I'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??
( The basic tenet: All Fanfic Is AU. )
~~
( Why literary realism in slash-- or maybe in general-- is a questionable goal. First, of course, you'd have to define what reality -is-.... )
~~
( And I sum up.... Lengthily. )
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??
( The basic tenet: All Fanfic Is AU. )
~~
( Why literary realism in slash-- or maybe in general-- is a questionable goal. First, of course, you'd have to define what reality -is-.... )
~~
( And I sum up.... Lengthily. )
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}