Talk:Slash fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Fan Fiction, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Fan Fiction. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents 1 Why does 'squick' redirect here of all places? 2 Only gay? 3 Chip and Gadget 4 Anathema 5 Issues 6 More to add... 6.1 Anti-Slash 6.2 Images 6.3 Killing Time 7 History 8 Literary Criticism 9 Slash isn't necessarily "gay" 10 Timeline cleaning criteria 11 Proper Wording 12 Hetslash? 13 Slash Timeline 14 Definition 15 Wingfic 16 Neutrality, Original!Fic, and Ethnography 17 Plugging Specific Writers

[edit] Why does 'squick' redirect here of all places?

When I entered "squick" into the Wikipedia search, it redirected to this page. That seems very wrong to me. Slash obviously doesn't squick everyone out, and if it redirects anywhere, somewhere more about sex or kink in general would seem much more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.222.219 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Only gay?

As far as I'm aware even though it is usually used to denote homosexual pairings, it isn't exclusively for them- it can be used for all fan-pairings...?

Nowadays, "Slash" refers to same-sex pairings.

That's not entirely correct and not entirely decided. The verb "to slash" and its gerund, "slashing", are almost definitable usable in any pairing context, including heterosexual relationships. This article should reflect it. John Holly 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chip and Gadget

Why are Chip and Gadget, as a pairing, mentioned in this article? Chip is male and Gadget is female, I don't see how that's at all relevant to slash fiction. I would just edit it but I wanted to see if someone knew something I didn't first. LOBSTRA 15:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)LOBSTRA

Duly noted and removed. Jude(talk,contribs) 01:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

However, some forms of slash have proved particularly controversial; in particular, slash involving underage characters (such as Harry Potter) or real people (often the members of boy bands) are considered distasteful by many who otherwise find nothing to object to in slash.

Though, to be fair, since *NSync slash has gotten so popular with a lot of the old guard, slashing real people is becoming less and less anathema these days.

FMO Against RPS

-asilvahalo

[edit] Anathema

Less and less anathema to whom? I think the current phrasing seems more than fair. - Puffy jacket 11:06, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The attitude towards RPF really depends on who you are and how you are introduced to RPF. The old fan fiction guard, generally more intolerant towards RPF. If you came in to it via that method, generally no problems. Most people who look at fan fiction from the outside seem to have less problems with RPS than they do with say Star Trek slash. --PurplePopple 04:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

There's a sentence in the History section that reads: "From there, increasing tolerance of homosexuality and frustration at portrayal of homosexual relationships in mainstream media fed a growing desire for authors to explore the subjects on their own terms with established media characters." However, I think it's debatable how much slash, written and enjoyed predominantly by heterosexual women, was about exploring homosexuality as an issue. In Warrior Lovers: Erotic Fiction, Evolution and Female Sexuality (ISBN: 0300093543), Catherine Salmon & Donald Symons argue that slash is much closer to the romance genre than anything else.

Agreed, though I wrote the sentence as more of "explore the subject" as a source of pleasure, not, "explore the subject" as a social issue. The first part of the sentence merely attempts to show that homosexuality became less taboo as a source of pleasure and as such, people no longer felt so restricted in its exercise. Perhaps we should change it to "...desire for authors to explore the eroticism of the subjects on their own terms..." ? I could go either way. Sdauson 16:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More to add...

I feel that this artical is missing some very important details about the slash/fanfiction world, such as the banning of fanfiction by some authors, Anne Rice being the most notable. and the banning of NC-17 on fanfiction.net. This was one of the most difficult changes made to the fanfiction world and has caused many splinter websites to be created. Also a short time ago the was an attempt made by J K Rowling to ban slash fanfiction from the web, but not all NC-17 work. This caused many websites to be taken down as a result, most notably the potter slash archive, and though they are now up and running again, because this endevour proved to be fruitless due to the sheer number of archives created for the potter world, they now have to be serverly modified and watched to ensure they do not break any pornorgraphy laws and have sutible warnings. No one minds having warnings on their work, as it was mentioned in the article it is polite to allow readers to know the full content of the piece whether it be just the characters sexual orientation or the sexual acts they are involved in, it did cause many people's work to be lost and new writers to stop. There have also been new laws in Australia, which aim to combad child pornorgraphy but are causing many problems for several websites i know of. I don't know much about these but i am sure someone does. As you can see the historical chain of events is very complicated when it comes to the slash domain and all of these changes have only happened since i first became a loyal devotee, some 3 years ago. Yours, Lady Allylandra

