I'd like to pose a question to the masses of LJdom

[timepiececlock]

Is it possible to have a straightforward discussion of the validity of slash as a character ship (not a fandom ship), without having people get upset?

Sometimes I'd like to sit down with yaoi (slash) fans of Gundam Wing and debate with them why Heero and Duo are not gay, but Quatre and Trowa might be. Or with Highlander, why I do think Methos did it with Byron, but not with Duncan. Or the canon-based exptrapolation of Spike/Angel versus Spike/Xander-- or, if one were so inclined, why none of those work and everyone is straight unless explicitly and irrevicably stated otherwise, or vice versa.

But it seems that slash discussions between people who disagree on whether a slash pairing is valid as a "conventional" couple instead of an unconvention/fandom-based one, always go badly-- and then no one ever really gets to hear the other side's reasons.

Is it just that it's an argument best had in person, where you can read each other's expressions and not take offense so easily?

Do people censor themselves and not try to talk about it, for fear of starting an unintended argument?

Is there a way to say "I don't believe in your ship, you don't believe in mine, let's talk about it and explore why" without the conversation eventually getting bitter?

Do slash fans and het fans even want to have discussion and debate about it?

Or is it like putting Pro-Life-ers in a room with Pro-choice-ers and telling them to talk about only abortion: there will be blood and vitriol no matter how good your intentions?

Comments

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't think "is this valid" is a useful question. I don't even know what "valid" means.

Does it mean, we'll see it on the screen this season? Does it mean, we would've seen it on the screen this season if the network had allowed it? Does it mean, sure, we'll never see it on the screen, but I can see enough moments of the subtext in canon to justify the idea that the sexual tension was intended by the writers even if they'll never act on it?

Does it mean, I don't think the writers intended subtext, but what they wrote is the kind of relationship that I've seen lead to sex in the real world/other fiction? Does it mean, regardless of whether these characters like each other (or have even met), they have enough in common that I believe they'd have a good/hot/interesting relationship if the right circumstances threw them together?

I'm not sure I believe there exists a pairing that *couldn't* be made believeable by the right writer with the right premise. I've seen people pull off some fucking miracles in that regard, because their individual characterization is so spot on that the interaction is convincing, no matter how odd the set up. Contrarywise I've seen the shows themselves fail to sell me on a pairing that felt forced and had no chemistry.

I think the question "is this valid" is inherently bitter-making, because it implies judgement. As opposed to "I don't like it, I don't see it," which keeps the focus on the speaker instead of "justify yourself."

It also puts slash fans at an inherent disadvantage, since the real world effect on what they're allowed to do is not free of bias. It was much harder for Joss to get permission to do Willow and Tara's first kiss than to do Buffy and Riley having sex for an entire episode. It's hard to get people who are used to overt cues to take subtext as seriously.

Personally, I'm not all that interested in finding out why people don't like and believe in my ships. They're most likely never going to, there's plenty of fic and plenty of subtext out there for all of us without us having to convince the other. Unlike the abortion thing, I don't see who it hurts if we all just do our own stuff and let the people who disagree with us alone to do theirs.

There are ships (slash and het) that I'll never believe in -- or more to the point, they could be fucking on screen tomorrow, but it would be hard to make me care. Those relationships don't play out dynamics that I find interesting or touching or sexy or whatever, so my lack of belief is not so much the statement "that could never happen" as "I don't want to see it happen".

Mer

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

Does it mean, we'll see it on the screen this season? Does it mean, we would've seen it on the screen this season if the network had allowed it? Does it mean, sure, we'll never see it on the screen, but I can see enough moments of the subtext in canon to justify the idea that the sexual tension was intended by the writers even if they'll never act on it?

Does it mean, I don't think the writers intended subtext, but what they wrote is the kind of relationship that I've seen lead to sex in the real world/other fiction?

All of those things, separately. I guess that's another thing you'd have to specify in the start of the conversation.

I think the question "is this valid" is inherently bitter-making, because it implies judgement. As opposed to "I don't like it, I don't see it," which keeps the focus on the speaker instead of "justify yourself."

That's a great point.

Personally, I'm not all that interested in finding out why people don't like and believe in my ships. They're most likely never going to, there's plenty of fic and plenty of subtext out there for all of us without us having to convince the other. Unlike the abortion thing, I don't see who it hurts if we all just do our own stuff and let the people who disagree with us alone to do theirs.

Ah, that's where we're different. I am interested in talking about that general area of things, even though I don't do it very much because it's so easy for conversations to turn hostile. You're right, it doesn't involve serious injury to people like debating abortion could include, but I still like to talk about t

dang, it cut off my last few words! -previous post continued-

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

...but I still like to talk about the differences people have/like/see in that sort of thing.

Thanks for replying to my post!

Re: dang, it cut off my last few words! -previous post continued-

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

No problem! And in practice, if you ask about one of my particular ships in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers, I'll probably jump in anyway, because talking about characters is fun, and when do I not shoot my mouth off? :) I just don't feel the need to seek it out, and when it gets touchy I'd rather walk away than struggle through.

Oh, one more thing: sometimes slash fans get touchy because it seems like a higher standard of validity is bring demanded of slash pairings than het but non-canon pairings are held to. That seems to come off an assumption than everyone who's ever been seen to date someone of the opposite sex is therefore presumptively heterosexual, which annoys some of us bi types no end.

Mer

Re: dang, it cut off my last few words! -previous post continued-

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

it seems like a higher standard of validity is bring demanded of slash pairings than het but non-canon pairings are held to.

:raises eyebrow: If it makes you feel better, I find post-season 4 Spike/Willow totally unfuckingbelievableneverhappenEVER.

Seriously though, I do see your point.

Re: dang, it cut off my last few words! -previous post continued-

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

it seems like a higher standard of validity is bring demanded of slash pairings than het but non-canon pairings are held to.

:raises eyebrow: If it makes you feel better, I find post-season 4 Spike/Willow totally unfuckingbelievableneverhappenEVER.

Seriously though, I do see your point.