The 5 Things Meme and Related Thoughts

[alixtii]

Only wisdomeagle has asked for a Top 5 list so far, but if you want one don't hesitate to sign up here.

Things That Are Shiny
5. Dimes. (I like dimes because they're the smallest U.S. coin, but they're worth more than pennies or nickels. A handful of dimes is worth more than a handful of any other common coin.)
4. My name when sparkly.
3. The college ring I got "for Christmas" (there was a picture in my stocking) and will be waiting for me when I return to campus!
2. My flist.
1. Having a girlfriend.

I switched from the literal to figurative meanings of "shiny" about halfway through. Shiny?

I left a request for the top 5 Jossverse fics even she wouldn't write in wisdomeagle's journal, but she detected my evil plan:

This is clearly a trick question, because as soon as I start listing them I'll think, "Oooh, actually, if I set it then and changed that, maybe it could work!

But her ultimate answers (found here; scroll down a little) are food for thought, methinks. She says "no" to Summerscest, and I have to agree with her; while I'm not squicked by sibcest (far from it, God knows!), I just can't think of a way to make Buffy/Dawn work. They just don't have a relationship which is remotely sexualizable for me, no matter how much I would want to in principle. (And as to what principle that is exactly--well, I have meta planned on the subject, but I have a lot of meta planned and I haven't really written any since August.)

Her next "no" is "any threesome involving three guys and no girls" and again I'd agree with her, although again very possibly for different reasons. While I could see myself writing m/m if the right story idea came up, I still wouldn't write to excite. And while not all 3some fic is written to excite (kink versus literature mentalities, I still haven't excised that dichotomy!) a lot is, and the odds that I would randomly come up with an idea that, for purely story reasons, needed to be both m/m and a threesome--well, I would think they would be pretty low odds.

"Flat-out rape fic where the perp is not one of the Fanged Four or similarly soulless. Twisty semi-con, yes, rape, not so much." I'm interested in her qualifications here, because of course rape is squicky. The only straight-up on-stage noncon I've written has been with Dark!Willow in Divine Interventions because, logically, that is what she would do. (It wasn't fun to write, either, but I couldn't think of anyway to get out of it.) "Twisty semi-con" is more common in my ouvre, but still the perpetrators tend to the evil side (unsurprisingly): post-Illyria Fred, Illyria, ficlet!Amy (who is much more a power-hungry caricature than Watcher!verse Amy--see below for more on that subject.

She won't write anything where "Kaylee gets hurt without comfort." Ari adds that she feels "very strongly about this!" Kaylee is certainly the type of character who would inspire this type of feeling, although I think its less strong in me due to my position (I identify with Mal, Simon, and River more than Kaylee, whom I love but mainly see through my het male gaze). It's odd that there aren't really very many other characters who inspire that sort of feeling, thought. Perhaps Willow would have if BtVS had ended after its first eleven episodes and had been followed by a movie in which Willow got Xander even though he was more interested in Buffy (it's scary how well that maps, actually), but later-seasons Willow changed all that.

I abuse my favorite characters on a regular basis, after all. One of the major themes of the Watcher!verse is how Dawn's dark side allows her to be ideally suited to running the Council, after all. She's self-destructive and emotionally troubled. (Which is how I get away with her being a huge slut--see below.) Facing the Shadows--one of my favorite fics that I've written--was originally intended to be a Faith/Kennedy hurt/comfort, but I ended up spending over 3,000 words hurting Kennedy and giving her only a couple sentences' worth of comfort:

“Faith?” she asked. “Hold me?”

Faith found a clean spot on her forehead and kissed it, then wrapped an arm around Kennedy. “I’m here,” she said. “I’m here.”

And Kennedy smiled, and let unconsciousness take her as she lay in her lover's arms.

Ari's last "never write" is Zoe or Wash being unfaithful. I probably wouldn't write this either, but note that while Saffron and Dr. Mathias are both on my Firefly Character Index, Wash and Zoe aren't; I've never written fic with them in it. While I approve in principle of having a happily married couple on television, their relationship never engaged me all that much (which is probably why there aren't very many happily married couples on television, and even less in the Jossverse). So this is another case of my agreeing with Ari for completely different reasons.

But the sentiment of not letting anything break up a beloved canon pairing is one with which I can sympathize: I don't like letting anything short of death break up Willow/Kennedy and Willow/Tara. I had Willow/Kennedy break up after Kennedy cheated (or did she?) for my Buffy/Kennedy femslash_minis fic Into the Woods, but I don't think I would do it again. I need to put up a strong front to resist all those who would bash Willow/Kennedy.

In the Watcher!verse, Willow and Kennedy stay together (mostly) in domestic bliss for five years until Willow finally goes dark again and Kennedy has to kill her. Which actually poses a problem as Kennedy walks out on the relationship (thus the "mostly") after the Dark!Willow noncon in Divine Interventions--I still haven't quite figured out how I'm going to get them back together again, but it will involve Dawn having a one-night stand with Xander. (Watcher!verse Dawn is a slut, you know? By the time she marries Giles, she has already slept with at least Faith, Ethan, and Xander, and I'm sure the list will only get longer as I flesh out the universe more. During her marriage with Giles she sleeps with at least Giles, Faith, Kennedy, Beatrice, and Amy.)

Indeed, one of the reasons so many people die in the Watcher!verse is so that I'll have an excuse to switch around pairings without having to make people unfaithful.

All this thinking about characters and pairings is more or less continuing in the same vein from my last post in which I answered the "What characters/pairings can you write with your eyes closed" question. glossing asked "So would you say that your pairings are the same people across different stories?" and the question made me think and write about my writing process enough that it seems worth reposting here:

The Faith/Kennedy and Dawn/Giles dynamics are definitely the same people, since they're all set in the same universe (or else I've written a lot of unconnected stories in all of which Dawn has a niece name Madelyn) even if many of them were written to be read by themselves (since a lot are ficathon stories, although I think the femslash_minis people have gotten a grasp of my personal fanons). Those two pairings aren't pairings that I love for their own sake so much as pairings that made sense within the Watcher!verse (a lot of Dawn/Giles, for example, is set up by the Dawn/Ethan in Divine Interventions).

