(Post a new comment)

	Yeesh. squeakytoy 2003-08-31 04:21 am UTC (link)
	Annual "But They're Not Gay" Wank? Isn't it something more like weekly? Maybe every two weeks? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Yeesh. yadda 2003-08-31 04:54 am UTC (link)
	Okay, you have a point, although it's probably more than just weekly. It's like a law of physics, somewhere on the internet, at all times, someone is ranting about yaoi/slash. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Yeesh. - squeakytoy, 2003-08-31 05:03 am UTC

Re: Yeesh. - virago, 2003-08-31 05:15 am UTC

Re: Yeesh. - (Anonymous), 2003-08-31 09:20 am UTC

Re: Yeesh. - faultypremise, 2003-08-31 10:02 am UTC

Re: Yeesh. - iris, 2003-08-31 07:03 pm UTC

Re: Yeesh. - squeakytoy, 2003-08-31 11:08 pm UTC

shoiryu 2003-08-31 04:32 am UTC (link)

Thing is, I half agree with her. I'm not a big fan of non-canon. I don't really like slash or yaoi that breaks canon. I can and do get very, very squealy over canonical pairings, but if, say, the characters in question are given actual canonical opposite-sex relationships, then, in my opinion, it's a little silly to slash 'em. But then, that's just my opinion. I get just as irritated by non-canon yaoi and slash as I do by non-canon characterizations... Just call me "canon whore". *grin* However... man, this chick is really REALLY wanky about trying to say that much. Boy, could she really benefit from a few well placed "In my opinions" and maybe a "but that's just what I think. A lot of slash and yaoi is about opinions, and you're not doing anybody any good by parading around like yours is the only one that's right. "They just AREN'T!" are not statements that are going to be met in a friendly manner. ....XD When did I get all serious? (Reply to this)(Thread)

virago 2003-08-31 04:50 am UTC (link)

Seconded... but after I said this once, I got the "Making canonically straight characters gay in fanfiction is FIGHTING THE POWER!!!" speech, and I'm still trying to kill the headache comprehend it all. >>A lot of slash and yaoi is about opinions, and you're not doing anybody any good by parading around like yours is the only one that's right. "They just AREN'T!" are not statements that are going to be met in a friendly manner. >> Well... yeah. ALL porn is about opinions in that everyone has different buttons. Sometimes, though, people who dare say "they're canonically straight" in the wrong place are bitched out for stating what is sometimes a fact, depending on what fandom is in question. Meh, never mind; every time I bother bringing this up I end up with about six new orifices. I give up. *goes back to tiny canon-whore lair* (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - lcsbanana, 2003-08-31 05:55 am UTC

(no subject) - virago, 2003-08-31 06:51 am UTC

(no subject) - lcsbanana, 2003-08-31 06:57 am UTC

(no subject) - valarltd, 2003-08-31 09:34 am UTC

(no subject) - amandatwop, 2003-08-31 06:08 pm UTC

(no subject) - wolfling, 2003-08-31 06:22 pm UTC

(no subject) - puipui, 2003-08-31 07:56 pm UTC

(no subject) - musette, 2003-08-31 10:01 am UTC

(no subject) - melange, 2003-08-31 02:59 pm UTC

(no subject) - musicdiamond, 2003-08-31 09:36 pm UTC

Re: - musette, 2003-09-01 02:03 am UTC

(no subject) - melange, 2003-09-01 04:17 am UTC

Re: - musette, 2003-09-01 04:40 am UTC

(no subject) - melange, 2003-09-01 06:02 am UTC

Re: - musette, 2003-09-01 08:03 am UTC

rogue 2003-08-31 09:18 am UTC (link)

I agree with you. While I do have my silly Aya x Youji icon, it's only because WK is fucking hilarious to slash (have you ever seen an AyaxYouji shipper vs AyaxKen shipper war? Dear GOD!). I will read and enjoy slash fiction from all sorts of fandoms, but it doesn't mean I'm going to think the characters are homesexual in canon just because of fanfic (same with, I wouldn't think a character is straight just based on fanfic. I don't base any of my opinions on fanfic, but off canon material - as everyone should, says I). It bothers me when people get really hardcore obsessed with pairings and demand they're canon - the biggest example would be this whole Sirius and Remus thing in Harry Potter. People will go INSANE over them, INSISTING they're a canon couple, regaurdless of the fact that there's no evidence in the books (Sorry ladies. Living together and giving gifts together denotes nothing. I live and give gifts with my little brother, but it doesn't mean I'm screwing him :). It's not that Sirius and Remus aren't a likely couple, or a good couple, or a perfectly swell couple to squee over ... there's just no reason to get so worked up over it being canon. Er... I don't know where I was going with this, so I'll shush up now. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - shoiryu, 2003-08-31 09:35 am UTC

