Strange Bedfellows (APA)/Issue 010

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 #10, this issue's cover by Baravan. The pairing is very rare example of Vila Restal and Del Tarrant.

Strange Bedfellows 10 was published in August 1995 and contains about 100 pages.

There were 39 members sharing 27 subscriptions.

Some Topics Discussed in "Strange Tongues"

Excerpts from "Strange Tongues"

So far, my perceptions [of Babylon 5 ] don't have too much relevance in a slash APA, but no doubt that will change. (I didn't think B7 was apt for slash for about two years after I first saw it. Then I did.) Meanwhile, with all its faults — one can pick out numerous flaws of various sorts — the show seems to be doing to 90's standards much what ST did in the 60's, and this time I'm old enough to appreciate it; its mistakes are mostly different from those of ST; and it is doing enough of everything to continue surprising me, which makes all of the above bearable.

The switch from Sinclair to Sheridan is curious (I'm only on the second episode after that, so I haven't seen all of it, really) in that it doesn't seem to alter the dramatic balance greatly. After a season of establishing Sinclair, Ivanova and Garibaldi as the central trio in managing the station, with links of friendship, earned trust, and some new and old history, you'd expect a violent change like yanking out the commander and putting in a new one to engender a lot of shifting and change in the personal side, at least, of their relationships — yet the stray later-2nd-season episodes I've seen show little difference between Sheridan's role and the one developed by Sinclair. Sinclair struck me as as what Captain Kirk should have been (and usually wasn't), and Sheridan struck me as being a bit too much like Kirk -- the pomposity, the naivete, even with the undeniable warmth and intelligence -- but in both cases the comparison was there.

Everyone has mentioned Ivanova/Talia as possible, but so far I don't see much in it except one of those too-obvious antipathies which could profitably (for the characters and the drama) crumble. Both women have had serious boyfriends in the past, but, as many members of the apa will be glad to say, so what?

[...]

I can't help comparing Ivanova to the role Roddenberry set up for Number One, though she is (fortunately) very much her own character. It's still a pity that it took thirty years before a woman could be as acceptable in a command role (in Trek as well) as someone black, green, or android who has a penis. No doubt B5 can afford to be reasonably color- and genderblind in its human characters because it can project the same in-group-out-group tensions onto aliens instead -- but it does take the trouble. And it gets a lot of points for making the alien societies each varied with its own internal problems and tensions.

The Louis and Lestat picture was lovely, and I can see how they might fit the [C] sense of slash -- death, betrayal, revulsion, self-revulsion... and all before lunch! Interview may be the only book where Rice cared where she was saying; as I read her later books, they seem to have a lot more words just for the sake of words. However, don't Lestat and Armand have some sordid earlier history which would make them appropriate partners for vampiric slash as well?

A Trekkie's Tale is where the term [Mary Sue], but not the story type, originated. As you can see, your definition isn't far from the meaning first assigned to it. I've had to assign dual definitions to the term ever since I learned it: (a) MS is an author's identity character, susceptible to overindulgence but sometimes the linchpin of extraordinarily immediate writing — my usage; (b) MS is any invented female character and an excuse to trash the author and women in general — usage from non-feminist fans, which I have seen in lettercolumns and occasionally in con discussions. One must pity these fans, but one mustn't let them spoil one's fun. The negative reaction of other fans to some subjects can vary from a non-reaction -- "I don't care about it so I won't read it" -- to explicit hostility such as "You're a bad person for writing that, and I'll do everything I can to stop you."

The QL/UNCLE crossover you mention in Liaisons 2 is by Elizabeth Urich, and is indeed one of the two or three most striking pieces of QL (or UNCLE) fiction I've seen. I assume you know that "Unforgettable" has a sequel (in the next issue of WBTYS), "]Ceremony of Innocence," though I thought both of them were a little too long and overdone, or to put it another way, had too much hurt for the comfort. I've liked a few other pieces in QL slash here and there, but not many are memorable past a second reading. A zine that has a lot of good spots (for my taste) is Let It Be Me #1, edited by [Leah S]. I especially liked "Cost of Freedom," "Tangled Webs," and "Ready to Take A Chance Again," in it, the latter more for the characterization than the rather routine plot. For gen QL writing. Play It Again Sam, edited by Kate Nuernberg, has very high standards. Three slash stories I recommend to all (slash) fans are "Mercy Leap [1]," private circulation; "The Second Tragedy," Amanda Hermann [2], Lover's Leap [3]; and "You Can Call Me Al, " Jenny Sandor, Hot August Friskies.

I suspect the trouble with designating any M/F stories "slash" (aside from fetishists who can't enjoy anything not specifically M/M) is that what you (and I) are looking for is an intangible, a subtle style of relationship, not something easily defined by visible characteristics. If you admit M/F to "slash," you potentially admit all M/F stories. Given that (a) nobody but you can define the essence of "slash" for you and (b) fandom, as well as the world at large, is full of non-telepaths who aren't very good at even trying to see what you mean, the result is apt to be even more chaos than before. (As M. Fae bemoans in her zine.) I suppose you could try for "M/F stories that don't feel like romances," and see if that helps. Of course, by this sort of standard, lots of M/M stories fall into overly cliched "romance" patterns and aren't always what I (and perhaps you) are looking either, but given the mindset of the writers and often of the characters, same-sex relationship stories are more likely to carry the indefinable something that makes them what we look for in slash.

[...]

I don't agree that having Scully and Mulder sleep together would have to play into destructive stereotypes about women (or men), although it would of course be very easy to imagine a stereotyped storyline and I frankly wouldn't expect better of many writers, in and out of fandom. But the show is tempting exactly because it has a real chance to subvert those stereotypes altogether. This would require a distinct depiction of a sexual affair between the two agents where the point isn't that either is looking for a spouse or emotional equivalent, but that sex can be a part of friendship and partnership without meaning the kind of dependence which makes it disrupt a working relationship. This may be the impossible dream, but most slash is about exactly that dream, so why not? It's their personal reactions to each other, rather than social expectations, that would ideally make their relationship (or a story about it) work or fail.

[...]

Continuing with the XF thread, yes, Scully and Mulder being not sexually involved in the show makes it possible for fan stories (many different fan stories) about them to work. All the zines I've seen so far reject M/S stories, however, whether it's because the editors don't see this point or because they have more taste than we do. On the other hand, maybe they don't realize that they're permitted to exercise taste, and are afraid of what they rightly perceive as a chancy category. Most prospective XF editors (I've decried this before) apparently think they have to judge writing in categories. Allowing one M/S romance, or one slash story, etc., would mean allowing all such stories (it seems) so they deny the entire category. It doesn't seem to occur to fan editors that they're looking for good stories or for character stories (if they are; some are looking for good paranormal stories) and that good characters might include sex in their lives.

Calm down. No one's going to take your slash away. The instances of misguided neofen looking for "slash" — meaning, more or less, fanfic -- indicate that lots of people are being exposed to fandom's terminology without adequate definition. That's all. It illustrates yet again that mainstream culture thinks of sex as an all-important bugaboo (but we knew that, didn't we?), or people would remember the words for gen fanfic instead of subsuming it all under the most taboo and sexually-defined subgenre of fanwriting -- the one that first leapt out at them. (I am thinking that maybe now we know how the SF fan community felt in the 60's when all those Spock-crazed women invaded the circles that revered Doc Smith and Poul Anderson. Did they like it when we started shaking things up so badly that a "fanzine" became an outlet for derivative fiction instead of the exercise of nerdly wit and wisdom and a "convention" became a stage for TV actors instead of an exchange of toasts in Tullimore Dew?).

[...]

Admittedly, "slash" has been a useful word for a decade or more now to describe zines where sex — usually between two well-linked and well-liked male characters -- takes place, preferably in explicit detail and with emotionally wrenching intensity, and wouldn't we all like to know which zines those are! The trouble is that they're often different for different readers, and if you ever bought everything you saw labelled "slash" without scanning it for acceptability first, you probably got what you deserved.

In a setting where you might actually purchase zines, has it ever been difficult to tell the slash from the rest? Harder, that is, than finding something you'd like to read as opposed to something in which Bodie and Doyle are whining idiots even though they do have perfunctory sex at some point in the story? Or, consider the strain -- in several senses -- of UNCLE stories where the action consists of Napoleon and Illya having romantically veiled sex during vacation somewhere, after which Illya presents Napoleon invariably with a flower. Did you really want that zine, even though it is indubitably "slash" by fannish definition?

If "slash" becomes meaningless shorthand, I rather hope some new term will appear to take its place on the most-taboo (and therefore most-desirable reading) list, but the people who are really shortchanged by this terminology confusion on the net (does it happen anywhere else?) are the hopeful fans who may want hot-and-heavy sex between John Steed and James Bond, or between Lestat and Louis, or whatever, and can't find it because as far as they know, "slash" includes mainly Servalan and Avon shooting each other (with guns). They know there's something better than that, but they can't explain what they'd like to ask for without using words their mothers told them never to type on a sentient computer like the e-net. They may have to reinvent some category like slash for themselves, and goodness knows what they'll call it and what it will really include -- but it might be worth finding out. Has this actually happened yet?