As for the miscellaneous stories, I think there might be slight differences in the way I characterize them. A lot of my ficlet!Amys are less three-dimensional than my Watcher!verse Amy, being power-hungry caricatures. The Eve that seduces the Scoobies in The Game isn't quite the same Eve that answers the 70 questions meme, because the first is an AU and the latter takes place in the Watcher!verse (don't ask me why). But the former Eve is somewhat OOC for Eve, so I would still think of it in terms as a "right" Eve and a "wrong" Eve, instead of several equally valid interpretations of the same character (as I might several different writers' Eves). ("The Game" was written for buffyverse1000, and I loosened my standards for OOC somewhat when writing that fic.) Despite living in drastically different universes, Watcher!verse Eve isn't all that different from the Eve who is working in a diner in Funeral; they still work from basically the same motivations, i.e. love for Lindsey, fear of the Senior Partners, fear of her own mortality, etc. I'm trying to do my best to simply pick up canon!Eve and drop her into these new situations with as little change as possible, while telling a story which reflects my values and the themes that I am interested in.

In general, I don't think my characterizations are drastically different even between unconnected fic. I try and get a "least hypothesis" of the character and motivation--what makes them tick in the closest possible world in which canon could be true--and only make changes if it serves the story (or my agenda) in some way. In my unconnected stories I have greater freedom to make such changes but don't utilize it indiscriminately.

Comments

[wisdomeagle]

Interesting!

although again very possibly for different reasons. While I could see myself writing m/m if the right story idea came up, I still wouldn't write to excite. And while not all 3some fic is written to excite (kink versus literature mentalities, I still haven't excised that dichotomy!) a lot is, and the odds that I would randomly come up with an idea that, for purely story reasons, needed to be both m/m and a threesome--well, I would think they would be pretty low odds.

For me it's a known quantity - I know that there won't be any m/m/m threesomes that scream to be written not because of the three-guy problem but because of the lack of girlyparts. It's ye olde slash-as-misogyny problem, and while two guys together is clearly not neccessarily misogynistic, when you've got three guys together and not with the woman(women) in their life, then it squicks me something fierce because it seems more slash-for-slash's-sake.

And then it's that while female and all-female spaces (Inara's shuttle in musesfool's And Bind Up Every Wandering Tress is springing to mind) interest me a lot, all male-spaces really don't so much.

And even as I'm writing this I've thought of some exceptions, since I don't have any theoretical objection to HP Marauder-piles (though I do object to Sirius/Remus/James/but not Peter for much the same reason that Gunn/Wesley/Angel/but not Cordy would drive me crazy, and that even S2!Gunn/Wes/but not Cordy makes me irate) or to Hobbitpiles, so.

On rape and twisty non-con -- I haven't written much of either and I think all of it involves vampires. In running through permutations of fics people could write or do write I thought of Xander-as-rapist (not that I've seen it, but I can imagine it?) and then concluded, "Nope, that goes on the not-ever list."

I abuse my favorite characters on a regular basis, after all.

Me too! But Kaylee goes in a special category; I'm not really sure why. Because she is so innocent and so good, I guess. But from day one, I was very much in the, "I will love every character if they love Kaylee, and if they hurt Kaylee, I will hate them so hard it's not funny."

I identify with Mal, Simon, and River more than Kaylee, whom I love but mainly see through my het male gaze

I don't really identify with Kaylee all that much either, but a strong component of my love for her is protectiveness. It's a weird thing that comes up in my own desires and the flip-flop of top-bottom stronger-weaker butch-femme older-younger that's so important to me in both meatspace and teevee; I can't really articulate it very well, but even when I want my fictional teevee girlfriends to ravish me (rather than the other way around) *coff*CJ*coff*, I have a strong sense of protectiveness towards them. (This is all articulated in much more prettier words in the CJ/Tara fic that's sitting in NoteTab, not being written because it's way too self-revelatory.)

And finally, re: Zoe/Wash - Like "Step away slowly from Kaylee and nobody gets hurt," this is more an instinctive emotional thing than anything else. I have no problem at all breaking up my OTPs - S5!Fred is supposed to be falling in love with Wesley, but that doesn't mean she fly clear across the country to be with someone else, and Lord knows Kaylee gets around (though my true Kaylee OTP is neither K/I nor K/F but Kaylee/happiness). I think with Wash/Zoe, I see both of them so much as part of the established relationship that I can't even envision them outside that context. Infidelity is absolutely not something that's going to happen within the canon characterizations, and they're neither of them characters I'm interested in taking through the AU-cycle. I can think of few other established relationships I'm so loathe to break up - Spike/Dru, maybe, but only during their 100 years - after it canonically ends, I'm okay with that. And infidelity is, er, less ooc for them, though emotional fidelity in some sense seems likely.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

It's ye olde slash-as-misogyny problem, and while two guys together is clearly not neccessarily misogynistic, when you've got three guys together and not with the woman(women) in their life, then it squicks me something fierce because it seems more slash-for-slash's-sake. And then it's that while female and all-female spaces [...] interest me a lot, all male-spaces really don't so much.

Your first point makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with your second point. (Actually, I hate all-male spaces with a fiery passion; I've never felt comfortable in them and one of the reasons I am going to Colgate is that a different university which offered me a half-tuition scholarship didn't have co-ed floors in its main freshman dorm.) Of course, for me all of this is problematized quite a bit my het male gaze.

In general, I prefer to write female POV characters, because I tend to identify with the female characters more strongly. At least that's the case for Buffy; in Firefly, I identify with the male characters (Mal, Simon, and--when I'm writing fic only--Book) at least as much the females (River, Saffron--no identification at all with Inara or Zoe).

