herongale: Reality is reality and fiction is fiction

[mothwing]

That's part of what you said. It is not that simple. Fiction exists in the real world, and influences real-world people. This is not an issue of "some people" not being able to distinguish between fiction and reality. Even if everybody were able to do so, this would still be an issue. Language influences people. Fiction influences people - and not just those mythical creatures who can't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction accounts - and a strong version of my claim here is that no one can.

Your claim seems to be that since because fiction is fiction, it is somehow less harmful, because it can't be taken as seriously and it is not reality. But how much of what you write is fiction? What you write is informed by your real-world experiences, too. Are houses fictional? No. Is it fictional that people have heads and arms? No. Is it fictional that gay people exist? No. What else is fictional, what mirrors your own experience with gay characters? There is no way to draw the line, even for people who are very well capable of distinguishing fiction from reality.

The narratives you come across organise your thinking, and if you come across one particular narrative over and over again, it is difficult or even impossible not to have that part of your narrative enter your brain and become the definitive narrative. This is my problem with a majority writing a minority. M/M, as I am told, is a genre by and for straight women - it influences their narrative of what gay men are like.

It is common knowledge that advertising is fiction, and still it is as commonly known or suspected that advertising can have a very direct negative effect on the self-esteem of women. Fictional stories in which women are presented as flat characters only there for the gratification of men, like porn movies, are questionable, because they present men and women alike with scripts of sexuality that are unrealistic, but still change the narrative of what sex is "supposed to" work like. This is not conscious, no one sits down and goes, "Oh, I'd like to watch a movie in which women are objectified right now!". That, in parts, is the problem, and if this were what people are doing, this would be less problematic.

Now, with the stories written by straight women and informed by their experience as straight women which are about gay men, the problem I see is that they start replacing the narratives of and by gay men about gay men for the women who read these stories (simple because there are so many straight women who write these kinds of stories - from my experience, though this might be wrong, even more than queer women). There are, as it is, many negative stereotypes of gay men permeating the media which are influencing people's narratives of what a gay man is. This is another one that cannot ever be accurate. So yes, I believe that all stories written my people who are not a member of a minority about a minority are appropriative to some degree, and I believe that romance stories which strongly focus on an idealised version is especially appropriative.

What I want?
I want more self-reflection, self-awareness and critical thinking skills for both readers and writers.
I want people to examine their own reasons for writing what they are writing, and
I want readers to examine for what reason they are reading it.
I want genres about minorities to be dominated by those minorities instead of majorities - I want more original slash fiction about gay men to be written by gay men than by straight women.
I want the story of the minority people write about to be the definitive story.

I want you, herongale, to ask yourself, "why am I writing slash? What does it do for me that other genres don't? Why do I find the tales of two men together more interesting than others? Why is it ok for me to appropriate another person's experience for my own ends?"
And I want your readers to do the same.

I'm genuinely curious what people say here, by the way. I know that there are reasons that are therapeutic writing-related, but I am curious what other reasons there are.

And I am not saying to anyone that they are not allowed to write whatever they want, because of course they are, but I don't want them to get away with it easily if it seems that they are writing about an other without reflection of why they feel it is appropriate to do so.

Comments

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about the focus on straight women writing m/m fiction--at least from where I'm looking a lot of readers and writers of m/m fiction and slash are queer. Some of them are lesbians.

Some food for thought:
http://maryaminx.livejournal.com/154286.html
http://jonquil.dreamwidth.org/918916.html

I've seen a bunch of other posts around from queer women and men about how when they were young, having representations of queer people in literature--even written by straight people, even not always done well--was vitally important to them because it told them people like them existed. maryaminx talks about that quite a bit in her post.

For me, m/m and f/f fiction on the internet was a) more accessible to me as a teenager than published queer fiction and b) more likely to show characters doing the types of things I like in media--having adventures, solving crimes, etc.--who also were queer. What little pro queer fiction I could find was frequently entirely about how queer the characters were, and the challenges they faced from being queer, and stressful coming-out processes. Which is an important genre of literature, absolutely, but I desperately wanted--and still want--stories about queer people doing other things, for whom queerness is a part rather than the center of their lives. I'm still not seeing it much in pro fiction, especially in genre fiction of the types I most enjoy--fantasy, SF, and historical fiction. There are a few exceptions, like Ellen Kushner and Delia Sherman's Riverside books (they're married, the two main male characters are bisexual and partnered, and the main female character is bisexual-tending and romantically ambiguous, but the books mostly focus on people having duels and political intrigue), where they posit a world where queerness is common and accepted (and it would be pretty weird if only female queerness were common, but all the men were straight, I think). But I don't really love the Riverside books, and three books don't make a genre trend.

