subtext in fantexts

[hope]

I think it's one of the potential drawbacks of slash that its very existence to an extent denies the possibility of homoerotic subtext in gen stories.

And yeah, okay, I know all you SPN readers out there will be "wtf! in gen stories they sleep in the same bed and give each other baths ALL THE TIME!" but, okay - frequently I also notice stories posted with notes like "subtexty wincest" or "pre-slash" or "you can read this as slash if you want" or "hints of slash".

In other words. SUBTEXT. Slash's existence potentially excises homoerotic subtext from non-slash stories: because as soon as there's subtext, frequently authors feel they have to re-classify. Which means a whole lot of things, most on the side of the audience reception to the story.

More than a few of the gen stories I really, really love - in this fandom and other fandoms - have strong subtext. That is just subtext. Juicy, homoerotic subtext. Which is satisfying in its own right; something completely other than slash. If I'm looking for slash to read, I won't be satisfied by something that's just subtext. And if I'm reading a gen story about a same-sex partnership, I'd be disappointed - even unsatisfied - if it was strikingly lacking in subtext.

Interestingly problematic division there, I reckon.

Interesting in terms of SPN specifically too; the text itself has such a strong subtext and text of emotional and physical intimacy; a queer reading of it is quite easy. It's fascinating watching people classify their stories as slash or non-slash when they re-create or even emphasise just a little the intimacy that occurs on the show itself.

Comments

[duskpeterson.livejournal.com]

Here from metafandom.

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.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

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?

In general, I think it's when the fine line between those two options has become so fine that you aren't sure which side you are standing on anymore.

In part the issue is that what "is" or "isn't there in the original" is such a fluid thing, a floating signifier....