(no subject) - rogue, 2003-08-31 07:40 pm UTC

ivyblossom 2003-08-31 04:39 pm UTC (link)

I'm not a big fan of non-canon. .... Does someone need to point out right about now that all fanfiction is non-canon? If you don't like reading things that don't happen in canon, don't read fanfiction, it's really that simple. Do you have the same problems with plots that have never happened in the series/book? Characters going places they've never gone? Recollections of childhood you've never heard about in canon? Do you only approve of fics that are total rehashes of things that have already happened? Why would it be silly to slash characters who have dated the opposite sex before, isn't that sort of the POINT of fanfiction, to write about things that have never happened? Have you never actually MET a gay person, or watched tv, or seen a movie? Do you think none of us have serious experience with the opposite sex, or what? It's okay to tinker with canon but not with issues around sexuality, because you believe sexuality to be wrought from stone, is that it? Man, fandom_wank is damn wanky. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - rogue, 2003-08-31 07:34 pm UTC

(no subject) - tourniquette, 2003-08-31 10:40 pm UTC

(no subject) - farcicalsquid, 2003-09-01 04:26 am UTC

Eh, nothing all that wrong with non-canon - karmakaze, 2003-09-02 06:58 pm UTC

	wickeprincess3 2003-08-31 04:41 am UTC (link)
	Woohoo! I love my wankywanky fandom. And my wanky essay long replying self. *points and laughs at self* (Reply to this)

	lulinda 2003-08-31 04:43 am UTC (link)
	*eyes glaze over* So. many. words... Argh, cannot compute... *goes back to reading p0rn* (Reply to this)(Thread)

	telesilla 2003-08-31 07:46 am UTC (link)
	*highfives Lu* I couldn't get through the first post. *goes back to writing porn* (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - lulinda, 2003-08-31 08:01 am UTC

	mpoetess 2003-08-31 04:47 am UTC (link)
	So, so glad I am officially Not Here (out of town and using someone else's uncomfortable computer setup and not about to start writing essays) and thus not morally required to wank along with glee. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	mpoetess 2003-08-31 05:18 am UTC (link)
	Ah well, I lied -- I can at least spread the wank. Piedmargaret responds in her own journal. Where, if I were here, I would have wanked, but since I'm Not Here, it's obviously the Phantom Wanker. Eliade and MintWitch also chime in, in their own journals. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - yadda, 2003-08-31 05:37 am UTC

(no subject) - thebratqueen, 2003-08-31 06:39 am UTC

(no subject) - yadda, 2003-08-31 07:33 pm UTC

(no subject) - rhi_silverflame, 2003-08-31 10:12 am UTC

psychofangirl 2003-08-31 05:18 am UTC (link)

"Short answer: Because we want to." Best answer of all. "Because we can" would have been just as good though. I only pay attention to Canon/Fanon if I like what I see, so to speak. There's plenty of slash pairings that I strongly disagree with, canon or not. But, that goes for ALL pairings. If I don't like it, I don't even awknowledge it, canon or not. It's that simple for me. YMMV. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	terminal_frost 2003-08-31 07:51 am UTC (link)
	Hehehehe. You beat me to that. That's exactly what I was gonna say. Why do we/they write what we/they do? Because we/they can, so there. Why do we/they read what we/they do? See above. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	faultypremise 2003-08-31 10:04 am UTC (link)
	Amen. :) If the writing is good, I'll at least entertain the notion. I've learned the hard way not to pay someone else's preferences any mind. (Reply to this)(Parent)

jfpbookworm 2003-08-31 05:22 am UTC (link)

I dunno. I see nothing wrong with the speculative-fiction sort of canon violation (change one facet while keeping everything else constant), though slash/yaoi isn't my thing. But I find it a bit annoying that characters should be straight until proven gay. There's a long tradition of reading homosexuality into otherwise "straight" works, from "Come Back To the Raft Ag'in, Huck Honey!" to "Archie and Jughead were lovers." (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ivyblossom 2003-08-31 04:41 pm UTC (link)
	Jughead is so in love with Archie it's not even funny. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - iczer6, 2003-08-31 07:21 pm UTC