So. Minority characters written by majority authors can be problematic, but they can also be valuable. And I would far, far prefer majority authors to try to write diverse casts with respect than to write homogeneous worlds full of straight white cis male characters (and possibly even more stories with aliens/elves/dragons as allegories for real minorities).

If majority writers don't write minorities, at all, that's what we'd get. The publishing industry being what it is, white men, followed by white women, are still the majority in most genres. And there's already quite enough books all about straight white cis men, and not even because those authors don't want to offend minorities but because they don't even realize there are other people out there.

I'm also not sure about assuming that people who write m/m fiction find it more interesting than other types of fiction rather than equally as interesting.

I suspect we will continue to disagree on this, though.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your answer.

I've read both of these, and I think I still stand by my original assumption that there are still by and large simply so many more straight women writing m/m slash fiction than queer people that they dominate the genre. I might be entirely mistaken, because I don't have data on this at all.

Which is an important genre of literature, absolutely, but I desperately wanted--and still want--stories about queer people doing other things, for whom queerness is a part rather than the center of their lives. I'm still not seeing it much in pro fiction, especially in genre fiction of the types I most enjoy--fantasy, SF, and historical fiction.
Oh, me too. I don't like coming out stories and other literature for precisely this reason, because they make every aspect of the character in the story revolve around their being gay. There are so many other facets of experience, how come they're not addressed...?

And I would far, far prefer majority authors to try to write diverse casts with respect than to write homogeneous worlds full of straight white cis male characters (and possibly even more stories with aliens/elves/dragons as allegories for real minorities).
I'd love that, but what I still disagree with and am not particularly good at putting into words at all is majority authors exploring their own issues using a cast of minority sockpuppets. Because that is not really a diverse cast, that's majority-exploring psychodrama.

I'm also not sure about assuming that people who write m/m fiction find it more interesting than other types of fiction rather than equally as interesting.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, that's the impression I got from reading people who write m/m and slash writers - that m/m stories are preferable for some reason. In fanfic, that could make sense due to the scarceness of believable female heroines in many cases, but I don't get why this should be the case in original fiction.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I've read both of these, and I think I still stand by my original assumption that there are still by and large simply so many more straight women writing m/m slash fiction than queer people that they dominate the genre. I might be entirely mistaken, because I don't have data on this at all.

I'm not sure data (at least not any meaningful data) exists.

I'd love that, but what I still disagree with and am not particularly good at putting into words at all is majority authors exploring their own issues using a cast of minority sockpuppets. Because that is not really a diverse cast, that's majority-exploring psychodrama.

Hmmm. I sort of agree, but at the same time I think that most writing that isn't completely formulaic does involve the writer exploring their own mind and issues, although not necessarily in an obvious way. For example, I think Terry Pratchett's last several books, including Nation and Wee Free Men, are a response to him being diagnosed with Alzheimer's and how he feels about that (mind, I read Nation right after my dad, who had Alzheimer's, died, so I read it through that reader filter). I don't think a writer can ever fully remove their own issues from their writing.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, that's the impression I got from reading people who write m/m and slash writers - that m/m stories are preferable for some reason. In fanfic, that could make sense due to the scarceness of believable female heroines in many cases, but I don't get why this should be the case in original fiction.

I think we hang out in different writing/reading circles, and of course demographics and interests vary by subgroup.

Here via linkspam - going off on a tangent

[senior-witch.livejournal.com]

I read all Terry Pratchett books the moment they are released as paperbacks - I have not discovered any traces of Terry Pratchett dealing with his diagnosis of Alzheimer, so I am curious where you have found them.

Re: Here via linkspam - going off on a tangent

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

It's not an explicitly textual thing, but several of his recent books, most notably Nation and Wee Free Men are largely about loss, at least the way I read them. Especially Nation. And the biggest effect Alzheimer's has is loss--of memory, of faculties, of control, of independence, of verbal filters, of personality, all depending on the person and how the disease progresses.