In running through permutations of fics people could write or do write I thought of Xander-as-rapist (not that I've seen it, but I can imagine it?) and then concluded, "Nope, that goes on the not-ever list."

This is another area where my agreement with you is overdetermined; I hardly ever write Xander (which is odd considering how many great Xander writers are on my flist) and would never even dream of writing a Xander noncon fic. (He's not dark enough to commit noncon, for one thing. And he's male, and that's just squicky unless its m/m, in which case it's not so squicky but I don't want to read about it.)

Infidelity is absolutely not something that's going to happen within the canon characterizations, and they're neither of them characters I'm interested in taking through the AU-cycle.

Agreed. And I'm much less interested in AU's than you usually are. With the exception of being cut off from Summer and Juliet's acting, a closed canon has been a godsend.

I have no problem at all breaking up my OTPs

Ah, but I specified canon!OTPs. And I know you used Wes/Fred as your example, but there's a huge difference between Fred running away to join some other continuity before "Smile Time" and Fred deciding right before "A Hole in the World" that she doesn't actually love Wes anymore and wants to shag Lorne. The former doesn't interfere with the sanctity of the OTP, not really; the latter does in a very real way.

Or to put it a different way, I have no problem with the disagreements of Willow/Tara and Willow/Kennedy within canon--sort of like you and Spike/Dru, I'm satisfied with the way that canon handled things. It's outside canon (before/after) that I have problems with. (Which reminds me of the Willow/Dawn semi-con darkfic I was going to set between S5 and S6. I'm fairly certain I will never write that story.)

Me too! But Kaylee goes in a special category; I'm not really sure why.

Because she's Kaylee! Despite not quite having the same type of feelings towards her (which is good, because I don't think I would want to feel protective towards a grown female character; the gender dynamics there are too squicky)

Because she is so innocent and so good, I guess.

How long would that have lasted if the show hadn't been cancelled?

[wisdomeagle]

How long would that have lasted if the show hadn't been cancelled?

Total point, and I totally concede that Willow was that way too in S1 (though even then my own sense that Nothing Bad Must Happen To Her, Ever, was less pronounced than with Kaylee.)

Ah, but I specified canon!OTPs. And I know you used Wes/Fred as your example, but there's a huge difference between Fred running away to join some other continuity before "Smile Time" and Fred deciding right before "A Hole in the World" that she doesn't actually love Wes anymore and wants to shag Lorne. The former doesn't interfere with the sanctity of the OTP, not really; the latter does in a very real way.

Okay, see, that's different! And running through my mental list of my fics, I usually start them at times when they're already broken up (which must be one of the reasons that immediately post "Tabula Rasa" is my starting point for much Willow-shipfic). I do break up Willow/Kennedy fairly often (*hides from fanboy shipper* but I think honestly I'd break up any pairing existing at the closing of canon for reasons that should be apparent from my oeuvre.) There's also the canon infidelities (the Fresley kiss in "Soulless" and the S3!W/X arc) that I've expanded on in places. And I've been known to paste off Riley to write Buffy/Giles, but only because it was written to a request that specifically asked that I do that.


(which is good, because I don't think I would want to feel protective towards a grown female character; the gender dynamics there are too squicky)

Huh! I honestly don't think so, though of course I haven't really theorized the viewer-character relationship especially as it pertains in fandom, where we all to greater or lesser extent suspend our disbelief for most of our waking hours. But in real life relationships, I think mutual protectiveness isn't squicky but is a good thing. One of my favorite things in fictional relationships is when the characters each protect each other with complementary skills, regardless of gender.

Although theorizing how we relate to fictional characters could be interesting, since there's such a range. Even for me, there's Kaylee "Thou shalt not hurt my darling" Frye and Wesley, "But he's so pretty when he suffers" Wyndam-Pryce, and there's varying degrees of how important their fictionality is to how much we enjoy them and how we treat them, and while we can't interact with them, we can act on them by writing stories in which they rejoice/suffer/have sex with us or reasonable facsimiles thereof.

And then there's something else I've just thought of: I feel protective of Fred-as-character because she gets bashed in fannish discourse, but I feel protective towards Kaylee in that I don't want her to suffer either in canon or fic, and I feel differently still about CJ, since my love of her most closely resembles the way I'd feel about a real person I had no chance with - I want to comfort her.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

But in real life relationships, I think mutual protectiveness isn't squicky but is a good thing. One of my favorite things in fictional relationships is when the characters each protect each other with complementary skills, regardless of gender.

Hmm. I don't know if I'd use the phrase to "mutual protectiveness," but I'd agree the type of relationship you describe is healthy. Fred, even before she has romantic love for Wes, has his back; she's always willing to protect him if he needs protecting. That's good. But I don't know if I would call her "protective" of Wes.

Whereas, Wes is is protective of Fred, and in addition to being there to protect her, that seems to include the feeling that he should be there to protect her, that he has a sort of duty or obligation to protect her, and to me that he implies that he believes that she can't protect herself. Which in some cases is of course true--we all have situations with which we are underequipped to deal, and that's all the more true when there are annual apocalypses--but he seems to be coming into it with the assumption that she needs protecting which I (and she) find problematic.

Not wanting someone to suffer, ever, is in my IMO an unhealthy attitude when you're a real person in relation with another equally real person (or a fictional person in relation with an equally fictional person). Sometimes one has to let someone else suffer as a result of being an adult and making his or her own decisions. When you are the omnipotent author who holds the fictional character in your hands (or even a reader with the magical power to stop reading and make the story go away), however, the dynamic changes, because of course you do have the ultimate responsibility for everything they do and their lack of autonomy is simply an objective fact (if you believe that).

Even for me, there's Kaylee "Thou shalt not hurt my darling" Frye and Wesley, "But he's so pretty when he suffers" Wyndam-Pryce,

Downthread I've just discussed with executrix the way in which different characterizations support different types of interactions between character and author: Wes cries out to be hurt, Kaylee to be loved, and Dawn is somewhere in between. Is that a factor of their own self-assessment, i.e. Kaylee believes that she deserves happiness, while Wesley does not? I don't think I'd have quite as much satisfaction watching BtVS S3 Wes suffer--or if I would, it would be for different reasons (that he was supposed to be annoying back then).

