Deathly Hallows, chapter 2
Jul. 14th, 2008 08:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anehan posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockIn Memoriam
* The Dursleys are leaving tea cups outside Harry's bedroom door. What are they, house elves?
*Harry has never learned to heal wounds and thinks it's a serious flaw in his magical education. Maybe he ought to have, you know, studied during the six years at Hogwarts instead of letting Hermione do all his work for him. Sorry, Harry, but you have no one else than yourself to blame. Normal people, if they had a lunatic after their blood, would have actually devoted some time for making sure they weren't completely unprepared.
* Harry has never cleaned his trunk before. Gross. Our Harry isn't much for hygiene.
* Finding a fragment of the mirror Sirius had given him, Harry feels a sudden upsurge of bitter memories, stabs of regret and longing. He suffers, I tell you.
* Harry is going to take his photograh album and a stack of letters with him. Good lord, what does he think he's going to do with them. The boy is an idiot.
* And we come to the sickening obituary by Elphias Doge. One more person whom Dumbledore managed to hoodwink into believing he was a noble person.
* Dumbledore never revealed the remotest anti-Muggle tendency. Except when he bullied the Dursleys. But that doesn't count, because the Dursleys totally deserved it.
* Dumbledore became the most brilliant student Hogwarts had ever seen and constantly outshone his friends. Bet he liked that. It would have done good for him to be second-best at something. Instead, everything confirmed him in his belief that he was superior to others and that it was his duty to manipulate others for the greater good.
* According to Doge, Dumbledore never had Ministerial ambitions. True enough. He just wanted to take over the world.
* "Albus Dumbledore was never proud or vain". Ahahahahahaa!
* Dumbledore's losses "endowed him with great humanity and sympathy". Bitch, please. The man is clearly incapable of empathy.
* Doge was right in one thing, though: Dumbledore always worked for the greater good. Too bad his methods and definition of "greater good" were rather questionable.
* Harry had thought he knew Dumbledore quite well. What made him think that? The great openness Dumbledore displayed in his dealings with Harry, perhaps?
* Harry thinks that the idea of a teen-aged Dumbledore was odd, like trying to imagine a stupid Hermione. Much as I love Hermione, I have no problem in imagining her stupid. She isn't half so clever as she likes to think. For example, what good did it do to the DA to brand the traitor's face? It didn't prevent Marietta from squealing.
* The only personal question Harry had asked Dumbledore was the only one he suspected Dumbledore hadn't answered honestly. That's too naïve even for Harry.
* Unpleasant Skeeter may be, but I at least would rather read her book than any more of Doge's pennings. There might ever be a shred of truth in what she writes, if you manage to discount the more lurid details.
* Skeeter calls the Potter-Dumbledore relationship unhealthy, even sinister. Brava! At least someone finally got it right.
* Another chapter in which nothing happens comes to an end. I really need that alcohol to get through this.
Informed Attributes:
Dumbledore is noble. No, really.
Misdirected Answering:
Did you hear what Dumbledore got up to as a teenager? What do you mean, you're not interested?
Nut o' Fun:
Desiccated beetle eyes.
Final score: 3. Nothing happens in this chapter.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-23 04:12 am (UTC)Well, that's more or less what I mean by "pilloried." But I just can't agree with you, sorry. I guess this is one way in which slashers and non-slashers will just never, ever understand each other.
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-23 09:06 pm (UTC)Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-29 04:27 pm (UTC)Back from a weekend away, hence the belated reply. I debated whether to just let it slide, but I find I want to get this off my chest.
Not to make a big deal about it--though I admit I do feel extremely defensive about being a non-slasher because with the current fandom climate it means you get a lot of assumptions made about you--but you basically said above that there is NO possibility of reading the interactions between Snape-Lupin and Sirius-James in a non-sexual way. You leave no room open for that option when you say "Both of those pairs strike me as having clear sexual undercurrents. There's an intimate and physical element to their interactions that you can't really separate from sexuality." So forgive me if I can't see how I can not be making an argument that is, under your definition, "weird and hairsplitting and missing the point."