But as I said, I had personal reasons for connecting the two at the time I read them. Only Terry Pratchett knows for sure what he was thinking when he wrote them.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Sorry about not getting back to you sooner.

I'm not sure data (at least not any meaningful data) exists.
At least I haven't found any digging through fanthropology, who are generally very good at that sort of thing. If it existed, I'm sure it'd be posted over there.

About P'Terry's dealing with Alzheimer's - you might be on to something. I did notice that after Jingo, I think, his novels started getting increasingly dark, especially with regards to his formerly so optimistic humanism. I think Night Watch is a very good example of that, and so is Monstrous Regiments. The Wee Free Men series I've always seen as a bit of an exception to that general trend because it's so sunny overall, but you are right about the way he deals with the death of Granny Aching, of course.

I think we hang out in different writing/reading circles, and of course demographics and interests vary by subgroup.
Yes, probably.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

There's this:

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] http://melannen.dreamwidth.org/77757.html">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

There's this: <a href="http://melannen.dreamwidth.org/77558.html</a> and a <a href="http://melannen.dreamwidth.org/77757.html">follow-up</a>. It's true none of the polls have particularly good methodology (I suspect designing a pan-fandom poll would be basically impossible), but that many separate (flawed) polls giving similar results is interesting. There's also some discussion of where "slashers are mostly straight women" comes from (of course, all of these surveys and studies are fandom-focused, and may not apply to the readership of pro m/m fiction).

Re: Terry Pratchett, yes, he has had kind of an overall trend towards darker/more tragic themes. I haven't read <i>Unseen Academicals</i> yet, though. I think it would have had to start more recently than Jingo if it was related to Alzheimer's, though, since the diagnosis was only a few years ago.

[bronnyelsp.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about the focus on straight women writing m/m fiction--at least from where I'm looking a lot of readers and writers of m/m fiction and slash are queer. Some of them are lesbians.

Well, though, apart from any who are themselves gay men, they are still writing An Other, so surely the self-reflection Moth advocates is still called for?

For me, m/m and f/f fiction on the internet was a) more accessible to me as a teenager than published queer fiction and b) more likely to show characters doing the types of things I like in media--having adventures, solving crimes, etc.--who also were queer. What little pro queer fiction I could find was frequently entirely about how queer the characters were, and the challenges they faced from being queer, and stressful coming-out processes. Which is an important genre of literature, absolutely, but I desperately wanted--and still want--stories about queer people doing other things, for whom queerness is a part rather than the center of their lives. I'm still not seeing it much in pro fiction, especially in genre fiction of the types I most enjoy--fantasy, SF, and historical fiction. There are a few exceptions, like Ellen Kushner and Delia Sherman's Riverside books (they're married, the two main male characters are bisexual and partnered, and the main female character is bisexual-tending and romantically ambiguous, but the books mostly focus on people having duels and political intrigue), where they posit a world where queerness is common and accepted (and it would be pretty weird if only female queerness were common, but all the men were straight, I think). But I don't really love the Riverside books, and three books don't make a genre trend.

But Mothy has never said that queer characters written by straight people are entirely without merit, nor ordered all the straight writers to stop writing them. She's asked for reflection, acknowledgment of the fact that there's appropriation going on, and an attempt to Do It Better. She's also said she would prefer it if the majority of queer narratives were written by queer people. You yourself seem implicitly to admit that queer narratives written by straight people can get it very very wrong, and while they may be helpful to some queer people, that doesn't change the fact that they are imperfect. You don't directly contradict Mothy's thesis that these narratives can negatively impact on the cultural perception of queerness due to the enforcement of negative stereotypes and I'd be interested in knowing if you accept it. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to accept both: making queerness visible in fiction can, yes, be positive for individual queer people, especially youths; when it is done badly and clumsily by straight people, it can also be negative in its impact on the lives of queer people in general, simultaneously, yes. Why not?

If majority writers don't write minorities, at all, that's what we'd get. The publishing industry being what it is, white men, followed by white women, are still the majority in most genres. And there's already quite enough books all about straight white cis men, and not even because those authors don't want to offend minorities but because they don't even realize there are other people out there.

