The K/S Writer's Defence
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | The K/S Writer's Defence |
| Creator: | Eva Stuart |
| Date(s): | April 1985 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Blake's 7 |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
The K/S Writer's Defence is an essay by Eva Stuart.
It was printed in "touched" #4.
It was written after the author heard "Straights shouldn't write K/S!" from fans at Galileo Star Trek Convention.
A Related Interview
A few months after this essay was printed, Stuart also participated in an interview. See "touched" Interview with Eva Stuart.
Some Topics Discussed
- is the sexual preferences/sexuality/gender pertinent to being able to tell a good K/S story
- voyeurism, curiosity
- is K/S making homosexuality more visible and therefore more accepted
- is K/S too mushy/sentimental/Mills-and-Boonish
- why aren't there more male K/S writers (gay and otherwise)
- a brief mention of The Undiscovered Country, a K/S author, who along with Cassandra Smythe, wrote Command Decision
From the Essay
I took [this phrase: "Straights shouldn't write K/S!"] home with me [from Galileo Con] and have been pondering it ever since, because I am one of them. I write K/S and as I have been married a long time, I suppose I must be straight, (although like Spock in a story by a friend of mine 'I had never considered it' - I detest the label, any label!) Eventually I decided to put down my ideas on paper but at the sight of the typewriter, they turned to scrambled egg, until I saw a discussion on T.V. recently which seemed to sun up both sides of the argument far better than I could.
Alison Hennigan (late of Gay News) and Julien Mitchell (of 'Another Country') were debating whether the sexuality of an author should have any effect on the reader's judgement of a book. Ms Hennigan believed, as my 'voice', that it did. She said it was crucial to know the 'moral standpoint' of a writer, ie her/his sexuality, for only personal experiences could give validity and truth. Mr Mitchell disagreed. He was interested rather in the aesthetic standpoint, that if provided the book is good in itself, the gender and sexuality of the writer is irrelevant. Also that to insist on the importance of sexuality was to stifle the imagination of the writer. Among the studio audience, he was obviously in the minority as I must be, for I found myself applying this to K/S and agreeing very much with him.
If the accusation against the straight writer is lack of personal experience then obviously we must plead guilty but if this is to become the criterion then does the reverse apply? Should E.M. Forster have written 'Passage to India' and 'Howard's End'? Should Frederico Garcia Lorca have presented his plays with their searing indictment of conventional Spanish marriage? In a sideways step, this also bars Mary Renault from writing about Alexander. Such dividing lines seem to be very limiting.
Probably the quickest answer to that can be found in the accusation of voyeurism that also hovers in the air. A great deal of K/S is erotica/porn (depending on your point of view): not much is devoted to the realities and problems of a gay relationship, as "touched" said in its first issue. I can't deny this and it would help the case if more of this type were written. Still even erotica/etc has its uses. Curiosity is a powerful force and if, once satisfied, it leads to gayness becoming commonplace and therefore accepted, then maybe that is a justification. (Perhaps, though, that's just sentimental silliness. I'm open to suggestion.
Another aspect of K/S that causes problems is what is widely known as the Mills and Boon syndrome or as the same 'voice' said, "K/S is over sentimental and mushy." True, but to go back to Mr Mitchell's argument, hopefully readers will use their own judgement to distinguish. (Incidentally, I suspect the 'straightness' of the writers has little to do with this. They would probably deal with any relationship in the same way.)
Now after all that, why is there still a tiny chill on the back of the straight, well-intentioned K/S writer's neck? Perhaps because not only the writers are straight, but the majority of readers (speaking from Editorial experience). It would be very nice if we had a wider readership and very importantly, a more vocal criticism, but that's another article.
The reason, why people write K/S would fill yet another article but one is relevant here for the straight writer's defences there are so few gay K/S writers. I [missing word/s] only four out all lesbian. (The closet's another matter of course. The only male I know was murdered this year in America. (His stories were A/U and slave.)
... if a K/S writer must have experience, please allow the common experience - duty, responsibility, conflict of work and above all, love - these exist regardless of gender. Don't deny us our imaginations and please don't judge us on what we produce. If, as is said, sexuality is a sliding scale, and if, IDIC is coming at least to be recognised (not tolerance nor passive acceptance), but joy in our differences), don't destroy any of that joy, even among straight K/S writers.