I do break up Willow/Kennedy fairly often (*hides from fanboy shipper*

The fanboy shipper forgives you, and finds the image of himself as a rabid shipper amusing . . . because he doesn't think he is like that. I'm protective of Willow/Kennedy in particular, and Kennedy the character in general, just as you are protective of Fred--"because she gets bashed in fannish discourse"--just as I am protective of, say, Eve.

And I can't remember you ever committing any crimes against Kennedy, although I admit that I really get frustrated when yet another Willow shipfic starts with a totally gratuitous explication about how Kennedy was awful and cheated on Willow and then Willow saw the light as to how horrible Kennedy was and the fact that all the Scoobies detested the Slayer with a fiery passion. (And I wonder, what season 7 were they watching?) But I grit my teeth and bear through it because usually the rest of the fic is perfectly unobjectionable and I wonder, why do they have to bash? Does it bring them that much pleasure?

Sorry for the rant.

[wisdomeagle]

Whereas, Wes is is protective of Fred, and in addition to being there to protect her, that seems to include the feeling that he should be there to protect her, that he has a sort of duty or obligation to protect her, and to me that he implies that he believes that she can't protect herself. Which in some cases is of course true--we all have situations with which we are underequipped to deal, and that's all the more true when there are annual apocalypses--but he seems to be coming into it with the assumption that she needs protecting which I (and she) find problematic.

This is true, and I was thinking about this during dinner while pondering the larger question of protectiveness, and I agree that it's one of the most hugely problematic parts of their relationship, especially since it doesn't get resolved - it's just apparently something that Fred thinks she could live with (because part of Fred really likes to be protected by handsome men on horseback) and then it becomes a moot point, what with the death and all.

I was thinking, honestly, of Buffy/Angel, and how in many ways to me they epitomize the mutual protectiveness thing - they have each other's backs. Sometimes it wears on them, because both of them are fiercely independent, but I think ultimately they are glad of it. Because there Buffy is physically stronger, the particularly tricksy gender issue is somewhat diluted, which is nice, especially when Angel sees fit to remember it.

Not wanting someone to suffer, ever, is in my IMO an unhealthy attitude when you're a real person in relation with another equally real person

Hm. Well, I think it's a complicated thing and depends what we mean by suffer. In real person/real person and fictional person/fictional person relationships, there's often very little we can really do to prevent cetain kinds of suffering (the death of parents, the trauma of childhood, the agony of skinned knees, the neccessity of paying taxes), but we can suffer in tandem. I think "I hate to see you hurting like this; let me help you as best I can" is a better attitude to have towards a real life personfriend than "You're so attractive when you're sad, you know," for that way lies badness and dysfunction.

In terms of real people/fictional people (insert your own Joss/Wesley joke here), well, 's a whole 'nother thing - and I see you've thought about it more some below, so I'll save any thoughts I might have for replying to that comment.

Okay, now I'm curious as to how I actually do deal with Kennedy in my post-"Chosen" Willow/other fic.

Now We Are Six: she dies off-screen in "Chosen"
Faux Pas: Presumably an amiable breakup; she and her girlfriend show up at Willow's wedding.
What Is This Thing?: They've broken up because Willow doesn't think Kennedy understands her.
Their Spiral Text: no mention at all. I thought there was one, but I think I edited it out. Not because it's Kennedy, but because the scene where she showed up was draggy and long.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I think "I hate to see you hurting like this; let me help you as best I can" is a better attitude to have towards a real life personfriend than "You're so attractive when you're sad, you know," for that way lies badness and dysfunction.

Loll! Agreed 100% there. It's not so much "Not wanting someone to suffer, ever" that's the problem as "Not wanting someone to suffer, ever, and thinking that oneself can and should be the miraculous cure-all to suffering" which, now that I think about, is Simon/River to a tee, isn't it?

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Although theorizing how we relate to fictional characters could be interesting, since there's such a range. [...] and there's varying degrees of how important their fictionality is to how much we enjoy them and how we treat them, and while we can't interact with them, we can act on them by writing stories in which they rejoice/suffer/have sex with us or reasonable facsimiles thereof.

The best analogy I can think of is The Chronicles of Narnia, when I never for a moment (he says) wanted to sleep with Susan but at the same time had an intense desire to see Peter snog her. I'm not sure if that's some type of voyeuristic desire or what. I tend to think of it more as a counteridentical condition: I would want to have sex with Susan if and only if I were Peter. But counteridenticals are tricky things, because if we assume that canon!Peter is not sleeping with his sister (but who wants to assume that?), then if I were canon!Peter, I wouldn't be sleeping with my sister either. So we get this hybrid which is part Peter and part Alixtii, and through the hybrid's eyes Susan is sexually attractive even though she isn't through either canon!Peter's or Alixtii's eyes alone.

Of course, there's also the Freudian explanation that I do want to sleep with Susan (or Anna) but am ashamed at that desire since she's so young (or for some other reason), and so repress my desire by projecting it onto Peter, where it seems appropriate (ignoring for the moment the fact that he's her brother!). The Freudian interpretation makes sense as far as it goes, and I won't argue against it (because denying Freudian analyses never leads to anything good) but I still don't buy it.

That puts things into a clearer relief, I think, because certainly I do find Dawn, Faith, and Kennedy sexually attractive, even if I have no real desire to actually sleep with them myself, and I think that attractiveness can seem to complicate matters.

Susan, Kaylee, and Fred are actually unusual in that I still see them through a het male gaze--that of Peter, Simon/Mal, and Wesley respectively. I usually enter the Buffyverse through the perspective of a female character; I tend to be more comfortable seeing through their eyes. (Considering the number of straight females in fandom who feel more comfortable in males, I wonder if this is something significant about heterosexuality in our age/culture.)

