[UET all the way, baby]

[reenka]

People say that writers have a driving 'theme' that influences all their work, something far-reaching and constantly being reshaped and revisited. I think my theme is probably 'longing'; it's what I'm most invested in writing about, what keeps me at the edge of my seat, what ultimately seems most satisfying when well-portrayed. And of course it's all the better if it's hopeless, desperate longing, something that tears you apart and fills your every waking moment-- but then, it's not really longing any other way, right? And I don't mean just romantic longing-- there's many types, like nostalgia for instance, which is longing for the past, or loneliness which is longing for contact.

    Mostly, I'm thinking about this because of a comment on this recent post on slash (a subject which I seem to never tire of seeing redefined), where koimistress says, there's a long dramatic tradition wherein the audience sympathizes with the One Who Longs. And I was like, ding! Well, mostly because anything that makes me feel more normal is yaye, and also because I -have- always sympathized most heavily with characters who longed, were driven by the many shades of desire. And of course Draco is one such character-- and Harry in a way, though what he longs for is in no way centrally Draco to my mind but rather a family.
    I guess, also, I've been frustrated with the seeming necessity of making Harry the One Who Longs post-HBP because he doesn't seem very suited for dwelling in it-- he's more driven to action and/or manfully suppressing it if it interrupts his life like with Sirius.

Possibly, you could make a case that desire-- a central drive-- is related to longing, and is the bedrock on which dramatic fiction is built. So of course we as readers are drawn to the characters with both the most conflict and need unfulfilled. If you started working with a character who basically had what they wanted in life, where would you go with that story?
    Also, perhaps you could make a case that slash & stories about m/m attraction would be more wholly and explicitly about this Desire because of the sheer difficulty and the obstacles in pursuing it even currently in the Western world. Slash sort of-- purifies this theme, or maybe just strengthens it. Gives it that dramatic push that you would need outside circumstances for in m/f romance and even in f/f stories because of the implicit greater ease of communication in those.

All of this is related to seeing slash as "emotionally transgressive", what with men showing obvious un-repressed emotion, which seems much more on the money than that whole thing with it being -sexually- transgressive. I must admit I've always loved this smarm-centric argument because I think I've always gotten this emotional kick from slash-- or rather, close m/m relationships, friend or foe-- way before I knew what slash was. The 'sexual glow' is what gives it that overt UST and it's definitely yummy, but what really grabs me is the UET-- Unresolved Emotional Tension :D

With Harry/Draco, the reason I keep harping on it is because I think the pairing ultimately packs the transgressive punch on several different levels-- the standard m/m, interpersonal conflict and societal conflict as well. It's not like it's conflict personified or anything-- it's just that there's such a huge emotional transgressiveness involved, sort of like Romeo & Juliet except with like, (more) fists and cocks. (I mean, I just love how -wrong- yet right it would be for Harry to touch Draco's cheek tenderly. You just can't beat that sort of cognitive dissonance, man.) Yeah, I mean, I blame Shakespeare for everything :>

Comments

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

I'm connecting with your argument so completely, on a personal level, that I almost can't be analytical about it:

anything that makes me feel more normal is yaye

ROTFL! This is me, when first falling in love with slash fandom, in one phrase.

It's fascinating that this comes up in the context of women's interest in M/M slash, and it sort of gets us into that whole hall-of-mirrors thing about gay men reacting to women's slash fantasies about gay men. Yeah, yeah, there are differences in what it's for and what it means, there are issues of realism, there's a whole talking-past-each-other thing, but your post made me consider, more forcibly than ever, that maybe the common ground is actually more important.

And what both perspectives have in common is, as you put your finger on it, longing, whether it's explicitly romantic desire or just longing as a craving for the resolution of intractable contradictions in life. And "longing" is certainly a universal theme because we all deal with frustrations, with disappointments, that seem so fundamental to the conditions of living that the only pragmatic attitude toward them is ironic resignation. Which doesn't stop the fantasy-machine in our heads from continuously imagining an escape, or reacting to a plausible fantasy of achieving wholeness and peace the way our brain receptors react to a healthy dose of crack. :)

I just love how -wrong- yet right it would be for Harry to touch Draco's cheek tenderly. You just can't beat that sort of cognitive dissonance, man.