(no subject) - eljuno, 2003-08-31 07:43 pm UTC

(no subject) - singe, 2003-08-31 08:45 pm UTC

(no subject) - eljuno, 2003-08-31 09:19 pm UTC

Re: - singe, 2003-08-31 09:23 pm UTC

(no subject) - melange, 2003-08-31 11:26 pm UTC

jfpbookworm 2003-08-31 05:31 am UTC (link)

And frankly, when I publish my original fic, I don’t want anybody ignoring the carefully crafted interactions and relationships of my heterosexual male characters in order to bed them around to homosexuality. I’m willing to let it happen; I won’t sue anybody, but it won’t make me happy or honor the work itself, because slash fic would be changing the very identity of at least some of my characters. And given that both George Lucas and J.K. Rowling (not to mention Gene Roddenberry) have quietly affirmed that their characters are not homosexual, and have asked that slash not be widely promoted, I have to assume they feel the same. Fallacy of authorial intent much? (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - yadda, 2003-08-31 06:01 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

(no subject) - darkrose, 2003-08-31 07:46 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

(no subject) - pradaloz, 2003-08-31 05:01 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

(no subject) - valarltd, 2003-08-31 09:39 am UTC

(no subject) - yadda, 2003-08-31 07:45 pm UTC

(no subject) - phosfate, 2003-09-02 05:34 pm UTC

dana 2003-08-31 07:03 am UTC (link)

None of the characters on Angel are gay. They just aren't. Wait, you mean Lorne is straight? Fred wasn't showing an interest in Willow? Wesley has absolutely nothing but pure platonic love for Angel. Oookay. Hmm, I mean I know I have my slash goggles firmly in place and I know that sometimes I may see things that aren't there, but doesn't she allow for subtext? I'm certain that the writers and actors are aware of it. But I guess that's not the point, so what if we are projecting. Silly silly woman. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - soy_latte, 2003-08-31 07:53 am UTC

(no subject) - diamonde, 2003-08-31 03:07 pm UTC

(no subject) - dana, 2003-08-31 03:44 pm UTC

(no subject) - puipui, 2003-08-31 08:04 pm UTC

Lorne - karmakaze, 2003-09-02 07:02 pm UTC

Re: Lorne - dana, 2003-09-02 11:43 pm UTC

Re: Lorne - karmakaze, 2003-09-02 11:52 pm UTC

	eris 2003-08-31 07:04 am UTC (link)
	Taking this "sexuality being fluid or set" issue one step further, I'd like to know how these people would react to a character whose gender is highly fluid. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - redpanda, 2003-08-31 07:18 am UTC

(no subject) - diamonde, 2003-08-31 03:01 pm UTC

(no subject) - eljuno, 2003-08-31 05:55 pm UTC

(no subject) - puipui, 2003-08-31 08:06 pm UTC

That depends. - alara_r, 2003-09-02 06:10 pm UTC

In (minor) defense of SarcasticWriter. . . . (Anonymous) 2003-08-31 08:49 am UTC (link)

I'm a friend of SarcasticWriter offline as well as on, and this arguement is one I've had with her many, many, many times before. And it's like beating my head against a brick wall sometimes. She's a very literal thinker, and really cannot imagine why anyone would want to read/write slash. :::shrugs::: And after talking it over with her, both in person and online, she still can't quite wrap her head around the concept that for each slashfan that you ask "Why do you like this?", you'll get a different answer. She's trying to quantify something that can't really be quantified. In my opinion, of course. :) I'm also very amused that the conversation seems to be hovering a bare millimeter above flaming, but then, so do most of my conversations with her. :D Merrygentry (http://www.livejournal.com/users/merrygentry/) (Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: In (minor) defense of SarcasticWriter. . . . - parlance, 2003-09-01 01:09 am UTC

Re: In (minor) defense of SarcasticWriter. . . . - (Anonymous), 2003-09-01 01:56 am UTC

iczer6 2003-08-31 08:57 am UTC (link)

Well one thing I agree wholeheartedly is the fact that when you get down to it most slash is NOT about gay men. Really it's not about Fighting the Power, any more than it's about making Gay Bois into our little sex machines. It's really about thinking that character X and character Y would make a cute couple and wanting to see them screw. Or at least cuddle. That's it. As for Angel and Wesely Theirloveissooobroody! Icz (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - terminal_frost, 2003-08-31 10:26 am UTC

