkidu in The Epic of Gilgamesh
  • why all the Tarrant-bashing?

Excerpts from "With Friends Like These..."

I still haven't quite figured out why Tarrant was written so unflatteringly during the second wave of B7 fandom. Possibly because Paul Darrow and Michael Keating were doing a lot of cons around then and saying a lot of mean things about Steven Pacey and Tarrant. Probably without malicious intent -- I've noticed that it's customary for British actors to trash each other, and the more they respect a colleague, the worse they'll trash him! But American fans don't always understand that. And there's a tendency for fan writers to jump on the bandwagon: perhaps bashing Tarrant became traditional in the same way Avon's allergies did. I'm just glad things seem to be turning around. Avon/Tarrant appears to be a pretty hot trend these days (in more ways than one!). I'm told there were only two pieces of fiction in the first issue of Battle Stations, the Avon APA, and both were A/T! One was rather nasty — a Tarrant-rapes-Avon story -- but the other was very sweet. (By the way, does anyone know who "Ginevra Syn" is? She's the one who wrote the nasty A/T. The name sounds familiar, but I can't place it. I'm just curious; I've no intention of mailing her a dead fish or anything, I promise!)

Your comments on willful blindness to slash remind me of a lit class I once took. It was called THE NOVEL, and the first "novel" we had to read was The Epic of Gilgamesh. There was a part that described the way Gilgamesh took Enkidu in his arms and "loved him as a woman." Hmm! Maybe this class wasn't going to be as dry as I feared... One of my classmates raised his hand and spoke the question that was in all our minds: were Gilgamesh and Enkidu gay? The prof about had a cow. "Of course not," he sputtered, and proceeded to chastise us for our dirty minds. Not sure if this is what you get for taking humanities classes at an engineering school, or if it was typical of the '80s undergraduate experience.

I'd still like to differentiate between those who are devoted primarily to a fandom (including slash) and those who are devoted primarily to slash itself (in any fandom). It would be a useful classification for those seeking like souls in the increasingly diverse worlds of fandom — a convenient shorthand, rather than rigid pigeonholing.

Welcome to cyberspace! I'm on AOL, too; those corporate and university folk will just have to get used to us! I'm amazed at the number of B7 fans on AOL who have no other fannish contacts. They haven't a clue about zines, cons, or anything. And cyberspace is not as friendly as paper fandom; people seem unwilling to copy tapes, etc., and afraid to even ask. But being online is still a great deal of fun. There seem to be message boards for just about everything. I was particularly happy to find so many other people discussing DOOM, my favorite computer game. (Though I suspect that most of those I'm talking to are pre-teen boys. They probably think I'm one of them; they keep calling me "dude." But hey, that's one of the advantages of cyberspace: no one needs to know your gender, age, race, etc., unless you want to tell them!)

Some Topics Discussed in "Untitled by M G"

  • one long comment addresses the rant by [M F G] only some fans saw in #7 (but was reprinted in #9)
  • characters interacting with the holographic doctor in Star Trek: VOY as a person rather than a thing
  • "Relax. Chris Carter has said no Scully-Mulder romance will happen, and he's in charge."
  • ageism in fanworks
  • comments about I Spy

Excerpts from "Untitled by M G"

I've always hated being told that I the reader must identify with the characters to enjoy the story. I consider it a denigration of my imagination.... Fiction and fantasy are where I go to find difference — I don't want to read about me, I am me. I don't and never did 'put myself into the story' or act out a part or wish I was just like the heroine — or the hero.

Sigh. I've been turned down by Manacles Press. My Wiseguy story, rejected by the only Wiseguy zine I can submit it to without personal compromises. I even put Roger in the damn thing so [J] wouldn't hate it so much when Frank was there. But, no. (Actually, I poked fun at Terranova Situation in it — I expect they dumped it for fear of offending their fellow zine eds.) See if I ever do any thing for them again (sound of flouncing out of the room and driving off in a huff. A small 1932 red Huff with white leather upholstery.)

I Spy hasn't aged well? Maybe yes, maybe no. The really emotionally intense ones held up quite well for me, as did a medium helping of banter between Scotty and Kelly. The part that had me on the FF button was the 'Look. Ma, we're on location!' stuff. I know it was really amazing then, the first tv series to film all eps on location, but it sure slows down the story. The sexism is pretty severe, too, but, heh, look at MUNCLE. I'd probably want six-eight good eps and a collection of clips of good banter and ditch the rest. Kelly is beautifully neurotic and self-destructive, Scotty's the only thing holding him together, and it's quite a perverse relationship at times.

Is there an additional burden here from media—presented types of women? They all tend to be beautiful and young if presented as sexy — think of examples from some of those possible 'slash' male/female pairs, Mrs. Peel, Maddie Hayes, Dana Scully. Women have been (with great delight) writing slash about and/or finding sexy characters portrayed by non-classically handsome men for years, ignoring shortness, big noses, funny eyes, baldness, scars and even pointed ears, to the confusion of some men who have trouble understanding that women would find any guy sexy when he doesn't look like Tom Cruise or Paul Newman. As a matter of fact some women find the more unusual side-kick infinitely sexier than the classically handsome lead.

Been thinking about this whole thing of are they straight or gay, prompted by the ongoing discussion. I think for me it doesn't matter — I mean, it doesn't matter if the issue is in the story or not. I've read good stories where the they in question are gay, reveal they always have been, aren't but love each other, screw guys but don't accept the label, are bi, and about every other option. It's not the thing that's going to make or break the story for me. The presence of some barrier in the story is more important, to me I've decided. The barrier can be "If I tell him I love him I'll lose him" or "Society will crucify us" or "I'm human, he's an alien." Or even "He's back in 1963 and I'm a hologram." If the writer wants the guys to have to overcome something with' courage so we know their love is Righteous and True, and the story is set in the 1970s — well, you can pick the easy one to use. Most fanfic picks the easy route; having just finished a whole zine of Quantum Leap slash, I never want to see another Sam leaps into a gay guy, and because of having to live his life, sees the light and realizes he really loves Al story again. It's the easiest canonical way to get to the slash for them.