Why is the "transgressiveness" of slash so important? The answer again might be different for the two sexes, but again the common ground between them may be more important. Possibly, the achievement of peace and reconciliation has to be difficult to seem worthy of grownup attention, to cut through our acquired anti-romantic armor and seem persuasive rather than sentimental and sappy. (Or to allow us to indulge in sentimental and sappy feelings while believing that those feelings have been earned, that they assume that a prior, significant difficulty has been overcome.) M/M slash might do that for women because of the shock value, or what you aptly call the "cognitive dissonance" of it. In an abstract way, it raises the stakes of the final reconciliation. For gay men, the buttons are easier to push because the stories connect more directly with lived experience, and the power and attraction of slash may be in having one's own difficult experience of adjustment "corrected" by an outsider's romantic perspective. In slash, that perspective seems to validate suppressed romantic longings while while respecting -- and imagining overcoming -- the messiness of one's own actual history.

I don't think men do this kind of transformative emotional work very well on their own -- the tendency of a lot of gay literature, at least up to the last very few years, was to sort of wallow in the grimness and stoicness of living a transgressive identity. That's changing, yaye! But to some extent, the confrontation or engagement with female slashers' perspective may be part of that change. Which is all just fascinating, I think.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I'm just so please I seem to have -made- some sort of point amidst my rambling in the first place, enough to have inspired such a fascinating and in-depth reply! Though, er, I probably can't fully reciprocate 'cause I'm more than half asleep, but I just couldn't leave it be, so bear with me if I stop making sense-- and uh, lemme know :>

I'm wondering why emotional transgressiveness is 'important', and indeed it probably isn't to every girl who likes slash by a long shot-- like Maya below and other people I know who basically just see the pairings they see in the source, slash or otherwise. For me-- it's that word, yes, transformation; it fascinates me and holds me in thrall, and my appetite for narrative surprise and cognitive dissonance and drama all sort of feed on it. It's always been this desire to see the hidden side of people and their relationships, the more emotional side-- and with guys, it's all so much more tightly locked up, especially in same-sex interactions. So much more-- alien and fascinating, without the over-identification and power-trip inequality a girl can bring into a dynamic.

I do think it all revolves in one way or another around transformation and power issues-- the writers' and the readers' power to reimagine, restructure what it means to be who that character is, what their sexual identity is, how they're 'supposed' to act like or feel like. In the same post I linked to, wakarusa says, What about when girls don't act feminine and guys don't act masculine? What if they mix it up a bit, past any easy understanding. To what extent is glow dependent on stable categories or at least generally shared understandings about masculine and feminine? And yeah-- yeah-- that's part of it, just the sheer pleasure inherent in breaking and remaking and mirroring(!) patterns.

or reacting to a plausible fantasy of achieving wholeness and peace the way our brain receptors react to a healthy dose of crack
Hee! Yeah :D And also, the recent nihilist/depressive trend in gay fiction is just that-- a recent trend. Slash itself, in many ways, is built around the idea that men are -like- us-- they have these same dreams, desires, longings-- and I believe of course we do, we just communicate them differently sometimes and society structures our beliefs/behavior differently. But if you play with all that, if you shake it up, what do you have? I think you just have people, but even moreso, what you have is -desire-. The same old game, no matter who plays it; the illusion is really that we don't know this is all one and the same, one song repeating again and again through the ages. Not to be... uh, nihilistic in a whole different way or anything.... er... -.-;

So I definitely dig what you're saying about 'pragmatic resignation', in other words, and sometimes I think I write about/through all this just to hold on to hope somehow, y'know? It's like something unique about writing that makes me feel change is possible, people can learn. Or maybe just... maybe just that going through the motions can be a beautiful thing-- can be -life-. I dunno, that sounds so hokey. *sigh*

Possibly, the achievement of peace and reconciliation has to be difficult to seem worthy of grownup attention
For me at least, you've really hit the nail on the head there. :D I definitely need that struggle on some level in order to fully suspend my disbelief anymore-- but on the other hand, I mean, I don't think I mean to say that's the origin of the impulse to slash, just to make things more exotic and/or difficult. It's more complex and multilayered than that, of course-- I'd be attracted to non-transgressive slash if I liked easy-going, non-transgressive type stories. But because I myself am so drawn to transformative dramatic arcs of all sorts, of course I focus on that potential in slash.