And nope, I see absolute zilch that is "intimate and physical" between Lupin and Snape. What I see is interpersonal tension and animosity. Sneer at my subtext-blindness if you like. With James and Sirius, well, friends are of course going to be physically at ease in each other's company, and that could be said to be one of the things that makes up sexual interaction, but to say that it is sexual interaction? I'm sorry, but no.
I'm bending over backwards not to rain on the slash parade by conceding that these things could be seen through a sexual lens. Hey, if somebody finds that enhances the story for them, I have no interest in telling them they can't see it that way (as if anybody would listen to me anyway!). But I feel like you're not doing me the same courtesy of allowing that my reading is valid or even possible.
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-07-30 08:29 pm (UTC)I'm sorry, I said no such thing. Let me re-quote what I said and then explain what I meant by it:
Both of those pairs strike me as having clear sexual undercurrents.
There's an intimate and physical element to their interactions that you can't really separate from sexuality.
Having "sexual undercurrents" to a relationship doesn't mean it can't be read it a non-sexual way. It only means that, if a reasonable person so chooses, she can read it in a sexual way. She's not just making it up out of thin air, or a sex-obsessed and over-imaginative fan. Notice I did not say explicit or overt sexuality. I said undercurrents, which can be ignored or paid attention to or interpreted in many different reasonable ways depending on who's doing the reading. (I personally ignore it; I get no pleasure out of Snape/Remus or Sirius/James or Sirius/Remus). The only thing you can't do, IMO, is deny that the hints are there for those who want to look through those glasses. What's "weird and hairsplitting and missing the point" is to say "we could look at all of the interactions between the couple as platonic, therefore slashers are completely out of their minds to look at them in any other way," which is an argument I have seen numerous times.
that could be said to be one of the things that makes up sexual interaction, but to say that it is sexual interaction? I'm sorry, but no.
Why not? The point is that it could be, and it's valid to read it that way. I'm not saying you have to read it that way, for either ship. I'm saying I don't think you can deny that there's something that's actually in the text that leads people to imagine those particular relationships as sexual. It's not just slashers happily slashing everyone of the same gender just for the porn (though of course there's a lot of that in HP fandom as well).
Re: I'll probably get pilloried for this, but oh well.
Date: 2008-08-01 02:45 pm (UTC)Why not?
Because it's like saying eggs are cake. Eggs are one ingredient that goes into making cake, but eggs are not the same as cake, and it seems absurd to say they are. Eggs can just as easily be used to make quiche, or eaten by themselves.
I was responding to your statement that this supposed "intimate and physical element" cannot be separated from sexuality. In my view, it most certainly can.
Notice I did not say explicit or overt sexuality. I said undercurrents, which can be ignored or paid attention to or interpreted in many different reasonable ways depending on who's doing the reading.
But you also said the undercurrents were "clear" and "sexual," implying that any non-sexual reading of the text is wilfully ignoring something that objectively exists. To return to the cake metaphor, it's like you're saying "There's cake flour in this story, but you could use it to make bread if you like that better." Whereas I would say, "There's generic flour in this story, and some people enjoy making cake with it."
I don't think you can deny that there's something that's actually in the text that leads people to imagine those particular relationships as sexual.
I see it rather differently. I think that any relationship between two characters that is even remotely interesting is going to be turned into slash by those who have the inclination to do so. That does not mean the original text is necessarily sexual, in my opinion, unless you're of the opinion that all relationships are sexual on some level.
pt1
Date: 2008-08-03 04:16 am (UTC)I was responding to your statement that this supposed "intimate and physical element" cannot be separated from sexuality. In my view, it most certainly can.
It can certainly exist without sexuality, if that's what you mean. It also can't help but be suggestive of sexuality (as well as of other things). To use your cake metaphor: if you mention eggs to a group of chefs, they will think of the various things they can make with eggs, and one of the things that will immediately come to mind will probably be "cake." Quiche and scrambled eggs and omelettes will also pop into their heads, but "cake" is a probable item that they would be likely to associate with eggs. Particularly if they are dessert chefs. You can't erase that association, although you can certainly put it aside and go ahead to make yourself a nice poached egg or whatever. That is what I was getting at when I said some of the elements in these relationships can't be separated from sexuality: if the author puts them in the text, quite a few fans are going to free-associate them with sexuality. Particularly if they have some interest in "queer readings" or are queer themselves.