Saw ST: Voyager early thanks to a connection with a review copy. Was favorably impressed partly because I'm prejudiced in favor of Kate Mulgrew, an actor I have always liked, and partly because it was so much better than DS9. In my opinion, natch.

M. Fae, I absolutely, totally, positively agree with you that the most obvious and most under-discussed reason we enjoy/read/write slash is sex. Like actual sex acts, (which it may be, as well) reading slash makes you feel good. Cures depression, lifts spirits, releases endorphins. Sex is good for you. Slash is good for you. Rah! However, slash buffs will continue to discuss all the other deep or intellectual or academic or psychological dimensions of slash reading/writing. I think we'd both be happy if they just wouldn't ignore that rock bottom basic reason. Just acknowledge it. I mean, hey, I actually think that sex is a motivator for a lot of human behavior. Gosh. One school of Explaining Slash tries to find a definition that will describe it adequately to a class of college freshmen, or a neo fan, or a roomful of conference-going professors— folk who have never seen this particular elephant. This type of explanation will, of necessity, be very different from the next. Form follows function and all that. Another school of Explaining Slash will be an attempt to design the perfect definition, one that excludes nothing any slash fan would label slash, includes nothing that isn't labeled slash, and provides hours of amusement or annoyance according to mood, temperament, and level of interest. (It reminds me of equally interminable discussions on what is science fiction and what is fantasy and where that line is defined.) The function of designing this sort of definition is the quest, the discussion, the argument — not really the end product. It becomes one of those What Is Art? things, where the person finally says in despair. Well, I know it when I see it. If the fan that wrote it thinks it's slash, it's slash. To her. If the fan who reads it calls it slash, it's slash. To her. If the fan that sees the movie, reads the novel, views the rock video and calls her friend and says You've gotta see it, it's so slashy, it has at least some slash sensibility. To her.

Some Topics Discussed in "Lavender Lilies"

  • figure skating
  • a summary of some lesbian porn
  • this fan addresses the rant by [M F G]
  • Led Zeppelin and Music RPF

Excerpts from "Lavender Lilies"

Fellow Zepites: I love Robert Plant and Jimmy Page!! I'll repeat that!! I love Robert Plant and Jimmy Page!! I love their new album!! I love the "near Eastern" flavor they have put into such old favorites as "Kashmir." I am so glad to see these two together again.

I have a slightly different view on them than some of the APA members have. I can't really get into slashing them. Unless the story features Robert-and-Jimmy clones in some sort of fantastic alternate universe. And it would take a hell of a writer to do this well (Pam Rose? Calling Pam Rose....?)

This is because when I listen to Robert and Jimmy, I get so much into their music. When I focus on Robert and Jimmy, I don't want to interrupt it in any way, even to read a story about them. Their music is just so incredibly, tremendously.... I just can't explain it.

You describe Avon as "incredibly sexy and appealing in a way that Blake never is." This is a prime example of the diversity of tastes. Because I don't find Avon sexy in the slightest. The only times I find him interesting in the least is when he's with Vila Or else when Servalan (or perhaps Blake) has made him her loving, submissive sex slave. :-)

Now Tarrant on the other hand... I might even turn straight for him. Except I want him in Vila's loving arms. Yeah, different strokes for different folks and all that.

Time for my own rant. I, also, do not like to be told Why I Write Slash. I don't like "experts" to speak for me. Just like you hate being called a "misogynist" because you choose not to put women in many of your stories, I hate being called a "doctrinaire, Politically Correct Feminist" or any other label when I do write about women. Nor do I like being told that what I write "isn't slash" if it doesn't include folks with penises (penii?). Story X, Y or Z might not be a person's idea of the type of slash they like to read. But if Story X's author defines it as slash, who am I to set myself up as the "expert" and try to override their definition?

And I can understand very well your distaste for what I call the "ubiquitous we." What this is is when people start postulating on "we read/write/jack off/don't jack off on slash because... (fill in the blank). I almost feel like Tonto when he tells the Lone Ranger, "what do you mean 'we,' paleface?" Who is this "we" that I keep hearing and reading about? Who really believes that they are entitled to speak for me, you, or any other slash fan by trying to include anyone into this "we?"

Another version of he "ubiquitous we" includes such polemics as "Why Women Read Slash." Or "it's a FEMALE thing." I am most definitely a Female, last I checked my plumbing. It my tastes or definitions don't fit into he "Why Women Read Slash" or into the "FEMALE thing," does that mean I'm not a woman? Or that I'm not really a slash fan? Who decides whether I, you, or anyone else is a slash fan?

[...]

Likewise, I find it incomprehensible when some fan starts going on about "We like slash (Avon/Blake, Bodie/Doyle, Crockett/Castillo, hurt/comfort, etc.) because we (fill in the blank). I find it far more understandable when a slash fan says, I like such and such. Avon turns me on, but Blake leaves me cold. Bodie as a vampire really flips my switch. I'm so sick of Doyle as an elf" Or whatever. I can even accept it when someone says, "in my own personal opinion, for myself) I don't understand defining _______ type of story as 'slash.'" As long as that person makes it clear that s/he is speaking for her/himself And not for me or anyone else.

And despite some of the grumbling I did above, I think that when you express your opinions, that is what you are doing — expressing them for yourself, rather than allowing some "expert" to override your own opinion.