I also think m/m romance is easier for girls, too-- safer, at least, more non-threatening and non-transgressive/hot-buttony than m/f fics. The difficulty is definitely masked by the ease of attraction and the way it maps female-style understanding onto the men a lot of times. It -is- a meeting halfway in that sense-- a melding, one world meeting another, by its very nature.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Sounds pretty coherent to me! That's a "yes" on "still making sense." :) But now it's my turn to plead tiredness so forgive me if I start rambling too badly.

I take part of your point to be shifting the emphasis of the argument from "transgression" to "transformation," and I definitely buy that -- it generalizes it more. Transgression would be one way but not the exclusive way that the characters might transform themselves or be transformed. And the same argument still holds for the wider category -- that the power of the story comes from the way it engages and then satisfies a vivid sense of longing. In fact, "transformation" maybe correlates even better with the idea of "longing," since what we're longing for is a change -- a return to the past, or an escape from the present rut, or from a cycle of repeated futility, or whatever. So yeah, I buy your restatement of the issue.

And then you make an interesting point about Maya's stuff, which is not necessarily transgressive but doing something different. I don't know -- I'm still looking for similarities and generalizations and I think they can be applied here as well. Because her characters do very much "transgress" the initial boundaries that limit them -- the thrill of her character arcs is how much her characters are surprised by happiness, find a durable happiness where there might only have been a hope or fantasy that they barely dared to acknowledge. So there's always such an incredible sense of the stakes of personal transformation there -- though the tensions and choices aren't acted out quite the same way as in an overt fists-and-cocks story. It's more foreground-against-background, newness-against-routine, if that makes sense. In a lot of Maya's stories, you really feel that the surface charm is something fragile and risky, and you can feel the potential void underneath, the potential unhappiness, that the characters are defying or escaping from. Or else, in something like the "Badger" series, you get the full sense of sadness and loss because Zacharias does fail to hold on to what he's briefly touched, he can't quite overcome his detachment.

That sort of thing is (one of) the things that makes it so totally different from fluff. Without the risk, without the emotional stakes, a story would fail the test of "being taken seriously by grownups." And there wouldn't be the same sense of exhiliration when characters successfully make a change of attitude or relationship.

OK, even I can tell that I'm babbling, here! I didn't want to call it a night without replying, but I'm too sleepy to do this justice, so I'll come back tomorrow to the rest of your really interesting points.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I guess initially I said transgression 'cause it applies directly to slash-- taking 'straight' characters and queering them, 'misreading' source materials, etc. It's a bit of a funhouse mirror. A fic itself might or might not involve a transformative arc, but if Harry sekritly wants Draco, that's transgressive in the HP context, no doubt about it, y'know? Though I'm not sure if something like Kirk/Spock or Sirius/Remus is either less or just differently transgressive. I really hate people who say it's 'canon' (I mean, that's nothing to how I hate it when people say -H/D- is canon, but anyway). I think slash-- the nature of subtext, in some ways, is a reading-of-longing; like, you sort of add that twist to desire to any combination of emotions/circumstances and poof! See what happens. Hee. (I get the urge to laugh evilly at this point 'cause of all this making me think of slash goblins switching babies for changelings.)

I was really thinking of what Maya said in her comment below about not caring whether the UET is slash or not, not in her fics (hehehe), but that applies too, actually~:) You're so right about her writing about characters with fragile 'surface charm' and now I sort of smirk thinking of Maya herself ♥ Teehee. There's a lot of below-the-surface tension in her fics-- it seems like that's how she builds them. Not like unravelling canon tension but creating her own-- that's how she writes original fics, too (what with all the slashiness everywhere). She can't help it 'cause she's always writing subtext of some sort 'cause that's what she seems to like better than 'actual' text. I mean, she insists she's writing het but she's really writing preslash pretty consistently :)) I suspect more because of the 'pre' than because of the 'slash' part.

