A Reaction to a writercon Panel

[alixtii]

"Gen" != stories without sex (or does it?).

"Gen" != stories without romance (or does it?).

"Gen" != stories that fit in canon (or does it?).

"Gen" != stories that are exactly like what we see on the show (or does it?).

"Gen" != stories which are plotty (or does it?).

"Gen" != stories with low emotional intensity (or does it?).

Given the number of axes involved, I'm not really sure just what use "gen" as a category really holds.

Comments

[zvi]

So, did the panel conclude that gen means anything?

[alixtii]

Well, the focus was more on talking about gen and its writing than defining. It kept on using the shifting definition--which, okay, is how language works (it's not like other nouns have stable definitions either) but as the conversation went on it became increasingly obvious how diverse the understandings were, as people kept confounding the various dimensions cited above with ship/gen.

[ex_peasant441]

Perhaps
"Gen" = !relationship-fic
A category of exclusion, not inclusion. Which may help explain why gen so often feels 'marginalised'.

[alixtii]

I do think that gen often defines itself by what it isn't, and that that is an essentially unstable position--and that positive categories would be more effective in getting fen in touch with the fics they'd like to read. (There's a place for allowing fen to avoid subjects that might be triggery, but it's after the warning section in a header, not as a genre classification.)

Of course, it goes without saying that gen is very often about relationships--just not usually about romantic and/or sexual ones. But that "and/or" in itself shows the way that even the negative definition isn't sufficient to create firm boundaries. What constitutes a romantic or sexual relationship? How do we know when a relationship in fic is romantic and/or sexual? Would a fic about two women in a Boston marriage not be gen? Should it be?

[anonymous_sibyl]

I've always taken it to be stories where a sexual or romantic relationship is not the primary focus of the story. I'm curious to know what sorts of thoughts come out of this panel--or that you have.

[trobadora]

I've always taken it to be stories where a sexual or romantic relationship is not the primary focus of the story.

My thoughts exactly.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Well, the question is, I guess, whether any of the exchanges makes sense:

"I like gen because plottier stories are better."
"I like gen because I don't like stories that go against canon."
"I like gen because I'm just not interested in feeding the id."

As a Wittgensteinian, I'd probably say that I'm not sure that any of these comments (all of which, or their equivalent, being heard at the panel) exactly miss the mark, even if they don't hook up into the definition you cite--which is the one I use, for example in my fic index.

Coming out of the panel seemed to be the consensus that all of the things cited above as possibly equivalent with gen have specific rewards for those who choose to write them--but specific challenges and risks as well. But the various dynamics got confounded as often as not.

[archaeologist-d.livejournal.com]

I'm with sibyl on this. But the whole 'gen' thing seems to be a minefield at times.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

You can see my comments to her, I suppose. I tend to be suspect as to the usefulness of the het/gen/(fem)slash labels.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Hi, alixtii! I'm home! I ran into _beetle_ and she said you guys were in the consuite until 4--u r hard core!

I do wish fandom would lighten up on the need to jam everything into tiny boxes, but I think it's useful to a) make sure people don't have to read stuff they refuse to read and b) get to read stuff they like. Maybe we just need little icons or color-coded labels to see which of the popular definitions we subscribe to...