[Some have observed that] 99% of Japanese slash follows a rule for bottom/top roles (that is, who fucks whom in routine sex stories, without implying s/m agreements or theatrics) of... not age, status, hair color, sub-genre or season of the year, and especially not anything to do with personality, but solely by height.

Some Topics Discussed in "Menage a Deux by H J"

Excerpts from "Menage a Deux by H J"

Kate Orman is a big name in the Australian Doctor Who Society. Kate writes some of the Doctor Who: New Adventures books and is working on one now set in future Australia. Kate apparently makes most of her money from the books and says that almost all of them are written by British fans. They are full of in-joke references to particular fans. Kate appears as a giant hamster in one of the novels. Kate showed me the zine she produces -- a mimeographed thing looking like it came from early fandom, mostly nonfic and full of fan speculation and gossip. It was, she said, typical of Australian fan product and she was amazed by the enormous American zines she has seen -- especially by the color covers and high gloss production values. Australian fandom, she feels, is too small to support such activities. We also spoke of the B7 flap, which she had heard of indirectly. She had canceled her B7 fanzine subscription because the editor kept berating "mean-spirited American fans."

At the University of Western Sydney, I met with several graduate students who work on fan culture. They described the ST clubs primarily as involved in collection and criticism --no filk, no zines, no songvids. Paramount has recently moved aggressively into Australia, ordering the disbandment of more than 100 local clubs and their consolidation into an official fan organization. What local zine production that occurs has been threatened with legal sanctions to make way for the glossy official publications. This was all done with the promise of better access to the stars who previously rarely came here, but who came, en mass, to a big Sydney con several weeks ago. Many fans are disgruntled with this turn of events but most have gone along for the moment. The dissidents are regrouping and trying to decide what to do next. I am sure to get more news on this front as I travel, since I've heard about it from multiple sources already. I showed some fan vids and this sparked much interest from Virginia who instantly grasped the appeal of slash and spin off enthusiastically about it for the rest of the day, from the local fans who wanted to try their hand, and from the production professor who felt it would make an outstanding class exercise. He already has a "homage" project where student filmmakers try to imitate or pastiche the styles of their favorite filmmakers. Lynch and Tarantino mostly this go round. But he instantly saw the appeal of a project using all found footage since it allowed them to learn basic editing and narrative skills without the other technical problems involved in shooting original material. They had me show the three vids I brought several times and I promised to send a Pal tape of some selected vids as a gift to my hosts.

I was whisked to a local radio station for an interview. The reporter was about as patronizing as I've ever encountered. She managed to sneer every time she said "Trekker" and was more interested in teasing out scoops on Voyager than in asking substantive questions about my talk. At an interview in Perth, they managed to unearth a recording of "Star Trekkin' Across the Universe." Then, they made the mistake of asking me whether Trek fans actually listened to this music, and I said, "Only when radio stations force them to." She said she was sorry she asked. I did, in general, however, encounter very intelligent reporters here, including one for the national public broadcasting system who did a thoughtful and in-depth interview on fandom.

PARAMOUNT AT OUR GATES: All over Oz, I got reports about Paramount's attempts to regulate fandom, including suggestions that they were using the country as a testcase for practices they planned to put into practice globally. When I got back [to the US], I found a notice about the Australian crackdown in Jeffrey Mills' CCSTSG ENTERPRISES. This turn of events is alarming, since it seems a determined effort to crack down on fan culture, as Viacom expands its control over the ST franchise. One thing it suggests is the need to be careful about what gets posted on the internet since there is indication that someone out there is monitoring the net these days. As a dedicated net surfer, I am surprised how easy it is to stumble upon information about zines and other extra-legal fan efforts. If Paramount moves forward with its plans, this could be one of the worst crackdowns on fan activity since LucasFilm. How do you think we should prepare for this situation? What tactics would be appropriate in responding to such threats?

Bjo Trimble has sent letters to Australian fan clubs urging them to lobby for Gareth Thomas to be the next Doctor. None of them had a clue who Bjo was though she spent much more of the letter telling about her own accomplishments than lobbying for Thomas.

While I was in Australia, I got challenged about my use of the word, "queer," in the talk about the Gaylaxians letter-writing campaign. I initially encountered this concern raised by a South African who said he had not encountered the re-appropriation of the term before. I have later learned that there have been several discussions of my use of the term on various net groups here in the United States. All of this surprised me. Perhaps because I live in an academic environment, I had come to see that tern as in widespread circulation and likely to be familiar to anyone who had much exposure to gay and lesbian issues. I recognize that it is a controversial term, and for that reason, I don't use it consistently, allowing many other terms to come into play, but I personally prefer it both because it is economical and it allows a space for people like myself who see themselves as queer and non-normative, even if their current sexual practices are within monogamous heterosexual relationships. I think it is important to have a coalition term which allows people to join forces. I think it is important to get strai^t people to re-conceptualize their own sexuality, given the fact that most, if not all of us, have committed sex acts which were against the law. I certainly did not mean to offend anyone by my use of the term. So, I wanted to get some responses here. How widespread do you think the word, "queer" is -- in the country at large? In fandom?

The Console-ing Passions workshop of "feminist academics as fans" was a major success. We attracted the largest attendance of any panel at the conference, and the discussion was intense. For the most part, the participants seemed to buy my arguments that it was important for us to be up front about our own pleasures in television and popular culture; that speaking as a fan could allow us to bridge gaps between the academy and the larger social world; that academics needed to assume the same interpretive freedom, the ability to write beyond the restrictions of the text, that fans took for granted; and that academics could learn from fans a lot about constructing a community between readers and writers that resulted in mutual accountability and accessibility. I offered these claims in traditional feminist terms dealing with the "personal is political" and the idea that all understanding is socially situated.

Some older women felt uncomfortable embracing fan categories which reminded them too much of the image of women as groupies, hopelessly out of control in their relations to the text, but I argued that this pointed towards the feminist importance of redefining the category of fan so that it validated women's relations to popular culture, rather than trying to redefine women's relations to popular culture to conform to acceptable, masculine, distanced and objective research. For most of the younger scholars, especially the graduate students, there was tremendous excitement that these issues were being debated and aired.

I did a similar version of this workshop on my Australian tour and everywhere I went, it provoked a positive response. I become more and more convinced that the vast majority of younger academics in media studies were drawn to the academy after some brush with fandom, broadly defined, and that their understanding as aca-fen will help to transform academic language and practices The queer scholar, David Halperin, not many years ago, was touring with a lecture claiming that Gilgamesh, the first surviving literary text, was the story of gay lovers and comparing it with K/S as he understood it through my work and Constance Penley's.

Some Topics Discussed in "Ghost Speaker"

  • many comments on the 53rd Worldcon
  • an essay, "Why I Want to Gay the Worldcon" by a Token Lesbian: its topic is a past Worldcon in Glasgow ("3 or 4 years ago"), of being the token gay person on a panel about AIDS and science fiction, how being a token anything is humiliating and no fun but necessary, comments at that panel by John Brunner about how AIDS will suppress sex drives and "have a stultifying effect on the arts," MUCH about AIDS and visibility and education

Excerpts from "Ghost Speaker"

By the time I get to write to you again, Intersection (53rd Worldcon in Glasgow, Samuel R. Delany is guest of honour, and I am trying to make it go pink) will he safely over, one way or another. On the last day of the con, as part of the gay programming, we’re actually having two slash panels: the media programming stream have or had organised another one - but I couldn’t find it in the latest edition of the programme, maybe they gave up); one on slash fandom, one on slash writers, [A], me, [X H], and [J M], asking ourselves "Slash: how was it born, how did it grow, why do we love it so much? We should assume the audience will not be familiar with slash. Why did we want to write slash? How did we get started? Who do we write about, and why and how is what we write slash?" Also, [C A], [A G], [S M], and [F T, asking themselves "Slash fandom and slash fans. We should assume the audience will not be familiar with slash. Differences between British, American, and European slash fandoms, and between fandoms belonging to different series. How did we find out about slash?"

Some Topics Discussed in "Weirdness on a Swan's Wing"

  • working hard on a zine that has a focus of this fan's fiction, trying to get it out in time for MediaWest*Con so it can be financially viable
  • turning a fellow fan onto a new fandom
  • comments about her zine, 98% Pure Murphy

Excerpts from "Weirdness on a Swan's Wing"

I did manage to find time to corrupt [J] to a new fandom - that's in addition to the Forever Night series she came back from the States enraptured by - it was fun. And sweet revenge for her corrupting me to slash fandom! What is this new fandom? Well [J] was complaining that she didn't see what I saw in ST:TNG. That it was too plastic for her taste and that she didn't see any of the characters as slashable. So I sat her down and made her watch 'Chain of Command' parts 1 and 2. It was a wondrous sight to behold. Fabulous, especially listening to her squeak during the scenes between Gul Madred and Picard.