Well, to me, this, right here, is what we should be challenging. Why do we have to accept that the publishing industry is overwhelmingly white, male, straight, and cis? I don't think we should accept it.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

Well, though, apart from any who are themselves gay men, they are still writing An Other, so surely the self-reflection Moth advocates is still called for?

I'm not arguing against self-reflection at all. I am entirely in favor of self-reflection (and research, and respect).

But Mothy has never said that queer characters written by straight people are entirely without merit, nor ordered all the straight writers to stop writing them.

Nor did I say she did.

She's also said she would prefer it if the majority of queer narratives were written by queer people.

I actually agree.

You yourself seem implicitly to admit that queer narratives written by straight people can get it very very wrong, and while they may be helpful to some queer people, that doesn't change the fact that they are imperfect.

I'll say it explicitly, too.

You don't directly contradict Mothy's thesis that these narratives can negatively impact on the cultural perception of queerness due to the enforcement of negative stereotypes and I'd be interested in knowing if you accept it.

Because I don't disagree with that thesis. I don't think this issue splits neatly into two sides or camps; I can agree with parts of what people with very different views are saying without agreeing with the totality.

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to accept both: making queerness visible in fiction can, yes, be positive for individual queer people, especially youths; when it is done badly and clumsily by straight people, it can also be negative in its impact on the lives of queer people in general, simultaneously, yes. Why not?

Um, I do accept both. Evidently I didn't make that clear enough.

Well, to me, this, right here, is what we should be challenging. Why do we have to accept that the publishing industry is overwhelmingly white, male, straight, and cis? I don't think we should accept it.

I don't, either! But it's possible to advocate both white-etc. writers being self-reflective and striving to respectfully write more diverse casts AND advocate ground-up change in the publishing industry to accommodate more diverse voices. The latter's more important ideologically, certainly, but from a practical point of view, I think they're both important goals.

[bronnyelsp.livejournal.com]

So, based on everything you've said now, I don't understand why you finished by saying that you and Moth don't/probably won't agree?

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm, I don't know. I don't think we totally agree, but I'm pretty confused about this whole conversation now, so I'll leave it at "we at least mostly agree."

[bard-linn.livejournal.com]

Well, though, apart from any who are themselves gay men, they are still writing An Other, so surely the self-reflection Moth advocates is still called for?

Well, most people who write aren't teachers, mages, commanders, chess players, warriors, generals, space explorers or vets, either. They aren't geniuses, blind, or have multiple personalities. If a writer can only write what they know, you can't get very far. If you go by that, men can only write about men, and women can only write about women, and that would make for a very boring world.

I would advocate that it might be better to say "more research is appreciated" on the part of the writers (the way they should with anything that they really don't' have experience with) than self reflection. Books and stories primarily exist as an entertainment industry. Most people don't go to the store and say "I want to think about sexuality today, why don't I go over to this section." They pick up a book because of an interesting cover, or an interesting title, read a bit and say "hey, this looks neat."

Now, as a disclaimer, I will admit that I do not read much M/M published fiction or F/F published fiction. I can think of a total of three, and only in one of which was written by a Lesbian (about a F/F couple). Most of what I read in terms of published fiction is primarily straight, because the prominent authors in the fantasy/Sci-Fi genre whose style I enjoy write that. I read and write fanfiction. I enjoy all types of pairings - F/F, M/F and M/M, threesomes and moresomes. For me, it is about the characters. I see two (or more) characters who are very close and I want to see them happy together. Maybe that's as good friends, maybe something more. That's up to them, or the author in the specific case.

Now, in published fiction, I'd actually also prefer to see some more gay characters within settings with straight pairings. I have read books where two characters who are male or two characters who are female are very close - but then they go out of their way to say "we're not gay!" in the actual story. Or stories with "soul-bonds" where spirits are magically tied to others...but only straight pairings. I actually find eliminating gay characters entirely more insulting. Especially when it is made in a derogative sense (that isn't natural) or conspicuously absent, set in a world very like our own, only with magic involved, for example. The odds of encountering it at some point is very likely, especially if the series goes on for a long time.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If women shouldn't be writing M/M stories because it can be done poorly and thus could be damaging to the group indicated by overflowing the section (which can happen when anyone writes about a group they are not personally a part of, btw, not just M/M romances), then gays and lesbians shouldn't write any straight romances either. Now, what are the odds of a story having no straight romances, only gay ones? This also bothers me, because we live in a mixed world.