But you also said the undercurrents were "clear" and "sexual," implying that any non-sexual reading of the text is wilfully ignoring something that objectively exists.
Well, no--I was saying that any attempt to deny the possibility of a reasonable sexual reading of the text is willfully ignoring something that objectively exists. I evidently didn't make myself as clear as I would have liked on that point. I think it's perfectly fair to disagree with these sexual readings. I just don't think it's fair to say they're coming out of nowhere. I think that would be rather like (for instance) a Ron/Hermione shipper at around the release of PoA or GoF saying that the Harry/Hermione shippers are pulling their readings out of nowhere. I have never interpreted the H/Hr relationship in a sexual light, but I can see where the popularity of the H/Hr reading came from. And I think denying the textual roots of that popularity is denying something that objectively exists, even though I never thought that was the right reading.
To return to the cake metaphor, it's like you're saying "There's cake flour in this story, but you could use it to make bread if you like that better." Whereas I would say, "There's generic flour in this story, and some people enjoy making cake with it."
I'm not saying there's "cake flour," i.e. that the default reading of the text must be sexual. I'm saying that "generic flour" isn't necessarily "bread flour," i.e. the default reading doesn't necessarily have to be platonic until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, in many shipping discussions, I've seen this assumption that any relationship has to be read as purely platonic until there's conclusive proof that it's not. This isn't just true for discussions of slash. I've also seen it in a lot of het-shipping debates. And while I can see where that assumption might make sense for some relationships (where the two characters are related, for example, or where they are the protagonists and we follow them closely enough that there are no veiled areas of their lives), I don't think it makes sense for characters like Sirius or Remus or Snape. I think "generic flour" should be just that: generic, not presupposed to be for either bread or cake.
Re: pt1
Date: 2008-08-06 03:46 pm (UTC)To use your cake metaphor: if you mention eggs to a group of chefs, they will think of the various things they can make with eggs, and one of the things that will immediately come to mind will probably be "cake."
But my point is that there is nothing about an egg which inherently suggests cake. Furthermore, in order to get cake, you have to add a lot of other things to the egg. Where do those other ingredients come from? Are they inside the text or outside it?
That is what I was getting at when I said some of the elements in these relationships can't be separated from sexuality: if the author puts them in the text, quite a few fans are going to free-associate them with sexuality.
I wouldn't use the word "inseparable," in that case, but I can agree with the second part of what you're saying. What's puzzling me is that you keep saying you think all kinds of readings are possible, but you also appear to me to be putting extra weight on the sexual reading (particularly in your "pt 2" post).
-I was saying that any attempt to deny the possibility of a reasonable sexual reading of the text is willfully ignoring something that objectively exists.
And I would just like to restate, for the record, that I have never denied that such readings are possible. Even in my very first post, which you responded to, I took pains to mention that. I have never said people who read these things sexually were obsessed fangirls happily making up relationships out of thin air. If something I am saying gives you the impression that that is what I believe, please tell me what it is, and I'll reword it to clarify.
I think "generic flour" should be just that: generic, not presupposed to be for either bread or cake.
You said that something in the text leads people to view certain relationships as sexual. In other words, that there is something about the relationships as written that naturally encourages readers toward the sexual reading rather than a non-sexual one. If the "flour" truly is generic, then it is factors outside the text which incline people to the sexual reading, not the text itself.
I'd just like to point back at the statement which made me post in the first place: it said that JKR had, possibly unbeknownst to herself, written sexual tension between various pairs of characters. That goes beyond saying there is cake flour in the story; that's saying there is cake batter, which only needs a good baking to turn into actual cake. I don't accept that. I probably should have just shut up and let it go, but I'm kind of tired of the assumption that everybody is a slasher and agrees with the slash reading.
Re: pt1
Date: 2008-08-08 08:03 pm (UTC)As I read this, I'm starting to think we're really only inches apart, not miles; but we're each clinging rather fiercely to those inches.