I always say that Dawn is my Mary Sue, and that's true so far as it goes, but of course I don't want to marry Giles, so that when I write them in bed I'm half one and half the other, or perhaps even a third each and a third Alixtii the voyeur (but I'm absolutely certain that if Dawn and Giles were ever to actually have sex, I would not want to watch). With femslash I can go much more deeply into both minds, enjoying the reflexive relation of both the act of desire (of a female) and the state of being desired (by a female) for both characters involved, while at the same time becoming something radically cut off from myself. This, I assume, is what straight and bisexual women get from slash.

That, for me, is the appeal of femslash: to be able to identify with both characters at once, to jump from one mind to another with equal ease. I used to assume that all (het) men approached lesbian sex like that, and that the common assumption that the male consumption of pseudolesbian porn is driven by an assumed male desire to have sex with two girls at once and in the process "turn them straight" was misandrist nonsense. I'm no longer so certain of my ability to act as an unproblematic representative of my sex (I wouldn't be here if that were true), but neither will I automatically assume I am their moral superior, but it does occur to me now that visual pseudolesbian pornography, unlike femslash, never encourages the viewer to get into the head of the sexual object. (I wonder if there is a pseudolesbian fiction marker, as I know there is a market for lesbian pornographic fiction.)

Hmm. I'm not sure this is at all in response to anything you've said, but I've wanting to meta on femslash and the het male gaze for a while now and I'm glad you've gotten me to get some words down.

[wisdomeagle]

Awesome! Thanks so much, especially for enjoying the reflexive relation of both the act of desire (of a female) and the state of being desired (by a female) for both characters involved, while at the same time becoming something radically cut off from myself. This is something that I've recently been thinking myself about why I can't/don't write boyslash. When writing het, when I write from the male point of view, I write about desiring a woman and being desired by a woman; when I write from the female point of view, I write about being a woman desiring and a woman desired. Boyslash has none of those points of entry for me, which is one of the reasons it's difficult to write. (I assume, for instance, that Wesley is desirable to Fred for a lot of the same reasons he is to me, while I have absolutely no idea, to put it colloquially, what Angel sees in him in a literal way since I've never been part of a male-male dyad of any kind, sexual or not, and I can't be.

Your sibcest example is interesting and I can't help but think of how I feel about Simon/River. I don't like Simon very much, this is well known, and certainly don't want to have sex with him. But River does want to have sex with him, and the idea of her having that desire satisfied is sexy to me. Though now my head is starting to go around in circles as I think about the idea of wanting to have sex with fictional characters and what on earth that means and what it means to want them to have sex with each other and the ways in which we participate in that (through identification and voyeurism and the act of creation, etc.)

This is honestly something that interests me about the idea of River having sex, because we've seen her feeling Zoe/Wash have sex and also Simon/Kaylee, and the idea of someone having sex with her and how she'd experience his or her desire, is just so completely mind-bendy. It's wrong that I want to add Joss to the mix so River can read Joss's mind as he writes her having sex with Simon and so she's experiencing desire (River's), desire (Simon's), desire (Joss's) and meta-as-fuck-pretension (pretty much exclusive to me.)

I would want to have sex with Susan if and only if I were Peter.

This is just great for reasons I don't even think I can articulate!

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

This is something that I've recently been thinking myself about why I can't/don't write boyslash. When writing het, when I write from the male point of view, I write about desiring a woman and being desired by a woman; when I write from the female point of view, I write about being a woman desiring and a woman desired. Boyslash has none of those points of entry for me, which is one of the reasons it's difficult to write. (I assume, for instance, that Wesley is desirable to Fred for a lot of the same reasons he is to me, while I have absolutely no idea, to put it colloquially, what Angel sees in him in a literal way since I've never been part of a male-male dyad of any kind, sexual or not, and I can't be.

This is interesting to me--would you always write a Wesley/Fred scene from Fred's POV, then? I find that interesting, because Wes/Fred is one of my few ships that stems from a desire for the female character more than a desire to be the character (if there's truly a distinction between these two). The other ships, of course, are Simon/Kaylee and Mal/Kaylee. Wesley/Fred is an example of me identifying with the het male gaze of Wesley that desires Fred, the geek girl who is any fanboy's fantasy.

(When I wrote the Mal/Kaylee ship_manifesto, my girlfriend had to help me fill in the blanks as to what she would see in him; I was seeing it so much from the male POV that I had ignored that characteristic of the dynamic almost completely.)

But the paradox of heterosexuality is that I can only have the type of entry point you're talking about in a ship like Wes/Fred, with a male POV desiring and being desired by a female character. What does Willow or Faith see in Kennedy? By your logic, I have no way of knowing. I can only use my het male gaze and project that, with some modification, onto these queer females. (Does my position of privilege make this problematic in a way that a straight woman slashing m/m isn't? Possibly, but I tend to think that human desire, even as its constructed in our society, isn't all that different--but of course that may well be because I haven't had my face rubbed in the difference. The default assumption is always male.) I've never been part of a female/female dyad, and can't be.

But my orientation--well, forces is too strong, but guides--me into being interested in precisely that type of female dyad. My temperament--possibly against the general characteristics of my gender--leads me to be more comfortable in an all-female or (since technically by definition I can never be in an all-female space) predominately-female space. (Like LJ!) Certainly the male/male dyad, of which in theory I could be a part, holds no interest for me.

Furthermore, the disconnect between myself and my female protagonists is clearly one of things for which I turn to fanfic. Adding up all the times I've utilized female characters (i.e. one point for each female character who appears in a fic) I've used female characters 94 times in Buffy/Angel and 9 in Firefly; I've used male characters 29 times in Buffy/Angel and 9 in Firefly. So while in Firefly my uses of males and females are roughly equal, in Buffy/Angel there's a drastic difference. Of course, the only Firefly femslash I've ever written was Fred/River. (The raw data is here, in my last post.)