J K Rowling? If I remember correctly, it was Warner Bros not Rowling who tried to ban Potter slash. -- Andromeda

That was my recollection too. The crack down with the cease and desist battles came from Warners Brothers. If you check the notices on Chilling Effects, they say Warner Brothers too. JK Rowling's few quotes on fan ficiton have been "It is like Christmas in July." and stuff to that effect. The anti-slash stuff isn't always anti-slash. A lot of it is anti-adult material and anti-children depicted as sex objects. That has little to do with slash. --PurplePopple 28 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I've read too. It all started when the first movie came out. -- Andromeda

When did the movie come out? Because on January 13, 2002, RestrictedSection, a Harry Potter fan fiction site, received a Cease and Desist. (http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/notice.cgi?NoticeID=522) That's the date I have at any rate... and I thought that was a bit after the movie... The second one that I know of happened in 2003, www.psa.shadow-wrapped.net received a Cease and Desist for adult Harry Potter content. (Chilling Effects)

2000 was the Domain stuff... which I think may be what you're thinking of: In December, Warner Brothers sent Claire Fields a Cease and Desist letter in regards to the domain name she owned. In response to this, PotterWar was created by Alastair Alexander. Another fan group, Defense Against the Dark Arts, partnered with PotterWar to help them in their effort. There was cross fandom interaction at one point when both groups had some assistance from the Buffy Bringers group. (MaryTheFan: http://www.livejournal.com/community/fanthropology/76445.html?replyto=1630621)

Er. The funky wording is pulled from my own notes and timeline of events. I can't recall off hand when the Scotsman article came out. That's on another computer.

--PurplePopple 28 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)

The movie came out 14 November 2001, acording to imdb. It seems that it was when the WB people found out about slash that they tried to "protect the image" of their investment, saying that "children can find it" and that "corrupted the image of the franchise" (not quotes, just things I remember from then). Of course, links like yours are very useful in determining a true timeline and contrasting information to add to the article.

-- Andromeda 30 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Slash

Thought I would add, Anne Rice, again, that has little to do with the anti-slash area. That had to deal with control issues. Two good bits on anti-slash can be found at the following urls:

• http://www.livejournal.com/community/fanthropology/85649.html
• http://www.livejournal.com/community/fanthropology/89446.html

The 2000s aren't covered but a lot of it isn't about slash. It is about adult material. It would be much more relevant to an article on adult fan fiction or the general fan fiction page. And some of those anti-slash bits are covered in the timelines. --PurplePopple 28 June 2005 16:08 (UTC)

Yes, Anne Rice is not an anti-slash issue per se, but an anti-fanfiction issue. She's not the only writter who had publicily asked her fans to not write fanfiction (of any rating) about her works. Some fans decided to honor these wishes (even becoming pretty vocal about it), some not, and that's a disccussion in itself. -- Andromeda

The Anne Rice stuff was weird. Very weird. And a lot of that went down in 1999, 2000 on Usenet. I have the quotes from her website and the related webpages somewhere from that time period. She launched the crusade and some one close to her followed up and did the actual harrassment, including employers, etc. and posting a lot of private information to Usenet. It made a number of people very, very uncomfortable.

Some dates from my own notes:

1999-2000

• Anne Rice threatened fan fiction writers with legal action. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fanfiction-writers/message/19196 )

20001

• FanFiction.Net received a Cease and Desist letter from Anne Rice.

But yeah, it isn't, wasn't about slash. A article dedicated to Cease & Desists in the fan fiction community, yes, fine... a article about author attitudes towards fan fiction, cool... but on a page about slash, it doesn't fit.

--PurplePopple 28 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The boy-band pic is beautiful (I see the heart, yes, yes) but I'm very concerned that the images on this page are not used with permission and the copyright holders are going to be coming after us. Not good.

Why, for example, is the artist not identified, even on the page for the image. Something smells.

The slash artwork image is a tricky one. Personally I don't have any connections to that fandom, so it's gonna be really hard for me to find an image that suits our needs here. PLEASE SOMEONE find an image, or create one of their own, that is an appropriate replacement. The current picture is one I've seen simply floating out there on the net with no attributable source, so while I doubt we'll have any copyright holders coming after us in the next few weeks, it is unacceptable as a long-term solution. Please, someone find a suitable replacement. Pictures are what make Wiki articles come alive, and slash artwork is a perfect section in which to place an image. All other images on the page though are fair game and appropriately sourced and tagged: the slash was created by me, the book cover *is* promotional material, and website screenshots are considered fair use.Sdauson 14:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Would it be appropreate to add a picture of a fan made object? I currently own a graduation robe decorated with a slash theme. I could add it if ya'll like. Kiki 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killing Time

What homosexual relationship in "Killing Time"? Bullshit, there is none. It has K/S, which was hastily removed in the second edition, but it is only implied. Furthermore, the inclusion of the K/S was illicit, against the policy of the editors. Again, in the second printing and all following, it is gone. (The author was a K/S fan who wrote an NC-17 Kirk/Spock story in the notorious 1981 fanzine The Price and The Prize.)