I sent some of my Professionals universe, Murphy stories to Kath and Donna at Satyr d'Nite press. They'd edited one of my stories before and I'd really liked what they'd done with it. So I sent a whole parcel of stuff to the States with Jane in February. They wrote back and offered to publish them in a zine all of their very own! Well, as you can imagine I was really chuffed and really excited. Then I got the second letter saying that in order to be financially viable they'd need to get the zine out for MediaWestCon, which meant that their deadline was May the first. That in turn, thanks to the erratic post across the Atlantic, makes my deadline - yep, you've guessed, the 20th or 21st of April! I have been working really hard on the nine stories for about the last six weeks and the end is in sight. It's very satisfying seeing something like this take shape. At first I was convinced I couldn't do it but because the deadline was so tight I couldn't sit around angsting because I couldn't do this. I just got on and did it! I have half a dozen more scenes to finish in the last story (the one that I didn't think I could rework at all two weekends ago) and then sit back and bite my nails until I get the finished zine back and start spotting all the things I could have done differently!

Some Topics Discussed in "Yamibutoh"

  • comments on the film, Interview with a Vampire, and the plethora of the zines for this fandom available in Japan
  • discussion on why stories where characters are "on vacation" and AUs are mostly not very interesting
  • comments on Bujold characters
  • what is slash?
  • comments about I Spy
  • addresses the past/current rants that began in issue #7
  • further discussion of whether knowing actors were sexually involved with each other would affect one's enjoyment of slash stories about them
  • comments and description about a new Japanese show called "Nighthead"

Excerpts from "Yamibutoh"

Aha! I knew that if I thought long enough I would think of something to add to the debate about what it is that slash is all about. Yes, it is about sex. Yes, it is about relationships between the characters, but I think maybe we are overlooking, or at least downplaying the most important relationship in slash - between the character(s) and us, the readers, not between the characters themselves. I am happier with a story that deals with the relationship (loving or adversarial) between Avon and Blake because it promises a lot of good emotion and fits my view of the characters, but frankly, I would be quite happy with a nice bit of sex between Avon and a bunch of anonymous partners. To me, this is the big difference between slash and porn; someone I am interested in (2 or 3 someones even better) is having sex or a relationship or whatever. For me, slash is Avon or AJ or Lovejoy having gay sex and gay porn is a body belonging to a person I do not know or care about having gay sex. I like the deep emotions and the relationships and all,but do not always find them necessary.

I don't know if knowing the actors had the hots for each other for real would make the screen relationship seem more slashy, but I do think the converse was true. When Vice first came on, all the zines I ever saw were Crockett/Tubbs (really), but then it came out that the actors detested each other and, whammo, C/T stories vanished, not to appear again until recently.

What!! De-emphasized the sexual element [of slash]?? Would it be hard to defend slash (or even recognized it) without the sex?... I would love to read a defense of slash that never mentioned sex. I need a laugh these days.

Your perioration (heavens - was that spelled even recognizably? [4]) is just another reminder to us to beware or absolutes. In test taking class, we learned that on test questions, absolutes were almost almost always wrong and to beware of words like "everyone" and "always." The fact that I need to identify with one or more of my characters in order to write, does not mean everyone does this! Actually, it seems that a better word might be "empathize." I can empathize with someone I detest and need to in order to figure what makes him or her tick, but even then, that is just me.

Re "I Spy", I had disliked this show a lot as a child but was probably far too young to recognize a sophisticated plot if it bit me. I just knew Culp was bland and if Cosby was so smart, how come he was hanging around with such a boring man. It never occurred to me that it was pushing barriers -- but that is good. A good show does not preach. It slips the message in.

Interesting point that you make on the problem of "vacation" stories and A/U. I have found that as well. If the writer is writing in the framework of the series, there are the daily events and regular milieu to remind you that these are a particular set of favorite characters, but when they are on vacation, that is, out of their regular sphere, identification of the characters (of course, I know who they are, but do i know WHO they are?) depends on the writing, and, alas, on whether they fit the idea of WHO I think they are. This is always a problem for me as when I write, which I rarely do, it is nearly always in a fandom no one else is familiar with.

Personally, I think everyone, not excluding Claudia and the dead bodies, out-acted Brad Pitt [in Interview with a Vampire]. I'll be darned if I can see what makes him a sex symbol. Fans seem mostly divided here between fans of Armand and Lestat.

Some Topics Discussed in "The Ghost in the Christine"

  • this fan has been away from the apa for perhaps a year, has comments on #7, #8, #9, some of which address the various rants
  • description of a private tour of the Houston Space Center
  • comments about children, nudity, photography
  • being glad about recent films, where women don't scream, and men cry

Excerpts from "The Ghost in the Christine"

WOW. Men as sensitive, deeply feeling beings and women as fully competent, intelligent people without a compulsion to relapse into emotionalism are all the rage in Hollywood [in recent films], and I for one am enjoying it thoroughly. Okay, that had nothing to do with slash, I admit it. BUT — the concept of reversing the power and “control” in a sexual penetration isn’t new, is it? I seem to remember lovely pieces of “Murder in San Carmelitos” which was published in 1986, where being fucked represented being the one in control... well, actually, being Starsky represented being the one in control, now that I think of it!

Regarding your “anti-rant rant” I couldn’t agree with you more. I was on the verge of quoting to [M F G] “Methinks thou dost protest too much,” but fear of her vicious and often personal rebuttals (and a terminal inability to get an apa sub in) kept me in line. Thank you for so eloquently quashing that little mess and simultaneously reminding [K] and [L] that, while they state their points of view as if those are the only points of view, nobody believes that, not even them.

You made a lovely universal point about how people blithely explain away or trivialize those very things (about slash or anything, I suppose, that one feels strongly about) that make life so special for other people. I am now casually beginning to consider that [L S] marks something near the "traditional" limit of slash, and [M F G] marks something near the "modern" end. Most of us fall within that spectrum somewhere, happily reading slash and having a merry old time while those poor souls whose job it is to blaze new trails of the limits (both traditional and modern) have no choice but to continually disprove each other. Ahhh! I'm feeling quite moderate, at the moment. Very refreshing!!

I was very entertained by a comment of yours and how it directly parallels the sexual orientation arguments past, present and no doubt future. You said, " ...I got the very strong feeling that this character did not want to be perceived as a sexual being. (Didn’t mean he wasn’t; just meant he didn’t want to be seen that way.)” Thank you! That’s what I’ve been trying to say with respect to characters’ beliefs about their own sexual orientations, or even to slash readers and writers’ preferences. Often-times a character may not want to see himself as homo- or bisexual even if he’s bonking his partner, no matter that he’s actually bonking his partner and therefore constrained by whatever definitions we in the ’90’s feel compelled to constrain him by. His character traits make him choose not to be seen (or see himself as) homosexual no matter that he actually “is” performing homosexual behaviors, just as McCoy doesn’t want to see himself perceived as “sexual” no matter that he actually “is” performing sexual behaviors.

I think this is true for readers as well; sometimes I want those characters to be straight, because I think it’s so very anxiety-making for them to confront any fears, identity-problems, familiarities, taboos, etc. that they might have about same-sex relationships and what they mean. And that is what makes that particular scenario fun.

You added, "someone who apparently can't bear the thought of her heroes being gay — because, 'everyone knows' what gays are like, and Bodie and Doyle aren't like that — is only ignorant, not hateful." How about, I don't tend to think of my heroes being gay because if they're gay, that's one less obstacle they have to overcome in defining and fulfilling their love & passion for each other? When the characters are presented as gay, it's not that I can't bear it (hell, I write them bisexual more often than not), but because it's often boring for me personally. Often, for me, half the emotional struggle is over before the story starts if their natural sexual orientation isn't an issue. This, incidentally, isn't an argument or a challenge... it's more of a continuing refinement of what I like about "straight" men falling in love with each other. My personal kink, if you like. I also happily acknowledge that gay men have plenty of issues to overcome in intimate relationship; as you pointed out, orientation is NEVER the only problem.

I'd comment on your rant with respect to whether or not bonking with a same sex partner makes a slash character homo- or bi-sexual (rather than however they identify themselves). My only heated argument against your position is that if this is true, mustn't the reverse be true as well: no person can be bisexual unless they are actively participating in relationships with members of their own and opposite genders. No "bisexual monogamy" can the place because if people are defined by their sexual behavior they are defined by the gender of their partner(s)... which I think most of us would disagree with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the criteria of this argument (which has been going on for ages), you just now offended [H] by calling him straight and not permitting him the intellectual or emotional orientation of his choice. (And [H], thanks for being here as an example!) You went on to ask, "what do 'straight' gay,' 'bi,' and so on define, if not their sexual activity when given a choice...?" I'd like to posit that if we all can't even find a working definition of slash, which is a reasonably static written medium, we're NEVER going to be able to agree on what any of those other words mean.

