On Fraught Taxonomy

[alixtii]

There's an "On Terminology" section on yesterday's metafandom, and it has me suddenly wondering: when do we actually use the gen/het/slash distinction? When we meta, certainly, but many if not all of us recognize that the definitions are fluid and know enough to define our terms before we begin. (And when we do make assumptions--such as that femslash is or isn't a subset of slash--we often end up in vexed situations.)

I know I also use the distinctions when I'm organizing my fics, when I utilize a variety of categories, some of which overlap: gen, grön, femslash, het, friendship/pre-femslash, friendship/pre-het. (I haven't actually have written any m/m slash, although of course the conceptual category is there for me should I ever do so.) And sometimes figuring what counts as what is a pain in the neck, as the boundaries aren't exactly firm. But mostly the issue is my own private taxonomic nightmare and almost complete academic: I haven't recieved any complaints that a story which I marked "grön" should really have been "femslash" or vice-versa. (This may simply be a function of my not being a popular enough writer to attract that sort of wank, though.)

But the actual fics don't bear these labels anywhere on them: they simply have pairing and rating information. In my neck of woods, that seems to be a perfectly acceptable practice. So what's the issue, really?

Comments

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting question because, while people may not put the label on their fics, readers certainly do -- I hear "I only (or don't) read het/slash/gen" all the time.

Personally i find the whole distinction kind of lame and hate how fic taxonomy privileges pairing over everything else. ("Is this a kissing book?") But then, I also know I tend to use these criteria myself, so I'm a big old hypocrite.

[r-becca.livejournal.com]

Part of the distinction comes into play with communities, and when you combine very picky readers with ambiguous community guidelines, sometimes people get angry about the classifications used... like the people who only consider a fic slash if it contains graphic sex, or the people who want to see warnings for mention of het ships in an otherwise slash fic, or people who only want to read canon ships with no mention of anything else.

short answer: people are too picky.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

That is a very valid point, terms such as het and slash are, in Linnaean terms, the family or higher, and rarely if ever mentioned on the actual fic which sticks to the binomial nomenclature of pairing and rating.

However, I reckon the main function of all the stuff that can go in fic headers (so-called warnings and the like) is simply to attract the readers - declaring a fic as slash is a way of attracting slash readers far more than to protect the sensibilities of those who only like het. So the question you really have to ask yourself is 'would someone who basically likes slash fic enjoy this?' If the answer is yes, you won't get complaints.

And what on earth is 'grön'? I googled it and the only fanfic relevant use I could find was your own site. Clearly my google-foo is weak today.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

gr0n is "porny gen" or "genny porn"--i.e., a story with a plot AND sex scenes.

Wonderful

[frogfarm]

I was just wondering wtf my Xander/Faith bodyswapmindetcfuck short is. Myself, I'm happy with somercet's definition: "It's fic." But for purposes of pimping, it doesn't qualify as boyslash or femslash, so I wouldn't necessarily want to advertise in those types of communities.

I recognize labels as a convenience when they aren't misused, but too many people mistake the map for the territory. Personally I'll give any story a chance, regardless of what it claims to be on the outside.

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

I remember raising this question back when Ari talked about using f/f as the default meaning for the term "slash" and specifying "boyslash" (rather than the vice versa that is the current norm). I can't find the post in question, though.