Probably true! I suspect semantics are a problem here, and maybe we should agree to mostly-agree.
But my point is that there is nothing about an egg which inherently suggests cake.
Okay, but I wouldn't object to an egg being described as a "cakey" ingredient, if there were such a word. Or as a "quichey" or "sunny-side-up-y" ingredient, if you see what I mean. In the same way, I wouldn't object to some interactions between (for instance) Kirk and Spock being described as "sexual" or as "brotherly," "platonic," "comradely," etc. I think you're seeing my description of certain interactions as "sexual" as implying that the sexuality or potential for it somehow overrides the other possibilities. I'm making a much, much weaker claim than that.
Furthermore, in order to get cake, you have to add a lot of other things to the egg. Where do those other ingredients come from?
True, and from what I've seen of (for instance) Sirius/Lupin shippers, many of them think they've got more than just the egg. They think they've got the equivalent of eggs, flour, sugar and icing sitting on the counter--all of which, taken together, can't help but be suggestive of cake. For some slash couples (or het couples, for that matter), I really do think there are eggs and flour and all the other ingredients sitting there, even if they haven't been baked together. But in a lot of slash discussions, I've seen this presumption that because a ship is m/m or f/f, there cannot possibly be more than the egg. I suspect this is what gets slashers riled.
you also appear to me to be putting extra weight on the sexual reading
I see. If it appears that way, it's because I think fandom as a whole puts more weight on the sexual reading. Not only do fans get more excited about the sexual reading a lot of the time, but fans who dislike a particular relationship will demand a higher burden of proof for sexual tension between two characters than for (say) anger, or jealousy, or affection with parental or sibling-type undertones, or threatening attitudes, or any other type of emotion between two characters. So discussing sexuality becomes so much more high-decibel and pedantic than discussing the possibility of other types of interactions, and I guess I was reacting to that.
If the "flour" truly is generic, then it is factors outside the text which incline people to the sexual reading, not the text itself.
Okay, I think I see what a source of disagreement here is: I think it is the text itself and the factors outside the text that incline people to the sexual reading. I was discussing the text itself, but I don't deny outside factors. I just don't think outside factors are sufficient without textual support. I think that the text contains suggestions which, for many people (based on their experiences prior to encountering the text), will be taken as sexual. And for others, again based on prior experience, will not. So the outside factors are certainly there, yes, but so are the internal factors. It's the interaction between the two that does it. If the outside factors are there but the actual text doesn't have those cues, I don't think people will just read the cues into the text. Maybe the occasional individual with super-strong slasher goggles will, but the Average Slash Fan won't, IMO.
Does that make sense?
I also suspect we've spent time around different types of HP fans. Most of the ones I've known are more inclined towards non-slash or even anti-slash readings, so I haven't talked to too many people who think everyone agrees with the slash reading. I can easily see how that assumption would get tiresome.
Re: pt1
Date: 2008-08-13 05:03 am (UTC)See, I do object to that. Even when it's confined to something relatively uncontroversial like cooking, it offends my sense of logic and accuracy. Describing the eggs exclusively in terms of any one use is sloppy, unnecessarily limiting, and potentially misleading.
On the other hand, if the person making the statement acknowledges that it is a perception rather than an objective fact, I don't mind at all. "I always think of cake when I see eggs" doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I think you're seeing my description of certain interactions as "sexual" as implying that the sexuality or potential for it somehow overrides the other possibilities. I'm making a much, much weaker claim than that.
Okay, I accept that when you explain it, but I do think your way of stating it is misleading. (What do you say when you do think the text only supports the assumption that the characters are shagging like bunnies off-page?) Also, if that's all you meant, I am now rather confused as to why you contradicted me in the first place, when I was so careful to state that I thought the sexual reading was possible, but I objected to the assumption that it was required.
They think they've got the equivalent of eggs, flour, sugar and icing sitting on the counter--all of which, taken together, can't help but be suggestive of cake.
I accept that some people really do think that, but I can't for the life of me see it. I'm happy to agree to disagree with them, but I appreciate it if they allow for the possibility of other readings.