... ideal that lots of slash writers and readers are seeking: teamwork, brotherhood (sisterhood), the spirit of adventure and the willingness to take great risks to achieve them. There's something of the High Romance and the Greek Myth in some slash stories — in my favorite slash stories, because there's something that goes beyond whether or not they'll fuck each other or what fetishes we can adorn them with. It goes beyond fear and socialization and it goes beyond labels of "gay" or "straight". It's an expression of deepest human need being met and answered, and that's what started me down the road to slash. Kirk and Spock, archetypal heroes on their adventures of mythic proportions, brothers in arms and friends, stumbling across something that was so much more than the riches they sought in starting their journeys... The fact that I and so many slash writers with me have sunk to the banal, the coarse, the uninspired world of fucking and more fucking and fucking some more does not, can not tarnish the point of it all: connection, deepest fear assuaged, deepest need satisfied. I'd like to see more of those themes written well.

I find myself hating to agree with your agreement with [M F G] about sex being the most obvious and most under-discussed reason we On one hand. I’ve adamantly disagreed with this in concept and in theory for years. (If it’s just sex, then go read pornography and stop dragging my boys through your perverted muck. I personally believe that it’s something else and sex, sex being the more obvious and therefore more overused element.) Nonetheless I also noticed that by “admitting” sex has value in slash relationships, I’m worried I’ll undermine my co-position, the one that says the moment you turn slash into pornography, it isn’t slash anymore and it no longer interests me (well, um... ah... unless it’s my kink, but I’d read pornography about my kink, anyway).

Some Topics Discussed in "Paradoxical Ramblings"

Excerpts from "Paradoxical Ramblings"

You asked about Vas & Dex. They were, indeed, offshoots of S & H, from a purist who didn't believe (at the time) in violating screen canon at all. If they weren't going to be as aired, you should make your own characters. So they did. My understanding was that Terri Beckett & Chris Power did the writing, Jody distributed for them in the US. Of course, Terri later gave in and wrote a couple of (very short) AU pieces in the SH letterzine Frienz. [5]

Re being aroused by our own writing: I attended a fantastic writing workshop that [Colleen P] did at Virgule last year. Among other things we discussed "writing our own kink." No one there professed an ability to write her own kink in a way that excited her. Our premise (which I'll state in the first person): when I'm writing my own kink, I'm more likely to slide into the position of observer, and less likely to be firmly identified with my characters (sorry [M F G]), so the writing is more distant, less immediate, and therefore less satisfying to read. Does anyone else have this experience?

Re SF cons: I hate panels at SF cons. I just sit there bouncing in my chair, my arm getting tired, wanting to puncture the supposed "experts."

It's not my experience that people I talk to write Pros A/Us because they don't like the dark original universe. I, of course, love it. I think people write A/Us for a lark, or because making the real universe seem "real" is too difficult. Or because they had a scene they wanted to see. Probably I just don't spend that much time talking Pros with people whose interpretation is that different from mine,

I have to take issue with your comment that Hutch is dressed like Bodie. Since Hutch definitely came first. SH needs all the credit it can get (especially since so much of the clothing (don't even mention the collars) has aged so poorly).

[...]

Starsky & Hutch is awfully violent) All I could think of was. Compared to what? By the third season, when the producers were taking a lot of heat from the PTA and so on, they were counting violent acts on the show, including such threatening gestures as breaking pencils. Argh! I really dislike a lot of the humor they tried to substitute in the 4th season, with S&H dressed up as hairdressers, etc. The first season remains my favorite. It's the grittiest, the most real and most touching to me.

I'm working on an idea Sandy gave me, about people who use slash as porn, as opposed to people for whom it fills other needs. But I'm not there yet.

I loved Sandy & [C]'s WG interpretation of "Something to Talk About." There are some songs (as Sandy says) that are so perfect they should be done in every fandom. [C] & I are currently discussing the WG version of "Holding Out for a Hero," previously the most-done songtape of all time.

The Fan Posse (or the Fan Police) as I have been known to call them. I don't think that there's an organized group out there intimidating other fans (at least I hope not.) I think, instead, that it may be more of a problem of writers writing for positive feedback (as many of us do) and not being willing put the work into something they think they won't get stroked for. But that's just my guess. On the other hand, here does seem to be a problem with some fans wanting to make (and then enforce somehow) "rules" of fandom. [C] & I have refused to be the Fan Police @ Escapade, and have passively resisted others' attempts to make us conform to their rules for dealers, zine copying, and so on.

Re knowing an original universe from a "poached" one. It has happened to me that I didn't. There are fragments of fan stories written in the Borderland universe (a shared universe generally overseen by Terri Windling & Will Shetterly, I think). But I had never read it, never heard of it, and I read my fan characters placed in what (for all I knew) was just a cool A/U. I later saw one of the books (and it was interesting enough for me to pick up) and I saw that what I had been giving the author credit for was actually lifted from the books. Of interest to me, though, is the fact that I have never enjoyed the pro-published stuff as much as my favorite characters placed in what is a perfect A/U for them (where magic meets rock & roll...)

Re: the MOO... I have not played here, as a matter of fact, I have purposely never even learned how to use the Usenet newsgroups. I fear having my brain eaten by the Internet, and I have loving friends (thanks Sandy!) who forward me all I need to hear. Oh, but sorry, back to the MOO. I'm not sure I understand. You type words into the computer, describing scenes and characters and interactions... Tell me again why you can't type it into a word processing program and make it a story? You could even co-write it, if you like. So?

• ZEP ALERT • ZEP ALERT • I have signed off the Zeppelin list because the traffic was way too heavy to follow. However, Sandy forwards me the cut bits, including things like Robert shouting (to a sold-put crowd in England) "We're courting!" and then walking off stage with his arm around Jimmy. Sometimes I actually wonder if they're really fucking. That is, whether the real people, as opposed to my mental characters of the real people, are fucking. This is actually kind of a scary thought. I don't think it would change my interpretation of my own Jimmy & Robert, but it does give me pause.

Sandy & I debuted a songvid to Rock & Roll at Escapade to very mixed reviews. It really doesn't go over that well to non-fans. On the other hand, the hand-picked Zep fans I showed the vid to at Media loved it.

Video and audio bootlegs of the current tour are available, but as yet none of the pro-shot video. Arghh. If anyone hears of pro-shot video of this tour, please let me know. I have a Jimmy vid that is a couple of cuts from complete, but I need some current footage. Thanks in advance. • END ZEP ALERT •

It seems like the point you needed to make was "I've been on the receiving end...real human beings." You're absolutely right there. If you know yourself is well as you state later, it seems like you'd notice that you're letting your buttons be pushed here, and you responded way out of proportion to the provocation.

Some Topics Discussed in "Untitled by K K"

  • experiences and observations about being a German slash fan
  • slash as a female white fandom
  • poor German translations of books, Star Trek pro novels
  • Mary Sues, IWIFs
  • comments about characters being sexual extensions of the writer
  • comments about slash authors being misogynistic

Excerpts from "Untitled by K K"

For those of you who don't know me yet, I'm German and live in Germany. Slash fandom here is unfortunately still quite small and we are spread widely all over the country (amazing actually, I think that must mean that most people here found slash by themselves instead of being infected by friends). The only larger groups are located in Berlin and around Frankfurt. As far as I can tell, I'm quite alone in [S]. Why don't you infect others there, I hear you ask. Well, too busy with work by far. In a typical male, engineering environment where colleagues are unlikely to be interested; having moved here only a few years ago my best friends live in other cities, and since I've never been interested or involved in generic fandom I don't even know any people here with remotely fannish interests. Therefore, my slash contacts are mostly via email and snail mail (the post awful is getting rich and fat, just from what they earn from me...).

This is the second slash apa that I become a member of. The other is a German one, actually I should say the German slash apa since fandom is so small here and there is just one. There are even a few German slash zines, I mean, slash zines written in German, even about some German shows. I think slash would probably be more widely distributed here if more of it was available in German. In order to enjoy the stories, one has to have a fairly good grasp of the English (or American :-)) language, and while English is taught at all schools here. It does take a while until the language stops being a hindrance to just enjoying. Of course, reading slash expands the vocabulary and idiomatic use like nothing else... <big grin>.

The term "Mary Sue“. I'm fascinated by the fact that there is so much discussion about Mary Sueism because I don't remember ever having seen a story that seems to fit the description of "Mary Sue" I've heard from other people. The only ones I can think of off hand are professionally published Trek novels: Triangle and Vulcan! Maybe the reason that I haven't seen any is that since they are so loathed in fandom my friends never send me any and maybe they don't get printed in zines nowadays (since my fannish status isn't so old yet I missed most of the really old zines). From what I've heard, a Mary Sue story is one with an obnoxiously over-intelligent, over-attractive, over-everything female character who more or less replaces our lads as the leading characters in the story. From this, people seem to conclude that the female character is a way of the author projecting herself into the story which is generally looked down upon.

Personally, I have no problem with strong female characters in a slash story and I don't care at all with whom an author identifies or does not identify. If she likes to identify with someone in the story, what's wrong with that? It's interesting that especially this presumed identification is apparently so unacceptable. That seems strange to me, especially since it seems to be okay if the author identifies with a male character (hey, I've written K/S stories where I've strongly identified with Kirk, in fact wrote one to put Kirk into a relationship situation that I've experienced in order to watch him deal with it.). I certainly think that when I write a story there is some identification with the characters going on; if there's nothing in the characters' behaviour that I can relate to things inside myself I wouldn't write the story. It doesn't mean that I actually want to do what the characters in the story do, but that these things are part of my fantasies. Does that make me a Mary Sue writer?

