Talk:Queer Het
Linking the page works fine for me: Queer Het. --Doro (talk)
- I've created a redirect so that "queer het" and "Queer het" will give blue links. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Examples from fandom history?
I remember there being recs for some really good Mulder/Scully fics in the late 90s that spoke of them as "het with the emotional intensity and quality of slash." I seem to remember them often involving the assumption of Mulder/Krycek or Mulder/Skinner being a thing as well. I don't know exactly how relevant it'd be to this kind of thing, but it's what I was reminded of, fandom history-wise. (For what it's worth, I've always written het the same way I've written slash and with the added presumption that everyone is bi, to maximise the pairings and the fun.) Does anyone else remember these and/or have any idea where I could find citable sources? --Snowgrouse (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not fiction, but meta: Reading the X-Files: Mulder and Scully's "Partnership" and the Question of Queer Marriage, Empedocles (8X17) perhaps talks a bit about this? --MPH (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Meta: Slash without the slash: A ramble on how I finally came to understand het slash --Doro (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Revised definitions with some rephrasing
I saw someone had added a third definition of queer het as being also about trans characters--but that just made me realise how iffy the first definition was in the first place ("fic that doesn't presume the characters are straight"). So now I fiddled around so that the first definition can include all kinds of queerness (I specifically used the word "queer" so we could avoid alphabet soup), so we don't have to specify any form of queerness separately. And I put some of that sense of the original one (not presuming all the characters are straight) into the second definition, to make that more wide-ranging as well. Hope that's better!--Snowgrouse (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do you/anyone have any citations or external references for this term and its definitions? I'm unfamiliar with the term (in a fannish context, specifically), and so it's difficult to really evaluate this page...I tried to look around myself, and didn't find anything on a Google search. (In particular, I'd love to see citations of other fans using this term to describe their or others' works, talking about the term as a genre, etc.) - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Like various other terms on this wiki, it's one of those things that's a little ephemeral. I know that on Ao3 I'm probably the only one using it, but I've had discussions at conventions and such on the topic, and that spirit has most certainly existed for a while among sex-positive pro erotica writers, for example. Wish I could remember who it was, but she had a story in which a lesbian bummed a leatherman with a strap-on, in some anthology or another, as an example of queer erotica that was still technically heterosexual. As it's a passion of mine, I hosted a panel discussion on it at the Redemption '17 con, titled "queering het" or something similar, but I'm damned if I can find the blurb now. It was a really good discussion, with Amy Fortuna in particular chipping in with many good points.
- But yeah, it's one of those things that does exist, but the terminology has been varied (I definitely remember discussions in the late 90s about Mulder/Scully written with a slashy sensibility, but it wasn't called queer het--probably something like "het slash" or "slashy het"). Obviously, I wouldn't want the page to just have me as the only source. I wonder if the person who created the page could help at all?--Snowgrouse (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Recent changes too much on the second definition/controversy side
Well, I looked at the recent changes and the links involved... and whoa, that escalated quickly into a flamefest. And misguidedly at that--don't get me wrong, I understand the raging over the wank comms (When did wank comms become *the* resource of fannish discussion among the pre-Tumblr generation of fans? Sigh) because I personally am not on board the whole Tumblr-generation thing of desperately trying to grab queer cred by doing something a little non-normative, but the problem here is that we are now talking about two different ideas of "queer het". The problem there is that the critique, in the Wikipedia article and the wank comms in particular, focuses on not on definition 1: *actual* queer characters having "straight" sex, queer writers writing subversively, so much as it does on the worst forms of definition 2: the attempts of straight people to grab some queer cred on shaky grounds.
Plus, the Wiki article is largely about culture *outside of* transformative fandom, not quite in the fanfic sense being discussed here. It's talking about something like metrosexuality or Queer Eye, or the controversy over whether, say, heterosexual BDSM practitioners could be called queer. And the wank comms are raging about writers who claim their fic is queer because someone's breaking a gender stereotype in it--which I wouldn't discourage in fic, but what I'd call feminist fiction more than anything else if the characters are straight. (I also have a problem with the bashing from a sense of it putting people off queering anything up in case they are not seen as "queer enough," or as contributing nothing of value--something that immediately raises my hackles for so many reasons--but that's a different rant.)
