![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mothwingThat'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,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 07:34 pm (UTC)I never said it stops gay men from being published. I still have a problem with the name of the genre, because it reduces these characters to one trait and makes that the defining characteristics. If this were for the benefit of men who were seeking people with their own distinctive experience, this would be a completely different kettle of fish - hence my marked indifference to "gay literature". Does that make sense?
Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 07:57 pm (UTC)Don't you think that rather narrows it down? There are so many different kinds of pairings. I'd be well pissed if someone would characterise my story as "lesbian" or "F/F" or whatever when it's a Fantasy story which focuses on entirely different things. Don't you find that somehow cheapening?
Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 08:24 pm (UTC)Not yet, because I'm desperately working for universiy deadlines next week, but I'll take the time as soon as I can. And I'm a woman :)
Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 08:29 pm (UTC)Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 08:38 pm (UTC)Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 08:53 pm (UTC)Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 08:56 pm (UTC)Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 09:01 pm (UTC)Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 09:08 pm (UTC)Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 09:59 pm (UTC)Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 10:03 pm (UTC)Sie hat mal gesagt, sie glaubt, dass die beiden Polizisten in der alten Pippi Langstrumpf-Serie verliebt sind. Da war sie vier. Sie hat schon eine Geschichte geschrieben, aber das war eine Hausaufgabe zu einer Bildergeschichte. So süß. Hier:
Ein kleiner Junge fuhr auf eine Insel zu. Als er anlekte endekte er ätwas Sältsames. Ein Berk mit einer thür. Er öfnete di tür unt fant einen Schaz.
Fand ich süß für ein Kind, das grade mal vier Monate Schule hinter sich hat.
Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 10:06 pm (UTC)Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 10:08 pm (UTC)Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 08:36 pm (UTC)As I have said before, I am not comfortable with people who are not identified as gay writing in a genre devoted to their idea of a minority. I don't think that apart from the fact that I don't have the same rights and face more dangers than straight people, "lesbian" is a terribly meaningful category for my life. Still, how the world treats "lesbians" made it a category for me that became meaningful - anything that's shouted at you on the street more than five times would ;), and made me explore what that means for me. My experience as a lesbian means being othered by a mainstream society which does not consider that I, a lesbian, am a part of it, that I am Different, and therefore assigns me with this term that somehow defines who I am. Now if people who are not lesbians write their account on lesbians, they are doing this over again, defining what people like me are like. And that's making me uneasy, good execution or bad execution. Does that make sense? I'm not good at explaining this.
Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 02:25 am (UTC)Why would I? Just because someone is writing f/f fic doesn't mean they're telling my story, any more than I'm telling a story that's meant to speak to the experiences of all gay men everywhere when I write John/Ronon. I'm writing a story about those two characters, and what they would be like in a relationship, and I'm writing for an audience of people who know those characters and are interested about those specific characters.
Besides, if I felt cheapened by people outside of one of my subcultures writing about me, I'd be pretty much miserable permanently. I don't get upset by white people writing black characters--unless they get it wrong. And even then, it doesn't lessen my experience as a black woman; it's just annoying.
Re: Part 3 (last part)
Date: Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 01:12 pm (UTC)If you'd still write about them because you are interested in the characters and they just so happen to be male, that's part of the things which make fanfiction a different topic for me than M/M romance writing in original fiction. In many fandoms, there are a lot more fleshed-out and interesting male characters than female characters, and a lot of people write about fleshed-out characters. In many fandoms, these are also male. For me, the fact that so many stories can apparently only be told with many more male characters than female characters is a problem of the canon, not a problem of the authors who explore pre-existing characters.
As for cheapening stories - I meant fictional stories rather than life stories, but I do feel that stereotypes that arise or are perpetuated in fiction have a nasty habit of also appearing in the real world, and while it may annoy me in fiction and cause me to bodily fling books across the room when I'd usually never so much as put a dent in the spine, it can be dangerous IRL.