Now obviously a fic typically includes a lot of characters who aren't the POV character, but I'd think it is safe to say that in Buffy/Angel I seek out female perspectives from which to write, and this is related to but not explained by my writing femslash. I always say that Dawn is my Mary Sue, after all (although I don't think that's actually a "correct" use of Mary Sue).

[wisdomeagle]

This is interesting to me--would you always write a Wesley/Fred scene from Fred's POV, then?

Well, no. (And iirc, I've written exactly two Wes/Fred pieces and both are from Wes's pov.) The full range re: Fred/Wesley would be this: "I identify with Fred because she's a woman (among other reasons) and so am I and so I assume she finds some of the same things attractive about Wesley that I do. I identify with Wesley because he desires Fred (among other reasons), and so do I, presumably for some of the same reasons."

And none of this is intended to give gender undue worth - I identify with some male characters (like Andrew or Xander) more than some other female characters (like Faith), but in general and as a rule, I identify more with female than male characters, and in narratives of desire, masculine and feminine ways of desiring seem important to me.

What does Willow or Faith see in Kennedy? By your logic, I have no way of knowing.

I definitely didn't fully articulate what I was trying to, because that's not what I was trying to say at all.

I guess there's something fuzzy and murky because of my ambiguous identification as lesbian/queer and the fact that in meatspace most (but not all) of the objects of my desire have been female, but in terms of teevee characters, I desire both men and women.

But what I was trying to articulate was that, for me, as a lesbian-in-real-life woman, I feel so removed from the male-desiring-male equation that it's difficult for me to write that kind of relationship; there's no obvious point of entry. (Not that this stops me; I have written boyslash in two fandoms not to mention the NaNovel of doom with its gaymale protagonist.)

Part Two

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

There's something more going on, and I can't help but think its related to why straight females in fandom often like to write from male perspectives (because we know there are interesting female characters). Can it simply be that I'm more interested in characters that I desire, and this interest leads to greater identification? And if that is it, there is something counterintuitive about it, isn't it? Do fanboys identify with Lara Croft more easily than Indiana Jones?

This makes my het problematic: Dawn is my viewpoint character in whose mind I feel comfortable (and how is that not an interesting way of putting it worth more analysis?), but Giles is the character desiring a woman and being desired by a woman. I think this is good reason not to expect hetsmut from me any time soon, at least not unless its with a male character with whom I do identify closely (like Wesley or Simon). (The way in which the politics of heterosexuality--a phrase I picked up from you--would infect the smut is another reason.)

And again, I see the same dynamic appearing in female-written het. nwhepcat and liz_marcs are known for their Faith/Xander, but they write it from Xander's perspective at least as often as from Faith's.

I don't know what my point in saying all this is except that there's some pretty interesting identity-construction going on when I write femslash, and I'm definitely constructing an avatar for myself as the Other for reasons I can only begin to articulate.

I really want to eventually meta "Why femslash?: The het male perspective" so I'm very grateful to get these thoughts down and share them with an interlocutor.

Simon/River

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

But River does want to have sex with him, and the idea of her having that desire satisfied is sexy to me.

Hmm. I don't think that (but am glad that you do think it) is the "least hypothesis" interpretation of the text, that if we were to (to use an analytic philosopher's phrase) go to the closest possible world in which the events we see on the screen represent a true account of events in that world, River would want to have sex with Simon. But I don't think the sibcesty world is all that much farther, because the text goes out of the way (and here I'm subscribing way too much agency to the text) to make the sibcesty world a viable option. And since we're not dealing with evidence in a criminal trial but a literary text, we don't have to find the One True Interpretation. Therefore, the fact that the 'cesty vibe in the subtext is definitely present, even if I don't think its literal, plus the fact that it's not anticanonical (just not completely supported by canon) and thus doesn't offend my canon whoredom, plus the fact that I enjoy reading/watching sibcest, means that I enjoy and even ship Simon/River. But a lot of the fanfic I read falls short of what I want because it's difficult to make the subtext text in an engaging way.

It's similar to the way that I certainly think there is very deep homoeroticism in Lord of the Rings, but that's not code for "Frodo and Sam were having sex" but rather "People who write Frodo and Sam as having sex are responding to something real in the text." After all, things that routinely happen in my appartment at school, such as our making dinner for each other, would be percieved as homoerotic were they to go on in a literary text but I'm there and I know we're not sleeping together. That's not to degrade the literary approach: the homoeroticism is there, it just doesn't mean anything because there's not a field of equally legitimate interpretations. (Unless I want to go pomo on it.)

I think by the same token, any family is going to simply as a result of its normal activities engaging in activities which are 'cesty. It's normal, it's inevitable, and only Freudians are going to get worked up over it.

One day (maybe the day after I write the het male gaze essay) I want to meta "In Defense of Ambiguity." One of the things I love about the Jossverse is the ambiguous moments: Simon/River, Giles/Ethan, Buffy/Immortal. I think they enrich the text, and often I try and reproduce them in my own fic, for example in Permutations when River enters Kaylee room while she and Simon are having sex or in Divine Interventions when Giles and Ethan are (in a flashback) comparing notes on women they've slept with and during the conversation Giles inexplicably puts on his pants. Buffy/Faith, on the other hand, I'd like to make text one day because doing so would hit my kinks.

I don't know why I wrote this part of the comment; I'm not disagreeing with you, really. (Well, I disagree with you over the "least hypothesis" interpretation of Simon/River, I suppose, but that's not a big deal.) I think I'm already in a thinky mood and want to get down as many ideas as I can so I'll have stuff to plagiarize from when I write my meta essays. (I haven't written one since summer!)

re: Simon/River (and ambiguity)

[wisdomeagle]

This mostly reminds me of the discussion in Elizabeth's journal about interpreting romantic friendship/Boston marriage as explicitly non-sexual things, and how that upset me because I love on romantic friendship as a potentially sexual thing, and the upsetness was in eliminating the potential one way or another. Simon/River in canon is potentially 'cesty and also potentially platonic; when we write fanfic we open Schroedinger's box in some sense. (though as you point out, we don't have to, and though I haven't written any explicitly Simon/River fic, all the fic I've written that has both characters has the potential 'cestiness in tact. Leastwise I try.)