What I would not like about a so-called Mary Sue is when the author spends more time on her and gives her more importance in the story than the boys I'm interested in. But the same happens when there's an original male character who is like that. I just generally don't want a non-series character to pop up and replace the boys in their leading roles.

There has been some discussion about this in German fandom. too by the way, and they've come up with an alternative term: IWIF (idealisierte weibliche Identifikationsfigur = idealized female... oops, translating isn't so easy all the time... Identifikationsfigur is a technical term from psychology, denoting a real or fictional character with whom people like to identify). There has been discussion about the differences between Mary Sues and IWIFs, but I have to admit that I haven't followed the discussions too closely, so I can't say much about it at the moment.

Why so many Profs stories have only women-as-bimbos. I think that is directly connected to the dislike people have against Mary Sue stories. Mary Sue characters are so criticized, and it seems that any strong female character is in danger of being interpreted as one that writers try to do anything to prevent their story from being rated as a Mary Sue. Which means they try to avoid writing strong female characters at all. In a way. that is sad. However, I have to say that I don't care terribly much about other strong characters than the boys I'm interested in in a slash story, be they male or female. They distract me from my main focus. I have no problem if no other characters than just the two appear in a story.

I always enjoy watching the heavy discussions about what is slash and what isn't. I'm sure no agreement will ever be reached about it. I had to grin a bit about [M F G] writing in her contribution "Two Heads Are Better Than One": "This feels like people trying to steal slash from us by making it etoliated and generic" and continues [to write] how terrible it would be to have to find slash among the generic gen and adult slash. And then she says on page 6 of the second contribution "Why can't slash encompass more than one definition? Why does it have to be your way or not at all?. Why does it have to fit one definition only? And how would you feel if that definition turned out not to be yours?" (See, I really think about what you write, [M F G]! :-)). Of course, her complaints were about two very different things, but I think it shows yet again how strongly everyone feels about what is slash and what isn't. Maybe it's not hard at all to find a definition of slash - for one individual fan. The problem seems to be more to find a common denominator.

[Addresses a fan who said she didn't know of any slash authors being misogynistic]: I have seen quite a number of stories that contained what I would rate as misogynistic remarks (comments in the narrative voice (!) about how a woman could never understand slash character X, how no woman could be as good at sex as Y, or how sex with a man is ever so much more satisfying than with a woman, especially since the man is so much tighter. Hah! As if nobody had ever heard that anal sex is possible with a woman, too.). I don't like such comments because they don't refer to a particular woman but imply that women in general are not as good sex partners as men. I find that misogynistic. Probably, the author's psyche had some influence in writing this. Which one, however, I have no way to conclude without asking her herself.

From the photos I've seen and the people I've met in Europe (I've never been to a con on the other side of the pond) I have gained the impression that slash fandom is not only mostly a women's thing but also a white women's thing. I haven't encountered many fans with "ethnic" backgrounds. Is that true at all?

Some Topics Discussed in "Desert Blooms"

Excerpts from "Desert Blooms"

Re Ralph Fiennes - yes, to your Lawrence After Arabia fantasy. It's a perfect combination of beautiful men (Ralph & Siddig) and a slash story. The whole film has a very erotic undercurrent, thanks in no small part to Ralph's excellent and controlled performance (and, well, maybe those flowing white silk robes) and oozing sexuality. I'd like to think they actually filmed the "clinch and thence to bed" bit and are simply holding it back until the climate is ripe! Well, if you can have your fantasies, I can have mine!

With the recent availability of Starsky & Hutch on cable TV and the desire to recapture pleasures past, I've been watching long forgotten episodes. I've mentioned before how [N] and I used to be serious S&H viewers way back when and for years we've reminisced warmly of those early slash-like yearnings. Well, I find that the memories are far sweeter than the reality, which is not to say I haven't been having a terrific time with the boys!

My friends look at me askew when I tell them how much fun it is and back quickly out of the room when I start to describe Adrian Zmed in the marvelously tacky disco episode or the one where the girlfriend of the week sits around with an ittty-bitty bandaid covering the bullet wound in her forehead!

There's bad clothes, bad dialogue, really bad plots and lots and lots of very slashy moments that fully explain our early fixation with the show. And to be truthful, there are certainly a small handful of decent eps that have held up relatively well over the decades, at least no worse some Pros eps.

My, my, television has come a long way since the 70's. Men's hairstyles have come a long way since the 70's. Civilization has come a long way since the 70's. And S&H is video proof that we should leave some things to our fuzzy, pleasant memories of the past.

Some Topics Discussed in "WHIPS: Coming Up For Air"

  • what is slash?
  • discussion about the different meanings of author "identification" in fiction
  • writing and self-awareness

Excerpts from "WHIPS: Coming Up For Air"

Mmmm, turn your back for a minute and a whole year goes by, snap! And all this time I have been oblivious to any controversy stirred up by my last submission, or surely I would have felt stirred from sloth to reply. Some of the responses I got were, shall we say, heated? Having been in this position before (you'd think I'd learn my lesson) and having observed this phenomenon from the outside, it is now my turn for a small rant. Who died and elected me God? Who made me the slash police? It seems unfair to me that having a strong opinion on a subject is immediately interpreted as trying to dictate to others. And it is a peculiarly female response to a woman having strong opinions.

What difference does it make if you think what I believe is wrong or stupid? What power do I have to change your life, or even affect it in any way? Everything I say is my opinion. Even this. There are opinions which are 'more sound' by the rules of logic, but the rules of logic don't always produce the truth, nor are they the appropriate tool in every situation. There are opinions more solidly grounded in what we call 'facts' which generally means shared perceptions. The more people share a perception, the more likely it is to be called a fact—thus, scientifically reproducible effects are perceptions that can presumably be shared by anyone who cares to duplicate the experiment. I begin to feel nervous, that I must define every word with possible ambiguous meanings in order to protect myself from misinterpretation. So perception; meaning information obtained by the senses, augmented by interpretation of that information.

Furthermore, why is not ok to make a general statement? Because generalizations don't include every detail of the group they refer to? Of course they don't. That's why they are generalizations. A generalization is a tool, not a truth. If I say zebras are characterized by stripes, the statement remains valid even though there are some albino zebras which have no stripes. My generalizations about writing, slash, etc. are of the same sort - and they are based on my observations of and discussions with a wide variety of fans, reading stacks and stacks of slash stories til late into the night and outside reading. Not entirely 'scientific' but not pulled out of thin air either. Nor based on my preferences. I am not entirely sure that by my own definition of slash if I am really a slash fan.

Aside from all this, is it possible to discuss a volatile topic without taking things personally or assuming that those who disagree are out to get me? I think so. I have noticed in fandom an unwillingness to debate issues, with reasons given such as, someone's feelings might get hurt if I say my opinion, or controversy and argument are stressful; or alternatively, any disagreement turns into open season for propaganda, posturing and slogan hurling. (To be fair, this happens everywhere, not just in fandom).

[...]

The whole "what is slash" question continues to vex me; so I will have another go at explaining what I mean.

My initial response to the issue was based both on some annoyance that what I believed about slash was being called homophobic and in a manner that allowed no dissent, and on simple confusion. What is the political value of the word 'slash' anyway? It's a word with a made-up meaning understandable only to a small group of people.

...Slash is a genre. If we can classify some novels as mysteries, others as westerns, still others as romances, and on to the various romance subtypes, why can't we classify some media fiction in which same-sex characters are sexually involved as slash and others as not? And how does such a classification imply disrespect to any one?

Did you read my statement? Or did you just see the word misogyny and flash? I never said anything about whether writers should or shouldn't put strong female characters in stories, or even much about how they should write them. Only that I have never specifically seen an out and out homophobic line in a story, while I have seen out and out hostile comments about women. Perhaps I haven't read widely enough. My position is also that if it is acceptable to say that certain writers are homophobic based on what they write and/or homophobia is a problem in the slash community, then on similar sort of evidence it should be equally acceptable to claim the same sort of thing about misogyny.

I do wonder about the degree to which I and most other slash fans I know obsess on and idealize male-male relationships. As I said earlier, men who are turned on by lesbian scenarios rarely go to the extremes slash fans do with this stuff. Slash is not merely one item on the sexual smorgasbord for us, it's often the whole menu. In a slash story I don't care if the female characters are one or two dimensional. But I would prefer no women in the story rather than women being slammed. What is a slam? Different things for different people, see my comment to [S], above. For me, not a woman being mean or nasty, necessarily. As long as all the characters in a story, male or female, are presented as having their own internal rationale, as having a valid point of view regardless of whether the main character sees this or not, or whether the writer even agrees, then I don't perceive any slamming, regardless of any given character's behavior or thoughts. Too often, the women characters become a straw men (as it were) for whatever the writer hates.