But yeah, it -is- about risk. Slash feeds on it, and so does drama in general. Although that's just if you're interested in having your fantasy be the tension itself rather than the fulfillment; I suspect it's a whole separate approach to fiction in general. Me, I always liked the 'pre-orgasmic' state, the heightened awareness and desperation, much more than any pay-off in fics and in life as well, I suspect. Some people view slash as the fulfillment of the tension in canon, though-- so the fluff is sort of like the cherry topping on the canon cake or something. But then, I never really cared that much about canon~:))

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

I really hate people who say it's 'canon' (I mean, that's nothing to how I hate it when people say -H/D- is canon

I think slash-- the nature of subtext, in some ways, is a reading-of-longing; like, you sort of add that twist to desire to any combination of emotions/circumstances and poof! See what happens.

Ha! We went back and forth on this once before, I think, but it's too fun a topic to avoid. And there's such a need to make very fine distinctions.

I still think -- and you may bombard me with tomatoes all you want! -- that JKR is deliberately hinting at adolescent pan-sexuality, at male infatuations, in some of her descriptions of Harry and Draco. That is not to say that I think "slash is canon" or that she would ever slash them, of course. But I think it's an invitation to a slashed reading, if one is so inclined.

In fact, I think I would be bored with the pairing if that tension weren't there in canon -- random slashing of characters who don't seem to have that specific kind of chemistry, like Snape/Harry, or Neville/anyone (unless AJ Hall is doing it) just don't do it for me.

Now where the misunderstandings come in has to do with how strong a statement, here, is being made about what's "really in" canon. If there are three terms here -- text, subtext, and pure projection, some people tend to group the first two as being more closely related, with the third as an outlier, and some people tend to group the latter two, with the first as an outlier. So if you're in the first category, you may insist on a distinction between slash that's based on canon hints and slash that's just willful appropriation of characters you happen to want to play with. If you fall into the second category, you'll tend to see all subtext as highly unstable and subjective, essentially the same as pure projection, and insist on the non-canonicity of slash as the most relevant thing about it. I think I tend to fall into the first category and you tend to fall into the second, but our actual positions on the relation of slash to the text might be more similar than they seem.

I think we both agree that H/D is, shall we say, an extrapolation from the text. But I tend to see it as "authorized" by the text, as a potential (however remote) in the characters that has been actually developed in the text, and that's an important criterion for me. Whereas I think you reject both that assertion and the underlying suggestion that canon-subtext works that way. I think you are more inclined to see both subtext and pure projection as things that are mostly in the eye of the beholder and not connected with canon in any solid or reliable way. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, and I'm not at all sure which of us is more right, but I'm intrigued by our difference on this and wanted to see if I could define it more clearly.

Anyway, sorry for going off on that tangent, I couldn't resist. :)

Me, I always liked the 'pre-orgasmic' state, the heightened awareness and desperation, much more than any pay-off in fics and in life as well, I suspect.

I am totally with you on this! And it's a puzzle, but a pretty established one -- better to travel than to arrive, and all that. I think it may just be that longing or desire is the natural, constant condition that people find themselves in. And if we're lucky enough to achieve a goal, it turns out to be -- not disappointing, necessarily, but unstable. Something in human nature makes us quickly take changes, achievments, for granted, makes them just a platform for the next level of longing. Which is why, I guess, so many stories just stop with the happy ending -- going on from there, to the routine and the renewed discontent that follows, would be too problematic, and would shatter the satisfying illusion of closure.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehe, well, I don't mind sharpening my thoughts on this either :> I think it would be more correct to say that while I probably do fall into group 2, I find some subtext more subjective than others, which makes everything complicated~:) Also, the reason I'm more in group 2 now than before is that I find many group 1 people abusing their priviledge and talking like they're on crack-- case in point, the H/D-is-canon tinhats. It's like, the boundary between text and subtext shouldn't get so fuzzy that the squee overshadows the actual reality. There is no way H/D is canon in the more literal sense, even if you mean 'obvious subtext' like there's 'obvious subtext' pointing to R/Hr in the early books-- or S/R for that matter.

I think there's a test similar to the Turing Test in AI for this slash subtext-- basically, if it'd be 'canon' if you made one of the characters female, you have lift-off. I think there'd still be -tension- if Draco was female and more people would notice, but it wouldn't be like 'oh yeah, for sure'. I also think the whole Harry-obsessively-stalking storyline would've gone down differently if Draco was a girl; they just act like such -boys- (rivals, in fact) it's hard for me to seriously apply this to them. With S/R, it'd be much more questionable if Remus was a girl-- like... the hug, the living together, the-- well, it would be 'odd' and subtexty. As it is though, I wouldn't say it's coded homosexual in any obvious way. To me. But then I never thought close friends = gay.

Sometimes I just feel like-- something like Arthur/Lancelot, say-- there's just something there. But you can't pin it down by definition. And sometimes I feel, especially in things written entirely about a male bond, like a friendship, that the relationship is so intense and central that it can easily be said to contain sexual subtext along with all the other facets. I think it needs to be many-faceted and intense for me to seriously say that, though. In the latter case it's less 'subtext' and more 'preslash', though the boundary is rather delicate, I admit. But when there's that lingering touch, that too-long stare that never goes anywhere, that vigil by the bedside, that 'passionate platonic love', that obsessive adoration-- basically, okay, when you have Draco Trilogy Harry&Draco, that's a very good example-- that's when I say-- yeah, 'objective' subtext. I set a high bar, but there you go, that's where I stand. :> Basically, if the relationship is -that- close, I think there's no way they'd be squicked or turned off by the other, and it's just that it hadn't occurred to them.

Otherwise, what you have is ambiguous tension, which makes it very slashable but not actually subtexty in any non-subjective way, because it can be explained away unless you're set on having your gay goggles on. I mean, I would swear on a Bible that Trilogy!H/D are in love whether or not they ever know it; with canon!H/D, it's just-- not the same, y'know :>

See, see, that platform-for-longing thing is true for me especially, yeah. Which is why I'm all 'woe!' that people don't get why I made Draco suffer and pine away in my fics. If I made him satisfied, he'd just be drowning in mundanity and tea-parties. Somehow that always seemed a much more horrible end than a more dramatic, flagrant instability. Like, if you're gonna burn, burn in style. Though that's more of a personal philosophy :> But yeah, I make 'im suffer 'cause I like 'im :> In a sadistic way ^^;;;

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

*continues sharpening thoughts, with great pleasure*

I think there's a test similar to the Turing Test in AI for this slash subtext-- basically, if it'd be 'canon' if you made one of the characters female, you have lift-off.

This is a great starting point, because it's so clear and definite, and it helps precisely locate our disagreement. The thing is, I don't think it's an adequate test! And I think describing why I think that will get us to the heart of the issue. :)

I think we could go back a bit and agree on the definition of something we might call "squeeable subtext." That would be subtext where there's a friendship, a bond, a clear positive infatuation that we could easily imagine becoming sexual. And certainly this kind of male friendship happens all the time, and pushes the boundary of homoeroticism even if it doesn't actually become sexualized.

This model of attraction is also totally consistent with your idea about "unresolved emotional tension." The pattern seems to be -- there are strong positive, potentially transformative feelings that are at first either unrecognized, or repressed for conventional reasons, that need to be liberated. So obstacles are overcome, desire is acknowledged, and acted upon, and fulfilled.

Your "if it were a girl" test seems designed for exactly this sort of case. This sort of relationship is ripe and ready for slashing, no questions asked.

The thing is, this is not the only pattern by which homoeroticism impinges on the emotional life of guys. In a way, it seems to beg the question, to already assume a slashable world, in which any homoerotic feelings between guys would necessarily be positive, affectionate, even pre-romantic (however much the story may play with their temporary repression or denial.)

But I think that at least as often, guys experience homoerotic feelings in a radically conflicted way, as unruly, threatening, destablizing. This is the darker side of desire, so to speak: eros is not something simple and unified and liberating, but something alien erupting into your otherwise-integrated personality, something that threatens your disintegration rather than facilitating your growth and flourishing.

After all, this is the basis for homophobia -- gay people are not just a mysterious "other," they're a directly personal challenge to a certain set of guys who want to be straight but who experience, either on a transient or a long-term basis, certain feelings they believe need to be rejected to maintain the coherence of their own personalities. And so they disapprove of others who have "failed" to make a similar decision.

