Denial, you're doing it wrong...

[graculus]

I'm doing this from memory, so apologies if I miss stuff out, since I'm sure it's a poor representation of the views expressed - please feel free to correct/add stuff since I'd like the following account of my con panel to be as accurate as possible before I cross-post to connotations:


Is there a difference between gen and pre-slash [aka smarm: please, you're so far in denial the camels are complaining].

In hindsight, I'm not sure whether we covered the ground the person who suggested the panel intended, but there you go... ;)

We started with a brief survey of who read/wrote what, with most of the people there admitting that they read gen in at least one of their fandoms at least occasionally, if not regularly.

We then went on to look at some definitions of the key terms involved: in this case those would be gen, pre-slash and smarm. All of this with the caveat that denial in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, as many of those present were in denial over entire seasons or movies, let alone little things like genre.

Gen was roughly defined by those present as being episode-like, character-driven, plot heavy, not involving a romantic aspect. I noted that in some fandoms you might well see some disagreement over what 'gen' entailed as they would consider some m/f activity (particularly 'canon' activity) as not being outside of the realm of a gen story. This wasn't, however, a view particularly shared by those present, probably because we were all slashers. I think I may have commented (if not then, then certainly later on) about those archives which used to differentiate between slash and het in that even pre-slash would get an NC-17 rating while a het writer would have to work hard for a similar rating based on the content of their fic.

Pre-slash was felt to be applied to stories where the writer was trying to set up a future romantic/sexual encounter, which might or might not get written in a subsequent story. It was as much or more focussed on 'thinky thoughts' about the other character than on events going on around them.

Smarm was a term that a number of people present had come across but which was something alien to others, since it just wasn't a label used in their fandom. Fandoms in which it was used were those such as The Sentinel, and to a lesser extent Due South and Stargate SG-1, or those fandoms to which smarm writers had moved from there. A smarm story was characterised by emotionally charged acts between two characters who were not sexually involved with one another - examples were given of characters who were otherwise portrayed as straight males showering and sleeping together.

The point was made that to most of the people present, the term 'smarm' was likely to be seen as pejorative - this, I theorised, might be a cultural issue rather than a fandom one, as the use of the term may call up the term 'smarmy' to us Brits, which is an unpleasant association.

There was then a discussion about why people might write a story that fit one of those labels more easily than the others: there was some consideration of whether labelling a story 'pre-slash' was a bit of a cop-out on the part of the author. This might be particularly the case in a fandom where slash was prolific and had a larger readership than gen, so a story might be labeled 'pre-slash' in order to give that writer an 'in' to that coveted readership and thus increase their potential audience. There was also something of a feeling that it was harder to write both good gen and good slash, so a pre-slash story might be easier to turn out.

I asked whether it was possible to have a fandom that was completely without gen stories, but even in the case of both Torchwood and Queer as Folk, where the sexual component of storytelling was likely to be intense (particularly in the latter), there was still gen, even if some of the gen in Queer as Folk was apparently about making the guys straight?

I then went on to talk about authorial intent... did the people present often come across stories labelled as gen which were slash (or vice versa) and, if so, did this matter? It was felt that people wanted to know what they were getting and that a story's category should accurately reflect its contents, but that sometimes people didn't get it right when they labelled. I suggested that perhaps, as slashers, we were happier to actively subvert what we were being told by the creators of fiction if we felt it was mislabelled (or they were deluding themselves), because that was what we were used to doing with source material. As a sub-culture, were we more willing to look for/accepting of different readings of what we're coming across, rather than just taking what we're told to?



Note to self - there was a mention of the Sith Academy during the panel, but I can't quite recall where it fitted in... anyone?

Comments

[tenaya.livejournal.com]

About correct labeling, yeah, even if the story is gen I may think, "ooo, that's a nice slashy bit." I'll read gen or slash and sometimes I'm in the mood for one or the other so it's easy to get the right 'fix.' I really want to know if there's character death or het because it's a bit like finding a dead rat in my sandwich.

I just saw a SGA rec and it said "character death" and since I'm not so vested in SGA, I thought I'd see who they killed. BAM! Right off there's a graphic killing of Daniel. "Dead rat! Dead rat!!!" Didn't bother to hand around and see the poetic beauty the rec'cer had waxed on about.

It took me a while to accept the word smarm. Supposedly it's a cross between sympathy and warm or something like that. Smarmy still means something like creepy to me.

Oh, and I despise writers who mislabel their stories to trick readers into reading their wonderful work. I make special note of their names and refuse to read anything else by them. I view that as a type of aggression, heavily spiced with superiority and disrespect.

Thanks for writing up the notes.

[graculus.livejournal.com]

We had a panel on warnings as well, but though I skipped that one I expect that unexpected het and unexpected death are equally unwelcome when unwarned for! ;)

And yes, deliberate mislabelling is a no-no for me too, though I already have a hefty enough 'do not read' list within SG-1 due to certain people's previous shenanigans and was not upset to see so many of them move over to SG:A... I find it pretty much impossible to separate RL arseholeness from my perception of someone's writing. I'm also not a fan of circle jerk recs ('wow, what a great story, and it's great because my friend wrote it and she recced my stories as well because she's my friend' ad infinitum).

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

Not having been at the panel, and being one of those that wanted it written up (much thanks, graculus), what counts as unexpected het? Canon pairings strolling through being coupley? Non-canon couples going the same? And is it less of a problem in a story with slash pairings as well compared to in a gen story with no slash(y) pairings?

Coming from the POV of one that loves long plotty stories in which some of the characters just happen to be involved with each other.

[graculus.livejournal.com]

I think people's perceptions of what constitutes 'unexpected het' may vary not only from person to person but also from fandom to fandom.

Within SG-1 we had the dubious pleasure at one time of a bunch of shippers who were adamant they were 'right' about their particular pairing of choice (and got a lot of strokes from TPTB to support their theory, thus perpetuating the attitude). They also often portrayed one of the other male characters (and the actor who played him because he didn't wholeheartedly support 'their' pairing) in a very negative and pejorative way - always getting the team in trouble, never following orders, always thinking he was right even when it was obvious he wasn't, yadda yadda...

That attitude seemed to be a little infectious at times, and led to supposed gen stories where character A (usually the one perceived as being 'in the way' of the pairing, or at least part of the main slash pairing) would get everyone in danger because of his actions and character B (part of the het pairing) wouldn't be all that worried because the woman he loved was safe and that was what was important. So it wasn't so much always the characters' actions as it was attitudes, if you see what I mean?

I also think it shows a fundamental lack of respect for your readers. If they're expecting gen then that's what they should get, with no added extras - I wouldn't do that as a slash writer because I know that some people just don't see the characters and their relationships that way, so those of us who don't 'see' the het pairings (no matter how hard TPTB try, at times) should also get the same consideration.

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

Your examples are a bit more extreme than I was thinking of, to be honest. Mine was more along the lines of a story being written by someone on my F'List right now, where the main het pairing were wanting a quiet night in and so sent real and adopted offspring off to stay with their 'aunts', both being pairings which had had UST in canon but no canonical relationship. The f/f pairing hadn't been mentioned in the headers, and nor was the fact that both halves of the pairing later mentioned their canonical male exes in a conversation about whether to have offspring on their own. So lots of 'unexpected' pairings there that I wouldn't expect to be warned for.

But, like I said, I like plotty adventure stories where some of the characters may just happen to be involved with each other.

And I've written slash stories with background implied het, where shippers of the het pairing have debated whether it was subtext or text in that particular story.

[alphekka-alpha.livejournal.com]

Wasn't there something about there not being a pre-het category so why pre-slash? Or something like that.

[leviathanmuse.livejournal.com]

Not having been a part of the discussion, I'm just throwing a couple of cents in here, but I think the reason why there isn't a "pre-het" category is because het is socially accepted that there is no "reason" to warn people around it, unlike slash. The only thing to warn people about in their minds is if there is going to be actual sex involved.

Personally, as I hate most of the het pairings in most shows (feeling that they are forced because they want to make damned sure that their characters aren't seen as gay - not that that ever stops us), I would love to see warnings of any het in any stories. I don't consider het to be gen, unless the characters have actually slept together and even then I'd rather be warned.

[graculus.livejournal.com]

I think the point was made in the panel that 'UST' may be used rather than 'pre-het' but I agree there's a normalisation attitude at work there (ie we don't need a special label because we're normal, unlike you folks...).

Also, I'm so with you on the warnings for het. Unfortunately many writers who like (or at least don't actively dislike) the 'canon' pairings seem unable to balance this with the plot in stories which would otherwise be gen and so I end up giving up as soon as the ickiness appears. If I wanted het, I'd go looking for it, in the same way as if I wanted slash...

[leviathanmuse.livejournal.com]

Completely agree. I will definitely hit the back button as soon as the moopey eyes start up. I don't mind a little UST in some shows, but too many of them insist on hitting you over the head with it. UST would be as good a name as "pre-het", but a lot of people don't use that either. Sigh...

[graculus.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, so there was! See, this is why I wanted other people to chip in before I cross-posted... *thinks*

[innocent-lex.livejournal.com]

I tend to avoid smarm these days, mostly because the stories feel like slash that the author didn't want to label as such. Also, the vast majority of smarm I've read has the characters acting out of character, and quite often they remind me of teenagers. Hence, avoidance.

But the point you make about the word itself is another reason - smarm is insincere charm, greasy flattery. It's just not an attractive trait, and it's always been confusing why it's been used against definition in fandom. You mention the UK, though - is smarm not a word in common usage elsewhere?

[graculus.livejournal.com]

Smarm at times makes me want to bang my head against the wall, because you get the 'oh, but why can't they just be friends, why do you have to cheapen everything with (gay) sex?' contingent, who all seem to resolutely reject the fact that a) the characters didn't do what you have them doing on the show and b) straight men would be extremely unlikely to do what you have them doing. The Sentinel-Guide bond has a lot to answer for!

The smarm thing is a theory I came up with 'on the hoof' so I don't know without comment from non-Brits whether it's right or not... ;)

[innocent-lex.livejournal.com]

The sentinel-guide bond makes me cringe.

On topic a), agreed. It's outrageous that any character in SG fic, for example, is allowed to go to the loo, sleep for more than a few seconds, have a bath, cut their nails, eat popcorn, wear socks or have a haircut, because we've never seen it happen in the show. Every single fic where a character goes to the loo is officially character assassination.

And I'm sure that helps clarify everything. ;-)

[katyabaturinsky.livejournal.com]

Completely after the fact, but smarmy is a pejorative adjective here in the US as well; meaning is pretty much the same, I think. (At least, I've heard it enough that it sounds entirely normal to me. I'm in the northeast/New England region, so it's definitely used hereabouts, even if not in other parts of the country.)