A newspaper story that happened to chime with musings on a fandom subject I never got round to making a specific post on before ...
The Guardian's G2 section today had an article entitled Beyond Lust by one Jonathan Jones, concerning an Art and Sex Exhibition at the Barbican (a link from that page goes to a display of a few exhibits that the paper warned May Offend, although frankly none of it seemed worth raising an eyebrow over, let alone anything else). Much of the article seems to be not unexpected, um, wank (with approving nods to Foucault and disapproving ones to the Church), but the introductory paragraph outlining its thesis struck me:
You can already see exactly where I'm going with this, can't you?
Having camped in fandom for a few years -- or at least the modest subset of it that writes and reads fic -- I've often found myself exasperated with its emphasis on shipping, and especially with the amount of attention directed towards 'offbeat' R/NC-17 material such as incest, kink, and contrived pairings. Now if people like all that simply because they find it entertaining or totally hot, and don't mind saying so -- hey, fair enough. That's a perfectly sensible, no-bullshit reason. But when things get highfalutin' and considerations of Artistic Expression are brought in, it's often irritating. I've gazed with incomprehension at opinions such as (roughly): "I wouldn't write genfic -- I can't include sex? I'd find that so restrictive!"
I've come to the conclusion -- observation, really -- that there are people with a take analogous to that of our Mr Jones. It's the most important subject, it's what fanfic is Really For, and writers who choose other subjects for their fic or write ratings below R are pursuing an inherently lesser and artistically weaker field of little interest to us grownups.
Um, it's all wrong ... that is, I think I disagree. :) My personal general approach (oft-expressed to the point of tedium -- stop me if you've heard this one before! :D), is that there are a huge number of different stories that can be told, in a very large number of which the characters' sexual behaviour plays either no role or only a secondary role. (This applies to both fanfic and 'original fic', btw -- and to artistic expression in general, plz to be noting Mr Jones.) The sensible course of action would seem to be to just write the damn story, include romance and sex if and when they have some role to play, don't bother if they don't, and don't worry about what rating is appropriate until you've finished. Adding superfluous scenes to a story tends to weaken it artistically, and superfluous shippy scenes are a very common example of that. Even if you're writing under strict genfic rules, having to exclude one particular subject seems far less restrictive to me than feeling you have to include it ...
So I'm afraid I can't agree with Mr Jones, or with that particular hardline section of fandom. Narrow focus on sex in fic or art is just as ridiculous as going to great pains to avoid it entirely -- as an attitude, it seems more adolescent than adult. And if we are going to get highfalutin', it probably doesn't achieve nearly as much as claimed in terms of Artistic Expression, or artistic growth for that matter. I'd encourage writers who take this line to try how the gen half (or 5%) lives for a change. You never know, you might surprise yourself by liking it. :)
(This has been your irregularly scheduled grumpy rant.)
The Guardian's G2 section today had an article entitled Beyond Lust by one Jonathan Jones, concerning an Art and Sex Exhibition at the Barbican (a link from that page goes to a display of a few exhibits that the paper warned May Offend, although frankly none of it seemed worth raising an eyebrow over, let alone anything else). Much of the article seems to be not unexpected, um, wank (with approving nods to Foucault and disapproving ones to the Church), but the introductory paragraph outlining its thesis struck me:
You could not exclude Schiele from an exhibition entitled Seduced: Art and Sex from Antiquity to the Present. Nor could you exclude his Viennese contemporary, Gustav Klimt, whose Reclining Masturbating Girl hangs nearby, nor Picasso, whose painting of himself at the age of about 20 being fellated is in the same room. And yet there's something about that title, "art and sex", that doesn't quite do justice to these artists. It implies that art can sometimes be about things other than sex - and I'm not sure if Schiele or Picasso ever believed it could. I'm not sure if I believe it myself.Emphasis mine, because it had my jaw dropping at the sheer nuttiness of the contention -- however overstated for effect. I'm sure Mr Jones doesn't really mean to imply that landscapes, or portraiture, or devotional art, or abstract explorations of shape and colour, or any of the numerous other things that art can be 'about', are actually, in fact, about sex -- because that would be silly. But in the article he does seem to come close to suggesting that sexual themes are so daring and transgressive that they make a piece of art Art, not like that booorING conventional stuff which is about something else, and that this is the true measure of an artist -- which may say more about the chap himself than about the art. As he concludes:
It's a risky business, admitting to how much you enjoy looking at sex. I loved this show, but left feeling sad and ashamed; then I had to come back the next day and look again. It is the bravest and most intelligent exhibition of the year.Bravest and most intelligent? Bullshit, I suspect (although I'm not going to bother travelling to London to find out). It would have required considerable bravery to put on an exhibition on this subject half a century ago, but not so much these days. But his attitude -- that sex is by far the most Significant and Authentic subject of artistic expression, and that other subjects are just milquetoast stuff that lacks the guts to explore sexuality -- seems not uncommon.