You were asking about lesbian porn? I might be able to answer that. It's wide-ranging, anything from women dancing naked in mooncircles (which the lesbian "politically correct" would call "erotica" to distinguish it from that nasty pornography). It includes wonderful adventure novels which only differ from slash in that they involve totally original characters in original universes (and involve women rather than men, for those who believe that slash = two men). Then there are wonderfully perverted S&M leather scenes. Most lesbian porn is literary rather than visual, though there are photos, just like there are photos and art in adult/slash fanzines. I would generalize that lesbian porn is like slash in that in the majority of the stories, the emotions between the characters is as important as the sex. Then there is the type of lesbian porn which involves writing and reading stories about two men together rather than two women together. I just sent in an original universe male/male quasi-slash story to a gay porn fantasy/SF anthlogy which Melissa Scott and Lisa Barnett are editing.

I've become addicted to the Internet. I've joined several mailing lists, including those involving figure skating, baseball, and one involved with post-traumatic stress disorder. [S] was kind enough to give me information about the slash e-mail list. I decided against joining it at this time due to time constraints. Particularly the skating list has *lots* of traffic, and thus I have to watch the number of lists I can join. I wouldn't be able to give the slash list justice at this time. In addition to the e-mail lists, there are several message boards, both within American Online and in Usenet in which I participate.

Some Topics Discussed in "When Correctly Viewed"

  • comments on Judith Seaman and her zine, Ghost, see that page
  • the differences between being a fan of the slash in a fandom, and of being a slash fan in general
  • slash and slashy fiction
  • misogyny and/or the absence of women in slash stories
  • a long quote from Mimi Panitch's article on media fan fiction in "The New York Review of Science Fiction"
  • some fans of both this apa and Virgule-L are forgetting where they said what and to who, and are diverting time and energy away from one (usually this apa) to the other (Virgule-L)
  • ageism and desire
  • comments about fiction by Diana Gabaldon
  • Gayle F's erotic K/S paper dolls
  • constructed reality vids
  • the term "PC" and its origins
  • "[I have a copy] of that K/S story from 1974 that I think might be the first published slash."
  • academics, casual fans, media fans, the schism between SF and media fans

Excerpts from "When Correctly Viewed"

[I] finally acquired something I'd been pining for for years, namely a set of Gayle F's K/S paper dolls, fully equipped with what eluki bes shahar calls "Vulcan wedding tackle" (and which apparently inspired the alien genitalia in an as-yet-unpublished fantasy of hers).

I was happy to see you turning up on the Acafen list [this, for anyone who may not know, is an Internet mailing list devoted to academic views of fandom... and I appreciate your defense of the less active sort of fan. [It was in response to a post from [M] describing what sounded like a perfectly awful convention, attended largely by people clearly not in the mainstream of fandom, that had [M] wondering in despair whether the academics who think most TV fans are utterly undiscriminating, passive consumers— the idea that Henry was refuting in his book— might not be largely right after all.] I myself was on the fringes of fandom for many years before I ever participated in it actively. [T], you said in your Acafen post that it took you nearly ten years to go from just listening to what went on at cons to participating actively. In my case it was more like twenty years, and it certainly wasn't because I didn't devote a lot of thought to the books and media products I liked; I was just nervous about discussing them in a public forum. For one thing, I was afraid that since fans seem to have such strong opinions about practically everything, my ideas would be sure to offend or annoy someone. And in fact, sure enough, that's unavoidable, but I've found that you learn to live with it and go right on talking! A lot of it depends, I think, on the particular people you happen to meet.

I would never have started participating actively in fandom had it not been for the friends who urged me to do it. I still remember how nervous I was about my first trib to the Tarrant apa! Not entirely without reason, I tell you — those Tarrant fen are so fierce that Brooke Barker (one of the two perpetrators of a wonderful humor zine called Ten-Credit Touch: The Lighter Side of B7 Kink, which I cannot recommend too highly) has dubbed them (or maybe I should say us) the Tarrant Nostra. And as for trying to write fiction, I would never have dreamed of it if the Godmother of the Tarrant Nostra hadn't gone to work on me.

Some of my hesitancy may be due to the fact that, like you, I came out of literary SF fandom, where there is so much emphasis on the status difference between the exalted pro and the lowly fan (this is, of course, upheld most strongly by neo-pros who have only just crossed the line themselves; but they seem to be who you mostly see on convention panels these days). Both [S]and [L] have commented on the difference between SF cons, where you're supposed to just sit and listen to the panels, and media cons, where the audience participates much more. At a media con, of course, everyone is a fan, and so it's all much more egalitarian. Insofar as someone is a Big Name Fan, it's usually a just recognition of her achievements. I had thought that SF fandom was an unusually friendly environment — and it is, compared to the mundane world — but media fandom is far more so.

I really like and approve of the attitude I perceive in media fandom, that absolutely everyone is capable of some sort of interesting creative work, even if it does result in floods of not very good stories. Often even really cringe-worthy efforts still have some little spark of interest in them.

I think you've hit on something important in pointing out that different members of the apa have different priorities when it comes to us-vs-them distinctions. Personally, I see the most basic, fundamental split in interest groups as being a matter of biological gender; women vs. men. I am always taken aback momentarily when I read a comment that indicates that the writer gives priority to some other consideration, such as sexual preference; but I hadn't realized that until you pointed it out, so thank you for the observation.