I have no problem with someone saying, I don't care to discuss how what I write is about me, that doesn't interest me at all. Fine. Perfectly reasonable statement. Other writers are interested in how what they write is about them. Equally fine. Both stands are irrelevant to the content of the stories themselves, or the way art is produced. There are plenty of books on creativity, on the psychological ways and means of reading and writing, on art by artists, on writing by writers, and there is a vast agreement that the subconscious plays an important role in creativity.

Say it doesn't apply to you? I think that is equivalent to claiming your lungs don't take in air the same way other people's do. But believe what you wish. However, it is not wrong of me to believe that this is one part of the writing process. If you don't agree, fine. However, your response strikes me as a little paranoid. I am not making any personal statements to anybody. Read what I say, consider, keep what you like, throw out the rest, use it for toilet paper. Why does it upset you so much for me to have this opinion? Or do you protest a little too much? If the shoe fits....

The writer's emotions, etc. are in a story the same way eggs are in a souffle. No eggs, flat souffle. However, you might never deduce eggs upon seeing a souffle.

I will say that taking surface details of a story and deciding this is what the author is "really" like is ridiculous. You can glean issues that attract, interest, or concern the writer, but this means very little about how they interact with the world, or in what way these issues manifest in their life. Perhaps they exist only in fantasy. People who respond to a story in the way of "this writer needs therapy," etc. just don't know what they are talking about. I think those statements say more about the reader's discomfort with the material than anything else.

To call slash 'gay fiction' is to take away from its uniqueness. The whole appeal of slash in particular for me is that it is not anything else that already exists or that can be easily labeled, such as gay fiction, romance novels, pornography of whatever sexual preference or kink. As [M F G] said in SBF 9, 'why confuse the issue when there are already perfectly applicable labels already in use?' Fan stories that deal explicitly with gay characters already fit in a category of adult and/or gay fiction. I have read a number of stories that I would categorize this way, and for the most part, they are better stories than the majority of slash stories out there. But it doesn't make them slash.

Slash is unique. Unlike every other sort of fan fiction, the paradigmatic slash scenario, two (ostensibly straight) buddies in a dangerous profession, who discover that their feelings for each other transcend gender identification, sex roles and sexual preference, has no counterpart in mainstream fiction.

There is something that resonates strongly with me in the word transcend. The best slash stories make only passing reference to gay/straight/bi issues, and focus on the relationship itself. The characters in these stories don't really give a damn what label they fit under. As far as they are concerned, their relationship is unique in and of itself, it goes beyond simplistic labels. The relationship is so different and powerful that the old rules no longer apply. The relationship rewrites each of the character's identities at its very core, that of self- definition.

Sex is an integral part of this transformation — it is the means by which the barriers are smashed and the characters are shown to us (and each other) as they truly are. Sexual interaction raises all sorts of issues around intimacy, needs, risks of exposure, as well as reaching deeply into the primitive parts of ourselves. Few other things generate so much powerful emotions. It doesn't necessarily have to be erotic, however, though it's fun to read.

Some Topics Discussed in "WHIPS: Evolution in Action"

Excerpts from "WHIPS: Evolution in Action"

alt.tv.x-files.creative had some interesting stuff. If you have web access, to sample some stories go to: http://eewww.eng.ohio-state.edv/~juodvalk/x-files/ for a wonderfully organized archive of stories that have appeared on the newsgroup. I highly recommend SACRIFICE by Amperage and CORPSE by Livengoo. Both are excellent Mulder angst stories.

Strangely enough the idea that Mulder was an abused child has really taken hold in that fandom. Try out EVALUATION/THERAPY and THERAPY II by Amperage for that thread.

There is lots of hot sex out there, too. Fandom has made Fox Mulder a sexual God. He does it all and very well. For an OK slash story try PLEASANT DREAMS.

How many of you watched the last few episodes of DUE SOUTH? Swear to God/Goddess/Rush Limbaugh, those were some of the best hours of TV I've seen in years. If you know someone with tapes, watch The Blue Line, Gift of the Wheelman, The Deal, Heaven & Earth, Victoria's Secret, and Letting Go. In that order. Beautiful writing, great acting, humor, father & son stuff, and a beautifully developed relationship between the two guys.

From some of the responses I've gotten in the last few issues it sounds as if you think I am sitting in bed with a vibrator and a stack of stories (Oh, hell, throw in a box of Godiva chocolates). I pick up a story, read it and wait for a physiological reaction. If nothing tingles or dampens, then I throw it in the "This isn't slash" pile and go on to the next story.

My contention is that if you take a pile of 1000 slash stories, read them, look at the characterizations, the plots, the themes it is possible to make judgements (I know that is a dirty word) as to what these stories have in common. It is then possible to take a story, look for what was found in those thousand stories and say whether or not the story fits the framework.

[...]

I am not personally insulted when something that tickles my fancy (can we say SNOWBOUND?) doesn't fall within my "slash" definition. If my house caught fire I would save the zine that contains that story before I would save my pile of "slash" Nome zines. I love that sick puppy story. I am not ashamed to say it rang my chimes. Does the fact that it doesn't fit my definition of slash make it less valuable? Obviously not.

If I had to organize a library based on the type of reasoning that came up with "slash is anything that involves one or more media characters in a sexual context" the library would become useless to the people who need or want to use it. Of course, the people who came up with that clever theory can sit back and pat themselves on the back for being inclusive, but I'd like to see them find their copy of Derrida in my ten floor inclusive library.

So why do I care? I'm a librarian. I preserve knowledge. Slash ~ the innocent, female-oriented, straight guys fucking each other variety ~ was pretty damn unique. Hell, it was a fucking miracle! A bunch of middle-aged middle class women in the late 70's writing about heterosexual TV guys fucking each other?

I've mentioned a documentary called "Before Stonewall" in another issue. One interview was with a woman with a collection of paperback books that appeared in the 50's. There was no overt lesbian sex, but there was a lesbian context that was very important to her. She wanted those books remembered. Today they wouldn't make it in the market, but they have importance for that they were, when they were, and what they inspired.

Maybe the "slash" I'm taking about is like that series of books; tied to a time past and unable to bear the scrutiny of our more liberated times. If that is true, then I want slash remembered for what it was as well as for what it is becoming. And, if it is becoming something else, then let's call it something else.

How many of you have read Summer's End by D.T. Steiner? There is a whole generation of stories, h/c and relationship, that preceded slash that is almost completely unknown to recent slash readers. How many of you remember zine ads that advertised K-S stories as opposed to K/S?

I honestly believe that there has been a shift away from the female fantasy of males having sex in a female-oriented context toward being more interested in the female fantasy about male homosexuals. If I come to the conclusion that this is a major turning point in fan writing, is this evil?

I didn't want to close without addressing MFae's thoughtful musings from the last issue. I was in the BookStop yesterday and the retitling of the second edition of MEN ARE FROM MARS, WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS to MEN ARE FROM MARS, MFAE IS FROM VENUS now makes sense. Now that I know that all conclusions about female sexuality ~ regardless of the size of the sample pool and the methodology used ~ are meaningless unless MFae can validate them. I'll bet Nancy Friday feels like a fool! Imagine spending all that time interviewing all those women about their sexual fantasies when all she had to do was ASK MFAE. Come to think of it, I'm going to give up my quest to define slash. Beside the word in the dictionary I'll just put a picture of MFAE complete with nipple clamps. Okay, I'm done. Two paragraphs of smart ass sarcasm. I'm sorry. I'll address the issues.

[...]

It always amazes me on the list and in the APA that so many of us are so reluctant to step back and look at the big picture. An innocuous statement like "women are the primary readers of slash" will bring the inevitable response of "I know two men who read it" as if that invalidates the first statement.

Let's look at the first thousand slash stories. The Truth is Out there. It is Due South.

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

Excerpts from "With Friends Like These..."

The appeal of DOOM - you may be sorry you asked! You're probably right that most Doomers are male, though I know quite a few female players. There's even the FemDOOM patch, that changes the face of the macho manly Marine into that of a woman. And while there are a lot of young players, the best players tend to be middle-aged; it takes brains and perseverance as well as quick reflexes to win at DOOM. The game appeals to all kinds. I was at Media Play one day and a bunch of senior citizens ran up to the DOOM II display, yammering about how great a game it was and how they were going to buy it as soon as their next Social Security check arrived!

I used to play network DOOM, but don't anymore; the powers-that-be decided that the taxpayers might object to such use of government equipment, even during lunch break. (And they're undoubtedly correct!) Most Doomers play in singleton mode. However, most hardcore Doomers prefer modem play, in Deathmatch mode.

(In a network, up to four players can play at the same time; modem play is strictly two-player.) Deathmatch is preferred over Cooperative because it's more challenging; you're matching wits and skills with a human opponent, not the dumb computer. In fact, many Deathmatch WADs have no monsters to kill; players would much rather kill each other!