You can already see exactly where I'm going with this, can't you?
Having camped in fandom for a few years -- or at least the modest subset of it that writes and reads fic -- I've often found myself exasperated with its emphasis on shipping, and especially with the amount of attention directed towards 'offbeat' R/NC-17 material such as incest, kink, and contrived pairings. Now if people like all that simply because they find it entertaining or totally hot, and don't mind saying so -- hey, fair enough. That's a perfectly sensible, no-bullshit reason. But when things get highfalutin' and considerations of Artistic Expression are brought in, it's often irritating. I've gazed with incomprehension at opinions such as (roughly): "I wouldn't write genfic -- I can't include sex? I'd find that so restrictive!"
I've come to the conclusion -- observation, really -- that there are people with a take analogous to that of our Mr Jones. It's the most important subject, it's what fanfic is Really For, and writers who choose other subjects for their fic or write ratings below R are pursuing an inherently lesser and artistically weaker field of little interest to us grownups.
Um, it's all wrong ... that is, I think I disagree. :) My personal general approach (oft-expressed to the point of tedium -- stop me if you've heard this one before! :D), is that there are a huge number of different stories that can be told, in a very large number of which the characters' sexual behaviour plays either no role or only a secondary role. (This applies to both fanfic and 'original fic', btw -- and to artistic expression in general, plz to be noting Mr Jones.) The sensible course of action would seem to be to just write the damn story, include romance and sex if and when they have some role to play, don't bother if they don't, and don't worry about what rating is appropriate until you've finished. Adding superfluous scenes to a story tends to weaken it artistically, and superfluous shippy scenes are a very common example of that. Even if you're writing under strict genfic rules, having to exclude one particular subject seems far less restrictive to me than feeling you have to include it ...
So I'm afraid I can't agree with Mr Jones, or with that particular hardline section of fandom. Narrow focus on sex in fic or art is just as ridiculous as going to great pains to avoid it entirely -- as an attitude, it seems more adolescent than adult. And if we are going to get highfalutin', it probably doesn't achieve nearly as much as claimed in terms of Artistic Expression, or artistic growth for that matter. I'd encourage writers who take this line to try how the gen half (or 5%) lives for a change. You never know, you might surprise yourself by liking it. :)
(This has been your irregularly scheduled grumpy rant.)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 12:45 am (UTC)It's funny. I think one of the pieces of art I've found most moving and profound is most certainly non-sexual. (I also always see it in frame shops.) It's a picture of a middle-aged man in a business suit standing in front of the Vietnam Memorial, and the ghosts of his comrades in the reflections. It's an incredibly moving piece, and even though I've seen it several times it always makes me want to cry. (Since you're a Brit, you may not have seen it. It's by Lee Teter and you can see it here)
And I know the best piece of fic I've ever written was totally gen. (Men and Angels.)
I agree, though, that I just do not understand the fascination with a lot of the kinks. If it is sexual- like you said, hey, that's fine. But the big one I really don't get is why incest is supposed to be so hot. I mean, heck. I have a younger brother. And objectively, I can admit he's very attractive. And before he decided to become a total jerk, we were close. But the idea of him having sex- much less with me EW!!!- just makes me want to puke. I know there's supposed to be a difference between art and fiction, but I still don't get the attraction at all. And it is very frustrating to read so many newsletters and see most of the recs be NC-17/Adult, whatever.
I'm all for sex in stories, or even stories about sex. It is a part of life. But yeah- it's a part of life, and certainly not the only one!
Thanks. I've been wanting to say that for a while, too :)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 12:59 pm (UTC)I hadn't seen that poster, but I agree it's very poignant and effective. It's got a universality about it -- you could imagine something similar in which (say) a centurion is looking at one of Caesar's triumphal arches, and seeing the ghosts of his fallen fellow legionnaires in the engraving.
And I agree about Men & Angels -- that blew me away, it's easily in my personal list of Top Ten fanfics ever!
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 01:51 am (UTC)The sensible course of action would seem to be to just write the damn story, include romance and sex if and when they have some role to play, don't bother if they don't, and don't worry about what rating is appropriate until you've finished.
