What's Love Got to Do With It? A semi-sane analysis of 'slash' fanfiction

Meta
Title:	What's Love Got to Do With It? A semi-sane analysis of 'slash' fanfiction
Creator:	Louann Qualls
Date(s):	August 1991
Medium:	print
Fandom:	it has a Blake's 7 focus
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

What's Love Got to Do With It? A semi-sane analysis of 'slash' fanfiction is an essay by Louann Qualls.

It was printed in Tarriel Cell v.4 n.6, and is online here: Tarriel Cell, ^{Archived version}.

For additional context, see Timeline of Slash Meta and Slash Meta.

Some Introductory Points

• "slash is becoming a common category in fan fiction"
• ads in a recent issue of GAZ suggest that "there are now more slash (or "/") fanzines on the market than zines of straightforward heterosexual smut. Blake's 7 is no exception to this trend."
• while K/S was "one of the first widespread slash categories, ... people have been spreading nasty rumors about Holmes and Watson or Batman and Robin for decades."
• the author writes that she "obviously enjoys slash, or I wouldn't have read enough of it to write this essay. The more I've read in the genre, however, the more it puzzles me. Slash fiction has a number of traits (besides the obvious) setting it apart from regular fan fiction."

Criticisms: Excerpts

Slash fiction is written mostly by women who don't know much about m/m sex and is inaccurate: "Straight males usually detest the stuff. Gay males presented with slash fiction usually react with disinterest or great amusement. Since a woman has few firsthand opportunities to witness gay male sex, and since many writers are sexually inexperienced overall, the sex described in these stories is often inaccurate. Incidentally, all men in slash stories are well-endowed."

Slash fiction is not "in-character": "These characters virtually never had any homosexual tendencies in the original series or movie. One extreme example is Lethal Weapon slash (don't kill me, I didn't write it.) This scenario pairs up two incredibly unlikely lovers: a happily married man with four children, and a widower who nearly went insane from grief when his wife died. No amount of heterosexual behavior onscreen can save a character from the slash treatment if a fan writer decides he "must" be gay."

There is rarely a slash equivalent of Mary Sue: "The protagonists in slash stories are almost always two existing characters who are best friends."

Slash fans don't value originality: "Whatever motivates slash readers to buy these zines, it isn't originality. Slash readers want the same story over and over again."

Slash fiction is of lower quality than other fiction: "Although there are a few pleasant exceptions, the average level of writing in slash zines is wretched even by fanzine standards. Part of this may come from the fact that "slash" is largely separated from the rest of fan writing. Ordinary zines usually want no part of slash stories, and slash zines usually do not print other types of fiction. Slash zine editors may feel obligated to print any stories they get, since slash writers have so few markets. Also, since most characters must be deliberatly distorted to make them gay, good characterization is just not in the cards."

Observations: Excerpts

I define "straight" or "normal" slash as stories where the two (or more) characters have consensual sex for the purpose of showing affection and love to each other. In slash overall, this is the vastly more popular category. I think S/M is only as popular as it is in Blake's 7 random because the series has such a dark and amoral tone. Most normal slash is amazingly similar to mainstream "hurt-comfort" fan fiction... The most common pairings are Avon with Blake and Avon with Vila. In A/B stories, Avon is usually the "passive" partner on the emotional if not the sexual level. In A/V stories, Vila has this role.

Pain. At least one of our heroes is in anguish early in the story. This is usually emotional; either something new has happened, or a long-term problem has just come to a head. He may have been secretly lusting after his best friend for some time, and despising himself for it. He or his beloved may have nearly been killed in the recent past, forcing him to re-examine his feelings. Many a slash story opens with one character unconscious in the hospital and his best buddy agonizing at his bedside.

Sometimes the character's pain is physical as well as emotional. One character may have been raped by an outsider, for example. Or in a popular variation, some outside force (such as a villain holding both protagonists prisoner, may force the two heroes to have sex with each other against their wills. Slash characters are not happy people.

Vulnerability. The focal character, who usually makes the initial pass, thinks he has a lot to lose by revealing his feelings. He feels certain the other man will not only reject him sexually but end their friendship. If this relationship fails, he probably has no other emotional resources. Usually he has deep dark secrets to reveal besides the fact that he's gay — he may have been raped in the past, or have worked as a teenage male prostitute, or something along those lines. Slash fiction virtually makes it as given that Vila has been both a hustler and a rape victim in his past.

