![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptSo, last time, we said there was one thing left to discuss about fanfiction that Diana Gabaldon was totally squicked about...
...and it’s Rule 34. Or, more specifically, that there’s a high-percentage chance that J. Random Fanfiction will include smut, pr0n, masturbatory fantasies of the author, or other semi-adult to fully explicit material. Her argument starts from something reasonable: an author who likes their characters doesn’t like to see them abused in such a way, and moves on from there. I’m guessing the high prevalence of slashpr0n, and especially hateslashpr0n, where two nemeses end up having all sorts of hatesex all over the place, contributes to this perception and feeling of abuse. I could be biased, though, against the vocal Yaoi fans and slash shippers that don’t understand the virtues of modulation of volume, as well as the point that good sex is not necessarily explicit or frequent.
I suppose now would be a good time to mention that the source material from the author is apparently totally full of sexual encounters, many of which involve dubious consent issues. Oh, and that one of her characters may be a companion from Doctor Who with the serial numbers filed off, compounding the accusations of hypocrisy into “you write fan-fiction, and to turn around and say you don’t like it is dissonant cognition at best.”
Anyway, returning to the original point, first, she invokes Sturgeon’s Law. We’ll grant her that one without a problem. She then uses it as a justification that things falling under that Law should be removed because they just suck too much. Just because 90% of what you find on the Internet is crap doesn’t necessarily make a solid argument that it should be removed - were that the case, well, the Internet would be a lot less populated - including a lack of me, and that would just plain suck.
Second, she likens seeing sexual fanfiction of her characters to opening the mailbox and finding a story that the neighbor wrote of your daughter boinking him, with associated squick factor. She then equates fanfiction of her characters having sex with reading scenes of family members having sex. Her critics generally take this as a sign that she’s far too invested in her characters. That statement does ring pretty solidly of “overprotective mother who wants to hear nothing of her daughter’s sexual identity, nor to provide said daughter with any information about it, so that she can maintain the fiction of the virginal daughter for as long as possible.” In her third posting, she makes that case much more explicitly - messing with her characters is messing with her, because her characters are a part of her, and she doesn't like being messed with.
The problem with this argument is, well, Twilight. It follows this formula remarkably well (abrupt scene shifts, quick fade to black, Anvilicious moral about how bad teenage sexuality is, etc.) and sold lots of copies. Because it defanged the vampire and made him safe and virtuous and sparkly and then got marketed to the crowd that wanted the thrill of the vampire and true love without any of the danger associated with either. It made Edward into a eunuch, and it de-sexed anyone when they were around Isabella, despite the implications that the couples already made were meant for each other and were compatible. This is what Twilight does well. It is part of the reason why I think Twilight is poorly written (the other being Emo Edward and Isabella Sue, the Queen Manipulative *Beep*). It is a safe book, and by being so safe, the terror that Isabella should be feeling from day one of getting mixed up with the Cullens is artificial, when it’s actually there.
Anyway, Twilight took a fairly standard “book intended for younger audiences” trope and Dialed It Up to Eleven. Most kids books do not have characters kissing, excepting for the Platonic variety between adults, the Kiss of Masculine Destruction (ewwwww! Cooties!), and the Saved the Day Kiss (often coming at the end of a book that opened with the Kiss of Masculine Destruction, now pleasant because of the character development). Harry Potter has flirting, kissing, seeign characters in new lights because of their dresses, but nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does it ever say anyone shagged. (Except the epilogue, when there are children of the characters. That doesn’t count, as it’s like thinking about your parents having had sex because you’re here.) In seven years. Despite the clear coming-into-puberty and the rest that is hinted at when there are a couple of deep kisses and such. The trope is on television, too - unless you’re in Primetime, expect no affection excepting for the ideas described above (the equivalent of kids books). In Primetime (the “young adult” market), there are hints and cutaways and suggestive dialogue, and occasionally there’s a bared back or a scene of conveniently-placed objects. Only when past the watershed (or on pay television) does one actually get to bits where the characters actually have intimate relations on screen, clothes or no clothes (that would be the adult book market, for those keeping score).