But in a lot of slash discussions, I've seen this presumption that because a ship is m/m or f/f, there cannot possibly be more than the egg.
Well, in a lot of slash and ship discussions, I've seen this presumption that because you have two characters and an egg, the cake is a given.
I suspect this is what gets slashers riled.
That cuts both ways. I've seen an enormous number of discussions assuming that because a ship is m/m or f/f, anybody who isn't seeing all the glorious sexual possibilities is frigid at best and an evil heteronormative oppressor at worst.
I just don't think outside factors are sufficient without textual support.
Sufficient for what? You did make reference above to people who go around happily slashing everyone in sight for no particular reason. Presumably that comes from outside factors?
The "interaction" thing is expanded in part 2, so I'll respond there.
Re: pt1
Date: 2008-08-18 10:24 pm (UTC)outside factors are not sufficient for popularity, or perhaps mainstream acceptance, of a ship. I'll agree that they are sufficient for some random fan to write a fic about that pairing, sure.
As for why I contradicted you in the first place, I'll admit my initial comment was casual and off-hand and had less to do with the specific content of your comment and more to do with recollections of arguments I've read in the past which your comment reminded me of. I certainly didn't think it would spark this much debate!
Re: pt1
Date: 2008-08-24 04:44 pm (UTC)I think they probably can be, especially among a younger crowd or a crowd that's strongly into slash as a genre and approaches each new fandom with the hope of finding slashability. However, I don't think there's any way to prove either of our positions, so I'm not sure we can go much further with this.
I certainly didn't think it would spark this much debate!
Heh, and I was expecting to get this debate from
pt 2
Date: 2008-08-03 04:16 am (UTC)I think that any relationship between two characters that is even remotely interesting is going to be turned into slash by those who have the inclination to do so.
Hmm, but isn't that tautological? Of course those who have the inclination to turn a given relationship into slash will do so. IMO, the question is, what gives large numbers of devoted fans that inclination? I don't agree that any relationship that is even remotely interesting will be turned into slash by a significant percentage of fandom. In HP fandom you can find at least a few shippers for any ship simply because of its size, but that's not true of other fandoms. And even in HP fandom there are huge differences in the levels of popularity for the different possible ships (both slash and het) that I think reflect differences in how the actual text portrays those relationships and the characters in them. Sirius/Remus and Harry/Draco are more popular than (say) Harry/Ron or James/Snape. Is this just because fandom finds the first two more interesting? I don't think so. If fandom finds them more interesting, I think it's because it finds them more slashable and not vice versa.
Re: pt 2
Date: 2008-08-06 03:48 pm (UTC)What I mean is that an inclination to slash (or het ship) is all you really need. If you find a few tasty ingredients such as friendship, animosity, respect, resentment, etc., you can use them to make cake with, and there are virtually no ingredients that cannot be used to make cake, although the result may not be to everyone's taste.
Again, you said that I could not deny that something in the text leads people to the slashy/shippy reading. I don't think there has to be anything in the actual text to suggest a sexual relationship; just give people a few ingredients to work with, and they'll add the sex on their own.
IMO, the question is, what gives large numbers of devoted fans that inclination?
Indeed. But I don't particularly want to get into the larger topic of "why do people slash?" or we'll be here all year. I'd like to stick to the sub-question of "Is it because the text objectively points in that direction?"--both in general and in the specific cases of Sirius/Lupin, Sirius/James, and Snape/Lupin.
I don't agree that any relationship that is even remotely interesting will be turned into slash by a significant percentage of fandom.\
Ah, but you've added a new qualifier there: "by a significant portion of fandom." I think the popularity of various ships is often governed by things other than viability. Fandom trends, availability of archives, the average age of the fans, interpersonal politics...all of them can affect the size of a given ship. Probably the biggest factor, IMO, is how many fans find a particular character attractive in any sense of the word. I include things like "has an interesting set of issues" under "attractive" for this purpose; anything that catches the imagination is a form of attraction. There probably are people who will ship or slash characters who don't attract or interest them on any level at all, but I have a feeling they're pretty rare.
If fandom finds them more interesting, I think it's because it finds them more slashable and not vice versa.