It doesn't help, of course, that one of the most-used descriptive tools for stories in fandom is the pairing label. If you're just writing a story, sticking in a pairing label may range from being an entirely honest statement about the majority of the material you've written, or, at the other extreme, a tangential statement about two people who happen to briefly get together while the main plot of the story is going on in the foreground. There's more than enough room for all the stories on that continuum, but it seems like most people think of shippy stories as very close to the 'all about the pairing' model, and think of gen stories as very close to the 'all about the events' model, despite the fact that the best stories usually combine the two things seamlessly.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 09:12 am (UTC)Oh, I totally agree. The number of times I've written something that's mostly gen only to get reviews going 'oh, I like this, but what's the pairing going to be?', when to me, it's not about that - it's about the story. Everyone tends to write the characters who appeal to them, of course, and if they have a particular relationship with someone else you need to reflect that in your writing - but the focus on shipping does drive me a bit mad sometimes. It's really very possible to write a trio story in which Ron and Hermione happen to play roles without it being a shippy story about them, in my opinion.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 01:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 06:57 pm (UTC)Which is why I advocate them fanatically, even on long, plotty fics that cantain several ships and have the pairings as the B plot (or C plot). I think of them not so much as saying "fic is about a/b" as "fic contains some a/b content."
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 01:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 07:18 am (UTC)<i I'm sure Mr Jones doesn't really mean to imply that landscapes, or portraiture, or devotional art, or abstract explorations of shape and colour, or any of the numerous other things that art can be 'about', are actually, in fact, about sex</i>
You know, I have a horrible feeling he does. It's all about sex, obvs., Because Foucault Says So. Devotional art is easy, esp. if you've vaguely heard of bridal mysticism but don't actually know anything about it (or are working with half baked Freud, S not L.), and as for the landscapes... well, look at Mr Mybug. Or the essay in <i>Persuasion</i> which reads a landscape description in a fictitious poem as being about the female body. (I actually went to a lecture as an undergrad which stoutly maintained 'Inversnaid' by G M Hopkins ('Long live the woods and the wildness yet') was really about his repressed homosexuality, regardless of what the poor ignorant author probably thought!
Nonetheless, I do not accept it.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 11:34 am (UTC)Are the groins of the braes that the brook treads through,
It's filth, pure filth that is.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 01:35 pm (UTC)I do hope he didn't mean it seriously. It kind of detracts from your ability as an art critic if you can only view things through one narrowly-focused lens.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 07:18 am (UTC)I don't like stories that are just a sex scene. I read stories with sex in them and enjoy them too but not because sex is included but because the characertisation and story in which it is included are enjoyable - two prime examples being Consequences by PandoraJones and Raw by Gilpin. Both have sexual content but at the same time show the whys and hows of how the characters came to that point beautifully and to me that's what makes them worth reading. To me showing characterisation and a story in both art and fic is what makes it worth looking at/reading and stories written purely for a kink or sex rarely have that at all. They're rather a one trick pony and lack any real depth - or indeed real intimacy - in that sense. And if that's what fic is all about then I and every writer I enjoy has sadly missed the point.
I'll stop rabbiting and go away now. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 09:26 am (UTC)I like to think that people can come away from things I write having enjoyed them, without thinking "it was good, but it would have been better if they'd got it on!" Maybe I'm wrong, but I like to think they do.
I was just wondering - do you get reviews saying that? Because I do, lol. I entered into a long debate by email with someone about Why I Hadn't Written The Sex, once, which made me very irrate and I'm not sure served to change their mind.... I think it's quite irritating when people come to your fic expecting sex just because you've tagged it romance or because there's a romantic plot in it. It makes me wonder if some people reading fanfic are just in it for the sex.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 01:46 pm (UTC)I've only ever written the one NC-17, and that was purely to find out if I could! (It seemed to work well enough, but it's not something I'm likely to make a habit of.)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 09:21 am (UTC)I think the story should drive everything - I only ever write sex if I think it shows some aspect of the characters that I can't show in any other way, not because I've got a problem with writing sex or other people doing so, but because I always find sex written for the sake of writing sex feels very hollow.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 10:45 am (UTC)Exactly. Even I find myself thinking this way on occasion, or not fighting to add anything different to a relationship because, well, they're together, isn't that enough? That's where I've bogged down several times, assuming that since a relationship between two guys is platonic, it's not as interesting, or not as significant, and certainly not something that's hugely significant to the plot apart from in the usual way.
Whereas it turns out that my entire plot for the story I'm currently writing is moved into action by the simple fact that two guys suddenly decide they're not friends anymore XD
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 10:53 am (UTC)I think that sums the whole business up beautifully. :)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 09:40 am (UTC)In short, I completely agree. On fandom as well. Pairings do tend to make their way into my stories, but very rarely are they the be-all and end-all, at least in part because I can't write smut to save my life. I've learned to treasure the fade-to-black. And while I tend to write genfic with pairings in the background, I just think it's realistic for the particular characters I'm writing about.