So for two and some unspecified fraction of the three major age markets, there’s no sex, no intimacy, no anything, despite, well, sex and how people relate to it being a major part of development and life for people. (Paradoxically, there’s a lot of implied sexuality in advertisements, but that might be more broadly and properly classified as exhibitionism rather than sexuality, because it’s a fairly one-way channel.) Well- and poorly-written characters are conceivably older and younger than their canonical self, and then there’s the whole AU world, so there’s plenty of places for speculation about a character’s first time, or first time with someone else, or what some characters did in between the chapters of the narrative or the scenes thereof, stuff that we have to experience moment by moment but books and shows can cut because they want to get to more plot, and readers and writers can speculate about the “what if” branches, as above. What if Harry and Draco had a secret love for each other? Or what would happen if Harry and Draco got into a game of dominance that raised the stakes all the way up to the Imperious Curse? Or Harry and Hermione were down in town drinking actual alcohol and the lightweight Hermione spilled her secret crush on Ron/Harry, and Harry took advantage of that knolwedge to set Ron/Hermione/all three of them up for a situation where they would give in to their teenage hormones? What if Alice was a switch-hitter and entranced Isabella with the promise of knowing what it would be like to be with a woman? All of these situations can be written well or poorly, cerebrally or earthy, focused on the mind or the body. To deny someone those possibilities might deny them what they need to get the confidence and skill to write original fiction, and might deny some truly good pieces of work the right to exist. Remember the Comiket example above? Now I think I should mention that a lot of doujins are H(entai) material. Take from that what you will.
...and it’s Rule 34. Or, more specifically, that there’s a high-percentage chance that J. Random Fanfiction will include smut, pr0n, masturbatory fantasies of the author, or other semi-adult to fully explicit material. Her argument starts from something reasonable: an author who likes their characters doesn’t like to see them abused in such a way, and moves on from there. I’m guessing the high prevalence of slashpr0n, and especially hateslashpr0n, where two nemeses end up having all sorts of hatesex all over the place, contributes to this perception and feeling of abuse. I could be biased, though, against the vocal Yaoi fans and slash shippers that don’t understand the virtues of modulation of volume, as well as the point that good sex is not necessarily explicit or frequent.
I suppose now would be a good time to mention that the source material from the author is apparently totally full of sexual encounters, many of which involve dubious consent issues. Oh, and that one of her characters may be a companion from Doctor Who with the serial numbers filed off, compounding the accusations of hypocrisy into “you write fan-fiction, and to turn around and say you don’t like it is dissonant cognition at best.”
Anyway, returning to the original point, first, she invokes Sturgeon’s Law. We’ll grant her that one without a problem. She then uses it as a justification that things falling under that Law should be removed because they just suck too much. Just because 90% of what you find on the Internet is crap doesn’t necessarily make a solid argument that it should be removed - were that the case, well, the Internet would be a lot less populated - including a lack of me, and that would just plain suck.
Second, she likens seeing sexual fanfiction of her characters to opening the mailbox and finding a story that the neighbor wrote of your daughter boinking him, with associated squick factor. She then equates fanfiction of her characters having sex with reading scenes of family members having sex. Her critics generally take this as a sign that she’s far too invested in her characters. That statement does ring pretty solidly of “overprotective mother who wants to hear nothing of her daughter’s sexual identity, nor to provide said daughter with any information about it, so that she can maintain the fiction of the virginal daughter for as long as possible.” In her third posting, she makes that case much more explicitly - messing with her characters is messing with her, because her characters are a part of her, and she doesn't like being messed with.
The problem with this argument is, well, Twilight. It follows this formula remarkably well (abrupt scene shifts, quick fade to black, Anvilicious moral about how bad teenage sexuality is, etc.) and sold lots of copies. Because it defanged the vampire and made him safe and virtuous and sparkly and then got marketed to the crowd that wanted the thrill of the vampire and true love without any of the danger associated with either. It made Edward into a eunuch, and it de-sexed anyone when they were around Isabella, despite the implications that the couples already made were meant for each other and were compatible. This is what Twilight does well. It is part of the reason why I think Twilight is poorly written (the other being Emo Edward and Isabella Sue, the Queen Manipulative *Beep*). It is a safe book, and by being so safe, the terror that Isabella should be feeling from day one of getting mixed up with the Cullens is artificial, when it’s actually there.