Just when I think we might find a place we can agree, you turn around and say something like this!
First of all, you seem to be equating "fandom" with slash fandom, unless you really believe that all fans judge the interest of various interpersonal relationships based on their slash/ship potential.
Second, in your opinion, does "fandom finds them more slashable" mean "the text contains more objectively sexual cues"?
Re: pt 2
Date: 2008-08-08 07:36 pm (UTC)I think if you put enough ingredients in, that is a suggestion of sexuality. By sexuality, I don't mean that the text is suggesting the two characters are secretly shagging like bunnies, just that there is an erotic frisson to their interactions. If you put in enough component parts, people will see hints of the whole that could be made out of it.
I do think the "significant portion of fandom" is a necessary qualifier, because otherwise the discussion becomes trivial, especially in a fandom as big as HP. Of course stuff besides the text influences what fandom as a whole does. But it's interesting to see how many of the trends that currently exist in HP fandom were around back in the early days of fandom when everyone was on HPFGU and the influence of stuff like fandom history/politics was less weighty. The popularity of sexy-sympathetic-Draco, for instance, and the existence of Harry/Draco shippers. That says to me that there is something that people are seeing in the text that led such interpretations to be popular in the first place.
First of all, you seem to be equating "fandom" with slash fandom, unless you really believe that all fans judge the interest of various interpersonal relationships based on their slash/ship potential.
I think the vast majority of HP fans do so. I really haven't seen much to contradict this. Fans who write and read gen and do huge meta posts on non-sexual relationships are much rarer than those who write/read shippy fic and meta ( whether slash or het), in my experience.
Second, in your opinion, does "fandom finds them more slashable" mean "the text contains more objectively sexual cues"?
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "objectively." Certainly I think the text contains more empirically sexual cues. That is, for certain relationships, the author uses buzzwords and scenarios that are going to remind a great many people of sexual or romantic situations. That is what I mean by "fandom finds them more slashable." For instance, the infamous joint birthday gift from Remus and Sirius. A joint birthday gift from two people who live together is going to remind people of what married couples do. A lot of Ron and Hermione's interactions pre-HBP (when their relationship becomes explicit) also look like married-couple interactions, hence the Ron/Hermione shipping long before JKR made their relationship explicitly sexual. And I don't think any of these people are particularly contaminated by slash-fandom or ship-fandom to notice these things. I know casual fans of the books who have seen it too. So I think there are "objectively sexual cues" in the sense that a) many people see them, and b) they're not unreasonable for seeing them.
Re: pt 2
Date: 2008-08-13 05:26 am (UTC)Three things:
1. This sounds an awful lot to me like "people will slash any relationship that is at all interesting in any way."
2. Surely "erotic frisson" is in the eye of the beholder? I want to be allowed to judge for myself whether a given interaction has erotic frisson or not. I don't think anybody has the right to simply inform me that it's there.
3. The assumption that a non-sexual relationship is somehow incomplete is one of my big pet peeves.
I do think the "significant portion of fandom" is a necessary qualifier
And I think that once you introduce that element, you have brought in so many extra-textual factors that you can't draw conclusions about the text based on it. So I fear this line of conversation may have hit a dead end.
First of all, you seem to be equating "fandom" with slash fandom, unless you really believe that all fans judge the interest of various interpersonal relationships based on their slash/ship potential.
I think the vast majority of HP fans do so.
...
...
Well, if that's your honest belief, then once again, I'm not sure we can go any further with this. Because it is my equally honest belief that most fans actually do not base their interest in a relationship on slashability, particularly when you talk about Fandom at large.
Fans who write and read gen and do huge meta posts on non-sexual relationships are much rarer than those who write/read shippy fic and meta ( whether slash or het), in my experience.
But you're limiting your sample to online fandom, and further to the portion of online fandom that expresses fannishness by reading and writing fanfic and meta. That's not at all the same as Fandom with a capital F.
A joint birthday gift from two people who live together is going to remind people of what married couples do.
I don't mind people saying that, but I don't think it's fair or accurate to push the slash reading or assume that everybody should/does agree with it based on such slender evidence.