Yes, I had also first heard the term PC years ago, as an in-joke among liberals. It's very strange to see it taken over by the right wing and used in such a nasty way. I wonder how that first happened? I suppose some totally humorless person must have heard it in use, in its original incarnation, and taken it seriously. In fact, I think possibly the first time I ever encountered the terms PC and PI may have been in a charming little fanzine called Politically Incorrect: The Zine Your Lover Warned You About! It deals with science fiction and gay issues, and the issue I have, #2, is dated 1987. I had had this thing sitting around the house for years (I'd been given it by a friend because it had some articles on K/S, which she knew I was curious about)...

h/c and/or Romantic Sadism, there's a new topic devoted to such matters on GEnie's Science Fiction Round Table bulletin board. (I don't think anyone else in the apa is on GEnie, but just in case, it's SFRT3/43/23.) It's called "The Torture Chamber — BSHS HQ," where BSHS stands for Black Silk Hankie Squad, a term invented by I believe Doris Egan. The idea was that if handkerchiefs of appropriate color and placement indicate one's sexual kinks to the like-minded, then those of us who like to torture Avon, Mulder, et al, should perhaps be sporting black silk hankies. The topic has been very active and very amusing, and sure enough, the consensus of opinion is that comfort is important too. But somehow it's always the hurt that gets talked about at length.

I got one tip from the BSHS for some reading matter that I've been enjoying a lot, namely a historical fantasy series by Diana Gabaldon. There are three books so far, Outlander, Dragonfly in Amber, and Voyager, with a fourth book now in progress. They are big fat things and have been marketed as— gasp! a first for me!-- romance, thought the author says she didn't have that in mind when she wrote them. The basic device, a 20th-century woman's harrowing adventures after she is magically transported to 18th-century Scotland, makes them a kind of fantasy or SF (depending on whether or not there's ever going to be any explanation of her time travel). I suspect that the dialogue would not stand up to close scrutiny by M. Fae, but I found it acceptable, and the writing overall is more than competent. There is plenty of action, and lots and lots and lots of very nicely done heterosexual sex with a really yummy hero who is younger and less sexually experienced than the heroine, thereby overcoming many of my objections to genre romance. But of course, what I really liked was the scene toward the end of the first book in which the hero is raped and tortured by the villain, at great length. (I'm told that the author, perhaps by way of compensation for this villain, has a sympathetic gay character in the third book, but I haven't gotten to that yet.) It pushed a lot of buttons for me, and apparently for a good many other people too, to judge by the enthusiastic reactions on GEnie and elsewhere. So now I guess I know what it takes for me to enjoy a romance, or at least something close enough to pass as one. Bad Things Happening To Cute Guys, especially when combined with decent writing, will make almost anything palatable.

Re your remark on how some video makers deliberately use visual images out of context (pause for happy recollection of "I Heard It on the Grapevine"), while others insist on fidelity to the emotional content of the original context, it occurs to me that these two approaches are somewhat parallel to the two types of slash stories that [J] mentioned in an earlier apa: the problem-solving story, in which the object is simply to get the characters together convincingly (and in B7 this is often done with heterosexual couples as well) versus the more deeply-felt type of story about two characters that the author really wants to see together. The object in one case is cleverness and amusement, and in the other case is moving the audience emotionally. I see no reason why the same person can't do both in different works, and in fact I think many writers and vid makers do.

My favorite Avon/Avon possibility was one that never actually occurred, but I had a lot of fun thinking about it. In Judith Seaman's Power [sic], Avon meets one of his clones. There's an interesting little moment when they look at each other, and Avon 1 says something like, "It's good to find someone intelligent," and Avon 2 says, "I knew you'd understand." And they smile at each other. That was all there was to it, and Avon 2 got killed almost immediately thereafter, but I certainly did enjoy speculating about what might have been. I like the idea of two separate Avons much better than just one Avon gratifying himself. It's the Ellen Kushner theory of slash: "If one man is good, then two men are better."

When anonymous sex occurs in slash stories, it may be anonymous for them, but it isn't for us. We know very well who that intriguing stranger is. So the (female) reader is getting an emotional kick even if the (male) character isn't and indeed doesn't want to. Even when a character in a slash story really does go off and pick up a total stranger, it's because he's brooding over the really significant relationship— like Avon in the bar in "The Compass of His Desires" and various other stories, or Bodie in "Never Let Me Down." And even so, it's still not completely anonymous for us, because we know the protagonist, if not his partner. Would stories about two completely unknown men appeal to slash fans? I think not, unless perhaps there were some mechanism by »Atich the story characters could be perceived as the couple of your choice.

[Assuming a character is gay] because of his stage costumes and mannerisms. It reminds me of something that came up in the most recent occurrence of the semi annual slash debate on the Internet B7 mailing list. One of the guys was objecting strenuously to slash on the ground that it was outrageously bad characterizations. It eventually became clear that he believed it necessitated making the characters effeminate. Clearly he'd never actually read any of the genre he was so vigorously denouncing.

One reason early K/S fans objected to McCoy was that they considered him too old. I agree. When I watched the show back when it was first broadcast, I thought that all of the leads were pretty old and so they were, relative to a teenager (it's ironic how very young they look to me now!). But while Kirk and Spock were just barely within the range of what I might be willing to consider as an object of romantic interest, McCoy was definitely beyond it.

You said that you switched from UNCLE to Pros in your writing in part because you found the universe more attractive, as well as more familiar. I was curious about that, because it seems to me that the two shows are almost completely opposite in tone, as well as different in setting. UNCLE was a frothy, lighthearted spoof, at least a good deal of the time (which means that it goes nicely with Eroica in tone, though there's the problem of the mismatch of the real-world-related chronology), whereas the Pros episodes that I've seen have been very serious and down-to-earth, really looking at the grungy underside of society. Is that what you find attractive about the show, or do you have a completely different view of it? There's been some speculation (probably in this very apa, though again I can't remember who said what when) that the reason there are so many AUs in Pros is that a lot of fans don't particularly like the un- pretty universe of the original show.