Re: re: Simon/River (and ambiguity)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

when we write fanfic we open Schroedinger's box in some sense.

Exactly! And that's the perfect analogy as well; be prepared for me to use it in the future. And yes, you're very good at keeping potentiality intacy, and it's pretty clear--both from the fics and extratextual sources like comments from the author--you're making a deliberate attempt to preserve ambiguity in the source texts. I know that you, like me, dislike writing AtS characters post-"NFA" because then one has to open the Schrödinger's box of whether they lived or died.

But the fanfiction impulse is to fill in the blanks, to produce more canon-like fanon, and that always clears up some of the old ambiguities even as it creates new ones. But because one (including me) values canon over fanon, the ambiguities in fanon are hardly ever felt to be as interesting as those in the source text.

So when Joss finally answers the question eventually of what happened in that alley during "NFA" that'll be okay (and he may have done it already if comics are canon; I haven't been keeping track). But, as you point out, Simon/River will always be ambiguous, and both karabair and myself will be upset if he attempts to revisit the Immortal, a character who was deliciously defined by his ambiguity, thanks to the genius decision to keep him and Buffy off-stage. But when we save Illyria (which I have done, in my virtual series) or Spike or whoever, it's not the same, because there aren't Joss-created ambiguities to replace them, only ambiguities in fanon.

(However, due to the liminal state of fanfic, we're capable of saving Spike without really saving him, because its fanfic and only one of a million possible directions canon could possibly go. You're really good at taking advantage of that aspect of fanfic, for example; my skills lie elsewhere.)

Also, I'm not sure people in fandom generally find ambiguity to be as aesthetically rich as you and I do. I blame the intentional fallacy, for one: if the text doesn't answer a question, then of course the solution is to go to JKR's website and find out the answer. It also comes from confusing what's canon with what is a least hypothesis of the source text, because admittedly the line between the two is extremely blurry: Does Giles canonically have a reproductive system?

But wherever whence the impulse comes, there's a lot of people who want to have the One True Interpretation of the source text. (The very far-gone want to use that One True Interpretation to beat everyone else over the head. Rabid shippers fall into this category.)

I seem to remember there was someone not to long ago who claimed that Simon/River was clearly canon (which goes beyond the least hypothesis claim; to me, to claim Simon/River would require at least somebody, you know, explicitly mentioning it). Practically no one agreed with her, because she was confusing text with subtext, but the reason the suggestion drove me batty was that it was erasing the ambiguity from the text.

Indeed there is a part of me which is glad that 'cesty and f/f pairings can't be shown explicitly (not as strong as the part that is outraged that we can't have positive gay rôle models on the screen, but there nonetheless), because it forces television creators to rely on subtext rather than text, to create ambiguity when they might have (programming for the lowest common denominator) might have been explicit.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Though now my head is starting to go around in circles as I think about the idea of wanting to have sex with fictional characters and what on earth that means and what it means to want them to have sex with each other and the ways in which we participate in that (through identification and voyeurism and the act of creation, etc.)

My head is going through the same circles. I like what you said before: that River wants to have sex with Simon, and you want River to have her desire. But since I don't Susan/Peter is the least hypothesis of Wardrobe, there seems to be another step: I want Susan to want Peter, I want Peter to want Susan, and I want their desire to be satisfied. Indeed, the satisfaction is the least important part; it's the desire more than anything else that I desire (and which satisfies me?) and if they do kiss or have sex, it's as a physical embodiment of that desire and not as a resolution of it.

And that fits in with a lot of thoughts I've had recently about the nature and role of desire, in life and in fanfic, and with the quotes on nudity that I've added to my user info as a sort of fic writer's mission statement, but I'm not quite sure how it fits in.

But this doesn't fit in with the identification thing (I identify with Susan a lot, Peter not as much, and Edmund and Lucy hardly at all), so I'm not sure where it leaves me. But I do want to think about the nature of desire some more. Is it a manifestation of the will to power?

This is honestly something that interests me about the idea of River having sex, because we've seen her feeling Zoe/Wash have sex and also Simon/Kaylee, and the idea of someone having sex with her and how she'd experience his or her desire, is just so completely mind-bendy. It's wrong that I want to add Joss to the mix so River can read Joss's mind as he writes her having sex with Simon and so she's experiencing desire (River's), desire (Simon's), desire (Joss's) and meta-as-fuck-pretension (pretty much exclusive to me.)

I'm still crossing my fingers you'll write a Joss's Ideal Audience fic one day, but that sounds utterly fascinating! And I can only imagine how amazing it'd be. Although if River were aware of Joss, how could she be anything but resentful? Definitely an Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? sort of moment.

[wisdomeagle]

Hmmmm!

it's the desire more than anything else that I desire (and which satisfies me?) and if they do kiss or have sex, it's as a physical embodiment of that desire and not as a resolution of it.

Now that's really interesting and I'd like to further deconstruct desire/satisfaction (especially in terms of text/subtext and how in some shows [not really Joss's so much] part of the appeal is the will-they-won't-they did-they-didn't-they tease that the creators do in terms of certain pairings. I guess Josh/Donna would be a good example of the kind of drawn-out UST that I'm talking about [remember I've only seen through S4 and don't want spoilers beyond that.] In some ways Simon/River feels like that to me, though [like same-sex pairings in most shows] it's one of those where we know the answer to "Will they?" is no." And part of what's great about watching that kind of relationship on television is that constant tension between desire and satiation - I want them to kiss[fuck/declare undying love/admit to a past affair, whatever, depending on the pairing] but if they actually would I don't know how much I'd enjoy it because the tension would be all gone.) but what really pinged for me here was about wanting them to want each other. For most of the pairings I feel strongly about, it's pretty clear where that impulse comes from (I want Willow to have a crush on Giles, frex, because I identify with Willow a lot and because I have crushes on authority figures), but other times, like when it's incest, it's more obscure and I'm less inclined to examine my own motivations.

