Romance, Realism, and the Feminine in Slash

Romance, Realism, and the Feminine in Slash
(an essay in three parts by Surfgirl and Latonya)

From: Surfgirl <surfgirl@altavista.net>
Subject: Re: Romance and the masculine & feminine in Slash (was Realism in Slash)
Date: Monday, February 21, 2000 10:04 PM

<delurk> At 10:17 AM 02/21/2000 , you wrote: Erica wrote: <<As far as the dating goes... They are already intimate, they are friends and partners and it is certainly more than suggested on screen that they spend a lot time together. If they already have that kind of relationship and it deepened into a sexual relationship I can't see them turning round and doing the traditional dating (esp. trad fem. romantic dating rituals) game.>>

I totally agree. I think the only people who tend to need traditional dating and dating/romantic type rituals, in RL or in their fiction, are *women*. We're socialized to expect certain things about *dating*; but the *dating* period is *different* from the relationship period (hence the phrase "the honeymoon's over"<g>.) Men are socialized to have to fulfill those expectations, during the dating period, but I suspect they are socialized to fulfill those expectations only for the female of the species -- i.e. if they got involved with another male, they would not feel the same obligation to perform traditional romantic/dating type rituals.

Besides, imo, F and K are already *in* the relationship phase after the first few Kowalski eps in the K season. Or at the very least, by the time of MOTB, they're already in the relationship stage with each other, complete with marriage-like arguing and blow-ups. Whether a story has their friendship/partnership become sexual over a period of months, weeks, days, or one night, they're already well past the dating phase, to a point where -- imo -- the dating/romantic rituals are not necessary, if they ever *would* be necessary for two guys, in the first place.

Note: this is not the same thing as "making a date" once in the "relationship phase" of a relationship. If you're already in the (as F Sr. puts it) "who left the empty butter dish in the fridge" phase of a relationship, you can still *make* a date for a special romantic dinner or something like that. But 1) that's not the same as "dat*ing*" and B) I suspect m/m couples would still do it somewhat differently than m/f couples, though probably some elements would remain the same (going out to a nice restaurant, dressing nicely or sexily for the occasion, etc.)

I think men, whether in m/m couples or in m/f couples, can be quite romantic. But what they think of as romantic, and what they've been trained/socialized to do to fulfill *female* romantic expectations, are different things, imo.

Now, LaT's fabulous analysis of the feminizing of male characters in some slash stories had a couple things I wanted to comment on...

<< Another reason it wears me out is because, to me, it's almost a subtle and insidious expression of homophobia.>>

Actually, I disagree on this, but only slightly. If it is a subtle and insidious expression of homophobia, then I think that that homophobia may be a symptom of the fact that, at bottom, some slash authors who do this sort of feminizing of one or both of the male characters fear and/or distrust and/or dislike men because they *are* men.

Over time, and in comment on different stories, I've found there to be two major themes which repeatedly crop up in LOCs on my slash stories -- 1) "you write very realistically" and B) "I like how your characters stay in character/I like how your guy characters are still guys".

But both those things are, I think, direct natural extensions of the facts that I like men, as friends, lovers, and family members; and like (uh, actually, loooooove<g>) having sex and/or sexual relationships with men, when it feels right and good for me to do so. And it's those experiences that have given me a store of information and memories from which I can draw realistic details about male behavior, male sexuality, etc.

I like Fraser and Ray for who they are, with all their warts and flaws. I don't see Fraser as All Good and The Perfect Man and Mountie. He has some dark sides to him. Anyone who insists otherwise is fooling him/herself. Same with Ray. His Spikiness may be oh-so-droolicious, but he's too ready to resort to physical violence, both in private, personal conflicts, and in the course of doing his job.

Now, I don't think there is anything wrong with injecting some of oneself or one's life experience into stories. There is something quite therapeutic and cathartic about writing stories, whether "real" fic or fanfic. And certainly probably much of the world's great literature was written because the author had some personal stake in or experience with what he/she was writing about.

But it's important to remember the differences between fantasy (whether happily-ever-after, or violently vengeful, or what have you) and reality; between oneself and the characters; between real/likely behavior and ideal/unlikely behavior; between what the average person or oneself would do, and what the characters would do, based on canon and characterization.