I will not say that fiction can't be damaging or promote damaging ideals. I've argued that often about a series I won't name but seems to think that stalking is hot as opposed to disturbing. I would however say that it isn't self reflection that is needed as much as more research.

[bronnyelsp.livejournal.com]

Well, most people who write aren't teachers, mages, commanders, chess players, warriors, generals, space explorers or vets, either.

This is so, so, so wrong, I am having extreme difficulty articulating what is wrong with comparing a non-teacher writing about a teacher to a straight person writing about a gay person. I could start by saying that, underpaid and undervalued though they may be, teachers are not oppressed social minorities, who are born into their minority status, do not choose it, cannot escape it, but have nonetheless to cope with the societal fallout of being oppressed for their entire lives. I could start there.

I would advocate that it might be better to say "more research is appreciated" on the part of the writers (the way they should with anything that they really don't' have experience with) than self reflection. Books and stories primarily exist as an entertainment industry. Most people don't go to the store and say "I want to think about sexuality today, why don't I go over to this section." They pick up a book because of an interesting cover, or an interesting title, read a bit and say "hey, this looks neat."

You're missing the point of the self-reflection. It isn't to make it more realistic. It's to examine whether and to what extent the author is exploiting the group s/he is writing about by working out hir own issues on, and through, stereotyped, distorted or otherwise damaging images of that group.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If women shouldn't be writing M/M stories because it can be done poorly and thus could be damaging to the group indicated by overflowing the section (which can happen when anyone writes about a group they are not personally a part of, btw, not just M/M romances), then gays and lesbians shouldn't write any straight romances either. Now, what are the odds of a story having no straight romances, only gay ones? This also bothers me, because we live in a mixed world.

The shoe can't go on the other foot. It doesn't fit. Why? Because straights are the majority. TheyWe* are the privileged ones. Gay men are, in this context, not. And Moth, again, is not objecting to straight people writing gay characters in general -- she is saying that it is problematic when it is done in order for the straight author (or any majority author writing about any minority character, cf RaceFail) to work out his or her own issues on and through those characters; and a situation in which the majority's published versions of the minority are so prolific as to swamp and erase the minority's own narratives about itself.

*as in "we straights," a phrase that includes me, not "we, me and you," as I don't know your sexual orientation, but as a straight person, I feel I ought to own this.

Response, Part 1

[herongale]

I want you, herongale, to ask yourself, "why am I writing slash? What does it do for me that other genres don't? Why do I find the tales of two men together more interesting than others? Why is it ok for me to appropriate another person's experience for my own ends?"

And I want your readers to do the same.

See, this gives me something to work with. I know much better how to respond to you now.

Allow me to start with a digression, if you please. I often listen to Dan Savage's "Savage Love" podcast. I won't defend everything he says, but sometimes he says some very provocative things, and I remember one caller who had a dilemma which somewhat reminds me of this debate.

A white gay man calls in. He talks about the fact that he is especially attracted to black men, and fears that his desire exoticizes and fetishizes these men, and therefore is an impulse he ought to avoid... he wonders if it is wrong for him to date gay men, knowing that he has a special fascination for them, one which he cannot really explain or articulate how he came to feel this way. He doesn't know why black men appeal to him, they just do. And he, rightly, sees this as problematic.

The first thing that Dan Savage does is point out that for the vast majority of white gay men, black skin is an active turn-off. And so what good does it do black gays if not only the people who cannot find them attractive avoid them, but the ones that do feel obligated to avoid them, as well? It's all well and good to say that maybe this just means that black men should only date other black men, but that's very unfair... to the black men themselves. It's kind of oppressive, because it is artificially limiting the choices of these black men to date who they want.

People have preferences. Preferences are not always easily explained. I might like you and want to date you if you have a certain look, if maybe you are around my height for instance, or if you are a tiny bit chubby (yeah, I enjoy this), or if you have dark hair, or dark eyes. Sexuality is simply a matter of powerful preference, and for most people this preference is inborn, and cannot be changed. When it comes to my desires, when I write fiction, my preferences are not really up for debate, and I can't change them. I don't know why I like stories of gay men above any other kinds of stories: I just do. And trust me, I've given lots and lots of thought to this matter, because it would be a lot easier for me if I preferred to write heterosexual romance... there's a market for that, you know. A market that is far broader than the market for stories about men who like men. And when it comes down to it, I don't think my reasons are all that important: I like what I like, and that's that.

