After four years in the slash community, I'm still trying to figure out what "subtext" means. :)
Does it mean homoeroticism that isn't there in the original, but which, with a little tweaking, could be seen to be there? Or does it mean that the homoeroticism is really there, and the canon writers are just in denial? (Or possibly just teasing the viewers or readers.)
I've seen the term subtext used both ways, and I find that a bit frustrating because I can't tell whether a slasher is saying, "I know better than the creator what this show means" (which, I say as an author, can happen) or, "This show doesn't show homoeroticism, but darn it, wouldn't it be fun to imagine that it did?"
It seems to me that all fanfic, by its very nature, draws upon subtext in either of these senses. If I imagine a gen scene taking place that didn't actually take place in the gen original, then I'm seeing subtext. And if I say, "No, no, no, Qui-Gon did not die, no matter what George Lucas thinks!" then I'm drawing upon subtext. Homoeroticism doesn't need to enter into the matter.
I do have some uneasiness about how frequently some slashers claim to see subtext in the sense of something that's there in the canon that creators weren't aware of. I write original gen and original slash, and a lot of my stories are about male romantic friendships. I don't in the least bit mind my readers slashing my characters in their minds - I keep hoping to read fanfic of my stories some day :) - but I don't see my romantic-friendship characters as being gay. I see them as engaging in behavior that our culture would consider to be evidence of erotic attraction, but which other cultures would regard as non-erotic behavior.
Not being a cultural imperialist, I don't assume that the other cultures are wrong. Indeed, having been in a romantic friendship myself, I believe that such relationships have the potential to be non-erotic. So I get a little edgy about those slash readers who appear to me to be projecting their own cultural preconceptions of what is evidence of erotic attraction onto other people's characters. I'd much rather, in such cases, that those readers just admit that they like imagining the characters as homoerotic, regardless as to whether the characters actually were homoerotic in the original.
After all, there's nothing wrong with re-imagining a creation into a different form.
no subject
After four years in the slash community, I'm still trying to figure out what "subtext" means. :)
Does it mean homoeroticism that isn't there in the original, but which, with a little tweaking, could be seen to be there? Or does it mean that the homoeroticism is really there, and the canon writers are just in denial? (Or possibly just teasing the viewers or readers.)
I've seen the term subtext used both ways, and I find that a bit frustrating because I can't tell whether a slasher is saying, "I know better than the creator what this show means" (which, I say as an author, can happen) or, "This show doesn't show homoeroticism, but darn it, wouldn't it be fun to imagine that it did?"
It seems to me that all fanfic, by its very nature, draws upon subtext in either of these senses. If I imagine a gen scene taking place that didn't actually take place in the gen original, then I'm seeing subtext. And if I say, "No, no, no, Qui-Gon did not die, no matter what George Lucas thinks!" then I'm drawing upon subtext. Homoeroticism doesn't need to enter into the matter.
I do have some uneasiness about how frequently some slashers claim to see subtext in the sense of something that's there in the canon that creators weren't aware of. I write original gen and original slash, and a lot of my stories are about male romantic friendships. I don't in the least bit mind my readers slashing my characters in their minds - I keep hoping to read fanfic of my stories some day :) - but I don't see my romantic-friendship characters as being gay. I see them as engaging in behavior that our culture would consider to be evidence of erotic attraction, but which other cultures would regard as non-erotic behavior.
Not being a cultural imperialist, I don't assume that the other cultures are wrong. Indeed, having been in a romantic friendship myself, I believe that such relationships have the potential to be non-erotic. So I get a little edgy about those slash readers who appear to me to be projecting their own cultural preconceptions of what is evidence of erotic attraction onto other people's characters. I'd much rather, in such cases, that those readers just admit that they like imagining the characters as homoerotic, regardless as to whether the characters actually were homoerotic in the original.
After all, there's nothing wrong with re-imagining a creation into a different form.