Nothing should get in the way of the stories or the characters. If they need sex, they get sex. If they don't, forget it.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 10:48 am (UTC)I think that summarizes it excellently :D
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Absolutely, "Guernica" is solely about sex.
Date: 2007-10-17 11:45 am (UTC)If I must classify, I classify my Potterfic as gen (and most of the Sayers stuff, too, for all that some of it is romance-focussed), but I don’t think gen itself is without problems. I found
As it happens, I am presently working on my first stories in which the story actually requires there be yr actual sex (rather than vague allusions or spoof sex), even if it fades to black rather than reading “she gripped his throbbing manhood”. Part of the reason I’m doing this is for the artistic and technical challenge; I do use fanfic to address areas of my writing that I want to work on, and “stop being embarrassed at the prospect of writing mild sex scenes” is one of them. I hope that they work, but I do not assume that the presence of sex will automatically make them the best/most artistic/most daring things I have ever written.
Re: Absolutely, "Guernica" is solely about sex.
Date: 2007-10-17 02:37 pm (UTC)I find the problem with excessive shipping the way it limits the stories rather than the sex per se – attitude rather than act
Exactly. It's like sending most of the traffic down one side road instead of onto the nearby six-lane motorway that lies mostly unused. I do have a certain sympathy for
Good luck with the new stories -- I like to experiment too, even if experimental isn't necessarily better or mare daring, just a different approach.
Re: Absolutely, "Guernica" is solely about sex.
From:Re: Absolutely, "Guernica" is solely about sex.
From:Re: Absolutely, "Guernica" is solely about sex.
From:Re: Absolutely, "Guernica" is solely about sex.
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 01:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 02:34 pm (UTC)I don't write much high-rated fic for many of the reasons you list here--there are any number of stories to be told about the world, and I don't find myself interested in telling ones that would naturally include explicit scenes. At this point in my life, for whatever reason, families and friendships provide more material for me than romantic relationships, and the daily dynamics of established couplehood are more interesting than the kind of charged, one-off moment that makes for good sex scenes. (I've tried to write sex scenes several times, and they wind up being about miscommunication and frustration, and what fun is that?)
But I also really enjoy reading explicit fic, especially m/m slash, and I've thought a lot about why that is, especially because I don't always find it very erotic, which I think may be unusual. I like reading about certain characters in any context, any genre, or any pairing, if the writing's good. I find getting-together stories fascinating, whether they end in a longing glance or in graphic sex. I love reading about queer relationships, which is something I don't have enough of in my daily life. And I'm also starting to read shippy fics ...I don't know...metaphorically? I don't think the authors always intend them this way, but a lot of shippy fic reads to me as eroticized moments of human connection, and I find I don't have to "believe" in the pairing or the romantic or sexual plotline to appreciate moments when two characters find something in common or see something in each other and connect.
I, er, generally find f/f slash pretty erotic when it's done well. Ahem.
Anyways, it's an interesting topic to think about, especially in relation to this fandom, which seems to lend itself so well to gen at first glance. (Large cast of colorful characters, humor and hijinks, magic, etc.) M.
Markup corrected!
Date: 2007-10-17 03:17 pm (UTC)That's interesting -- 'eroticized moments of human connection' when found can be great writing and storytelling. I'm an absolute sucker for emotional intensity in stories or dramas when done convincingly (possibly because I often personally tend to choke down emotion, which can be a bad habit). I probably differ in that I do need to find the setup reasonably convincing to get over the 'wtf?' factor, though habituation helps (I don't bat an eyelid any more at -- say -- Harry/Draco, despite 'wtf?' being an objectively reasonable response to the pairing).
I couldn't honestly claim to have any specific interest in queer relationships per se, or in f/f slash (yes, I know, any more of that and I'll have to hand back my union card as a guy), but then likewise I only find m/f hot if it's done well. I have considerable admiration for the people who can write it fluently!
Did that idea for a femgenficathon-style femmeslash challenge ever progress, btw? I do have a Hestia/Petunia plotbunny that might work, although whether I could bring it off is another matter. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 09:06 pm (UTC)The article sounds poorly thought out, as you've argued, but before giving up on Foucault completely, I did want to stick my nose in for a moment and suggest that part of this argument hinges upon how one defines sex. From your quotations, it sounds like the article's author did intend to discuss bodily - or even more narrowly, genital - sexuality, which is indeed a narrow lens with which to view all of human thought and expression. However, I do think there is a case to be made with regard to thinking about libidinal energy as present in all human striving toward creation, life, excitement, and inquiry - and in that sense, everything may indeed be sexual.