Although if River were aware of Joss, how could she be anything but resentful?

Good point!

Have you ever read God Game by Andrew Greeley? It's the kind of meta-as-fuck thing I think you'd enjoy, and deals with issues of writing-as-creation, the reality of the created world, etc. It's been awhile since I've read it myself, and should probably dig it up.

[thelastgoodname.livejournal.com]

I recently wrote not one but two m/m/m, one of which had implied m/m sex (twice!) and the other of which had explicit m/m/m, but the pov character wasn't in the room at the time. The first one was horrid, but it was an exchange, so I had to post it. I feel terrible about the poor recipient; but it never occurred to me that I might have to write m/m/m, so I didn't ever mention I couldn't. The one that included the explicit sex in an offstage kind of way worked great, because it's a humor-fic, so the sex is as porny as I could make it but without any detail at all and no characterization necessary.

But they were both learning experiences, and the primary lesson: don't ever do this again. Ever.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

That's the things about exchanges: you can never thik of all the things you can't do. I usually remember to put m/m on the list, of course, unless it's a ficathon with which that goes without saying (FemGen, femslash_minis, &c.). But just like your second option, I can think of out-of-the-ordinary circumstances under which m/m would be written, but I doubt m/m/m would ever appear.

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

Watcher!verse Dawn is a slut, you know? By the time she marries Giles, she has already slept with at least Faith, Ethan, and Xander, and I'm sure the list will only get longer as I flesh out the universe more. During her marriage with Giles she sleeps with at least Giles, Faith, Kennedy, Beatrice, and Amy.

I wouldn't call that particularly slutty; it always used to surprise me when I ended up involved with someone who'd had three previous partners or fewer. And that was when I was in my teens to early twenties; these days I'd raise the barrier higher for anyone within a few years of me.

On the other hand I've had long debates with women my age and older about the probability that one of my original characters would be (technically) a virgin at the age of 18 in 1988. I think that either I've met more 18yr old virgins than they have, or there's something about me that means guys are more likely to admit it to me.

Gina

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Ah, the voice of reason! You're right of course that her number of partners is if anything small (so far!) for her culture; I guess what makes it seem particularly sluttish (beyond my own experience; I had my first kiss at 21) is the fact that all these people were seen on Buffy; that is, she's working her way through a reasonably small group.

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

In my experience that's quite a small number for within a closed group as well. Although that could be a factor of the groups I socialise in.

Gina

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Well, in that case, yay! I can realistically keep on writing her in more and more relationships!

(I trust your experience over mine. And, obviously, I'd never pass judgment on a real person.)

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

Excellent stuff. That role seems to suit Dawn very well.

Gina

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Except for Jayne (and Tarrant, on Blakes7) I want to make my characters happy! And they will be much happier after they dump a partner for leaving wet towels on the floor or something like that than if someone they love deeply dies a horrible death!

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Like Ari, there are a few characters I just want to see happy, with Kaylee at the top of the list. But there are also characters I want to see suffer in delicious agony--and I don't like them any less, but that's the story that's most engaging. And probably more than anything else I want to see most characters suffer, and then pick themselves up and achieve happiness. But it definitely depends on the character.

Also, it depends on the characterization. For most of the Jossverse, I can't see them completely happy--they're just not built that way. So I abuse Dawn not because I don't love her, but because deep down, she believes that she deserves it.

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

The question of what one would never write is an interesting one and has me pondering.

In less ponderfulness: I really like Summercest; I think I have a 'cest *thing*.

The only Buffy/Dawn fic I've actually recced is this one -- oh, and this Buffy/Dawn/Illyria. And I read it in Secret Slasha one time though apparently I didn't like it enough to rec it. A long time back I read an ff.net wip that had Buffy/Spike and Buffy/Dawn going on at the same time and seemed to be heading toward a threesome and it wasn't the best fic ever but I actually really enjoyed it and it makes me sad now that I never bookmarked it. This seems to be one of those pairings I have a low quality threshold for.

[P.S. The correct username is "glossing" -- no "s" at the end.]

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Oh, I certainly enjoy sibcest of all types. Simon/River, Buffy/Dawn, Susan/Peter, Laz/Lor, etc.; I'm tempted to go off looking for some Ginny/Ron. I can't think of any time when I found Buffy/Dawn that I actually liked, though, not because I'm squicked by incest (as I've made it clear that I'm not, at least when its sibcest) but because I never found a fic that provided a believable dynamic. I'll look at your recs with eagerness, though; I'd love to find some really good stuff one day.

Part Two

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

There's something more going on, and I can't help but think its related to why straight females in fandom often like to write from male perspectives (because we know there are interesting female characters). Can it simply be that I'm more interested in characters that I desire, and this interest leads to greater identification? And if that is it, there is something counterintuitive about it, isn't it? Do fanboys identify with Lara Croft more easily than Indiana Jones?

This makes my het problematic: Dawn is my viewpoint character in whose mind I feel comfortable (and how is that not an interesting way of putting it worth more analysis?), but Giles is the character desiring a woman and being desired by a woman. I think this is good reason not to expect hetsmut from me any time soon, at least not unless its with a male character with whom I do identify closely (like Wesley or Simon). (The way in which the politics of heterosexuality--a phrase I picked up from you--would infect the smut is another reason.)

And again, I see the same dynamic appearing in female-written het. nwhepcat and liz_marcs are known for their Faith/Xander, but they write it from Xander's perspective at least as often as from Faith's.

I don't know what my point in saying all this is except that there's some pretty interesting identity-construction going on when I write femslash, and I'm definitely constructing an avatar for myself as the Other for reasons I can only begin to articulate.

I really want to eventually meta "Why femslash?: The het male perspective" so I'm very grateful to get these thoughts down and share them with an interlocutor.