![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI've seen this topic beaten to death again and again, so I just feel like writing a coda, after which I promise to never involve myself in this subject ever again. And so, my last defense of Harry/Draco. EVER. Ta-da! (applause, applause. thankyou, thankyou. *bows prematurely*)
Basically, I keep seeing the question of "is this [slash] pairing `canonical'" raised repeatedly. The question itself is just deeply, deeply flawed and the presumptions behind it seem ill-formed to me. First of all, are we talking about author intent? If so, then we can pretty much assume that it's not there in 98% of the cases, end of story. There are some instances (`Dawson's Creek', Buffy), where you could make a case for the creator having slashy thoughts, but in most cases, it's like chasing UFOs, except they're metaphorical ones. What's the point? If you really need to know, write to JKR. Don't debate about it, just ask her, and voila! Revelation is at hand.
If you see it, you see it. If you don't, you don't. That is slash for you-- a clear-cut case of "mind of the beholder". I've seen (and agreed with) plenty of arguments where there are references to `chemistry' or `unresolved issues' or `heated looks'. There are all those things between straight males, aren't there? But that's not the point, right? It's not that it -could- be a "straight" story or "gay" story. It's about what we want to write and read, in the realm of fanfiction, which is inherently removed from canon even as it's bound to it.
What really concerns me is the practice of using this theoretical "canonicity" to defend the "virtue" (or lack thereof) of a slash pairing that one is or isn't interested in. The idea of defending your interest in a certain type of story because it's "there, right -there-, in the -text-", or conversely, your lack of interest because of the impossibility of this presence. So what? So what if it's there or not there?
It seems to me that slash rests on the idea of possibility, of the subversion of the original material and most likely its aims. Poof! Presto Change-o! We have made slashy lustbunnies out of the ever present ghost of "homoerotic tension" within any homosocial situation with the slightest bit of spark! Wheeeee! You can sit there and tell me that JKR doesn't like Draco and that canon!Harry is set up to never reconsider him as long as he lives, and of course I would agree with you. But so what??
All fanfiction is basically an AU scenario. By writing it, we're using the elements and characterizations and situations within canon to create something else, something -other-. In slash, this is inevitable even more so than in genfic or established-het-pairing fic, though both of these are also AU because their author simply isn't the author of the canon text. It's funny to even talk about the OOCness of a slash pairing when most fanfic out there is so blatantly out-of-character no matter -what- pairing it is. Even if H/D -was- in-character for them both, most fanfic written for this pairing would -still- be OOC, and so what? Even JKR has been accused of not keeping some of her characters "in character", which might be a ludicrous claim but has some merit if you think "in character" means "linearly consistent"... which is true for some people and not others. Some people just... don't behave consistently. I've been accused of it, heh.
To me, it's all about telling the story that I want to tell, telling the story that -means- something to me, about the love for this dynamic I see in my head and for the characters within it. The idea of its inherent (rather than practical, point-by-point) "canonicity" is really beside the point, simply because it -can't- be. I can write Molly/Arthur or James/Lily or Hagrid/Olympe, maybe even a Harry/Cho out-take if I wanted to, I guess, if I wanted to be "canonical", but that's about the extent of it. Even then, it wouldn't be JKR's James/Lily. And again, this is an old, dead horse, of course. Heh.
I just wish it could be generally accepted that one takes fanfiction pairings on their merits within that particular story, because really, that's all one -could- do. You could develop an affection (obviously) for this pairing or that, but there's a -wide- variety of interpretations of any pairing to the point where it's almost like reading about different characters altogether sometimes, all labeled "H/D", or "H/S" or what have you. It's a huge leap of faith every time, believing this particular author is really talking about what -I- consider Harry & Draco. That's because I think the basic template for their "story" isn't in any fanfic or in canon, but rather in my -head-.
It's often been said that one enjoys slash & fanfic in general most of the time because it's not going to happen in canon, and one -wants- it to. So instead of sulking, one just supplements. The very idea of thus debating the issue of how "canonical" any given slash (or het!) ship is becomes silly. I don't know why I get drawn into it, even-- I think it's just the petty "wah! H/D is -not- inherently flawed!" kicks in. Which is also silly. I -know- it's improbable, impossible, ridiculous-- hey, so is -your- slash ship, whatever it is. I can be a "man" about it and admit it, at least. It's not inherently flawed though, regardless, and neither is any other ship, and I will argue that till I'm blue in the face (though I'm trying to stop, obviously).
But really, it's not skin off -my- back. I love the story one -could- tell about them, and that's what counts, isn't it? JKR is never going to tell this story, and that's fine; who cares, really? Maybe I don't even -want- JKR to tell this story. Maybe it's not her forte (I don't think it is, really). Maybe this void in characterization or slashiness allows -us-, the readers, to use our imaginations. Whoa.
~~
I think I'm getting too worked up about this, aren't I. I can only take the "H/D is a silly ship" -so- many times before I start saying, you're all silly! Wake up! It's slash, not nuclear physics! We're not studying the laws of reality here, that's what I mean. Subverting texts to develop their homoerotic side is -not-, by definition, something that's engaged in the business of being realistic. Depending, of course, on how you look at "literary realism".
We have this uncomfortable arrangement between the fannish desire to subvert and the desire to conform to the original text, and the contradictions begin to multiply once we try to do both at the same time.
Basically, as a writer of fanfic, you can conform to the text insofar as you can project a character's behavior based on their past, "canonical" behavior and known history as well as your opinion of their personality in general (remembering you're not the original author most strenuously there), taking into account any changes you make within this history. People in general are complex-- their behavior almost (not quite) unpredictable.
There are any number of responses any given person will have to a variable set of conditions. I'm tempted to start talking about human behavior as a wave function and how people can contain the essences of several contradictory natures within themselves and only show one or the other aspect at different times. I will refrain. Physics metaphors hurt -my- brain too, you know.
So back to literary realism.
In the quest for "realistic" behavior of any particular character within the closed sphere of a particular literary universe, one inevitably has to make a series of choices which lead you further and further away from your starting point with each one. This realism becomes exponentially more difficult the more characters you're considering at one time, because their new interactions with each other necessarily impact their "natural" behavior patterns.
This is to say: people change (duh). I don't mean they get redeemed, I don't mean they get into mud wrestling, I don't mean they start to like each other if they hated each other before. No. I just mean they change, and in a myriad difficult-to-trace ways that point back to a number of seemingly insignificant and only sometimes obviously "significant" events, which organically form an emergent, composite ever-changing "self".
Understanding this "self" is usually quite a challenge either by the individual in question or by other people, no matter -who- the individual is. There is always this wide margin of unpredictability, of -error-, basically. Understanding the nature of identity enough to predict it is something that no one has (as far as I know) been able to do with complete success.
Now, here I'm talking about -true- realism, that is to say, "what are human beings really like". When most people talk about the realism or lack of it within a pairing or characterization, they mean as regards to the source text. And as I tried to say already, this is a very narrow playing field. In order to do -anything-, really, you're going to have to start theorizing and hypothesizing and interpreting and basically subverting every which way. You're going to have to follow up on possibilities you yourself see-- and whether this possibility is "strong" or "weak" depends entirely on how good you are at writing, basically; at creating the right environment for believable human character growth and transformation to occur.
This is why I think the masses of "hard-to-believe" H/D and "believable" H/D, for instance, have so little truly in common with one another. When the characters are well-drawn and developed within themselves and in their interactions, what you have is almost completely a different story from the barely-rendered version of what is supposedly the same pairing. In this pairing, you obviously have to depart further from canon-reality than with some other pairings (because they can't stand each other and such), so one can either succeed admirably or fail abysmally. It is simply a greater challenge than some other things, that's all. A question of engineering, in terms of writing, and of course basic talent and insight into psychology and the source text itself.
I've often noted that my favorite H/D fics have little enough in common with each other as far as narrative, style or characterization. They all tend to avoid certain tropes (simply because -my- internal vision of the characters couldn't tolerate certain things), but while they all seem related to canon in one way or another, it's usually in very different ways. There are -many- possibilities, obviously, and if the writer has a particularly strong vision, it seems to lead to rather diverse final destinations. Plus, a talented writer is going to be pretty unique in terms of style and maybe their underlying philosophical stance as well, so that this artistic sensibility is going to inevitably lead them away from "canon" in terms of JKR's natural philosophy about human beings and their interactions, as one can deduce from the text.