I think these are the things that authors who feminize male characters forget. They make the male characters they supposedly love into idealized, one-dimensional characters rather than letting them be the imperfect, multi-dimensional characters they are in canon. They make the characters and events (devices) serve a pre-defined plot and ending (happy), rather than basing a story on a realistic conflict (whether internal to one character, or external between multiple characters), or allowing conflict to drive the plot, and allowing the ending to be an organic and realistic outcome of the conflict that drove the story.

I've got nothing against pre-plotting things, nothing against coming up with a story arc ahead of time -- but I think it has to be balanced with realism, canon, and characterization (unless it is an AU or PU from jump). And even with pre-plotted stories with defined story arcs, you have to leave room (imo) for the writing to go where it wants to go -- because it will, and when it does, you might not be able to jam it back into the mold you made, and might have to toss the mold (story arc) entirely and go with a new one. It sucks when that happens, because you might feel you've just written 2000 words and it was a total waste because now you ahve to throw it away and start over... but sometimes you have to throw out a batch of dough and just start all over from scratch.

These happily-ever-after-we-fought-over-domestic-stuff-but-kissed-and-made-up stories also forget that it is the struggle that makes happiness sweet (I think that's a paraphrased CKR quote, too). If the characters sail through some superficial, trivial problems and come to a happy ending, yawn city. But if the characters encounter some realistic difficulties, realistic conflicts, realistic impasses resulting in more-than-superficial conflict and requiring serious argument, discussion, and/or compromise to really resolve them -- then the happy ending feels necessary, desired, deserved, and that much sweeter.

<< It's as if some writers get off on the idea of two guys together, but can't quite put aside the societally ingrained insistence that homosexuality is wrong, abberant, immoral or whatever,>>

I agree that that is part of the problem with a lot of the feminized male characters in slash stories... but I also think a major part of it is women who are essentially clueless about men and male sexuality, and even more clueless about gay men and gay male sexuality... who find both het male and gay male sexuality to be vaguely or intensely repugnant simply because it is not like female sexuality or because it doesn't match what they *think* male sexuality should be like (which is probably "more like female sexuality").

I think it boils down to what happens when one's expectations of the gender one is writing about are excessively unrealistic, and are simply projectinos of what one desires in that gender; or what happens when love is conditional on qualities that are the antithesis of the love object. If you say that you love cats, but you hate their penchant for killing small vermin, their independence, and the way they lick themselves all over -- well, these are pretty basic and fundamental aspects of *all* cats, whether small domestic ones or big, wild ones. If you can't deal with these fundamental aspects of ALL cats, then you really *don't* like cats. What you like is your *concept* of cats as being nice animals when they don't kill smaller animals, when they don't refuse to let you pet them or pick them up, and when they don't lick their little buttholes. But since all cats do all these things, the cats you like don't exist -- and the cats that do exist, you don't like.

So if you insist that you like or even love men, but you hate the fact that (arbitrary list follows, of various male attributes cited to me as "disgusting" by various women, over the years) the vast majority of them masturbate on a daily basis (even the ones in sexual relationships), that the vast majority of them would not turn down free porn (and probably even own some of their own), that the vast majority of them have body hair in at least *some* places (some quite a lot all *over*), and that the vast majority of them (even the completely faithful and monogamous ones) often can't help looking at another woman's tits or ass even when they are with the woman they love or even the woman they've committed to and married, that most unattached single men would go for freely offered no-strings-attached sex from a strange woman they'd never see again --

Well, then you don't really love men. You love what you think men *should* be like -- an idealized, de-sexualized, feminized man that doesn't exist in reality and would be more a eunuch than a man if he did. I think that's what the women whose slash stories turn the male characters into chicks-with-dicks really feel about men. And it's really no better than the men who wish that all women never asked for commitments, never said "No" to sex, never asked for reassurance that they're attractive or not fat, never cry or get emotional or sentimental, never expect a man to help with child-rearing or domestic stuff, never experienced a single indecisive moment, never experienced a single maternal urge, never broke something they were incapable of fixing themselves, never thought about another man "that way", and never desired any romantic gifts like flowers/chocolate/jewelry.

It's unfair to expect any given woman to possess *all* those qualities, much less to think *all* women should possess them -- just as unfair as it is to say any given man shouldn't do the things I listed above.