Slash writers leave no stereotype unturned to build up vulnerability for their characters. The protagonist who's shorter, physically weaker, younger, or more naive will almost invariably be more "passive" in the sexual relationship. In the case of Avon and Vila, this type of characterization has gone to ridiculous lengths. If you read only the descriptions in slash fiction, you would conclude that Avon is at least six inches taller than Vila and easily twice as strong. In the series, of course, Avon and Vila are virtually the same height, weight, and build. Similarly, in K/S slash much is made of Spock being taller and stronger than Kirk.

Emotional intimacy. In spite of these fears and dangers, our hero takes the plunge and reveals himself to his beloved. Maybe alcohol or drugs has lowered his inhibitions temporarily. Maybe some recent trauma drives his to cry on his friend's shoulder — at which point he reveals he's interested in more than the shoulder. Sometimes, the beloved senses his best friend is disturbed about something and demands to know what it is.

The focal character takes a risk, and gets rewarded beyond he wildest dreams. His friend may turn out to be secretly gay too. Or the friend may be inexperienced but willing to try something new for the sake of the bond between them. Slash stories almost always include a defense of homosexuality as a lifestyle — but it comes from the beloved, not from the character you first knew was gay. That's loyalty for these characters, both men experience deep sexual pleasure and a profound feeling of safety and acceptance. Even in the most pornography sections of the story, the emphasis is not on raw sex but on sex as a symbol of the characters' feelings.

Acceptance after sex. No one ever reconsiders things the next morning in a slash story. Circumstances may require that they keep their affair secret or put off their next encounter, but our heroes always love each other even more after sleeping together. The focal character may worry about this, but his beloved will reassure him with a hug — or a second round of sex — that everything is all right

This type of slash fiction is a variation of the "hurt /comfort" genre of fanzines, with the emotional comfort disguised as sex. Many slash stories could be rewritten as hurt/comfort and actually become better stories. For every graphic depiction in a slash story, there are a dozen hugs or kind words or nurturing touches between the characters. Slash writers enjoy describing the buns, biceps, and genitalia of their favorite characters. Their format lets them describe two men at once. But in most stories the real turn-on is the emotional closeness between two characters.

In the typical slash scenario, the central character feels he is worthless or unlovable, usually because of his homosexuality. He goes to his closest friend for help. He gets exactly what he needs: unconditional acceptance and a lot of hugs. Gay sex is an outgrowth of this acceptance theme. Because if s not culturally approved, the best friend is making a real sacrifice to help the focal character. If you know the worst about someone and accept him anyway, he can feel completely safe with you.

Slash produces strong emotions among fans who encounter it for the first time; we either love it or hate it. Slash writers and slash-haters like the same sets of characters for the same reasons. Slash writers, for whatever reason, see a sexual relationship as the natural end product of the friendship between two characters they like. They can't fully believe in a fictional friendship until they take it to its "ultimate" extent of sexual consummation. Slash-haters see the sexual relationship as a distortion of the same characters and a parody of their friendship.

Personally, I think most slash fiction misses the point in several ways. Fan writers (outside parody for humor) should re-create characters as they existed in the original stories, or give good reasons for portraying them differently. Most slash violates this rule of writing. Also, our culture is already a little warped in insisting that "real men" feel affection only in connection with sex. In a way, slash writing follows that stereotype. But slash writers make these mistakes for basically good reasons. They see the value and beauty in the friendships they write about.

Reactions and Reviews

... I'd like to take the time to comment on Louann Quall's excellent essay on slash fiction. This is the most intelligent, unbiased and entertaining article I have read on the subject. I must admit that I don't read a lot of slash fiction, and it's not really my favorite form of fan fiction. This has nothing to do with being offended by it. On the contrary, I'm one of those fans who thinks there should be more homosexual characters in TV and film science fiction.

The reasons I don't read slash fiction were pretty much covered in Louann's article. Since I tend to enjoy fan fiction where the characters adhere more closely to their portrayals in the original series, I find a lot of slash fiction not to my taste. I'm also a lover of strong plots, and slash fiction doesn't appear to be as concerned with plotting.

None of this is to say that I don't think slash fiction has its place, though. As Louann stated, slash writers probably write what they do for the very best of reasons. They are expressing their desires for affection between the characters, and they happen to express those desires by portraying sexual relationships. And of course, if someone wants to write it, and someone wants to read it, then it is serving a purpose — just as Mary Sue stories have a right to exist, just as a parody has a right to exist, just as crossovers have a right to exist etc. If someone is getting something out of it, be they writer or reader, then it should continue. That's always been my feeling.

...This was the major reason I was so pleased with Louann's article. I wasn't being told. "Hey, slash is so great, you better love it!" or "Hey, this stuff stinks and it should be stomped out!". Her article is a truly fair and reasonable examination of the form, expressing her opinions on it, and not shoving those opinions down the throat of any fans on either side of the question. Beautifully done!