It's not what I like that is the problem. I don't see why I should question my attraction to slash fiction, mostly because I don't see why gay people should question why they are gay, either. Some things are just not up for debate, or change. I think a part of the issue here is the idea that women who write slash are doing so out of a consciously pursued desire, instead of something that kind of came over them and was found to be an irresistible longing. I can't stop my attraction to slash fiction, any more than I can stop my attraction to women. And I don't want to.

So when it comes to your question of "why," my answer is "why not." It just is.

Re: Response, Part 1

[herongale]

But that doesn't change the fact that your next question, " why is it ok for me to appropriate another person's experience for my own ends?" is a very important one.

In Dan Savage's advice to the white gay man who called him, he did NOT tell him that his attraction to black men, which amounts to nearly a fetish, disqualifies him from dating black men. What it does is obligate him towards being accountable for the implications of his desires, to own the fact that there is something inherently problematic in them, and to go forward and act conscientiously, using that baseline attraction as merely a foundation for interest. That white man might start being attracted to someone because of his beautiful dark skin, but the attraction shouldn't end there: he should use that as the basis for wanting to know more, to getting to know that black man as a person, and from there deciding if his attraction is primarily fetishistic (in which case, it ought to be avoided), or if it possesses something genuine and holistically meaningful. If a real relationship can be grown out of that initial problematic beginning.

Gay men and straight women have long had an entangled association. It's not just about fiction, it's also about the friendships we share, and there is often a non-sexual but romantic quality to these friendships which is felt on both ends. Gay men are drawn to straight women just about as often as straight women are drawn to gay men. But really, this isn't any special thing. Gay men also have friendships with gay women. They also have friendships with straight men. They also have friendships with each other, and with people whose identities and preferences cannot be so easily labeled.

My overall point is that what is problematic in society is that gay men are far too often set apart. They are treated as being outside of the fabric of society. It is bad when not only people who HATE gay men set them apart, but also when people who claim to be allies feel a need to set them apart as well. To say that because they are a minority, they deserve not only special consideration (which is true), but also DIFFERENT consideration, which is false. I don't want to treat my gay friends any different than I treat my non gay ones. To accomplish this, I must be more thoughtful about my behaviors, and more thoughtful about my own internalized prejudices... but the end result is that I want to feel that I include.

When I write, I am not looking to erase anyone's stories. But when I read books, I don't want to read stories by people who are just like me. I read stories written by South Africans, by the disabled, by the disfigured, by the insane. And just as I would not limit these people to writing about their own experiences, I wouldn't want to limit my own writing.

Part 3 (last part)

[herongale]

The truth is that gay men do want to read fiction about gay men. But not all gay men are writers. Few even strive to be. A lot of gay men WANT to read stories about gay characters, and the identity and preferences of the writer are far less material than whether or not the stories they read are enjoyable. Gay men have the right to read stories they like, and that includes stories written by straight women which happen to explore gay characters. By warning women off from writing fiction about gay men, it seems to me equivalent to warning a white gay man that he shouldn't ever date a black man, because the fact that his desires will always be problematic automatically disqualifies him. This is not true. Problematic issues should not be avoided, but ADDRESSED. Women SHOULD continue to write slash, regardless of their motives, but they also are obligated to be thoughtful. Not really about the "why," because "why" is often too hard a question to answer. But they definitely should be thoughtful about the "how."

The truth is that people who hate gay men won't write about them except in negative terms. There are not that many gay men who are writers, so even if all of them spend all of their time writing only about their own experiences (thus artificially limiting their choices about what to write), there won't be a lot of fiction about gay characters if it is only written by people who are also gay. This means that for people who are allies, for people who honestly care about gay rights and gay people, we shouldn't avoid writing about them just because we are afraid of our own problematic feelings. That is kind of cowardly, in my opinion. Instead, we should face our prejudices and issues with appropriation and exoticization head on. We should "kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight," and that includes the darkness INSIDE of ourselves.

