Two-Up Truly Queered

From Fanlore
(Redirected from Two-up Truly Queered)
Jump to: navigation, search
Bodie/Doyle Fanfiction
Title: Two-up Truly Queered
Author(s): Jane Carnall
Date(s): 1987
Length:
Genre:
Fandom: The Professionals
External Links: Two-Up Truly Queered
also here

Click here for related articles on Fanlore.
Jane Carnall's circuit responsefic Two-Up Truly Queered is a rewrite of Jane of Australia's 1987 circuit story "Two-Up."

One of the topics it addresses is the genre: We're Not Gay We Just Love Each Other.

"Two-Up" is dated September 1986; "Two-Up Truly Queered" isn't dated, but there are fans who remember seeing it by 1987. Jane Carnall comments in 2005 that she wrote the story "about 15 years ago." [1]

One can assume from "Two-Up Truly Queered" that Jane Carnall found the story, Two-Up to be very homophobic. She rewrote it, quoting and summarizing the original story in plain text while adding her own commentary in boldface. At the crucial moment of Doyle's explosion, she interrupted, summarized the story's ending as its author wrote it ("Jane from Australia thinks that Bodie apologized..." etc.), and concluded, "Well, she's wrong. It went this way--" She then provided her own version of the story's ending, in which Bodie reacts quite differently to Doyle's explosion and subsequent explanation.

Not all fans appreciated Jane Carnall's activism. During one discussion on Virgule-L, the slash mailing list, some fans reported that Jane of Australia was incredibly hurt by the rewrite/attack, and this was one of the reasons she claimed that she withdrew from active fandom in the 1990s.

Other VL members felt that Jane Carnall had lost their respect because they believed that her rewrite included attacks on Jane of Australia's person and morals. However, some admitted that they never read Jane Carnall's story and were reporting what they had been told by others. A few who had read the story disagreed and felt that Carnall had criticized and rewrote the story, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but had said nothing personal about JoA. They offered to email copies of both stories to those who were interested in drawing their own conclusions (no idea if anyone took them up on the offer). At the time I thought it sounded as though JoA's feelings were hurt, and her friends naturally took her side, and the rumors of what J.C. had written outpaced the truth as people who hadn't seen the actual story were told about it by other angry people. In other words, a classic case of the distorted fandom phone tree at work.[2]

Summary of the Original Story: Two-Up

The original story, Jane of Australia's "Two-Up," is a first-time Pros story in which Bodie and Doyle basically play a drunken game of strip coin-toss ("two-up") and discover that they're turning on to each other. After some heavy-duty smooching and admission that they both want to make love, Doyle announces "succinctly" that he's "had a hard day and want[s] to go to bed." Bodie accuses him of being a prick-tease, and Doyle absolutely explodes in rage, flinging Bodie down and sitting on him, yelling, "Don't you ever say that about me! I'm not gay, never was, don't intend to become gay, and the fact that I fancy you could have something to do with the fact that you're my best mate and you're just about the most beautiful physical specimen I've ever seen. Call me a fool, call me a clown, call me old and ugly, if you like, but if you have the idea I'm gay you're vastly mistaken and can go out through that front door and stay out." Bodie shamefacedly apologizes, admitting that he had thought Doyle was leading him on as a joke. Doyle explains that he meant he wanted to get laid in comfort, and they have the requisite great sex and happy ending.

Author's Comments

The author wrote in 2005:

I wrote Two-Up Truly Queered (now in the Professionals section of my website) about 15 years ago, in response to a Jane of Australia story, "Two-Up".

[snipped]

I read "Two-Up" when I was visiting Ann: got mad: thought of a rebuttal: and when I got home, wrote the rebuttal, which is this story. It could be read as a MST3K'ing of Jane's story, but though it was written in the spirit of mockery, it was primarily written in anger. I've always been an activist, well - for almost as long as I've been out as a lesbian: and one strand of this activism has been to write political slash stories. [3]

Reactions and Reviews

1996

I thought it was time to interject a note of historical accuracy here. This isn't by any means the first time someone has done something like this; it's got nothing to do with the net (except for not having to retype, maybe; but somebody did have to retype most of "Catharsis"), and *as far as I know nobody objected before*!

I'm referring to Jane Carnall's circuit story "Two-Up Truly Queere]," which is a rewrite of Jane of Australia's circuit story "Two-Up." "Two-Up" is dated September 1986; "Two-Up Truly Queered" isn't dated, but I'm pretty sure I got my copy at least six or seven years ago. I'm going to first describe what Jane C. did, for people who haven't seen the original story/ies, and then I'm going to talk a bit about the larger issue, okay?

The original story, Jane of Australia's "Two-Up," is a first-time story in which Bodie and Doyle basically play a drunken game of strip coin-toss ("two-up") and discover that they're turning on to each other. After some heavy-duty smooching and admission that they both want to make love, Doyle announces "succinctly" that he's "had a hard day and want[s] to go to bed." Bodie accuses him of being a prick-tease, and Doyle absolutely explodes in rage, flinging Bodie down and sitting on him, yelling, "Don't you ever say that about me! I'm not gay, never was, don't intend to become gay, and the fact that I fancy you could have something to do with the fact that you're my best mate and you're just about the most beautiful physical specimen I've ever seen. Call me a fool, call me a clown, call me old and ugly, if you like, but if you have the idea I'm gay you're vastly mistaken and can go out through that front door and stay out." Bodie shamefacedly apologizes, admitting that he had thought Doyle was leading him on as a joke. Doyle explains that he meant he wanted to get laid in comfort, and they have the requisite great sex and happy ending.

I gather from "Two-Up Truly Queered" that Jane Carnall found the story grossly homophobic. (And she's not the only one.) She rewrote it, quoting and summarizing the original story in plain text while adding her own commentary in boldface. At the crucial moment of Doyle's explosion, she interrupted, summarized the story's ending as its author wrote it ("Jane from Australia thinks that Bodie apologized..." etc.), and concluded, "Well, she's wrong. It went this way--" She then provided her own version of the story's ending, in which Bodie reacts quite differently to Doyle's explosion and subsequent explanation.

So why did the rewrite of "Catharsis" prompt such a furious outburst, when the rewrite of "Two-Up" didn't? (Or did it, and I just never heard about it?) Here's where I'm going to talk about some wider issues.

For one thing, I think that the advent of the net has generally heightened tension about privacy, security, etc. across the board. But there are specific things at stake here. When we were having the thread about writing sequels to other people's stories, I said that one of the things that mattered greatly to me was that the correct writer always get credit (or blame, or whatever) for her own work and not for anyone else's. So there's a big difference between Fan 2 rewriting the ending of Fan 1's story and releasing the whole story under her own name, in which case Fan 2 is committing plagiarism; or under Fan 1's name, in which case Fan 2 is forcing the new ending onto Fan 1's reputation, if you see what I mean -- there isn't a name for this, but I consider it fully as abhorrent as plagiarism; or as "this is a story by Fan 1 of which I, Fan 2, have rewritten the ending from point X," which is what Jane Carnall did. As far as I can tell from the way [J] reported the case, that's also what the person who rewrote the ending of "Catharsis" did. Note also that Jane released her rewrite to the circuit, which the person who rewrote "Catharsis" did not do (although a very good case could be made that sending something out to any mailing list virtually ensures that it will hit the electronic circuit eventually).

As long as the rewrite is *clearly* (*VERY* clearly) marked to show who wrote what, I don't see anything morally wrong with this. Marking it in that way means that Fan 2 is not "blatantly stealing" Fan 1's work, to use [CH]'s phrase. (But please understand that if the rewrite isn't VERY CLEARLY marked -- so that an idiot could tell who wrote what -- I find the action quite as reprehensible as [CH] does.) It's true that my first reflexive reaction was the same anger than [AM] and others felt. Then I remembered "Two-Up Truly Queered," and thought about the issues, and changed my mind.

Fanfic, as I said before and Sandy echoed, is conversation. In "Two-Up Truly Queered," Jane Carnall was quite explicitly having a conversation with Jane of Australia -- or, if you prefer, she was debating her, before an audience of circuit readers. Rewriting a story as the person on the other list did isn't really "writing fanfiction" at all; it's engaging in literary criticism or in editorial work. (Jane Carnall was engaging in a political dispute; she wasn't concerned with Jane of Australia's writing style.) I believe that once a story is released, it is fair game for analysis and commentary -- including commentary of the "it really didn't work, and here's why, and here's how I think it could have worked much better" variety. I think, however, that rewriting a chunk of the story isn't actually a very good way to make such a point, unless it is accompanied by a lot of authorial explanation from Fan 2, pointing out what Fan 1 did that she disagrees with and what she has done instead and why. Ultimately, the rewrite would merely serve to illustrate the critical discussion. The danger in the situation as [J] described it seems to me to be that the story may find its way onto a wider circuit outside the context of its generation, where credit for who wrote what may be lost, and where Fan 2's reason for doing the rewrite at all may be forgotten.

This danger is greatly increased if the re-writer posted the complete rewritten "Catharsis" to the list. I really can't see any need to do that, when her point about writing style, or characterization, or whatever she disliked about the story, could be made just with a few choice examples. But I don't know exactly what her point was, or what she wrote, or what she posted, or how she couched and presented and marked it.

Neither does anyone else who has spoken out so far (although remember I get the digest) except [J] , and [J] didn't give details. So I don't think I have enough info to say whether I think her act was unproblematic, rude but basically inconsequential, or abhorrent. But the latter sounds unlikely.

Can anyone who was highly active in Pros fandom in the mid- or late 80s tell us if there was any fannish reaction to "Two-Up Truly Queered" other than, "Oh, look, Jane Carnall's written a response to Jane of Australia," which was my reaction? I wanted to ask the same question during the sequels-to-other-people's-stories thread -- did anyone *at the time* condemn the actions of the people who were writing sequels to "Consequences" and "Endgame" and so on? For that matter, what did fandom of the time make of the action of the person who wrote "Starting Over," which bills itself -- quite properly, in my opinion -- as "an alternate sequel to the Adagio, Catharsis, Homecoming trilogy," but which gives no indication of whether the author contacted Sebastian before writing or circulating the story? [4]

Further Reading

References

  1. from Jane Carnall at her online journal, February 20, 2005
  2. Morgan Dawn's personal notes from 1996, accessed October 7, 2014, included with permission.
  3. from Jane Carnall at her online journal, February 20, 2005
  4. excerpt from Shoshanna's essay, rewriting -- it's NOT new, & other points (November 22, 1996)