And now, the way it's laid out, it skews the page by prioritising the controversy, via links that contain mostly bitching about the second definition, bitching about heterosexuals, and I get a whiff of the good old ancient "slash is subversive, het is normative" thing. The (oft queer-written) het of the first definition is drowned underneath the "omg, evil heteros appropriating our special gay stuff" flamewars. Although the later examples in the quotes (John/Aeryn a queer hetship?!) are veering towards that kind of grabbing, I don't think the examples adequately cover the sex-positive, queer-written endeavour side of the equation. However, I'm glad of the Wiki link since it had that mention of Tristan Taormino, because she's written more about the first definition, and through her I got onto a Wiki walk by which I found the article on Carol Queen. She was the one going on about a femme lesbian pegging a gay leatherman here. If you look at that stuff, how does that have anything to do with the second definition?
So how do we make this more neutral, so it doesn't equate the concept with something like Queer Eye or be unfairly in favour of the controversy? So that it won't drown out the intent and the the voice of the first definition? It doesn't cover the fic I write or the people with whom I've had discussions on the topic, or the conversations we had at the Queering Het panel at Redemption '17 (and the people taking part were pretty much all bi or lesbian, writing fics with queer characters). Where's the representation of the writers who are empathically not just straight people going "the woman in this ship has agency, therefore this is as good as queer!" but actually write about non-heterosexual characters having "straight" sex and deliberately do set out to rock the boat? (Like I said, I have problems with the kneejerky black and white ideas of "queer and therefore special and cool"/"het and/or femme and normative and boring" dualisms anyway. You only have to look at Tumblr for oceans of queer-identified gender dumb, and Ao3 for slash that's as heteronormative as it gets.) I expect that it was a scarcity of sources here, since I had trouble finding much meaty stuff myself (but honestly, I'd prioritise even vaguely related meta on people's own blogs over anonymous raging on wank comms). Am I going to have to write a blog post from the queer side of the equation so we can quote that? (If you don't see me editing this article, I'm busy writing that post.)
I reckon we should split this into two sections for each definition; would that work? Then we'd have the controversy bit there but also wouldn't misrepresent the first definition. The only problem here is that the line between the two definitions is blurry anyway, but I really wouldn't want this to be giving the impression of a blanket condemnation of something, especially when there are such widely different ideas of what the term means. Nor be a divisive "I write great, subversive fic because I'm queer and special, whereas YOUR fic is just the same old normative dreck with a buzz-cut!" kind of thing. You know. Please let this not turn into another outdated slash vs. het thing when it's exactly that that definition 1) folks are attempting to break down. --Snowgrouse (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you, that the page would be better served if we created subsections for the two current definitions. I've created those sections, but haven't moved any text into them. Feel free to move the "Example Fanworks" section into the definition subsection that you feel best characterizes those works. I think an ideal architecture of the page would see a longer definition of both variations of the term, plus example fanworks under each definition subsection for illustrative purposes. I have also added a section on fannish uses/discussions of the term, in addition to expanding the intro. (Personally, I think that this section on uses/discussion should remain separate from the definitions section - while I appreciate that there are different definitions, I've seen a lot of "collapsing" of the term in the wild, having now done some research on my own.)
- It would be great to see some information about that panel at Redemption '17 in the article page itself. You're also absolutely welcome to write a blog post and then quote it here - I think that would be helpful, if you're up for it. As you may already know, Fanlore has a Plural Point of View policy, and so we don't necessarily strive for neutrality. Instead, we're trying to present a synthesis of the many varied interpretations and experiences of fannish life. Quoting from sources like FFA helps us represent one of piece of the puzzle, because those communities are part of fandom - although certainly not the only or authoritative source. I found a variety of sources and perspectives for the new fannish uses/discussions section, and would encourage you to add anything you might come across (or write!). As a queer fan, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to have these conversations, and to collaboratively work on the wiki. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Fandomgeographies, I wish I could send you bouquets and drinks of your choice aplenty for this revision. It's much more expansive now. Perhaps "neutral" isn't the term I was really looking for, but "fair," which is what plurality should really be guided by--and you've done that. Now we've got *way* more examples of fan discussions that really do treat it fairly with the ranting of the "if it's penis in vagina it's het(eronormative)!" type and blanket statements/condemnations like "a man and a transwoman is always het and to say it's queer is transphobic!" being at a minimum (surely that depends on how queer *they* feel about it, about themselves, and whether they enjoy throwing in a bit of genderfuck?) It's much better to let people self-define and to allow this kind of expansiveness and exploration, even if that always gets someone's feathers ruffled (hey, *I* get ruffled about it at times, especially on Tumblr, but I'd still rather not police). So, thank you so much--I've been really busy with big RL stuff right now and haven't had the time or motivation to get into deep thinky blogging much. But that post is on the simmer! Snowgrouse (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Additional ship examples
I swear I saw a friend of mine comment in tags that Blupjeans was a queer het ship (or something along the lines of "the only het ships i care about are when the characters are queer, like this one") but I can't find the post now.--Assassin J (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)