It's a two way street. Or ideally, it should be. We might be writing about gay men to serve desires within ourselves, but gay men want to read our stories about their experiences to serve their own desires. Those of us who are allies should act like allies, and not turn away just because things are difficult or that there is the possibility for error.

Re: Part 3 (last part)

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this elaborate answer, it made a lot of things clearer for me. The problem I have with Dan Savage and this particular piece of advice is that it's one member of a privileged group telling another member of the same group how to deal with members of a minority they are both not a part of. I'd be more interested in what black men have to say to this advice. If your paraphrase is correct, it sounds like terrible advice. "They are usually avoided so they need to get every chance they can get, so a chaser is totally fine!"

Fetishes - and I get the feeling that you do mean fetishes when you write "preferences" - are of course never easily explained, and almost always in some shape or form shaped by society, and yes, there are fetishes that should be questioned because they can be harmful to people, they can flatten people's perception of other people and characters and reduce their complexity to one major trait (being gay in M/M fiction, for example) - like being gay. Or being disabled, if you are a chaser. Or being black. It does not make it any less problematic for the people involved. So, in spite of what Dan Savage says, fetishising people is problematic.

The response you suggest, however, is great and I am glad you see it that way. Acting responsibly in spite of existing fetishes is necessary. I don't consider what you write about the friendships between gay men and straight women as a very common occurance that can be generalised, but if your friendships with your gay friends work like that, good for you.

Including is a very god response, but I don't think that straight women dominating fiction about gay people is a good way to do this. Gay people have a right to read things about gay people, but I also feel that they have the right to be the majority of people who write stories that focus on gayness. That is the difference that I feel is important and necessary.

If people who are not gay men include gay male characters in their stories, fine. If they have a main character of many who is a gay male, fine. If they write a story that FOCUSES on gay love? Emphatically not fine. The reason for this is that straight people can get things really, really wrong, can fuck up in numerous ways that are to be expected when they have never lived the experience, which will damage and disappoint their readers.

The problem are not always the people who hate gay men, but also the people who mean well and claim to like gay men. If thinking about "how" is the only step people can make because appropriating experiences of a minority is so important to them, I suppose I will have to be content with that- though I don't even see much of that going on in many cases of writers who right HP slashfics, at least. Maybe other fandoms are better. Continuing fetishisation won't help to shed light on the issues non-gay males who write stories which focus on gay male experiences have, though, and you can be a good ally and not appropriate someone's experience simply because you believe that you are better equipped to write about someone's experience than they are. That's pretty arrogant. o.O Also, it can't be a two-way street because that would imply some amount of equality which there is not. There are SO many more people out there than gay males, many of which have it much easier to be heard simply because there are so many of them.

There does not need to be a lot of fiction about gay characters. There only needs to be enough fiction which describes experiences gay men have from the point of view of people who have lived them. And no, I don't think that this can or should be written by people who are not gay males.

Re: Part 3 (last part) - here via linkspam

[senior-witch.livejournal.com]

Do you have any statistics proving that the percentage of people who are writers, or strive to be, is less among gay men than among women, or among straight men? Or do you think that it is the low absolute number of gay writers that prevents them from writing as much stories about gay men as gay people want to read? Why do you think that in gay literature the situation is different from other branches of literature, namely that there are far more books that one would like to read than one has time to read?

Small round-up post

[lordhellebore]

I just want to mention to the participants of this discussion that I made this post that links to and summarises part of this discussion, which might bring other people here as well and where there might be some discussion as well when people from my f-list read it.

[linkspam-mod.livejournal.com]

Your post has been linked in Linkspam (http://linkspam.dreamwidth.org/16671.html?format=light).

[gloss]

Here via Linkspam.

Thank you very much for this post.

"why am I writing slash? What does it do for me that other genres don't? Why do I find the tales of two men together more interesting than others? Why is it ok for me to appropriate another person's experience for my own ends?"
I think this is something *everyone* needs to do, and recurrently. You've phrased it very well.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

The narratives you come across organise your thinking, and if you come across one particular narrative over and over again, it is difficult or even impossible not to have that part of your narrative enter your brain and become the definitive narrative.

I found this a really helpful formulation. Thank you.

[fakeplasticsnow.livejournal.com]

Here from metafandom! I completely agree, thank you for writing this post. The privilege I saw while reading the comments thread in that other one made me facepalm a little. D: