Fiona wrote:
Minor point of order here. I'm decidedly not unfamiliar with H/C, and neither are most of the rest of the anti-faction (see Neil's long list of examples). I've read quite a few stories in the genre, although I wouldn't call myself "into" it (just that frankly you can't *avoid* it if you're
into
reading fanfic)
I'm not sure what the distinction is here, but I suspect it is whether one "gets" h/c or doesn't get "h/c." For the most part, and there are always exceptions, the theories put forth by non h/cers are so outside my interpretation of the genre that I don't see any points for discussion. There's also, and it's been well demonstrated during the current discussion, a vocal minority who are offended by h/c and/or who look down on h/c. It's not an atmosphere that would encourage me to discuss the subject. I'm in fandom for fun.
Fair point :). However, while I'm not a parent, I am an anthropologist. As part of my professional activities, I go to groups of people of which I am not a member, and study them as an outsider.
Fair enough, but what if the groups of people don't want to be studied? The reason I produced the post you are quoting is because you said:
I also, as I said, saw a lot of people who liked h/c launcing into the discussion with categorical denials ("H/C is NOT S/M! BAD FIONA! BAD NEIL! NEVER SAY THIS IS SO!") or false analogies (Hamlet? Beautiful suffering?
Can
be played that way, but Hamlet can be played *any* way imaginable... bitter and unlikable... cold and rational... round the twist...). Which has, actually, made me even *less* kindly disposed to h/c as a genre than
before.
The point I was trying to make was that h/cers tend to go on the defensive because there have been attacks on the genre in the past. So their answers might be abrupt, simply because they don't want to get into deeper discussions. The subject tends to get controversial, and they are probably in fandom as much for the fun of it as I am. Those brief answers just might indicate they don't want to be studied. Or as Sally very aptly put it-- "I start feeling uncomfortable, a little like a lab rat who hasn't been asked before the electrodes go in."
Your post quoted above wouldn't make h/cers more inclined to discuss the genre. As the posts by h/cers made you "*less* kindly disposed to h/c," your post made it likely that I'd never want to discuss the subject with you. While you probably don't intend it to come across that way, you are giving every impression of someone who has already made up her mind. Which doesn't leave much room for discussion.
however, it is generally agreed (including by the people I study) that an outsider to the culture
can
provide valuable insights into the culture which the insider lacks, simply by virtue of being an outsider.
I would never deny that possibility. I've gained valuable insight on many subjects that way. But while it's possible, it isn't guaranteed. Just because someone is an outsider doesn't guarantee they are making a valid point.
I've also had a certain amount of psychological training, which is where I was coming from when I said I saw sadomasochistic elements in H/C.
I've had a certain amount of exposure to various disciplines in the field of psychology myself, which is neither here nor there. I don't deny that you see what you see (whether it comes from psychological training or simply comes from personal opinion). As I said in an earlier post, I don't mind if any fan wants to think that h/c is S/M or that h/c is thinly disguised slash or anything else. I'm not out to defend the genre. I'm not out to convert anyone to the genre. I'm not out to explain the genre to outsiders.
No matter how well put your theory is, no matter what scholarly background you can call up in support of your theory, you are going to have to put forth something that tickles the interest of h/cers to get them to discuss h/c with you. Calling it S/M doesn't appear to have worked. Maybe nothing will. Maybe h/cers don't want to be laboratory rats.
First of all, Tavia's post didn't convince everyone.
Then it didn't convince everyone. I have no problem with that.
For my part, because I'm trying to understand.
Well, maybe you'll find some h/c fans who want to discuss it with you. If some do, I'd suggest you at least give some consideration to the possibility that they know what they're talking about. Even if they are unobjective insiders.
Carol Mc
--- Mac4781@aol.com wrote: > Fiona wrote:
Fair point :). However, while I'm not a parent, I
am an anthropologist. As
part of my professional activities, I go to
groups of people of which I am
not a member, and study them as an outsider.
Fair enough, but what if the groups of people don't want to be studied?
Generally, they refuse access. Which is fair enough, and the anthropologist looks elsewhere. The stereotype of an anthropologist as someone who treats people as "lab rats" is actually quite an outdated one-- and even during the time when it could be a valid criticism (during the colonial period, e.g.)-- things were a lot more complex in terms of relative power than one might think. I didn't force anyone to answer my post.
The
reason I produced the post you are quoting is because you said:
Admittedly, the discussion had become rather heated by that point, and I apologise for some of the wording. However, I'd like to say in my defense that I did feel that I raised, in innocence, what I thought was a valid question, and then found myself stereotyped as anti-slash, anti-h/c etc. Which, by the way, hurt.
I understand now that the h/c people were simply responding to earlier people's negative reactions, which was why they lashed out.
But I didn't want to "study" them. I thought I was asking a question of people who I thought were my friends, and who would take the time to correct my ignorant stereotypes.
I'd like to point out that both Sally and Betty took the time to provide intelligent and reasoned analyses of h/c, and why they don't necessarily see it as s/m, and why they consider it an interesting genre. For which I thanked, and continue to thank them; that's all I wanted.
Your post quoted above wouldn't make h/cers more inclined to discuss the genre.
The post you quoted actually came well down the line of argument, by which time I felt quite put on the defensive myself. But yes, that is noted and recognised, and I apologise to every h/c writer/reader who may have felt offended thereby.
I would never deny that possibility. I've gained valuable insight on many subjects that way. But while it's possible, it isn't guaranteed. Just because someone is an outsider doesn't guarantee they are making a valid point.
No, but it's good to have both perspectives, isn't it?
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
From: Mac4781@aol.com
The point I was trying to make was that h/cers tend to go on the defensive because there have been attacks on the genre in the past. So their
answers
might be abrupt, simply because they don't want to get into deeper discussions. The subject tends to get controversial, and they are
probably
in fandom as much for the fun of it as I am. Those brief answers just
might
indicate they don't want to be studied
"Mr. Derrida did not seem angry at having to define his philosophy at all; he was even smiling. 'Everything is a text; this is a text,' he said, waving his arm at the diners around him in the bland suburbanlike restaurant, blithely picking at their lunches, completely unaware that they were being 'deconstructed'."
"...the majority of the fifty-four texts focus on various manifestations of mass culture, la culture de masse: films, advertizing, newspapers and magazines, photographs, cars, children's toys, popular pastimes and the like. ... Barthes showed that it was possible to read the 'trivia' of everyday life as full of meanings."
"Barthes accords popular culture a complexity, a density and richness of texture thought to be the sole preserve of high culture."
"If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another. A deconstructive reading is a reading which analyses the specificity of a text's critical difference from itself."
"Poujade's claim that a dead fish starts to rot from the head down is indicative of petit-bourgeois distrust of intellectuals"
"By accusing a writer of being obscure and lacking 'le bon sens', one can escape serious argument and, more importantly, avoid having to make explicit one's own ideological position."
"Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion -- and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assumes its opinion, which then becomes that of the majority, i.e., becomes nonsense...while Truth again reverts to a new minority."
Your turn:)
Neil
-
Fiona Moore -
Mac4781＠aol.com -
Neil Faulkner