So I think there are "objectively sexual cues" in the sense that a) many people see them, and b) they're not unreasonable for seeing them.
That's not my definition of an objectively sexual cue. I acknowledge that it's awfully hard to say that anything exists objectively in a text, because so much is based on interpretation. But I'm talking about cues that point toward a sexual interpretation and only a sexual interpretation, with a minimum of ambiguity. Your definition seems to be more like "Something that could be read as sexual without twisting logic too badly, even if the non-sexual reading is equally plausible." Which, I think, answers my question about where slashers get their material.
P.S.
Date: 2008-08-13 04:12 pm (UTC)Re: pt 2
Date: 2008-08-18 10:39 pm (UTC)2. Surely this is the same as any other category of interpretation? Of course you have the right to decide if something (erotic or not) is there in the text, but other people have the right to state that your opinion is wrong if they can back it up. Yes, there's an eye-of-the-beholder component to this, but IMO no more so than all other things involved in interpreting a book.
3. Then it's a good thing I never said that. I was talking about sexuality as "the whole," yes, but only because we had previously been discussing its component parts. I never said or implied that the non-sexual relationship isn't a "whole" relationship in its own right.
But you're limiting your sample to online fandom, and further to the portion of online fandom that expresses fannishness by reading and writing fanfic and meta.
Yes. Since we were, after all, talking about fanfiction and things like shipping archives and online commentary, that seems like a fair and reasonable limitation. And in my past experience when I've heard people talk about "fandom" they meant "online fic-writing fandom." Maybe this usage is more idiosyncratic than I thought. I'm not 100% up to speed on fan vocabulary.
But I'm talking about cues that point toward a sexual interpretation and only a sexual interpretation, with a minimum of ambiguity.
I see. That's a much narrower interpretation than I'd use about objective cues of any kind, because I think you can say that a text objectively contains hints of a given kind of interpretation without saying that it objectively mandates that interpretation, but that's a nitpicky point on my part.
Which, I think, answers my question about where slashers get their material.
Not to beat a dead horse, but if you're conceding that there's something in the text that can reasonably be interpreted as slashy, then doesn't that at the very least affirm the idea that there's some textual basis for the slashers' interpretation, and that it's not all down to outside factors?
Re: pt 2
Date: 2008-08-24 04:34 pm (UTC)I would say rather, anything interesting will be used to make something sexual, even if other ingredients have to be added from outside the text in order to get to the sexual part. Some elements do lend themselves more easily to the technique than others, of course.
Surely this is the same as any other category of interpretation?
But that's my point. You're taking away my right to interpret.
Of course you have the right to decide if something (erotic or not) is there in the text, but other people have the right to state that your opinion is wrong if they can back it up.
I disagree. Opinions are neither right nor wrong; that is what makes them opinions and not facts.
Since we were, after all, talking about fanfiction and things like shipping archives and online commentary, that seems like a fair and reasonable limitation.
You were using the point that Sirius/Remus was a popular pairing with "fandom" to support your position. If it's only popular with a certain segment of Fandom (I'm using the capital F to denote a wider category than just the portion who are writing slash fanfiction), then that makes its popularity less significant.
And in my past experience when I've heard people talk about "fandom" they meant "online fic-writing fandom."
I've often seen it used that way too, but for purposes of this discussion, I don't think that limiting ourselves to online fic-writing fandom is especially productive.
Not to beat a dead horse, but if you're conceding that there's something in the text that can reasonably be interpreted as slashy, then doesn't that at the very least affirm the idea that there's some textual basis for the slashers' interpretation, and that it's not all down to outside factors?
Not to beat a dead cake, but I'm going to return to that metaphor once more. I have never denied that a text may contain eggs, and that it is possible to make cake with eggs. But I get annoyed when people claim that the text contains cake on the basis of the fact that it has eggs. Clearly this doesn't bother you, but it does bother me. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other of her opinion at this point.
Re: pt 2
Date: 2008-08-26 09:45 pm (UTC)Ah, now we're getting into the question of whether an interpretation can be "wrong" or not. Perhaps "wrong" is, well, the wrong word, but I'd certainly say some interpretations can be better-supported or more fact-based than others.