When I talked last time about classifying stories, I certainly didn't mean to set up a "hierarchy" that implied some sort of judgement of which are the better stories; I was thinking only in terms of what fans would be likely to agree about, based on what various people have said in this apa and elsewhere, and it was all kind of fuzzy and overlapping and tentative, not intended to be definitive or to be universally adopted. Certainly it's difficult to get even a partial consensus among fans as to the relative slashiness of various different kinds of stories, but I don't think that means it's not worth discussing at all.

This is getting to be a problem for me lately. I've been chattering away on slash-related subjects here and there for long enough now that I'm forgetting what I said to who. So, apologies in advance to everyone if I repeat myself, or do the classic absent- minded thing of quoting a story back to the person who told it to me in the first place. [...] (I just remembered where I quoted this before — on the slash list, not here! Whew.)

[In "The New York Review of Science Fiction"], Mimi classified all the fan stories that she'd seen while working as the Star Trek editor at Pocket Books into three broad, overlapping categories: the world-building epic, the pornographic romance, and the Mary Sue. The second category of course includes slash, though she didn't go into that in this short article. What I liked so much was the definition, included in a footnote, of the romantic element in the pornographic romance: "the presence of some emotional bond, though not necessarily that of affection (my emphasis], between the characters" (NYRSF 33, May 1991, p. 3).

I'm pondering your suggestion that a story about two characters who are already known to be gay might nevertheless have that boundary-crossing element that is crucial to real slashiness because of the difficulty they would have approaching each other. But you seemed to be thinking of a situation in which although we the readers know they are both gay, at least one of them isn't sure about the other and is therefore hesitant about approaching "a supposedly heterosexual friend." What if they both knew about each other and there was no social obstacle? Would the uncertainties that are inherent in any romantic relationship be enough to make an interesting story? And would it have that slashy feel? Maybe in a case like this it would be the equality of the lovers, their freedom from gender roles, rather than the boundary-crossing, that would give slash-type appeal. Come to think of it, this scenario sounds a lot like what goes on in Diane Duane's "Door Into..." books, which I know [some fans like] and consider very slashy, though I'm not so fond of them myself.

Distinguishing between the one-fandom slash fan and the generic slash fan, I realize more and more that I am. closer to the former than the latter. It took me a while to figure this out, what with my MediaWest roommates, all totally faithful B7 fans, twitting me for my occasional forays into Wiseguy or Eroica. But compared to most of the members of the apa, I'm basically a one-fandom fan. Within B7 I'll read almost anything, even if it's not terribly well written or about a pairing that doesn't appeal to me. In any other fandom, a story has to be either extremely well written or really push my buttons, or both, to hold my interest. (Well, maybe Eroica might be a little bit of an exception, but that's because it was the last Significant Fandom in my serially monogamous past.)

Some Topics Discussed in "T-Shirt Slogans Are Intellectual Discourse"

  • explanation for low apa input
  • extreme infatuation with Led Zeppelin
  • closed fandoms and live fandoms
  • differences between gay porn and slash

Excerpts from "T-Shirt Slogans Are Intellectual Discourse"

OK, yeah, it's been three issues, and yes, I'm suffused with guilt...And I'd like to say that the thing that finally got me off my duff and starting writing was the wonderful Eroica cover on the last SBF, but actually it was the threatening letter in my mail box from General Green saying, put out (some semi-literate output) or get out...

[N] and I talk frequently about the Grand Unified Theory of Slash. She doesn't think such a thing is possibly, or necessarily even desirable, while I yearn for the definitive statement, with some things named slash and within the pale, and other things, named 'of probable interest to slash fans' but not slash and beyond the pale. [C] was talking about watching a m/m porn video with a slash friend recently (Dishonorable Discharge, I think), and hearing them say, 'it's really slashish, because it had characterization. This seems to me (and possibly [C]) to be very backwards: just because we complain that gay porn doesn't have enough characterization, doesn't mean adding characterization to gay porn would make it slash. It would tend to make it more fun to read.

Seattle continues to have a very active slash-fannish life; as of Virgule we've picked up another regular fan. This poor girl watched Pros when a Canadian channel broadcast it in the area 14 YEARS ago, and never realized there was a Pros fandom, rarely even found anyone else who'd ever heard of the show. Slash was a bit of a speed bump for her, but she got over it safely and is now devouring our libraries...New fans are so CUTE!

Those of you dabbling in Forever Knight, or Highlander, or what have you, know there is a difference between being in an evolving fandom and a 'finished one.' I put quotes around that because ghod and [L] know that stories in Pros fandom, for example, are continuing to evolve, whether we fans get any new input from the series or no. But it is fun being connected to people who are all intent on hearing every new bit of information about their series, whether they are slash fans or not. The Zeppelin e-mailing-list, or the Forever Knight list, or whichever, can be incredibly annoying, as they all go on and on about something you care nothing about but it is also very compelling, logging in at all hours of the night hoping there will be just a little bit more information you can hug to your breast and go to sleep on that night. I remember being this obsessive about Pros, when I didn't have an e-mail community to fall back on. This is better.

Jimmy and Robert (as I so familiarly call them) have taken over, if not my life, certainly my thoughts of late. For those who came in late, Jimmy and Robert are the real life counter-parts to the slash universe Tris/Alex, originated by Nancy Arena and Pam Rose. It's a lovely universe, with some great writing, but given the real fife happenings in Robert and Jimmy's lives, safe careful alter-egos haven't been enough for some of this, and we've moved to the more intense, but legally much more questionable position of fantasizing/writing about Robert and Jimmy themselves, and having a wonderful time. They've been living quite public lives recently, allowing us to get more video (did I mention [ Megan Kent ] and I have been doing videos for them: one won best technical at Virgule, another new one will be debuting at Escapade), and pictures of them, and Jimmy even has just announced his divorce from his wife, arousing even more slashish thoughts..