1 agree with Louann Quails' analysis of "slash" fan fiction. I find the stuff obnoxious because of the character distortion which has to occur. I think it takes more talent to write a good, interesting story in which the main characters are true to their screen personas — with the added depth that a good fan writer can bring to them — than to use a romance-novel formula in which to rhapsodize about two buddies growing to "know" each other in every way.

If people want to write slash stories, let them, just don't expect me to read them, or buy the zines they're in. (And yes, before you ask, I have read slash, of the Star Trek variety. The production values of many K/S zines is very high, and some of the authors have promise. But the characters depicted in them are not "Kirk" or "Spock."

You thought controversy and discussion would be raised by the leading article "What's Love Cot to Do With It?" did you? But Louann Qualls has dealt with the matter so sanely, I can't see anyone disputing it! I admit I am one of these slash-haters, and the reasons she gave for slash-haters hating slash are fairly close to mine. I find it offensive to have these characters I respect engaging in actions that are sexually immoral. Like expecting one to enjoy a story about Avon raping Dayna. But reading this article has helped shed some light on why people do write such stuff; instead of being angry, I shall just be sad.

The article in last issue regarding slash caught my attention, as I'm sure it did many other people. Overall I thought the writer did a decent job of surveying some of the common characteristics of the genre; however, I detected a certain ambivalence in the treatment of her subject. Perhaps it was this uncertainty which led her to gloss over or completely ignore specific areas of the fiction as possibly "too much" for the average fan reader. If I were to address all my areas of concern in the detailed manner, I believe they warrant, this letter would be ten pages long. To avoid this, I will limit myself to a few areas of discussion. Where quotes appear, I am quoting the original article.

The most readily identifiable subject avoided in the piece was the issue of fantasy. Fan fiction, by its nature, can be summed up as "what if," "What if' Blake's personality, from the onset were more like the man we see in the final episode? "What if' Jenna was given to do more than simply moon over Blake? "What if' Vila had stayed with Kerril? "What if' Cally had survived Terminal? Fan writers can generate a hundred more possibilities for each treatment and variation. Slash merely extends that "what if" status to sexual fantasy, albeit fantasy about homosexual sex. That's right — the above mentioned literature is nothing more or less than sexually-oriented fiction which does for its readers what explicit movies, magazines, parlor games, etc do for the general public.

To that extent. I believe the writer's premise that "many slash stories could be rewritten as hurt/comfort and actually become better stories" and "it is written for mu, it's probably true that much slash fiction could be rewritten as hurt/comfort and be better stories, but then they wouldn't be slash. The point of slash is the sex (sex, I might add, written from a woman's standpoint and with her emphasis on things that arouse her), and advocates of the genre write and read the stuff because the images it offers arouses them, whether those images be of two men making love or playing domination games with one another or boiling spaghetti in a home by the sea together — whatever. If the above shocks some people, well, welcome to the real world.

A second area of concern is that the author's contention that "no amount of heterosexual behavior onscreen can save a character if a fan writer decides he 'must be gay" misses the mark as well. One need only go back to the issue of fantasy to see this. Very few slash writers decide a character must be gay; rather, to use the example cited in the article, the image of Mel Gibson and Danny Glover sleeping together stimulates a writer and... voila, Lethal Weapon slash. By the same token, I could enjoy Quantum Leap slash were it but for one hitch: Dean Stockwell making love to Scott Bakula does absolutely nothing for me. Sam leaping into a slash story where his partner bears a striking resemblance to Rutger Hauer, however, does have potential).

Reflected in the article's statement regarding heterosexuality "saving" a character on screen is the larger problem of society's inability to realize that bisexual men do exist, they can be attractive, and they do marry and father children (and with AIDS in the picture, they'd better be careful if they don't want to wind up dead). In her defense, the writer never actually sets this down on paper (although her example of Lethal Weapon comes very near), but the imputation exists nonetheless, an implication which would have surprised people like Cary Grant and Michael Redgrave, to name only two.

My last and possibly greatest, reservation with the article was the author's ambivalence. On the one hand, she claims to enjoy the material enough to write the article, but, on the other hand, she proceeds to dissect it in print. Her her emotions were so mixed, why write the article in the first place? Those of us who read, write and savor the fiction make no apologies for our interest, and those who do not would likely prefer that the literature cease to exist rather than read a fan article on the subject. In closing, I should just like to add a final note. With war, death, starvation, the threat of nuclear mishap and citizens' rights dropping by the wayside with each new dawn, what does it matter what someone reads for pleasure? If it does not lead to the death or injury of another, it is a private matter best left to the individual.