I think if you look at some of the best portrayals of women in fiction written by male authors, whether modern fiction or earlier works -- that those male authors really loved women as women, as human beings, not as projections of what they desired in a women -- and therefore had great understanding of the ways in which women are quite different from men. Anna Karenina, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Sophie's Choice. These women weren't perfect women for their times (or now) -- nor were they one-dimensional or idealized. Their male creators weren't without their problems and issues with women, either. But they loved women enough not to need to make them into one-dimensional, stereotypical masculine ideals of femininity, nor into easily damnable evil women, either.

<<(and for some truly astonishing and wholly inexplicable reason, it seems that in some DS fic that takes this tack, Fraser -- *FRASER*, people -- is the one who gets turned into a chick with a dick).>>

Yeah, and -- as Ray would put it -- "Do you get that? I don't get that."

All of the above, of course, is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary... </delurk>

Surfgirl

***

From: <LaToot@aol.com>
Subject: Romance and the masculine & feminine in Slash (was Realism in Slash)
Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 10:37 AM

From: LaToot@aol.com

Surf wrote:

>>Actually, I disagree on this, but only slightly. If it is a subtle and insidious expression of homophobia, then I think that that homophobia may be a symptom of the fact that, at bottom, some slash authors who do this sort of feminizing of one or both of the male characters fear and/or distrust and/or dislike men because they *are* men.

Okay, I agreed, for the most part, with a lot of what you said, but you kind of lost me with this part of your analysis. First, let me just say that I don't see either your explanation or my own for why some writers "feminize" their characters as being exclusive. In other words, I don't think it's only for the reasons I articulated or only for the reasons you articulated. I think it could be for both reasons, or for a plethora of reasons neither of us have thought of yet.

Now, the reason you lost me is because I think you and I are taking different ideas of the "feminization" of the characters and trying to work with them in the same model. When I referred to "feminization," I was speaking, almost exclusively, of those stories where Vecchio, Kowalski or Fraser (and like I said, it often seems to be Fraser) comes off as if he is, as Lori aptly put it, "channeling the spirit of June Cleaver." Naturally, I recognize that there is another way of feminizing the characters -- and I think this is what *you* were referring to -- which is where they're exceedingly sensitive, docile, deeply in touch with their emotions, etc., all those things that -- in terms of emotion -- women are supposed to be like that makes them different from men. In the latter scenario -- where the "femme-ing" takes place in the form of how characters react to things emotionally -- your analysis makes perfect sense to me and I agree with it.

What I have trouble working out in my head is how your analysis responds to the former scenario -- where the "femme-ing" takes place in the form of one of the male characters turning, essentially, into Martha Stewart. That's where you lose me, and the reason you lose me is because based on my own experiences as well as talking to female friends my whole life, I have trouble buying the notion that any woman's version of the "idealized" man is going to be a man who acts like a parody of the stereotype of femininity. That's where I'm seeing a disconnect that I can't quite reconcile.

<<[me] It's as if some writers get off on the idea of two guys together, but can't quite put aside the societally ingrained insistence that homosexuality is wrong, abberant, immoral or whatever,>>

[Surf]I agree that that is part of the problem with a lot of the feminized male characters in slash stories... but I also think a major part of it is women who are essentially clueless about men and male sexuality, and even more clueless about gay men and gay male sexuality... who find both het male and gay male sexuality to be vaguely or intensely repugnant simply because it is not like female sexuality or because it doesn't match what they *think* male sexuality should be like (which is probably "more like female sexuality").<<

Which, if true, begs the questions: Why write slash at all? and Why not actually do a little research before sitting down to write if it one insists on going the slash route? They're rhetorical, to be sure, but one has to wonder what, if any, would be the response of some of these writers if they were questioned about why they write the characters in this way.

I disagree. You can love someone and still hate their flaws (assuming one thinks of this arbitrary list as "flaws" in the male psyche and in male behavior). The problems crop up when you try to change those "flaws," rather than just accepting them. And I have the same response to your list of the "flaws" men see in women.