Some Topics Discussed in "I put the fun into "dysfunctional""

  • attending the con, Who's 7, comments about a panel about slash
  • cons and their sameness

Excerpts from "I put the fun into "dysfunctional""

I've found that there is an alternate universe called ConWorld, that exists no matter where in the world you think you are. Once in the hotel, you have crossed some invisible boundary to another plane of existence, but it is the same plane, whether you enter in Seattle, or Chicago, or London, or Santa Barbara. The hotel staff is often inefficient and rude (they'd lost our reservation at Who's 7; we were not happy campers), the food is plain and expensive in the hotel, and hotel rooms look alike, especially in America. The con functions the same, whatever the continent or theme: panels, raucous laughter, general atypical craziness, and chance discussions filled with very specialized vocabulary that no foreigner to ConWorld could understand. No wonder people get sucked into spending all their available time and cash on these gatherings; the shared universe feeling that sets the experience apart from quotidian living is very seductive.

At Virgule, I attended a writer's workshop. I've never written a story, but I've started several. I get very depressed rereading these fragments, because they tend to sound trite to me. I had two revelations there: 1) you are more likely to succeed, or at least be satisfied with your work, if you think of yourself as a writer first and a fan second; 2) kinesthetic description is what will hook me into a scene. And not just the sex scenes, either. I like knowing what a character feels as he walks into a room or steps on a creaky stair, as well as the dark emotional stuff going on inside his head I'm not sure that I will ever consider myself a writer. But it was exciting to discover what it is that gets me going, and what I have to work on to make a scene interesting to me. I'd started a Sandbaggers Neil/Jeff story, structured around connected vignettes from their lives that works up to a very angsty parting. (Jeff is hopelessly in love with Neil, which in the context of their jobs/lives is just one more hopeless event.) Now I'm going back into the libraries and archives, trying to find those scenes that hit my kinesthetic nerve, to study them and maybe use them as models.

I actually flew to England to attend a Dr. Who/Blake's 7 con, Who's 7, with [S C] and [C S]. I met several American fen there, including [S] and [L] from this apa. What lengths we sometimes go to just to meet friends! At the con, I attended a great slash panel. About 40 people, men and women, were in the audience, and four women held down the table in front. One of them started off with the usual anti arguments just to get the discussion going (turns out that it was just for the debate's sake, since she writes and publishes slash). I really wish I could remember the panelists' names; they were eloquent, provocative, and had some great repartee with the audience. Several of the men were curious, but not censoring, and a few of them were gay (and out about it) and very interested in homoerotic literature about their favorite characters. All the discussions here, and on the net, and with local fen and at other cons, really helped me to at least participate knowledgeably and loudly (no, I wasn't drunk, just second-winded jet-lagged, temporally disoriented and dead tired).

Some Topics Discussed in "For the World is Hollow..."

  • losing one's self in the power of listening to rock music, loud
  • Vas/Dex
  • comments about anonymous sex and Never Let Me Down
  • bestiality and boundaries
  • comments on [M F G's] rant

Excerpts from "For the World is Hollow..."

I suspect that there is less interest in relationships consummated within the show, because that consummation suggests that the barriers keeping the characters apart weren't so troublesome after all. And as many many people have said in various contexts, the surmounting of barriers is one of the greatest attractions of slash. (Otherwise why would there be endless first-time stories, and comparatively few continuing-relationship ones?) This of course puts fens in a double bind; we want the characters to get it on on screen where possible (I nearly screamed at the famous shadow kiss in B&tB, when their shadows kissed and they didn't, and I'm not even a B&tB fan! and I rewound the crucial scene between Kira and Barail three times), but once they do, we probably lose interest. More barriers have to be found.

On bestiality, you are correct, from a moral point of view, that Al/Sam-as-a-dog [3] isn't bestiality. But from the physical point of view, it sure is. Ptui. (I mean, which one would you rather suck off Sam-in-Scott-Bakula, or Sam-in-Rover?) (Maybe I shouldn't have asked that...) This is the same sort of question as whether Vila/Avon-in-Cally's-body is slash or straight; it points out where category boundaries are undefined.

I was given to understand, when I was first introduced to them, that Vas/Dex originated as a/u S/H, and then mutated into an original universe. Does anyone remember who wrote them?

On anonymous sex, you reference NEVER LET ME DOWN. But the sex that Bodie has with Henry Castleton is anonymous. It's casual, sure, but Bodie knows Castleton quite well by the time they get naked. (Better than he has known some of the women he's slept with — even some of the ones he didn't pay ;-)) I feel sorry for Castleton after that night, and I wanted the readers to, as well. Minor point in the discussion, I know, but you pushed a button of mine, and my excuse for butting in about it is that it helps discussion if we use accurate terms. Anonymous sex is different from casual or friendly sex (and those two aren't identical either).

[M F G]: I hate to do this. I really hate to do this. Having agreed with damn near every word of your rant, I'm going to follow that agreement with a "but." I can only hope that, just as Nixon was the only one who could normalize relations with China because no one could accuse him of being soft on Communism, my slash-friendly (and kink-friendly, and M. Fae-friendly) credentials have been firmly enough established that you won't savage me. "But," I say, flinching... .. .it is worth asking why we want what we want, why we get turned on by the things that simply turn us on. Desires are not neutral, are not roofless, and are not unrelated to the larger society we live in. Obviously that's not all there is to it by any means, or everyone raised in the same circumstances would like the same things, and my brother's girlfriend bores me silly. But in a world in which Filipino women pay thousands of dollars for chemical skin lighteners, and blue contact lenses outsell brown ones by an enormous factor, desires, even the most personal and intimate, may need to be scrutinized.