There are bisexual characters in numerous other TOS books, so it's simply inaccurate to use "Killing Time" as an example. "Dwellers in the Crucible" has bisexual Deltans (who die, like all gays in fiction), while the Star Trek II and III novelizations have a gay couple (who died on Regula I in Khan's attack).

There are also gay characters in Voyager novels; in Jeri Taylor's hardback about the Voyager crew, it is revealed that Harry Kim's roommate at the Academy was gay. (Taylor, one of the producers on Voyager, wanted to introduce gay characters into the series but was overruled from above.)

Even if you want the first K/S hint in a Star Trek novel, you'd have to go back to the Bantam books, not Pocket. In "Planet of Judgment" by Joe Haldeman, Spock sacrifices his life out of love for Kirk. (Of course, he doesn't really die.) And in one of the "New Voyages" books, Spock begins dreaming after coming into contact with a race of telepathic butterflies and begs Kirk to come away with him, saying, "We don't need all those others." Kirk hastily shuts him up. There is also a K/S-themed poem in one of the "New Voyages" books. (These books were compilations of fan fiction, rather than stories by professional authors. They were officially published under the Star Trek name, however.)

The reference to "Killing Time" is a vestige of earlier incarnations of this article. I have not read Killing Time and am/was unaware of the actual romantic contents of the story. I have, however, read "Section 31: Rogue" and feel that this is a very appropriate title for this paragraph, as it contains an explicit homosexual romance. The other novels you mention sound like they do not, instead featuring only gay characters. I believe this paragraph should reference Trek novels that contain slash elements-- that is, a story in which a homosexual romantic relationship at the focus. If "Killing Time" does not satisfy this, I suggest we remove the reference, and perhaps find another Trek novel (is there another?) that is more appropriate. Sdauson 14:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The Blake's 7 sequel group apparently only "discovered" slash some time after they got involved in the project - and had a slight hissy fit as a result.

How does the breakdown of slashfiction and gay fiction (they *do* read differently) change with "undefined in series characters" and ones who clearly "look one or both ways" (for example Dr Who's Captain Jack Harkness?

[edit] History

On the UK ST scene, one of the pivotal moments was fan-publication of a work entitled "Spock In Manacles" which openly portrayed (slightly parodically) the K/S relationship with no euphemisms. This was (probably) around 1975 or 1976, and the fanzine itself found its way onto a wider stage with the '76 and '76 WorldCons

[edit] Literary Criticism

I find no mention of Joanna Russ' influential essay on slash fiction. I think that this should be remedied.

[edit] Slash isn't necessarily "gay"

For many slash writers - myself included - not all slash is "gay" slash, and the author does a disservice not to mention this distinction.

For many of us, although the characters may display gay behaviors in the story, they do not necessarily have gay sensibilities as well. Most often in slash, the characters have not had previous same-sex relationships, do not 'cruies for' or notice others of the same gender, and would not seek out another same-sex relationship after the one in the story. For many writers, the encounter is often a first time 'experimentation' and may or may not lead to future intimacy (in the same story or future stories) with the same character.

It's this lack of gay sensibilities that some gay readers say makes them find slash incomplete and unsatisfying, and the same reason that so many women are comfortable reading slash but yet don't read much gay fiction or gay erotica, if at all.