So positive UED, intense friendships, ravishing and seductive infatuations, are only one face -- the more benevolent face -- of desire. Where I think your "if it were a girl" test falls short is that it assumes that sexual attraction is a good and desirable thing that can and maybe even should lead to romance -- and that the "oh, we're boys!" issue is just a bump in the road to overcome on the way to happiness.

But sometimes, the undercurrent of attraction leads not to infatuation and friendship but is itself a direct catalyst for more intense hostility and avoidance, because of how radically threatening it is. That is going to lead to an entirely different sort of pre-slash situation than the one your model presupposes. And I think that even many "fists and cocks" slashers tend to domesticate, to romanticize, to underestimate the resulting tension. The tension is treated as an obstacle or barrier, but one which is "obviously" made to be overcome, and the characters will be happier once that happens.

But there's a tougher case where the tension really is problematic, where the attraction really is disruptive and a threat, and there's no assurance at all that going along with it is a sensible decision. Rejecting the temptation may be so fundamental to a character's identity that it's almost inconceivable for them to give in -- and hard to imagine what would happen if they did. Yet, the temptation is still there, and has to be reckoned with in any analysis of the character. Getting from that case to slash is a whole other project.

[continued . . . ]

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

but I think that at least as often, guys experience homoerotic feelings in a radically conflicted way, as unruly, threatening, destablizing.
Ahh, now I'm all inspired! I mean, of course, I write H/D, I don't tend to actually write friendslash (though I read lots of it). I'm all about the negative-type destabilizing tension-- even (especially?) in het romance. Just recently I was ranting about the relationship between the guy in Hana Yori Dango, who was an asshole (insensitive, violent, selfish, dense, can't relate normally to others, blahblah) and how the girl should just dump him and/or they should drift apart because that sort of thing will 'never work' and there are too many obstacles. And I always HATED that way of thinking because I think there are many more uses for romance than just the 'happily-ever-after' stability, marriage & babiez, in gay or straight relationships.

However, this stand is slightly dishonest on my part because it's actually an excuse and while I really enjoy the destabilizing 'dark' side of desire, I really want -that- to turn into something positive and that's actually what I'm most obsessed with. I think that's a uniquely girlish/female pov, because damn but so many shoujo (girls') comics in Japan revolve around this dark/brooding/insensitive asshole who wants/demands attention from the girl (who's pure/innocent/strong) and she -should- resist him & maybe even tries but eventually succumbs. And the point is that in the end she changes him & the nature of their interaction & they wind up with a 'normal' relationship, possibly a dependent one. The point is, I-- and many girls, slashers or not-- certainly know/understand the power of 'dark' desire and this whole destabilizing force aspect. We often feed on it and try to tame it-- which I think most men hate (or think they hate, muwahahahah etc).

Anyway...
Rejecting the temptation may be so fundamental to a character's identity that it's almost inconceivable for them to give in -- and hard to imagine what would happen if they did. Yet, the temptation is still there, and has to be reckoned with in any analysis of the character.
This is also true, and it's something a lot of slashers/romance writers reject and avoid as a rule (and uh, I'm also guilty). And yet it really pings me pretty hard because this heightened challenge just makes me want to fight harder and harder, till I'm in a virtual frenzy (and this is the root of why I'm so bitter about most/all H/D writers, 'cause who really deals with this in a positive manner and not nihilistically?? But I want them to, argh! And so on.)

In other words, perhaps H/D seems tailor-made for guilty encounters in closets and escalated tension and denial, and yet that sort of 'realism' will never be enough for me as a reader, will always feel incomplete. Realism be damned in this case. I dunno, I feel guilty as hell for saying it and also guilty 'cause I'm often 'justifying'(?) assholish behavior patterns with this and saying the emotional abuse should continue, but I can't help it.

Basically, yeah-- you're right, I was missing the other type of attraction, and this is odd since I tend to write about it the most. I think, though, it does require certain 'goggles' as I said (like you mentioned about having the pre-existing conception of what boys are like). In other words, it may be there, but if you're claiming authorial intent, then you're in hot water again, y'know? But I definitely think if you're -not-, then you can easily get away with saying this could fit within canon (or not). Most people don't see it unless they're (tinhat) shippers, whereas even non-shippers would see the 'normal' sort of subtext.