This kind of scrutiny can be dangerous. I am very very leery of "what causes homosexuality?"-type questions, because they can easily be turned into ways of speaking about homosexuality as something pathological. We must always remember, and require other people to remember, that asking about a desire's origin does not constitute denying or even questioning, its validity. (I've always remembered a story you wrote in which Blake saw Avon and Vila playing s/m, and freaked out to Cally, along the lines of "in the better society I'm going to create people won't need this sick kind of thing." Cally's response was basically "whatever world you hope to create in the future, and however much this may repel you personally, Avon and Vila are what they are, here and now, and they're good for each other.")

And absolutely none of this is meant to defend the people who are intent on forcing you into categories that you don't feel fit you, and who often do so in outrageously rude ways. I agree with your rant completely. I just want, then, to ask if you have any idea why slash, two-men-together, turns you on? I think that this question is what many of those people are trying to ask—or to preemptively answer, offensively and cack-handedly. You may have no idea why it turns you on, and may not even care. You may have an idea, and not want to expose it to the glaring light of public discussion. All of those are completely legitimate. (I have ideas about me, and I'm not sure I want to talk about them in public, at least not at this moment. Maybe when I'm less school-stressed.) All I'm saying is that the question is also legitimate.

I now metaphorically roll on my back before you, exposing my belly and throat, in the age-old mammalian posture of "I'm helpless, don't kill me..."

Some Topics Discussed in "The lure of the clambake proved their undoing"

Excerpts from "The lure of the clambake proved their undoing"

The main problem with summaries [on electronic mailing lists] is that people change the wording and then reply to something the original poster never said. Except for that, I don't care [about style and punctuation] as long as a post doesn't start off without any reference to what the hell it's about. JMS's posts on the B5 newsgroup are an exercise in frustration because he never includes any of the text he's responding to. Since any thread he responds to may have generated dozens of posts before his, and the newsgroup often has upwards of 100 messages a day...You get the idea?

A fan of Tarrant the Human Q Tip such as yourself is not in a position to question the intelligence of anyone given your boy's (and I mean boy) propensity for questionable judgment. Have you considered this slogan for your MediaWest party: Tea for Tarrant ~ an insipid drink for an insipid character. [4]

As I understood the original hypothesis, slash as a genre was potentially threatened by the supposed demise of homoerotic subtexts in series currently in production (and in future production if the trend continues). I believe the underlying assumptions are that 1) slash, while it may be written in isolation, is predominantly created and disseminated within the fan community; 2) the fan community draws on shared texts, the majority of which are television series; 3) the community is always looking for new texts to consume; 4) slash is inspired by unconscious subtexts within fan material; and 5) if the new material fandom draws on for its sustenance does not contain the necessary subtexts, slash will either mutate or die out because 6) there will be a declining number of closed, untapped television texts to mine. Although historical or literary characters are certainly fodder for the slash canon, on their own they don't seem to have created the necessary machine of fandom to support and distribute slash; rather they are incorporated into the existing framework of slash fandom which is still media-based. Or do they? I don't know. I used to know someone in a Sherlock Holmes society but we never discussed this...but even in that case. Holmes is a televisual text as much as he is a literary one.

Re: Starsky & Hutch: I just don't get it. I didn't in the 70s and I don't now. What is the appeal? (That's rhetorical — I don't really care.) I tried watching a few episodes, really I did, but they were just so obnoxious that I couldn't stand it. That they wear tight jeans and crawl all over each other just isn't enough; the characters don't interest me. Yeah. I could think up all kinds of excuses - brain dead scripts, mindless car chases, dead girlfriend syndrome -- but I think the problem is that they're both American. I really need a British accent in order to get turned on enough by at least one character and watch the series. So it's really a personal kink and I'm not criticizing anyone, but it's just not doing anything for me.

Some Topics Discussed in "To Be Announced by T H"

  • comments about figure skating
  • comments on Who's 7, see that page
  • comments on Cult TV, see that page
  • comments about the first two seasons of Babylon 5 (Richard Arnold) showed them at Who's 7)
  • regarding the errant copies of "Strange Bedfellows" #7: "Shoshanna sent me a replacement SBF on the 22nd November which arrived on the 28th November. On the 1st December the original copy arrived - 29 days to get here! - that is just ridiculous. It doesn't appear to have been opened but it has spent its time being kicked around a dusty floor. It appears that the PO had it in for all the overseas copies - Jane C didn't get hers either."
  • different ways of being a fan, differences between media fans and SF fans
  • comments about Sherlock Holmes and Forever Knight

Excerpts from "To Be Announced by T H"

I do not like Sherlock Holmes, I find him an unreasonable bastard but I really enjoyed 'My Dearest Holmes' when I read it a few years ago. There is such sadness and heartbreak for Watson, she misses out the sex bit but the hurt/comfort is certainly there. I would certainly recommend it to any Holmes fan or hurt/comfort fan. You mentioned Forever Knight - I saw some episodes at one of the cons and was so disappointed. I saw the film early last year, and much preferred that cast. British TV still does not show this series, and as we were watching bad American format tapes it could grow on me but that initial disappointment spoiled it.