When id Software came up with DOOM, they were nothing short of brilliant. I'm not a big fan of shoot 'em up computer games, so I didn't expect to like DOOM. But the virtual-reality graphics were so stunning that I played it just to watch them. (The fact that it was shareware with no obligation to register didn't hurt!) Before long I was hooked by the puzzles: how to get through the maze-like levels, what would be on the next level, how it would end. And even after I made it all the way through, it was still fun to play (quite a rarity for a computer game). There are different skill levels, plus "secret areas" -- hidden bonus sections that can only be found if you figure out the secret. They aren't necessary to finish the game, so they can be quite challenging to find without getting frustrating. It took me months of playing an hour a day before I found them all. (The toughest one was getting to the secret level in Mission 3.

Another reason DOOM is so endlessly fascinating is that id made their programming software freely available early on and encouraged users to play around. Thus, you can download thousands of unofficial DOOM programs from online services and bulletin boards: patches that change the monsters to look like Beavus and Butthead or Bill Clinton, patches that change the music to Phantom of the Opera or Aerosmith, patches that upgrade weapons, and, best of all, WADs ~ entire levels or even groups of levels designed by users. It's like fandom, really. Some WADs are really bad, full of bugs or not very playable, while others are great. People who are good at it get reputations, and users rush to download their latest as soon as it's available. Some WADs become so popular they get followings of their own. And id has recently begun buying the best of the "fan WADS" for commercial release, paying $1,000 each. (I haven't tried designing my own WADs yet, though I'd like to. Sarah gave me a Waldenbooks gift certificate for Christmas, and I used it to buy a copy of The DOOM Hacker's Guide, which comes with a CD full of DOOM design and editing programs. I'd like to give DOOM a B7 twist; hey, there's DW DOOM, Aliens DOOM, SW DOOM - why not B7 DOOM?

For me, DOOM complements fandom in a peculiar way. While fandom provides characterization and relationships, DOOM provides plot and action. Some people like books or movies with a balance of action and characterization. I tend to find that insipid. I prefer mine separated out; it makes each that much more intense. And both fandom and DOOM are interactive in a way a book or movie can never be.

My feeling is that the reason online media fans are hesitant to share is not because they are selfish. Nervous is more like it. They warn you all the time not to give out your address online ~ not even the city. And you don't know who might be reading the messages on the public BBs. Often anyone offering or asking for tapes gets slapped with a copyright violation warning. It makes you kind of paranoid after awhile. Maybe this seemingly nice person who's asking you for tapes is really heal. an undercover FBI agent.

I don't think people are actually afraid of writing certain kinds of stories. It's just that time is limited; we can't write all the stories we'd like to, and often the ones that get finished are the ones that other fans encourage us to write. IMHO, it's more the lack of positive reinforcement rather than any fear of punishment that influences fans to stick to the "party line."

As you can see, I'm becoming quite the online service slut these days. Well, I wouldn't need so many if they weren't all so unsatisfactory in one area or another!

I more or less agree with your definition of "Mary Sue," though I think there are different degrees of Mary-Sueness. A lot fans use the term to describe any character who's too good to be true (the early Wesley Crusher in ST:TNG). Fans also frequently use the term to describe an original character who comes into the story and assumes any kind of importance, especially if s/he gets to be romantically involved with one or more established characters (Steffany in Hellhound). The reason I dislike Mary-Sues is that I just don't like original characters. And when it's an established character who gets MSed, the character distortion bothers me.

Some Topics Discussed in "Two Heads are Better Than One"

This trib is by [N B] and [M F G].

  • [N B] "with a long, rambling paean to 'Batman Forever'"
  • [N B]: comments on language, French vs English
  • [N B]: comments about the movie "Jeffrey"
  • [M F G's] "endless mailing comments including a lot of talk about Mary Sues and the lies writers tell."
  • [M F G] "on classic Trek and current gay styles, F/F slash thoughts and pairings, and a plea never to take her comments personally as she's really just an argumentative bitch."
  • [M F G]: long comments about the Star Trek: TOS episode, Mirror, Mirror
  • [M F G]: why isn't there more f/f fiction?
  • [M F G]: many, many more pages of comments on the comments on the rants and anti-rants, plus the disclaimer it's not meant to be personal
  • [M F G]: comments about the Babylon 5 zine, Catalyst, see that page
  • [M F G]: comments on Mary Sues
  • clipping: "Old Debate: Super-Heroes, Sexuality," an article by Frank DeCaro from the LA Times, July 4, 1994

Excerpts from "Two Heads are Better Than One"

[N B]: reyrct about gay porn. Screw politically correct. I loathe and despise that particular subset of feminists who condemn all pornography. If I believed in a concept such as hell, that's where I'd wish them to reside — right next to the religious right of this country who are so determined to take our freedoms away.

[N B]: Well, where do I begin? What a slashy movie (Batman Forever)! What a fetishist's dream! Would you believe that I've gone out and bought a 4-head VCR with frame by frame advance just because of this movie? I can hardly wait for the video.

[M F G]: Just to make myself a trifle clearer than mud (I appear to have had all the clarity of a rammed-earth wall last time), all my comments in my tribs are not personal — my comments are aimed at what is said, not the sayer. I don't go for beating around the bush, nor mealy- mouthed tiptoing: I'm blunt, adversarial and argumentative, and I expect as good as I give. Yes, that is an invitation for anyone who feels so inclined to have a good rip at anything and everything I say!

[M F G]: I was sitting chatting to another slash friend (who also writes) when she brought up the topic of why there's so little f/f slash out there. She was a bit pissed off by the notion that we 'ought' to be writing this sort of thing (her opinion was that we should be writing what we 'bloody well want to fucking write', not what people think we 'should' or 'ought'.). We sat there and pissed and moaned about how tired we were of being told what we should be writing and how we had both been running across quite a few people blaming this that and the next thing for the lack of f/f stories. So I trotted out the reasons I'd heard given by several other people who'd said that they'd like to read/write f/f slash and would, but... You know, there are no strong women characters, women characters were given short-shrift in the series, the women characters were wimped out on, the women characters didn't get the best lines etc.

Of course, then we sat there and came up with all the male characters for whom this is true but for whom slash exists (Vila, Tarrant and Murphy were the first three mentioned, and Starsky and Hutch were cited as a classic case in complete wimpification!). Basically, we said, for male/male slash regardless of what male you want to pair with whichever other male, it comes down to "where's there's will, there's a way". And then we decided to see if we could — and keep in mind, neither of us is the slightest bit interested in reading/writing f/f — come up with any plausible f/f scenarios, as several people had rather plaintively complained that they would if only...

[...]

All of the series offered established on-screen females, two offered on-screen on-going relationships between the women, all of the series offered strong, appealing, complex female characters. We also came up with workable outlines for about twelve stories — and all this in an otherwise idle half-hour, and just to see if it could be done. So most of the reasons I've heard for the lack of f/f stories just don't hold water as far as I'm concerned, so I still don't know why there's so little f/f. I mean, there's an entire universe of stories built around a character who says maybe a dozen lines (Murphy on Pros), not to mention him having his own zine — so if there's as much demand for f/f as I've been hearing, why isn't there more f/f?

[M F G]: Most of the Mary Sues I know I've run across are Trek, although I've been told there are mary sues in B7 and Pros, too — but as I don't read gen or adult, I really couldn't tell you. At least one Pros 'mary sue' [stories that] was quoted to me? I know for a fact that the character was not a mary sue (I know the writer and she was Not Amused that people had thought that the character was her. Not amused at all.).

[M F G]: We obviously take a very different approach in defining misogyny, for the Sebastian quote you use doesn't strike me as being misogynistic because 1) I took it to be the character's interpretation not necessarily the writer's (I took this as one of the times when Sebastian does not limit herself to a simple binary of narrative/character voice, but blends the two beautifully to help create a 'feel' for the characters—for me, anyway) and 2) it's not saying 'no women at all ever have a clue/all women are stupid/ all women are lousy at sex'. It's also not exactly lauding Avon as the Great Sex God of the Universe — Avon is portrayed as a great lump lying in bed, sexually uncommunicative and useless at helping his female partner or participating in such a way as to improve the sex. It would have been clearer if she had also included another line stating that men, quite often, didn't have a clue about communicating — but then, Blake's not very likely to think that, I suppose.

Misogyny, for me, is gratuitous put-downs of every single female character, or consistently showing all the female characters (including author's originals) as being the sort of person you would cross the street to avoid (recent example of an overabundance of icky females: Ember Days by O. Yardley is a far cry from her wonderful female characters in Bear Necessity and all its children).

[...]

As for using language like 'bitch' and 'cunt': I don't consider their usage in an all-male sex-scene to be insulting to women. I don't use those words in a gender-specific way, but I do use them as indications of abuse and power-imbalance — just the same way as I use 'cocksucker' and 'bastard' and 'scum'. Now, other writers may be using them because they think the worst insult ever offered is to suffer 'female' terms, but that's not always the case.