Foucault, I think, would be the last person to suggest that writing sex is automatically more artistic or more transgressive - rather he would ask us to question whether our urge to put sex into language actually serves dominant regimes of power and selfhood - which actively demand that we confess ourselves sexually, and define our personhood and citizenship through sex. Yet, he might also advocate writing about sex, or more specifically sex in that wider libidinal way, as a form of becoming - of inaccurate replication in Judith Butler's terms - as a way of reproducing (genital, bodily) sex until it becomes something that it wasn't before. As a way of, paradoxically, imagining ourselves out of sex (or, if there is no "out," of arranging and imagining it differently).
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 11:57 pm (UTC)Well, yes, but ... I don't think that's really a very useful sense in which to look at it. It's not so much another angle on the subject as a thorough redefinition of what's meant by 'sexual' to include a bunch of other loosely associated concepts, which not only makes the idea more vague and harder to talk about, but is the sort of thing guaranteed to produce a discussion at cross-purposes if people don't pick up on the nuances of the redefinition. And as you say, I'm fairly sure from context that the author of the article isn't using the word that way.
I have to confess that I'm not sure I understand the points in your second paragraph -- hey, it's late, and you seem to be using some terms in a particular technical way that I'm not familiar with!
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 10:34 pm (UTC)I also am really tired of being told that as a fan of say, Wincest, I need to be willing to have it brushed off as a kink that is okay as a kink but Not To Be Taken Seriously. The fact that a story is about or includes incest absolutely does not make it automatically edgy, brilliant or transgressive, and I'll be happy to concede that if you'll concede that it's not always about the kink, either. Sometimes it's about the kink, sometimes it's meant to be Artistic and sometimes it's a story which isn't so much of either, particularly when despite the apparent kinkiness of the pairing, it's also the pairing most people in a given fandom see subtext for.
Lastly, just because a pairing seems contrived to you doesn't mean it's a bad pairing, even if it's contrary to stated authorial intent; often canonical pairings seem just as or even more dreadfully contrived than the weirdest fic pairings to me, but then, I think that's because there are a lot of writers who suck at romance, even if they are good at telling other sorts of stories. I think whether or not pairings seem contrived to individual readers has a lot to do with their romantic history and the way they think relationships ought to be. For instance, Ron/Hermione seems terribly contrived to me, but that's because when I see that much bickering I don't think "true love" I think "omg who could live like that!" I know people do, but my gut reaction is eww yuck no thanks; I have a much better reaction to pairings where people start out as enemies and end up as lovers than I do to the constant bickering pairings, because to me constant bickering seems like the sort of thing that would be fun for a few months and then slowly eat away at your self-esteem and peace of mind over years, but I've seen cases where there were misunderstandings or differences of background that caused people to initially hate each other and then, after they got to know each other, become fast friends or lovers.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 11:44 pm (UTC)Oh, definitely it's not always about the kink -- it's just that it commonly is. There are stories in which incest works well as a plot element -- ASOIAF, for an obvious example. I can't usefully comment on whether Wincest makes any sense in Supernatural as I've never watched the show. I'm sure you could treat it seriously, although please forgive me my cynicism if I have a sneaking suspicion that for the bulk of Wincest fans it's more to do with the two main actors being hot than anything character-based. :D
As for restrictions -- well, I tend to write shippy scenes in genfic too, just not letting them take over the story when it's about something else. Ideally, we wouldn't need specific genfic comms and challenges, I suppose, but as a wake-up call and as a counter to excessive shipping, they have a useful role. I don't feel particularly confined by it under 'genfic rules', at least on the 'liberal' understanding that shipping doesn't have to be totally excluded, merely that's it's not to be the central focus. Arguing a middle ground position is often more awkward than an extreme one, unfortunately.
We might have to agree to disagree on the subject of what constitutes a contrived pairing -- bickering leading to eventual amity seems much more likely to me, but that's me. But I hope we can agree that some pairings just are contrived, and would need some pretty impressive spadework doing in order to fit convincingly with what we know of the characters and their backstory -- for the sake of an off-the-cuff example, let's say Lucius/Lily? Without that spadework, meh -- not much cop as storytelling, even if the pr0n is hot.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-18 06:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-18 11:34 pm (UTC)Kinkfic in which the kinks are just pasted on (yay) without any real attempt to get it to make sense for the characters concerned seems especially silly, though.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-18 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-18 11:39 pm (UTC)