 |
|
| By Inca I write this article in response to a flame I recently received. Within the flame, the inept wordsmith basically asked �Why is it that I do what I do? Why do I feel the need to take these unsuspecting characters and drive them to deviant lifestyles?� (Although, any of you who have actually read a flame would know it isn�t worded as eloquently as that.) And I feel the need to defend my beloved slash, and myself. If we are to discuss the significance of slash, and why it, indeed, exists, we first must examine fandom from a general viewpoint. Fandom as defined by Alana Kumbier: �It�s my belief that fandom exists along a broad spectrum -- including, but not limited to, fans whose idea of participation is sitting back and enjoying a show�s broadcast, to those who read spoilers and speculate a series� plots in online forums weeks in advance, or to those who put their creative energies to work writing fan fiction. These writings, which are based on a show/band/movie/etc. and introduce alternate storylines and/or character relations, are then posted online (or, if you�re old-school, distributed via fanzines).� And this is what I believe, that fandom is not simply an idle reception of images, words, plots, character profiles, but the active participation of fans with said material. Fans in the fandom world, bring their own renditions of the material and contemplate, and metamorphose it, bringing with this new manifestation, their own ideas and subversions of the previous impression, the previous plots and stories. �Textual Poaching� as the idealist, Jenkins, has named it. �Fans� notes Jenkins �do not so much reproduce the primary text as they rework and rewrite it, repairing or dismissing unsatisfying aspects, developing interests not sufficiently explored.� The Jenkins Ten. (Ten categories of �poached� work) (1) Recontextualization- writing that explains or fills gaps between episodes (2) Expanding the Series Timeline- writing before or after the period shown by the show (3) Refocalization- lesser characters retain focus (4) Moral Realignment- evil discovers good and vice versa (5) Genre Shifting- shifting from an action based storyline to that of a romance, for instance (6) Cross Overs- a combination of fandoms (Angel and Roswell) (7) Character Dislocation- characters portrayed in times before their birth, or living different lives (8) Personalization- Watch out, watch out, Mary Sue�s about� (9) Emotional Intensification (10) Eroticization Slash usually refers to the sexual relationship between two male characters, taken from some visual medium. Fans may interpret storylines or dialogue as having sexual undertones, or how an actor/actress has looked at another in the course of their portrayal and �discovered� a relationship. Combine the chemicals and we get slash. I see slash as maybe an extension of Recontextualisation; writers create slash narratives that fill the gaps as they see them. Number 10, I think, is what most people see as defamation, and is what slash is basically flamed for. There is an innate sexual undertone to the entire sub genre, and dedicated fans (that adhere to the rules of the universe of the characters were fabricated in) refuse the admission of other viewpoints. Much of slash fanfic is openly proclaimed as PWP (plot, what plot?) and is simply erotic fiction. But there is slash composed that details fulfilling dedicated relationships. Well-written, loving relationships that have been built up around two characters, with storylines and obstacles for the characters to overcome in daily life. There is even slash fiction completely absent of sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual. It is only defined as slash because it implies the relationship between two characters; two characters the fan-writer thought complimented each other in some way. But even these completely �abstaining� stories have undertones of sexuality in them, the mere relationship, or idea of relationships between characters nurture the whispers of Dionysos. So is slash simply �mental masturbation�? �Single-sided Cyber-sex�? From a psychoanalytic view, yes, slash is merely repetitive sexual encounters, which are mere embodiments for plot holes and evasiveness. Incessant fetishisation of relationships between �straight� unsuspecting male/female characters on shows. So really, is that what slash is? A played out fantasy of homosexual or lesbian sexuality? A diseased craving to see alternative lifestyles between characters on screen? Or is it creativity? Rather than the idea that the fan is a sick, deluded fetishistic sociopath, maybe pop culture can see the other side of the box, so to speak. What if slash is not a desperate cry from the drowning sorrows of a non-fulfilling reality, but merely an extension of love for a writer�s intellectual property? Slash writers are simply fans whose love for the material has prompted them to take characters from a show and give them new dimensions. Give them new ideals, maybe even ideals promoted by the fan themselves. The inherent value of any story, especially stories in which people can put voices and faces to a characters personality, (through the visual medium), lies within the responders. How an audience interprets a story, and what they feel for it, is what gives the property meaning. To invest a material with ideals that have significance to an audience, is what gives a text legs and teaches it to walk. Many people believe the reason that slash fiction is so formidable, is that it violates the dictums of the universes in which they were inspired. They believe that right is right, and only the creators views could possibly be accepted, as it is their material. So must we never tamper with creation? Leave well enough alone, and hold high our protest signs reading �If it ain�t broke, don�t fix it�? If we did this, we would have to lobby to congress to halt any proceeding performances of Shakespeare, as the Bard�s work is habitually interpreted contrary, I�m sure, to what William himself, orchestrated. And why not stories that are open to interpretation, like Homer�s �Illiad�, or �Odyssey�? I believe slash is not sick destruction of others intellectual property, rather an embodiment of characters we watch and can�t get enough of. Isn�t that adulation? Homage, if you will? Slash is no more an adaptation, or desecration of the fundamental material than Het, Gen, Dark, IC, Mary Sue or Gary Stu. Slash deserves acknowledgment, not incensed counter productive criticism in the form of flame. Is slash a sick fetish, destined to be chastised by mainstream shippers? The answer is a vehement no. The importance of slash lies in personal interpretation of a text, and a want to express that rendition. It is an analysis of popular sexuality and convention and an exploration into the subversion of culture today, and that deserves recognition if not respect. So flamers beware, because slash ain�t going nowhere. Inspired by Kris Larsen Alana Kumbier � �Consumers and Creators� Henry Jenkins � �Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture� |
| A Brief Dissertation Of Slash |