I love that bit about resisting the temptation being fundamental. So true! Man, I try to tell people this about Harry & they don't believe me! Why! Argh~:)

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

[. . . continued]

So with that distinction in mind, we come back to our differing takes on "canon authorization" for H/D. I completely agree with you that there is nothing in canon that suggests a positive infatuation or schoolboy fascination between Harry and Draco. On the other hand, I do see an involuntary erotic charge to the relationship that adds to the hostility and tension, and I do see (and here I expect we differ) explicit textual suggestions for this. There is no suggestion in canon that their relationship can or should lead to romance; but there is an erotic element that is potentially interesting to the slasher.

Basically, I think that at some level, in HBP at least, Harry feels an attraction to Draco that is deeply disturbing to him and that intensifies their conflict. Again, this attraction is not portrayed in any way that would meet your test, because it doesn't lead to a positive fascination or interest; it is not even something that Harry overtly allows himself to recognize. But I think there are pointers in the text that suggest that it is a factor in the intensity of Harry's hostility to Draco. And they're very discreet, and yes, recognizing them depends on having a prior theory about how these issues work between guys, but I don't think they're any less real, or that they're purely subjective, on that account.

I've cited some of these markers in prior discussions: the robe shop scene in HBP (which really does take on some interesting implications if you apply the "if it were a girl" test), the way seeing Draco in sexualized situations drives Harry up the wall, the peculiar tone of Harry's obsessive curiosity about what Draco is doing in secret. We can hash through this in more detail if you have the patience for it. :)

My overall take on canon!Harry is not by any means that he's overtly sexually interested in Draco. It's that in the early books, he's found that Draco gets under his skin, pushes his buttons, for many reasons, and he's fought to resist that emotional vulnerability. After OOTP, I thought he had succeeded. But in HBP he seems to be falling back into the trap, and my hypothesis is that he's feeling a sudden, barely conscious, and most unwelcome attraction that's really messing with his laboriously constructed defenses. I think those sorts of involuntary attractions happen all the time and aren't remarkable, and don't necessarily lead to anything. But if it's there, it's one basis for a slashy appropriation of the characters.

Really, the fun of slashing a case like this is that it poses the question, "What would happen if this character decided that his feelings were a good thing rather than a threat? Would it work? Would the whole tenor of the relationship change?" But the charge from doing this depends on the validity of the assumption that there's some negative and unwelcome sexual tension there to begin with. It's a very different case from the sort of overt and pleasant infatuation where your criteria would "authorize" slash, but I think it's still a valid one.

So again, I think that in theory there are more potential kinds of slashability than your model admits. You can slash relationships that show clear positive infatuations, and do it relatively unproblematically. Applying this to H/D is a bit of a reach, but one that you can still have fun with as long as you don't call it canon-based. Or you can slash situations where there seem to be unwelcome and disruptive and disturbing (to the characters) homoerotic undercurrents, which is where I would place the most canon-legitimate sort of H/D. Or, finally, you can slash situations without regard to whether there's any tension at all, which is what I would call "playing with H/D dolls" -- and a lot of the weakest kind of fluff falls into that category.

I think either of the first two cases can be called "canon-authorized." But that label is possibly less important than laying out precisely what justification is being used for slashing a pair of characters.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

My overall take on canon!Harry is not by any means that he's overtly sexually interested in Draco.
Well, see, that's really what I'm talking about when I say I hate it when people say H/D is 'canon'-- I assume that's what they're saying (and I think sometimes they are! I don't know!!) and that drives me up the wall. I really want to bite something with how stupid I find any such suggestion. However, I don't have any violent impulses towards to notion that he has repressed interest which is a -factor- in his hostility rather than the overall -explanation-. This is why all those fics set in HBP where he basically stalks Draco -because- he wants him make me so pissed; it's blatantly ridiculous and makes me want to smack all H/D shippers who buy it and squeal 'omg so canon!!1' upside the head. But then, I'm not much better than Snape when it comes to what I see as stupidity & I tend to overreact... so I'm never as hardcore in any opinion as I appear.

I think Harry definitely gets 'pinged' by Draco in terms of bodily awareness, like a -charge- of sorts. This isn't something I entirely trust to be canon, since 'my' Harry is so interested in Draco, therefore I may give myself a larger margin of subjective error than necessary; I'm always v. concerned with deluding myself, y'know?

