This past weekend, Heather Hogan posted a thought-provoking piece to AfterEllen, which prompted me to reflect on conversations I’ve been having about sexuality in/and fandom. Hogan’s piece, but to an even greater extent, the comments on it, helped me to articulate some of the reasons I am protective of my corner of fandom on LJ/DW, because the conversations I’m able to have there, especially when it comes to emotional questions like character hate, are so much more satisfying than those I encounter in the greater blogosphere, academic and popular media-oriented (in which category I would include AfterEllen). When it comes to these intimate questions about media representations of queer lives, especially the character arcs of out queer characters in long-arc television series, I find a fannish vocabulary to be absolutely fundamental to the conversation.

I should, before I say anything else on this subject, admit that I actively avoid industry-connected conversations about series with open canons. One of the more revealing comments on Hogan’s piece admonished AfterEllen’s mission as one of “sucking up to” those in industry, including writers, producers, and actors, because it is owned by Logo, and thus explicitly exists to serve its interests. (Of course, LJ is not free from serving corporate interests, but its fannish content is less explicitly connected to these.) In any case, when I read this comment on AfterEllen, I breathed a sigh of relief, remembering how grateful I am for fandom’s generally accepted etiquette when it comes to a relationship to the industry — particularly in my recent experiences with RPF, I’ve seen how seriously this is taken, but also more generally, there is an enforced and productive distance between fan activities and the creators of sourcetexts, bridged only at specific moments for specific purposes, when desires converge. This is not the case for AfterEllen, or, perhaps not unrelatedly, for the academy (although the academy has a self-deprecating tendency to assume that no one of much importance would be interested, anyway), and therefore, these venues’ critical rhetoric inevitably takes a different shape from the fannish.

Another caveat: I’m glad that the writers at AfterEllen do what they do, and I think that the space they provide for lesbians, bisexuals, and other queer and questioning women (I can’t speak to their record on trans inclusivity, but it’s important to talk about), is incredibly valuable. I admire their interest in actively following as many media franchises as they do, keeping ever-vigilant about the representation of queer identity, sexuality, and experience. This work is very different from the work I most admire in fandom, but the two share much in the way of critical stakes. To put it as plainly as possible, while acknowledging that I’m surely missing a lot of context, what AfterEllen does is critique queer representations as they happen, making sure to take note when established stereotypes have been uncritically put into play, speaking on behalf of an invested queer female audience that longs for complex representations of queer women’s lives in narratives across media. Fandom, as such, does not have this explicit investment. However, (and any kind of statement on fandom as a whole is bound to be controversial, so bear with me), fandom does have a complementary investment in using the most intriguing available sourcetexts from narratives across media to generate critical analysis and artful, transformational fanworks. Because of this investment, fandom is, I think, well-equipped to offer a different angle on the question posed by Hogan’s title, about why we hate on certain fictional characters, and the storyworlds that give them life.

This answer entails a shift in focus best described by Henry Jenkins in Textual Poachers: “Fandom celebrates not exceptional texts but rather exceptional readings.” (291) In other words, fandom sees criticism (whether it takes the form of meta, fic, art, vids, whatever) as an active part of the meaning-making process which begins in the sourcetext, and this speaks to the heart of this emotional question about hatred, or, as we might call it, character bashing. Of course, that term is significant (particularly here, where it speaks sharply to other histories of bashing), because it reveals a space where fandom has a somewhat better-established distinction between sourcetext and analysis than non-explicitly fannish media analysis: character bashing is distinct from writer-bashing (although both persist, sadly, in a variety of fandoms), and both of these terms can be strategically deployed or wholeheartedly rejected in favor of the fanwork-creation response mode. In this mode, fanworks can give queer characters the love they deserve, while remaining critical of the under-thought adherence to stereotypes on the part of the writers, which soured our initial readings of the sourcetext.

What I see in fandom, and fandom alone (well, perhaps also in academic feminist and queer criticism, see for example the inimitable Sara Ahmed’s literary analysis in The Promise of Happiness), is an insistence on breathing life into characters insufficiently realized in-story due to an unfortunate fusion of marginal social location and the ignorance of the writers. However, it’s an approach not easily incorporated into more mainstream critical practices. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, of course — just another reason I’m glad I have a place to go when I want to channel my nerdrage productively.

[META] Are we too tough on gay TV teens? Who’s we?
Tagged on:                                 

5 thoughts on “[META] Are we too tough on gay TV teens? Who’s we?

  • 24/02/2011 at 19:52

    Another wonderful thing about fandom is that you can be sure you’re not the only person having that eyeroll! The community support for these critiques is wonderful.

    I’ve seen fandom complain about the writers failing the characters, complain about the characters (and bash them), and then use fan fiction to rewrite the poorly-handled characters and flesh out the ignored ones. And I’ve also seen fandom bash characters for what I think are writerly mistakes.

    But I do think the issue of getting more and better representation of queer characters in Hollywood TV is an ongoing and worthy goal. Younger fans in particular, I think, aren’t satisfied with subtext any more! Society has changed too much for that, and Hollywood isn’t keeping up.

    • 24/02/2011 at 20:05

      I’m in absolute agreement with your last paragraph, and I look forward to seeing the changes as they happen. But I also think that it’s our responsibility as critical readers to channel the justified frustration as productively as possible, generously reading the levels of authorship that go into character creation (writing, direction, and acting) rather than slipping into character-bashing, which reproduces the socially-imposed negativity surrounding queer characters.

      • 24/02/2011 at 21:58

        I don’t know that we can every get rid of character bashing in fandom. It seems to be such a guilty pleasure. Almost as fun as ‘ship wars and ugly anon memes.

        It’s not the way I choose to do fandom, but it seems to be pretty entrenched. Unfortunately female characters also get the brunt of it.

        • 24/02/2011 at 22:00

          You cannot take away my ship wars! They are totes intellectual! 🙂

          • 25/02/2011 at 12:55

            There, there. I wouldn’t want to spoil your fun. Sure they’re intellectual! And archetypal and symbolic. And stuff. You just keep thinking, Butch; that’s what you’re good at! 🙂

Comments are closed.