There is a lot of talk about defining 'what is slash' and 'what is a fan' - I started out in SF fandom and can remember long discussions over the years about 'what is SF?', 'what is fandom?', and 'what makes a fan?'. Is it part of being a fan to want to define what you are a fan of? In fiction, and on TV, Science Fiction becomes Fantasy becomes Horror becomes Science Fiction - and just about everyone has their own definition of where each boundary is. I guess the same goes for zines - where straight becomes slash, and what constitutes slash, differs for us all - at least I think it does. For me being a Fan is an active process. Simply watching a program every week does not make you a fan. A fan takes an active interest, and that interest can vary from simply going out of their way to watch the program no matter what else is happening in their lives to making that program their whole life. I'm sure we all know people at either end of the scale. My sister loves 'Miss Marple' mysteries, but she is not a fan, she will watch it if it is on when she is sitting down watching TV - if she is doing anything else (even the washing up) she misses it - she has a video but tapes practically nothing - there is interest there but not active interest. Every fan I know, be it books/TV show/zines/combination of all and anything, will go out of their way to see/read/tape everything they can. We all rerun episodes, we change plot lines to suit ourselves, we keep our own copy of 'that' character in our heads and bring him/her out of their box/room when we want to check on whether he/she would 'do that'.

[...]

We all have conversations where the phrase 'well, your Jim Kirk might do that but mine never would' goes around (replace Jim Kirk with any other character of your choice) - non-fans lose the conversation at that point - they do not understand how there can be 'versions' of a character that has a look/psychology/psychosis/personality as defined on a TV screen, and why would we want to talk/write about it anyway. All these personalities in boxes stored behind the cobwebs in my mind are not me, they are not versions of me, they are not me wishfulfilling impossibilities, they are there in their own right. I have no wish to be Jim Kirk (or any other character), his problems/routine are not for me, nor do I wish for them, yes I fantasise about travelling in space/time but when I do that I do it for me, there is no Jim Kirk there. They are not cyphers or symbols representing me, they are variations on a basic personality pattern that I can use to model behaviour patterns in particular circumstances. Anyway, this is getting away from the point. As with just about everything else there seems to be a sliding scale with 'no interest' at the left end and 'fanatic' at the right, most of us seem to be well into the right hand end.

In SF fandom it is not the norm to textually poach, to borrow from Henry. Writing fiction is not a fannish activity as such. There is a trend to critical writing and/or reporting of events but the 'borrowing' of authors characters does not occur to any great extent. SF fandom is based on the written word - novels/short stories/anthologies - all professionally published. There are no amateur presses for fiction zines in the SF fandom world, there doesn't seem to be a concept of amateur publishing - ('there are plenty of publishers so that if your story is any good you can find a professional publisher, only if your book/story is no good would you have to publish yourself so why would you admit that it was no good' seems to be the general feeling about amateur publishing), zines about SF, convention reports, book reviews, discussion papers all get published but not fiction. There are so many legitimate publishers around - from books to magazines - that there does not seem to be a market for amateur publishers. Convention going is one of the marks of a 'real' fan. On the other hand Media fandom is based on the visual TV world, and here you can be a 'real' fan without ever leaving your own living room. You can publish all your stories, read other peoples zines, discuss TV shows, talk about fandom through letterzines and APAs etc. To me SF fandom and Media fandom are so different that what makes a fan in one does not do so in the other. Before you can define 'what a fan' is you need to define the subject matter I guess, and we all know just how much agreement can be reached on that. A good example is Henry's book - in the Media world most fans explicitly textually poach, in the SF world very few do. In either case 'what makes a fan' I think, is actively doing something within the sphere of your attraction.

This is probably a moot point but is slash defined as being a sexual relationship between two men or is it a sexual relationship outside of what society classes as the 'norm'? I know that in our society there is no difference but is slash gender or culture based?

It was the first media con I had been too. It was a fun event, and it was interesting to see the differences between Media and SF cons. For a start the media guests appear to work much harder, they seem to do more major items - talks/question & answer sessions than SF guests who do maybe one major item and several minor items. They had a good guest list - John Pertwee, who did an excellent one man talk show, Colin Baker, both Travis's (Travii?), Jan Chappel and Louise Jameson who was excellent. Apart from listening to guests I had interesting conversations with various groups of people, and spent far far too much in the dealers room.

One of the items in the Charity Auction at this con (Who's 7) was a file printed off the nets. It contains all sorts of answers that Joe Straczynski has given in response to questions during interviews. For those of you who have access to the Internet this can be found at ftp.hyperion.com in file b5_jms_answers.txt along with all sorts of other text about Babylon 5. This site does tend to get a little crowded (I've not actually managed to log in there yet) so it is mirrored at ftp.uml.edu in the \Babylon5 directory.

In one of his many talks Richard Arnold was talking about changes at Paramount and the new Voyager series. Apparently Paramount has decided that they do not require a 'consistency checker'. There is no one checking for overall consistency across the various episodes and series. For example it is clearly stated and well established that Odo based his appearance on the Bajoran scientist that raised him - so how come when they find his world and his people they all look like him? And why would a race of shapeshifters have female bumpy bits and male dangly bits (okay, yes, the actors/actresses playing these people have normal human physiques but this can be hidden these days), would shapeshifters have defined male/female shapes? The crew of Voyager are going to spend many years travelling to get back to Federation space, yet on Paramount's own map the distance Voyager has to travel is not much different to the distance from DS9 to Klingon space - and Quark did that round trip in a few days!

I know the answer to this is "no", but don't the production companies have any respect for their audiences? Don't TV executives also watch TV - I guess not!

References

  1. ^ This is response to a comment in the previous issue about female-music festival organizers wanting physical proof (an examination?) of guests who claim to be women, but might have been born "a man."
  2. ^ This was a story using characters from The Seagull.
  3. ^ This is a reference to "Lucky Dog" in Leaps from Hell.
  4. ^ This comment is mostly tongue-in-cheek.
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Strange_Bedfellows_(APA)/Issue_008&oldid=2590328"