>>You love what you think men *should* be like -- an idealized, de-sexualized, feminized man that doesn't exist in reality and would be more a eunuch than a man if he did. I think that's what the women whose slash stories turn the male characters into chicks-with-dicks really feel about men.<<

So, in other words, these women want men who are essentially stereotypical women. In this sense, then, I see where you're coming from. It still troubles me, though for reasons that have nothing to do with your analysis. I suppose a lot of women do think men would be better if they were more like us, but given the fact that neither I nor most of my closest female friends are like this, that may explain why I'm having trouble with this idea. Then again, like Crys, I've never really been good with the idea of "accepted" roles and fitting into them.

>>I like Fraser and Ray for who they are, with all their warts and flaws. I don't see Fraser as All Good and The Perfect Man and Mountie. He has some dark sides to him. Anyone who insists otherwise is fooling him/herself. <<

Right, and has never actually *paid a-fucking-ttention* during episodes like Victoria's Secret, Bird in the Hand, Juliet is Bleeding, Odds, etc. And I can't say it enough, I would have stopped watching the show (Paul's lusciousness aside) if that surface perfection was all Fraser was about.

>>Same with Ray. His Spikiness may be oh-so-droolicious, but he's too ready to resort to physical violence, both in private, personal conflicts, and in the course of doing his job.<<

Again, and then I'm done: The show would have bored me to tears if they were all perfect.

LaT

***

From: Surfgirl <surfgirl@altavista.net>
Subject: Re: Romance and the masculine & feminine in Slash (was Realism in Slash)
Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 6:54 PM

From: Surfgirl <surfgirl@altavista.net>

At 09:49 AM 2/22/2000 , you wrote: >First, let me just say that I don't see either your explanation or my own for why some writers "feminize" their characters as being exclusive. <snip> I think it could be for both reasons, or for a plethora of reasons neither of us have thought of yet.<

Right. Totally agree. Who knows all the reasons why? We're just theorizing.

>Now, the reason you lost me is because I think you and I are taking different ideas of the "feminization" of the characters and trying to work with them in the same model. When I referred to "feminization," I was speaking, almost exclusively, of those stories where Vecchio, Kowalski or Fraser (and like I said, it often seems to be Fraser) comes off as if he is, as Lori aptly put it, "channeling the spirit of June Cleaver."<

Oh, right. Yeah. I guess I was thinking of the other ways/types of feminizing male characters. Mixing the subjects. Whoops.

>Naturally, I recognize that there is another way of feminizing the characters -- and I think this is what *you* were referring to -- which is where they're exceedingly sensitive, docile, deeply in touch with their emotions, etc., all those things that -- in terms of emotion -- women are supposed to be like that makes them different from men.<

Riiiiiiight. Yes. That's what I was referring to.

I think I'm going to have to say at this point that, per *this* kind of feminizing of male characters... It's very hard to describe what I mean. Terms like "flowery", "gushy," etc. kind of describe it, but don't fully explain. All I can say is, I know this kind of feminization when I see it.

>What I have trouble working out in my head is how your analysis responds to the former scenario -- where the "femme-ing" takes place in the form of one of the male characters turning, essentially, into Martha Stewart. That's where you lose me, and the reason you lose me is because based on my own experiences as well as talking to female friends my whole life, I have trouble buying the notion that any woman's version of the "idealized" man is going to be a man who acts like a parody of the stereotype of femininity. That's where I'm seeing a disconnect that I can't quite reconcile.<

Right. I went off on a tangent into the other kind of feminizing, let's call it the feminizing of the characters' internals as opposed to feminizing their externals. No, now that I think about it, I guess my explanation is no good for that Martha Stewart-ish kind of thing. Must be what you said, then, this subtle homophobia. Or the inability to move from the masculine/feminine paradigm.

Hm, maybe this is also why some of those stories also have them living in a (totally unrealistic, imo) world where they're out to all their friends and family members and co-workers, and they never have to deal with any unpleasant consequences, Ma Vecchio and Frannie (in F/V stories) are perfectly fine with it, Welsh and all the other cops are perfectly fine with it. The general masculine/feminine paradigm (or "fairy tale", if you will) includes a kind of "happily ever after" domestic ending, where they set up house together and all that.