~~
In conclusion, it seems rather limited to pretend there's only one way to interpret Harry & Draco, some right or wrong way for them to necessarily always interact, and some sort of cast-in-stone future for them that we can -see- even without being the author. Secondarily, even if there -was- a cast-in-stone future, it's puzzling why a fanfic writer should be constrained by it. While clearly there are guidelines and some things just don't make sense, a romantic pairing itself (unlike other details of behavior) doesn't really lend itself to "sense", in the traditional way it's meant, anyway.
I will agree that some pairings would not lend themselves to romance and rather seem destined to be based on power-play or misguided attempts to recapture the past or loneliness or blah-blah-blah all the myriad reasons human beings get together. I admit to a sizeable bias towards the traditional yin/yang-type romance-driven pairings, and I will call the pairing itself OOC if you use one for romance that doesn't seem fit for it, and make two characters whose dynamic points to wild power imbalance and a dominance/submission dynamic have a gentle love story.
I suppose that's what the people who say H/D is inherently flawed and "uncanonical" would mean: that it doesn't lend itself to romance. There's where our visions of the possibilities for the two characters as seen in canon would diverge, as well as possibly our requirements for romance itself. This isn't a question of agreeing to disagree (heh), it's simply that I see their point and yet I see how it's not the end of the story. I would agree that one tends to need an equality between partners to have a pairing work; I would also agree that such equality between Harry & Draco isn't there at present, though I would argue it can be written into existence plausibly if the writer's good enough. I agree that one tends to avoid the people whom one can't stand rather than fuck them-- and yet, I see possibilities in the idea that this inevitably changes if one has to learn more about these people by some necessity. Again, this "necessity" is inherently in the realm of fanfiction rather than canon.
If you take as a given that Draco has something to offer Harry if both of them grow up a bit, and that he's got interesting possibilities for development (not in -canon-, just in -general- as far as one can imagine while using the basic template), you have the recipe of something happening. As a slasher, the idea of seeing homoerotic "sparks" within this dynamic is, of course, entirely subjective and inarguable. I myself am a sucker for H&D friendship stories and would read them happily, if anyone were to write them. I don't -need- them to fuck, though of course I'd like them to~:) I simply like the way they are together; in canon, yes, but mostly in my head.
I will shut up and go eat now. I'm getting way too verbose even for me, to the point where I feel completely beside the point and disturbed at my own verbosity. Maybe one day I'll condense this into 3 sentences that start with, "DAMN YOU ALL, I'M RIGHT, WANNA FIGHT?!!1 >:O" ....Or not.
Basically, I keep seeing the question of "is this [slash] pairing `canonical'" raised repeatedly. The question itself is just deeply, deeply flawed and the presumptions behind it seem ill-formed to me. First of all, are we talking about author intent? If so, then we can pretty much assume that it's not there in 98% of the cases, end of story. There are some instances (`Dawson's Creek', Buffy), where you could make a case for the creator having slashy thoughts, but in most cases, it's like chasing UFOs, except they're metaphorical ones. What's the point? If you really need to know, write to JKR. Don't debate about it, just ask her, and voila! Revelation is at hand.
If you see it, you see it. If you don't, you don't. That is slash for you-- a clear-cut case of "mind of the beholder". I've seen (and agreed with) plenty of arguments where there are references to `chemistry' or `unresolved issues' or `heated looks'. There are all those things between straight males, aren't there? But that's not the point, right? It's not that it -could- be a "straight" story or "gay" story. It's about what we want to write and read, in the realm of fanfiction, which is inherently removed from canon even as it's bound to it.
What really concerns me is the practice of using this theoretical "canonicity" to defend the "virtue" (or lack thereof) of a slash pairing that one is or isn't interested in. The idea of defending your interest in a certain type of story because it's "there, right -there-, in the -text-", or conversely, your lack of interest because of the impossibility of this presence. So what? So what if it's there or not there?
It seems to me that slash rests on the idea of possibility, of the subversion of the original material and most likely its aims. Poof! Presto Change-o! We have made slashy lustbunnies out of the ever present ghost of "homoerotic tension" within any homosocial situation with the slightest bit of spark! Wheeeee! You can sit there and tell me that JKR doesn't like Draco and that canon!Harry is set up to never reconsider him as long as he lives, and of course I would agree with you. But so what??
All fanfiction is basically an AU scenario. By writing it, we're using the elements and characterizations and situations within canon to create something else, something -other-. In slash, this is inevitable even more so than in genfic or established-het-pairing fic, though both of these are also AU because their author simply isn't the author of the canon text. It's funny to even talk about the OOCness of a slash pairing when most fanfic out there is so blatantly out-of-character no matter -what- pairing it is. Even if H/D -was- in-character for them both, most fanfic written for this pairing would -still- be OOC, and so what? Even JKR has been accused of not keeping some of her characters "in character", which might be a ludicrous claim but has some merit if you think "in character" means "linearly consistent"... which is true for some people and not others. Some people just... don't behave consistently. I've been accused of it, heh.
To me, it's all about telling the story that I want to tell, telling the story that -means- something to me, about the love for this dynamic I see in my head and for the characters within it. The idea of its inherent (rather than practical, point-by-point) "canonicity" is really beside the point, simply because it -can't- be. I can write Molly/Arthur or James/Lily or Hagrid/Olympe, maybe even a Harry/Cho out-take if I wanted to, I guess, if I wanted to be "canonical", but that's about the extent of it. Even then, it wouldn't be JKR's James/Lily. And again, this is an old, dead horse, of course. Heh.
I just wish it could be generally accepted that one takes fanfiction pairings on their merits within that particular story, because really, that's all one -could- do. You could develop an affection (obviously) for this pairing or that, but there's a -wide- variety of interpretations of any pairing to the point where it's almost like reading about different characters altogether sometimes, all labeled "H/D", or "H/S" or what have you. It's a huge leap of faith every time, believing this particular author is really talking about what -I- consider Harry & Draco. That's because I think the basic template for their "story" isn't in any fanfic or in canon, but rather in my -head-.
It's often been said that one enjoys slash & fanfic in general most of the time because it's not going to happen in canon, and one -wants- it to. So instead of sulking, one just supplements. The very idea of thus debating the issue of how "canonical" any given slash (or het!) ship is becomes silly. I don't know why I get drawn into it, even-- I think it's just the petty "wah! H/D is -not- inherently flawed!" kicks in. Which is also silly. I -know- it's improbable, impossible, ridiculous-- hey, so is -your- slash ship, whatever it is. I can be a "man" about it and admit it, at least. It's not inherently flawed though, regardless, and neither is any other ship, and I will argue that till I'm blue in the face (though I'm trying to stop, obviously).
But really, it's not skin off -my- back. I love the story one -could- tell about them, and that's what counts, isn't it? JKR is never going to tell this story, and that's fine; who cares, really? Maybe I don't even -want- JKR to tell this story. Maybe it's not her forte (I don't think it is, really). Maybe this void in characterization or slashiness allows -us-, the readers, to use our imaginations. Whoa.
~~
I think I'm getting too worked up about this, aren't I. I can only take the "H/D is a silly ship" -so- many times before I start saying, you're all silly! Wake up! It's slash, not nuclear physics! We're not studying the laws of reality here, that's what I mean. Subverting texts to develop their homoerotic side is -not-, by definition, something that's engaged in the business of being realistic. Depending, of course, on how you look at "literary realism".
We have this uncomfortable arrangement between the fannish desire to subvert and the desire to conform to the original text, and the contradictions begin to multiply once we try to do both at the same time.
Basically, as a writer of fanfic, you can conform to the text insofar as you can project a character's behavior based on their past, "canonical" behavior and known history as well as your opinion of their personality in general (remembering you're not the original author most strenuously there), taking into account any changes you make within this history. People in general are complex-- their behavior almost (not quite) unpredictable.
There are any number of responses any given person will have to a variable set of conditions. I'm tempted to start talking about human behavior as a wave function and how people can contain the essences of several contradictory natures within themselves and only show one or the other aspect at different times. I will refrain. Physics metaphors hurt -my- brain too, you know.
So back to literary realism.
In the quest for "realistic" behavior of any particular character within the closed sphere of a particular literary universe, one inevitably has to make a series of choices which lead you further and further away from your starting point with each one. This realism becomes exponentially more difficult the more characters you're considering at one time, because their new interactions with each other necessarily impact their "natural" behavior patterns.
This is to say: people change (duh). I don't mean they get redeemed, I don't mean they get into mud wrestling, I don't mean they start to like each other if they hated each other before. No. I just mean they change, and in a myriad difficult-to-trace ways that point back to a number of seemingly insignificant and only sometimes obviously "significant" events, which organically form an emergent, composite ever-changing "self".
Understanding this "self" is usually quite a challenge either by the individual in question or by other people, no matter -who- the individual is. There is always this wide margin of unpredictability, of -error-, basically. Understanding the nature of identity enough to predict it is something that no one has (as far as I know) been able to do with complete success.
Now, here I'm talking about -true- realism, that is to say, "what are human beings really like". When most people talk about the realism or lack of it within a pairing or characterization, they mean as regards to the source text. And as I tried to say already, this is a very narrow playing field. In order to do -anything-, really, you're going to have to start theorizing and hypothesizing and interpreting and basically subverting every which way. You're going to have to follow up on possibilities you yourself see-- and whether this possibility is "strong" or "weak" depends entirely on how good you are at writing, basically; at creating the right environment for believable human character growth and transformation to occur.
This is why I think the masses of "hard-to-believe" H/D and "believable" H/D, for instance, have so little truly in common with one another. When the characters are well-drawn and developed within themselves and in their interactions, what you have is almost completely a different story from the barely-rendered version of what is supposedly the same pairing. In this pairing, you obviously have to depart further from canon-reality than with some other pairings (because they can't stand each other and such), so one can either succeed admirably or fail abysmally. It is simply a greater challenge than some other things, that's all. A question of engineering, in terms of writing, and of course basic talent and insight into psychology and the source text itself.
I've often noted that my favorite H/D fics have little enough in common with each other as far as narrative, style or characterization. They all tend to avoid certain tropes (simply because -my- internal vision of the characters couldn't tolerate certain things), but while they all seem related to canon in one way or another, it's usually in very different ways. There are -many- possibilities, obviously, and if the writer has a particularly strong vision, it seems to lead to rather diverse final destinations. Plus, a talented writer is going to be pretty unique in terms of style and maybe their underlying philosophical stance as well, so that this artistic sensibility is going to inevitably lead them away from "canon" in terms of JKR's natural philosophy about human beings and their interactions, as one can deduce from the text.
~~
In conclusion, it seems rather limited to pretend there's only one way to interpret Harry & Draco, some right or wrong way for them to necessarily always interact, and some sort of cast-in-stone future for them that we can -see- even without being the author. Secondarily, even if there -was- a cast-in-stone future, it's puzzling why a fanfic writer should be constrained by it. While clearly there are guidelines and some things just don't make sense, a romantic pairing itself (unlike other details of behavior) doesn't really lend itself to "sense", in the traditional way it's meant, anyway.
I will agree that some pairings would not lend themselves to romance and rather seem destined to be based on power-play or misguided attempts to recapture the past or loneliness or blah-blah-blah all the myriad reasons human beings get together. I admit to a sizeable bias towards the traditional yin/yang-type romance-driven pairings, and I will call the pairing itself OOC if you use one for romance that doesn't seem fit for it, and make two characters whose dynamic points to wild power imbalance and a dominance/submission dynamic have a gentle love story.
I suppose that's what the people who say H/D is inherently flawed and "uncanonical" would mean: that it doesn't lend itself to romance. There's where our visions of the possibilities for the two characters as seen in canon would diverge, as well as possibly our requirements for romance itself. This isn't a question of agreeing to disagree (heh), it's simply that I see their point and yet I see how it's not the end of the story. I would agree that one tends to need an equality between partners to have a pairing work; I would also agree that such equality between Harry & Draco isn't there at present, though I would argue it can be written into existence plausibly if the writer's good enough. I agree that one tends to avoid the people whom one can't stand rather than fuck them-- and yet, I see possibilities in the idea that this inevitably changes if one has to learn more about these people by some necessity. Again, this "necessity" is inherently in the realm of fanfiction rather than canon.
If you take as a given that Draco has something to offer Harry if both of them grow up a bit, and that he's got interesting possibilities for development (not in -canon-, just in -general- as far as one can imagine while using the basic template), you have the recipe of something happening. As a slasher, the idea of seeing homoerotic "sparks" within this dynamic is, of course, entirely subjective and inarguable. I myself am a sucker for H&D friendship stories and would read them happily, if anyone were to write them. I don't -need- them to fuck, though of course I'd like them to~:) I simply like the way they are together; in canon, yes, but mostly in my head.
I will shut up and go eat now. I'm getting way too verbose even for me, to the point where I feel completely beside the point and disturbed at my own verbosity. Maybe one day I'll condense this into 3 sentences that start with, "DAMN YOU ALL, I'M RIGHT, WANNA FIGHT?!!1 >:O" ....Or not.