--Kate

20:25, 9 January 2006

Funny that you should bring this up Kate...particularly following the comment about no mention of Joanna Russ' essay about slash. Russ points out that it was predominantly by women, for women and that the sex, while ostensively between two men, was NOT gay sex... She theorized (very plausibly to my mind) that one of the male's was actually standing in for a female and was "coded" female thus making slash actually heterosexual when you really looked at it. Spock, the ultimate other, stands in for the women reading/writing K/S so that it fulfills their fantasy of heterosex between equals (in a way that writing about a man and a woman couldn't work for them...) Do you see why I think there should be a paragraph about her essay? I'll have to find it... Emyth 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I do agree, in part, about male/female coding in slash, but I believe that it is Kirk who is coded female, not Spock. Kirk is the emotional and intuitive one in canon, and in fic he's near-invariably the bottom, and always the sub in K/S BDSM fic. Yes, Spock is 'other', but from a woman's perspective, male is 'other', not female. --Kelly holden 12:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say that I disagree with the general theme of this thread; while I agree that not all slash fiction is gay fiction I have found that, especially with newer fandoms like Angel and Stargate Atlantis, the relationships and stories are more and more focused on slash pairings as gay relationships. I have seen many stories that deal skillfully with such gay issues as coming out to parents, gay adoption and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And you would be hard pressed to convince many slashers from a variety of fandoms to read a fic where their OTP (one true pairing... oh man, internet slang is amazing) is having a one time encounter that is merely "experimentation." Again, I'm gerneralizing; stories that imply no long term commitment can be just as well written and fulfilling as those that do. But I do believe you would find that the majority of fics out there (while often focusing on the couple's first time together or one or both of the characters' first homosexual experience) are built on the assumption that the pair will continue their relationship.

Also, I would also have to disagree with your statement that "while ostensively between two men, (slash)was NOT gay sex... She theorized (very plausibly to my mind) that one of the male's was actually standing in for a female and was "coded" female thus making slash actually heterosexual when you really looked at it." As a lesbian who reads and enjoys slash I can pretty clearly state that, to my mind at least, there is no "coded female" role in slash pairings. I would agrue that the mark of truly good slash fiction is that the characters remain themselves, with their own voice and canonical masculinity (however great or small that may be) and that their interactions with their same-sex lovers stem from that base.

Slash is of course a varied and complex medium and I understand that this thread was created to point out that it isn't NECESSARILY gay, but I can't help but feel that we cheapen it by reducing it to a vehical for heterosexual women to enjoy egalitarian sexual encounters with men. To my mind it is a subversive glimpse into what could be, a chance to explore human sexuality in new and often taboo ways, an intriguing scruitiny of what really drives a character or characters or sometimes just a funny or sexy story to brighten up an otherwise crappy day. Whatever it is to you, I can't help but believe that slash and homosexuality are perpetually linked and that anyone willing to look beyond the often narrow sexual and romantic perspective of canon should be ready to accept human sexuality in all its forms and variations and take up the fight to have it freely expressed.

But that's a whole other story :)

[edit] Timeline cleaning criteria

Which criteria was used to clean the timeline? Why the LOTR and Master and Apprentice archives (with no disrespect to them) entries are worth keeping and the others aren't? I think it's really unfair. --Andromeda 17:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to revert any edits that you think were unfair. As far as I know, there doesn't exist a specific criteria for timelines. My edits were a rough attempt to cull the mass of archive creation entries and non-significant events which didn't seem extremely significant to the development of slash as a sub-culture. Jude(talk,contribs) 01:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think there should be a defined criteria for this. We can add all major archives, none or only those for "major" fandoms. Of course, then "major fandom" and "major archive" should be defined. The second, I think it should be the main archive(s) for a fandom, not just any archive out there, but thes one that are reference for all the fandom. Ideas? --Andromeda 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure timelines even belong on these fan fiction articles, but if they are included they probably ought to present only the events which would be of interest to people outside the slash-writing community, to help them better understand what slash is. In other words I'm agreeing with Jude. Bluejay Young 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As Bluejay said, the creation of archives is of no note or interest to people who are outside of that fandom and/or the slash community. As it is, it is impossible to define something as "major" in an unbiased way. For example, a major archive in one fandom is of no note to a member of another fandom. On a final note, with the proliferation of fandoms over the internet, to choose a "main" (slash) archive for a fandom is likewise as subjective as picking "major" and "minor" fandoms.

I feel the criteria for inclusion on the timeline should be something along the lines of: "[The event] is noteable and of interest to someone who is not a member of the slash community, or is a major/highly-noteable event that assisted in the development of the slash community". Jude(talk,contribs) 03:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is a definitely lack of RPS links in the timeline. It is important to give people an idea of when RPS came along after FPS, since RPS remains so controversial. Sunhawk 01:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why the 2006 Nick/Greg CSI slash acknowledgement is mentioned--it doesn't seem particularly significant in the history of slash. Not my field, so I'm posting for discussion rather than deleting. --LQ 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper Wording

Paragraph 1, last sentence, reads: The confusion of the "/" and "X" marks is highly discouraged, however, as it may be a cause for confusion. Should be reworded by someone with more vested interest in the topic than I.