Not that I'm saying they couldn't or wouldn't do that -- just that I don't think it would be without consequences. They ARE cops, after all; cops have traditionally been rather homophobic and have long histories of harassing and routing gay men from unofficial (and official) meeting places. And I can't see Ma Vecchio accepting it immediately, no fucking way. Not without some real difficulties, not without blaming herself, wondering what she did "wrong" to make her son turn out gay, etc. etc.

>>[Surf]I also think a major part of it is women who are essentially clueless about men and male sexuality <snip> who find both het male and gay male sexuality to be vaguely or intensely repugnant simply because it is not like female sexuality or because it doesn't match what they *think* male sexuality should be like (which is probably "more like female sexuality").<< >Which, if true, begs the questions: Why write slash at all? and Why not actually do a little research before sitting down to write if it one insists on going the slash route? They're rhetorical, to be sure, but one has to wonder what, if any, would be the response of some of these writers if they were questioned about why they write the characters in this way.<

Well, I'm treating these as non-rhetorical...

The number one answer to your question is: there are a lot of things people enjoy in fantasy that they would NEVER enjoy in real life. I'm sure there are a TON of women who write slash who would be absolutely horrified and humiliated and would immediately begin divorce proceedings if they came home early from work one day to find their husband sucking off or getting it up the ass from his best friend. (Me, I'd demand to know why they didn't let me in on it earlier, and jump into bed with them, dammit.<g> At least, I think I would... it's never happened to me!) To have it in fantasy is to control all aspects of it. To have it in reality is to deal with real people whose behavior you can't control and who may not do the things you want them to do.

I don't know what these authors' responses would be to your questions. And I doubt we'll ever know unless anyone feels up to emailing feedback to an author who has written such a story, and asking her why her characters are all feminized. It would kind of necessitate giving someone negative feedback, it's like giving someone a bad review.

That kind of thing can be done between friends (maybe one friend says to the other, "Come on, I've seen you write better than this"). But it's pretty hard to do it to a complete stranger. And, as the author, I think if I were in her or their shoes, receiving such a thing, I'd probably be kind of pissed and wonder why, if they had nothing nice to day, they said anything at all.

Part of the problem is that we're not professional writers (though some may be) and this isn't a professional environment; and a lot of people don't want to hear *any* criticism, or simply can't, because it's too painful -- no matter how constructive the criticism. Others think they want to hear it but then have a hard time with it. Still others want it brutal and to the point because deep down they think it sucks and no matter how many people tell them it's great, they'll never believe them.

But I think fanfic authors do a lot of the same things that "real" professional writers do. I think we inject ourselves into our stories, even if we think we're not sometimes, or we can't see how *any* of our characters could have anything in common with us, the authors. It can be as subtle as "I remember when x news event happened, and how I felt, so to fill out this minor character's personality, I'm gonna have him have my opinion on that news event." It can be as direct as the author putting the character through something she went through.

The main theme is that people write about the things that bother them as well as the things that fascinate or excite them. Writing, whether or not it should be, serves a therapeutic purpose for a lot of people. Hell, I've written stuff I realized later was a result of me still processing some personal shit. Or more recently, I'm writing stuff that explores my own mixed feelings about "alternative" sex.

Um, what's his name, the guy who wrote The Black Dahlia and LA Confidential -- James Ellroy? I saw this E! True Hollywood Story about him where basically he admitted -- and friends, colleagues, editors of his realized -- that when he was writing The Black Dahlia, he was really writing about and processing his confused feelings about his mother's murder when he was like 14.

Of course, he didn't realize until he was pretty much done with the novel -- if I remember right -- that that was what he had been doing. That he put this female character through hell (even if it was based on a true story) and then redeemed her because he needed to do that with the major female figure in his life -- his mother. That he had *been* putting her through hell, in his perception of her and his reaction to her death, all his life up until he wrote the novel, and through writing the novel, was able to get some closure about her death and to recapture some of the feelings about her he'd refused to acknowledge, and in this way kind of redeem the mother in his mind, whom he had hated when he was young, and thought contemptible for her lifestyle, etc.

My point simply is... the feminizing authors -- and the authors who don't feminize -- basically all of us -- put at least a *little* bit of themselves into their fanfic. It's partly ourselves, partly our fantasies -- hopefully along with some other stuff, too. Now, if you're really interested in writing non-stereotypical characters, then, Yes, you've got to do research on characters about whose lifestyles or personality traits you know nothing; you have to be willing to step outside what you want for the characters and plot (or yourself), and remember and write what reality would dictate in a given situation.