Given that so many fans share your attitude of making such assumptions "rightly or wrongly", do you think it's fair for fans to be so blithe in making such assumptions, uncaring of whether or not they're right or wrong? It's such a small thing, I've heard people say, and harmless. Harmless, until I thump someone for assuming that, when they meet me, they know all about me because they've read my stories! Harmless, until I lose my temper over yet another person informing me that they 'just knew' that such-and-such a character was a Mary Sue "and so like you!". To be honest, this comes down to privacy for me—again. One of the most telling and quite possibly the definitive aspect of the description of 'mary sue' is that it's the author. And how the hell do people think they can tell?

Some Topics Discussed in "When Correctly Viewed"

Excerpts from "When Correctly Viewed"

I don't think there is really any serious likelihood that the definition of slash is going to be diluted beyond recognition. It sounds to me as if the examples you cited were all coming from people who weren't very familiar with fandom— like some of those dorks on the Internet B7 list who were vigorously denouncing slash in the belief that it referred to any explicit sex story whatsoever (well, at least they can't be accused of homophobia, at least not on the basis of those particular remarks)

You said that you haven't yet explored the online groups associated with media fandom. I'm not the expert that [L] is, having only ever tried one service, namely GEnie; but I'm happier all the time with GEnie's Science Fiction Round Table BBS (which has many different categories, some devoted to media topics, including adult ones) and increasingly disillusioned with the Internet mailing lists. On a monitored BBS, as opposed to the mailing lists, you don't have to worry about nasty exclusionist admissions policies or gratuitous flaming or kill files, and you are spared all the obnoxious electronic junk mailings of things like chain letters and Soviet Bimbos Seek American Suckers. You can post in any form you choose, and no one cares whether or not you use little '>>' marks. Really, it's a much friendlier environment.

As to why so many writers are apparently so concerned as to what other fans will think: it depends, I think, on the circumstances in which one is writing. For many fans, writing is a social activity; they do it at least in part to please their friends, writing stories as birthday presents and so on, so of course the wishes of the recipient are important. In addition, I think that many writers, pros as well as fans, have an exaggerated idea of the importance of catering to the audience's supposed wishes. I think that often stories that are both good and popular (not the same thing, but there's a much larger overlap than cynics care to admit) are the very ones that the author wrote to please herself. Many excellent books have come about because someone couldn't find enough of the kind of thing she wanted to read and so decided to produce it herself.

On Mary Sues: I agree with your definition, that it's a character who's an obvious incarnation of the author (and not merely an improbable superwoman). I include male authors and characters in my personal definition of the term: George Takei's dreadful attempt at an SF novel was a prime example, and so are Conan the Barbarian and his ilk. Possibly The Tale of Genji is another example. I'd also agree generally that the difference between a good and a bad Mary Sue has to do with the extent to which the character becomes independent of her creator. However, in media fan fiction there's another criterion: the original character should not detract from the established characters by doing things that they should do (solving the problem, or whatever). In completely original fiction that factor isn't relevant because none of the characters are any more important to the reader than the others, unless and until the author chooses to make them so.

Reyrctme, so true that the absence of a canonical screen sex life for most of the B7 characters is in fact a great boon for imaginative fan pornographers. I wonder if anyone at the BBC ever had the faintest inkling of the fact that by permitting almost nothing explicit, they were opening up the possibility that almost anything might be explicit? I've heard several people comment that to them slash seems more feasible in the B7 universe than some others, because it's no more improbable than heterosexual sex. Getting those people together with each other is so tricky in any case that one pairing hardly seems any more difficult than another. Of course, I've also heard the completely opposite opinion. Someone remarked recently in another apa that she didn't find slash plausible in B7 as opposed to other universes because the characters did not love and trust each other in the way that she considers essential for true slash!! The idea that love is necessary for sex was a new one for me. I guess she hasn't been reading the works of M. Fae!

Some Topics Discussed in "The World is Hollow..."

Excerpts from "The World is Hollow..."

Well, there's a good reason why you're "still not entirely sure what the consensus is on the answer to the question: What is slash." It's because there is no such consensus. But you knew that, didn't you?

On the appropriateness of the word "addictive" being used for MUDS, I think that part of the reason MUDders use it is probably out of a sort of defiance, a sense of already being condemned by a larger society that sees them as weird and they are therefore (re)claiming the negative label. This is the same thing that is going on when people with minority sexual tastes cal themselves "perverts," for instance. I

What do you think of racial dynamics in slash, and in slash fandom? There are probably only a few more non-white slash fans than there are non-female slash fans, judging from my experience at cons, and I've often wondered why this is. To some extent I think it s a side-effect of class. Class in the US is very highly correlated with color; yes, there are plenty of poor white folk, and quite a few non-poor folk of color, but the legacy and continuing effects of racism make people of color much more likely to be poor than are white people. And I think media fandom, especially the con-going part of it, is largely again, not entirely—middle and upper-class phenomenon. It's not hard to see some reasons tor this, it takes money and leisure to get to cons. But I've rarely seen racial or class issues addressed in fannish analysis of fandom, and since you brought up the first, and I think it is related to (though not synonymous with, of course; don't get me wrong) the second, I'm asking you to run with it. I remember hypothesizing many years ago that one reason that A/V seemed to be more popular with the Brits than A/B, and vice versa among the Americans, was that Brits are more sensitized to class issues, and A/V dramatizes them more than A/B. But aside from a minor (possibly existing only in the pages of the Terra Nostra Underground, this apa's predecessor?) and rather silly-looking flap some years ago over whether MV fandom was being racist in its uninterest in a pairing involving some non-white guy with a white guy (I don't know the show, and don't remember the names), I haven't seen fans discuss racial issue

I saw Darrow at a CreationCon in NYC several years ago (my friends and I avoided the hellish toll supporting CreationCon takes on your karma by sneaking in) and watched his speech from the balcony. Couldn't hear a word he said (yeah, like I cared), but I had a lovely view of the bald spot.

Several people wanted to know, in some surprise, where on earth I saw implicit sexism in X-Files. ([name redacted] even wanted to know if was bothered by Scully's clothes. Her clothes? What on earth have her clothes got to do with anything?) I had a long, er, discussion with [B] too. Basically, in my experience — and while second season improved on first, the pattern has by no means vanished — Scully gets a vastly disproportionate number of the lines that amount to "Gee, what shall we do now?" She asks Mulder what the latest plot development means, never vice versa. She follows his lead; he rarely follows hers. (I was actually considering doing a line-by-line exposition of an episode, but I decided I had better things to do with three hours; sorry.) I do enjoy the show, but I continue to kvetch about this pattern. As [B] pointed out, I don't kvetch about shows that do worse things, because I expect bad things from them. From X-Files I was led to expect better than I'm getting, even if what I'm getting is better than most tv.

The X-Files hints at breaking what you call "the m/f romance mandate," and that this is probably one of the sources of its appeal for such folk as slash fans. It puts me in a double bind, since I eat up moments when Mulder goes berserk for Scully's safety, but I don't want them to be/become lovers. In some sense I want him/them to care but remain unable to fully admit it. And yes, this is because I have very little faith in the show's producers' ability (and some doubt in my own ability, frankly and unfortunately) to simultaneously conduct a drama of independent characters and a romance of mutually dependent ones.

Some Topics Discussed in "Push the Button, Frank"

This fan is leaving the apa.

Excerpts from "Push the Button, Frank"

"Push the button, Frank" is what Dr. Forrester says to TV's Frank at the end of every Mystery Science Theatre 3000. Since this is my last trib to Strange Bedfellows, I decided to go with it for the title instead the slashier "Oppenheimer cupped Fermi's breasts as Edward Teller's slip slid to the floor." Perhaps I chose wrongly.

I think I also chose wrongly in joining the APA and that's an error I'm correcting now by leaving. [S] has done a great job as OE and I think her for allowing me to join. However, the fundamental incompatibility in temperament, interests, and philosophy between me and many of the other members left me feeling alienated and too tense to enjoy the APA. Every time I had to sit down and type up a trib I felt like I was watching that big boulder from Raiders of the Lost Ark rolling my way. Some people thrive on that but I don't. It's no one's fault, just a matter of irreconcilable differences, like a no-fault divorce.

[...]

There are other minor reasons for going but those are the major ones: basic incompatibility and not enough time. I will still find time to go to cons. Funny how it's easier to find time to go out of town for long weekends than for writing anything — tribs, papers, checks for credit card bills. Maybe I'll see some of you at ZCon next month and we can studiously avoid making eye contact. 8-)

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

Excerpts from "To Be Announced by T H"

For me there is some elusive quality that defines a slash story. I have yet to come up with some definition of this quality but I know it by its presence. God, that sounds awful and pretentious. Sorry. I guess it is a bit like the difference between SF, Fantasy and Horror, we all have different transfer points, and sometimes the only way to say which genre a book falls into is to read it and see what it feels like.

References

  1. ^ "Mercy Leap" is by Meg Garrett.
  2. ^ "The Second Tragedy" is in Frisky Business Strikes Back!.
  3. ^ It is unclear which Quantum Leap story, "Lover's Leap," this is as there are many.
  4. ^ peroration
  5. ^ These Vas/Dex stories must be in Frienz #31-44.
Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Strange_Bedfellows_(APA)/Issue_010&oldid=2591182"