--Gedrean 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hetslash?

Given that there are now lesbian and gay characters in some SFF series, I'm surprised no-one's discussed the issue of slash that depicts those characters in exclusively heterosexual relationships- for example, Willow Rosenberg after she broke up with Oz and made her relationship with Tara official in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, although as Doctor Who's Jack Harkness is either bisexual or omnisexual, it probably wouldn't apply in his case. Has that attracted any controversy?

User:Calibanu 15.17, 30 July 2006

I believe calling something "hetslash" would be something of a self-neutralizing term. I've never heard the term before, where is it published? And no, I don't think that kind of situation attracts as much controversy as slash itself Sunhawk 03:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hetslash is used on Harry Potter slash communities. I do agree it is "self-neutralizing" but then again so is pop-punk. Kiki 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you could link to that? Because I have only ever seen "slash" used in opposition to "het" on HP communities (and everywhere else, except for older discussions). --Principessa 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In fandoms I've been in (mostly smaller), hetslash refers to one character experiencing sexual/romantic interest in a character s/he believes to be of the same sex, but who is really cross-dressing (for example, Orsino and Viola/"Cesario" in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night). I think "hetslash" is too ambiguous a term to use. - Mel, 29 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.135.131.194 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Slash Timeline

I'm starting to think this article has outgrown the Slash Timeline section-- it's never going to be (never can be) a complete, authoritative, or balanced history of events, and instead serves now to only "pimp out" editors' pet fandoms with a mention and a link. I think the article would lose nothing without it. Sdauson 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to this article referncing Nick and Greg from CSI? I can't find it anywhere...

I agree. I would like to keep some of the influential dates (first zine, people involved in the original source reacting to slash, etc.) but if they can't be separated from the pointless pimping, I think the whole section can be taken out. --Kittymalicious 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

It seems confusing to me that the main definition given of slash is "explicit" when the rest of the page uses "same-sex relationship". I also think that that the "explicit" definition is obselete, or, at least, in much, much less use than "same-sex relationship". --Principessa 21:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wingfic

The wingfic page redirects to here, but there is no mention of wingfic in the article... --Careless hx 00:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality, Original!Fic, and Ethnography

Hey, so I have some issue with this entire squick section. It's a touchy subject because what is squick for one person is not for another (I mean, slash as a whole has been referred to as a squick) and I'm not sure using phrases like "usually make the reader physically nauseated enough to throw up" is appropriate. Also, is squick genuinely considered a *genre* of slash fiction or just an element of it? I've seen "squick" listed on warnings alongside things like BDSM, rape, incest, a certain pairing, etc. or used as an adjective or a verb to describe/react to certain aforementioned things but I haven't really seen someone take the time to write "squickfic" as it is defined in this wiki for the pure purpose of disgusting their readers.

Also, I'm questioning a particular line in the Original Fic section: "Such writing is not easily defined as homoerotic as erotic content is variable and plot and emotional development tends to take precedence over sexual scenes." Is this sentence implying that orig!fic is not slash because it is not homoerotic? In any case, it is a sweeping generalization since there are plenty of ultra-sexual original fic and, in opposition, slash fic that concentrates on plot over sexuality--does anyone protest its removal?

Lastly, I'm unsure about the following in the "Slash in Academia" section: "They focus only minimally on textual analysis. Though they take an ethnographic approach, which comes from anthropology, they are with the exception of Jenkins, somewhat uninformed on current trends and debates within ethnography." I'm unsure what the trends and debates of conducting ethnographic research has to do with the listing of some academic works on slash. Additionally, the materials listed have ample textual analysis--Cicioni is basically pure slash text analysis and Jenkins has an almost complete focus on the texts generated by the Terra Nostra Underground, etc. These sentences also seem out of place in terms of neutrality--both deeming those listed "somewhat uninformed" and Jenkins as the exception. I suggest we keep the first sentence of that paragraph under the list and delete the rest. --Kittymalicious 12:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plugging Specific Writers

I think this whole plugging specific writers or sites thing is going too far. Regarding the www.craiggilmore.co.uk site, I'm removing the reference because it adds no notable knowledge to the article. There's really no need to put up the web sites of specific people, but I feel a little unfair cleaning up all the new ones while still allowing the old ones (like those under "Original Slash") to remain. I'm open to being convinced however--anyone who has a problem with this, speak now because I plan on removing those random author plugs the next time I edit this article. Kittymalicious 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)