Anyway, Twilight took a fairly standard “book intended for younger audiences” trope and Dialed It Up to Eleven. Most kids books do not have characters kissing, excepting for the Platonic variety between adults, the Kiss of Masculine Destruction (ewwwww! Cooties!), and the Saved the Day Kiss (often coming at the end of a book that opened with the Kiss of Masculine Destruction, now pleasant because of the character development). Harry Potter has flirting, kissing, seeign characters in new lights because of their dresses, but nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does it ever say anyone shagged. (Except the epilogue, when there are children of the characters. That doesn’t count, as it’s like thinking about your parents having had sex because you’re here.) In seven years. Despite the clear coming-into-puberty and the rest that is hinted at when there are a couple of deep kisses and such. The trope is on television, too - unless you’re in Primetime, expect no affection excepting for the ideas described above (the equivalent of kids books). In Primetime (the “young adult” market), there are hints and cutaways and suggestive dialogue, and occasionally there’s a bared back or a scene of conveniently-placed objects. Only when past the watershed (or on pay television) does one actually get to bits where the characters actually have intimate relations on screen, clothes or no clothes (that would be the adult book market, for those keeping score).
So for two and some unspecified fraction of the three major age markets, there’s no sex, no intimacy, no anything, despite, well, sex and how people relate to it being a major part of development and life for people. (Paradoxically, there’s a lot of implied sexuality in advertisements, but that might be more broadly and properly classified as exhibitionism rather than sexuality, because it’s a fairly one-way channel.) Well- and poorly-written characters are conceivably older and younger than their canonical self, and then there’s the whole AU world, so there’s plenty of places for speculation about a character’s first time, or first time with someone else, or what some characters did in between the chapters of the narrative or the scenes thereof, stuff that we have to experience moment by moment but books and shows can cut because they want to get to more plot, and readers and writers can speculate about the “what if” branches, as above. What if Harry and Draco had a secret love for each other? Or what would happen if Harry and Draco got into a game of dominance that raised the stakes all the way up to the Imperious Curse? Or Harry and Hermione were down in town drinking actual alcohol and the lightweight Hermione spilled her secret crush on Ron/Harry, and Harry took advantage of that knolwedge to set Ron/Hermione/all three of them up for a situation where they would give in to their teenage hormones? What if Alice was a switch-hitter and entranced Isabella with the promise of knowing what it would be like to be with a woman? All of these situations can be written well or poorly, cerebrally or earthy, focused on the mind or the body. To deny someone those possibilities might deny them what they need to get the confidence and skill to write original fiction, and might deny some truly good pieces of work the right to exist. Remember the Comiket example above? Now I think I should mention that a lot of doujins are H(entai) material. Take from that what you will.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 08:37 am (UTC)you've never watched Secret Life of the American Teenager, then. It's on at 8PM on Monday nights (when it's the season for it) on ABC Family, which is not technically a pay channel (it is a cable channel, but you don't pay extra and it's owned by freaking DISNEY). The teenagers in this show regularly have sex with different partners and the main character, Amy, got pregnant at 15 the first time she had sex and kept the baby (So most of the first season is devoted to life as a prego teen, second season life of a teenage mom). At the end of each show, one of the actors will have a small PSA about "talking to your parents about sex", but still. It's RIGHT THERE. My 14 yr old cousin was watching the show when she was 13!
Not to mention the other "teen drama" shows like 90210, gossip girl, 10 things I hate about you, greek etc.
Surprisingly, Disney's shows for the Disney Channel made for teens do not foray into sex other than kissing.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-06 02:49 pm (UTC)So it still fits, unfortunately. It might be best classed as one of those few YA books that actually believes in characters having sexual lives and so actually shows them.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-03 02:51 am (UTC)Control is a chimera anyhow, especially in literature. The point of a work of literature is to get people to engage in an act of fairly sustained concentration and thought. It shouldn't be so surprising that that act of thought yields interesting results.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-03 06:30 am (UTC)And considering how books, pamphlets, and other written materials are often cited as reasons for or accelerants of conflicts and revolutions, the written word is quite powerful.