(no subject) - melange, 2003-08-31 02:48 pm UTC

quinctia 2003-08-31 09:04 am UTC (link)

It doesn't matter if it's slash or het, if you do it badly, I hate you. And non-canonical one shots can't do pairings well enough to please me. I don't read much fic anymore, no. I don't like slash writers saying "I SEE SUBTEXT" and automatically expect me to believe what they write. You have to make it believable. So do het authors. I don't feel most authors in general do that. BLARGH. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - iczer6, 2003-08-31 09:28 am UTC

Re: - quinctia, 2003-08-31 09:32 am UTC

(no subject) - mpoetess, 2003-08-31 10:31 am UTC

(no subject) - dana, 2003-08-31 11:35 am UTC

Re: - quinctia, 2003-08-31 11:36 am UTC

(no subject) - mpoetess, 2003-08-31 08:11 pm UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2003-08-31 09:31 am UTC

(no subject) - shoiryu, 2003-08-31 09:38 am UTC

(no subject) - puipui, 2003-08-31 08:12 pm UTC

(no subject) - quinctia, 2003-08-31 08:15 pm UTC

(no subject) - morganya, 2003-08-31 08:12 pm UTC

limyaael 2003-08-31 04:54 pm UTC (link)

One thing I hadn't realized- and it's weird that I hadn't realized it- until I started reading things like this is how often people expected justification for non-canonical slash when they didn't expect the same justification for non-canonical het. So any fic with any male/female character pairing is fine, even if it didn't end up that way in the source material, but any male/male or female/female pairing has to have justification? WTF? I tend to like canon best, but hey, if I only liked canon, I wouldn't read fanfiction. And I tend to avoid stories that are pure romance anyway, so I'm not always on the hunt for "justification." If the writer can make me believe in the romance, then they've justified it as far as I'm concerned. (I actually like reading fics where the pairing, no matter what the sexes, has been established for a while, rather than one where they've just shared their first kiss, since there are so damn many of those). Really, why is it "better" if Aragorn screws Eowyn instead of Arwen, as opposed to him screwing Legolas instead of Arwen? I've seen Aragorn/Eowyn justified as "Well, they were attracted to each other in canon!" Yes, but they didn't end up together, so doesn't that make it at least as uncanonical as Aragorn/Legolas slash? As long as people are keeping canon and fanon separate in their minds, I don't think it really matters. It's when people start to decide that fanon characteristics apply in canon- for example, that the character of Draco Malfoy really is gay, and that JKR won't write him that way just because she doesn't like gray characters- that it really gets wanky. /essay on "What fanfic has taught me today." (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - limyaael, 2003-08-31 05:01 pm UTC

(no subject) - iczer6, 2003-08-31 07:14 pm UTC

(no subject) - quinctia, 2003-08-31 08:17 pm UTC

(no subject) - limyaael, 2003-08-31 08:49 pm UTC

(no subject) - melange, 2003-08-31 11:15 pm UTC

(no subject) - ruggerdavey, 2003-09-02 10:29 pm UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2003-09-22 01:36 am UTC

Re: - ruggerdavey, 2003-09-22 05:38 am UTC

(no subject) - psychofangirl, 2003-08-31 07:40 pm UTC

(no subject) - limyaael, 2003-08-31 08:47 pm UTC

(no subject) - iczer6, 2003-08-31 10:58 pm UTC

(no subject) - limyaael, 2003-09-01 01:43 am UTC

	pradaloz 2003-08-31 05:14 pm UTC (link)
	Mulder and Krycek? They’re not gay. They just aren’t. Oooooh boy. Of all the ways I could respond to this, I'm going simply to go with: And you know this how? More over, they’re mortal enemies. Well, yes, that's the point. (Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - eljuno, 2003-08-31 05:58 pm UTC

(no subject) - ailei, 2003-08-31 08:06 pm UTC

(Anonymous) 2003-09-01 06:26 am UTC (link)

Let's ignore for the moment the fact that the *script* for Five By Five, in the scene where Lilah and Faith come out of the bar together with the intention of "going somewhere to....talk." includes these stage directions to Romanov and Dushku: "Note on the lesbian subtext, keep it very sub". I mean, that's canon. That's the shooting script, signed off on by Whedon himself. Even if you refuse to interpret the onscreen behaviour as ever being the slightest bit sexually ambiguous, that's at least one instance (that we know about) where the gay subtext is *named*. - Raincitygirl (Reply to this)