But, some people are more able than others to do this. Some people, for example, often can't abide happy endings, *definitely* not story-book happy endings. (raises hand) Other people can not abide angst. (what the hell is wrong with those people, dammit!<g>) I think if you want to be a well-rounded author, and you really want to *write* *well*, you have to be willing to take on subjects you don't like, characters you don't like, endings you don't want. And try to do them justice, even if you don't want to; try to write them the way realism would dictate, rather than the way your fantasies or personal needs would dictate. And hopefully you get to play along the way, and inject some of your fantasies, too -- or at least get some therapeutic or cathartic benefit out of it.

But if being a well-rounded author who really writes well is *not* your first priority, and you are essentially writing fanfic because you like/need to make things turn out the way *you* want them to, instead of how they are in canon (or would be in real life), then authenticity, realism and research will not concern you as much as making the story and the characters do what *you* want them to do, no matter if it's canonical or realistic, or not.

And you'll keep writing, because you're getting something out of it and it is pleasing you -- maybe even pleasing others. I've read some stories where the author's intro said words to the effect of "so many people asked for a sequel, I wrote one" and thought to myself, *sequel*? I didn't even like the *first* story, ick! But one man's drink is another man's poison, and *some* people must have read the stories I found icky, and wrote the author positive LOCs, and so she continued with her (imo) icky stuff.<g>

>>So if you insist that you like or even love men, but you hate the fact that >>(arbitrary list follows, of various male attributes cited to me as >>"disgusting" by various women, over the years) <snip> >>Well, then you don't really love men. > >I disagree. You can love someone and still hate their flaws (assuming one thinks of this arbitrary list as "flaws" in the male psyche and in male behavior).<

Well, right. I probably should have been more specific and said:

If you claim to love something/someone, but you despise or are repelled a majority of their defining characteristics, the things that make them what they *are*... then you don't really love that something/someone. Or you do, but within an extreeeeeemely ambivalent context.

I think most or all of the things I cited are things that make men *men* in our culture (I'm not going into whether these are intrinsically masculine traits, or externally imposed conditioning! Let's just say that when we see these characteristics in our culture, we know we're looking at a man). Their dicks get hard at the drop of a hat -- whether they want them to or not. They generally, unless they've been in some way religiously indoctrinated, enjoy watching visuals of people fucking. They'd go for a zipless fuck with someone they'd never see again. Their eyes rove even if they have a woman of their own. Lots of times they look at your tits before your face.

Now, if these things mean nothing to you, OR to you, they are flaws you can tolerate and accept (though I question that, to an extent -- it depends what percentage of the defining characteristics are defined as "flaws"), OR they're just *there*, in the way that a tree has bark but it doesn't turn you on and it doesn't turn you off -- then, yeah, okay, I believe you if you tell me you love men.

But if you can not tolerate or accept all these defining characteristics, or the vast majority of them -- if you found them absolutely unacceptable and intolerable, no exceptions, in a relationship you had with a real man or in multiple relationships with real men -- then, I'm sorry, I think you don't really love men or you have serious problems with them. That's just my opinion, it's no more valid than anyone else's, surely tons of people would disagree with me, it could be bong-influenced, or I could have been dropped on my head as a child; and feel free to disregard it. But I just have to stand by that. Because that's how I feel and what I think.

>The problems crop up when you try to change those "flaws," rather than just accepting them.<

Agreed.

>And I have the same response to your list of the "flaws" men see in women.

Right.

>So, in other words, these women want men who are essentially stereotypical women. In this sense, then, I see where you're coming from. It still troubles me, though for reasons that have nothing to do with your analysis.<

It troubles me too. I won't go into the variety of reasons and what it makes me wonder about the future, because this is already too long, but... it doesn't bode well, to me.

>I suppose a lot of women do think men would be better if they were more like us, but given the fact that neither I nor most of my closest female friends are like this, that may explain why I'm having trouble with this idea. Then again, like Crys, I've never really been good with the idea of "accepted" roles and fitting into them.<

Well, neither have I... probably most people on this list haven't been good with those ideas.

Back to ESSAYS