Basically, the reason I'm this sensitive is because -all- the fics I've -ever- read don't deal with this the way you describe-- in a realistic fashion. So I've become very bitter and resentful of even coming close to seeing slash in canon. Basically, even the most IC H/D longfics I can think of-- say, Amalin's Transformation & Eclipse, both have Harry 'interested' in Draco from the start in an unrealistic fashion, even if they think it's subtle. It's really never subtle -enough-. It's never slow-developing-of-awareness/painful/halting -enough-.

With Transformation, Harry suddenly gets hot and bothered the summer after 5th year while watching Draco dance with Pansy in a club, and pretends Tonks (who he's dancing with) is Draco, or something like that. That just really despirited me from reading further in a 'canon-extrapolative' fic. A few days later he has a wet dream about Draco (that he remembers). In Eclipse, it's much slower, but even there at first meeting, Harry's hands tingle like there's 'an electric jolt' when he touches Draco's hand while being tricked with a portkey. Immediately I was like 'this isn't happening'. Not because I refuse to believe in H/D but because it's so easy & immediate, not an undercurrent but a very real current, easily meeting the 'test' where it didn't before (and this is like, a month after canon). So I balk and become a canon-nazi :> Such is my lonely fate, ahahahah.

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Do I have fragile surface charm? *interested* And underneath I am black and rotten and evil! I am the Lucius Malfoy of fandom!

I am all happy because I came back here to follow the fascinating discussion and I found people talking about me! Me! Fascinating me! And not just any people, but some of my favourite thinkers, black_dog and my reena! This fragile surface charm is really paying off, yo.

I do love subtext. And text. And surprising happiness and also failure. Possibly the reason I can't stick to slash in my head is because I love everything too much. (And building my own tension and unravelling canon tension.) Perhaps the reason that other people can more fully achieve the vibe of 'transgression' is because they are able to concentrate on the single focus slash provides. (and hurrah for them, we need them, I don't have a single focus... unless you count Draco, of course.)

Also, woman, just for this I may send you the new original. So much het. A man, a woman, a chair. It is FATE.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehehe. *facepalm* ...I'm not sure whether to be embarrassed or bemused (maybe both??) I think I meant you have remind me of UL!Draco in some ways, in that you definitely have charm on different levels-- some more sparkly and surface and some more... um, shiny and hidden & more complex. Anyway, I'm a much more simple person in comparison :> Or at least I don't have an outgoing/public persona... thing, or (am I just getting myself in deeper??) the ability to throw dust into people's eyes. It just suddenly struck me that I can see a resemblance between you & your favorite characters, original ones also :> :> Who are (thankfully) not Lucius~:))

I can't stick to slash in my head either :D It's just that you seem more likely to write slashy subtext than het subtext (THIS I WANNA SEE). Your Harry definitely has a single focus (Draco), but perhaps that's not surprising, all things considered :> Also, your one big H/D fic so far had them be friends first and made it seem natural, which is an achievement all by itself :>

AND! Anything that makes you send me original fic is of the Good! Though I will always pine for more of that one with the boar, but Maya!het is also yummy. I mean, I did read that Draco/Pansy where Draco was only mostly gay, eheheheheh :D :D :D
...though as we all know, chairs are pretty homosexual....

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

*terrified* I don't... mean to throw dust in anyone's eyes... Sometimes I feel quiet and sometimes loud and I have all different settings but it's not - intentional? I don't know! I am horribly false! I have a persona! I - I will not meta about myself on reena's lj, how horribly self-centred of me. Sorry.

I am glad if the charm is washable, though. Or durable like a tank. And of course you may both read about the chair, though it is a very heterosexual chair. It doesn't have anything against reena's homosexual chairs, really, live and let live, it's just never felt that particular urge, you know?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to say you were false! Wah! I mean, well, naturally, I don't tend to like people I don't feel are totally genuine <33333 So I definitely didn't mean any of that in a manipulative or evil way (.....), just in a multilayered way ^^;;;;; I think most people act differently in different settings quite naturally, but some people may have more of an... um, labyrinthine personality(?? does that sound positive? I mean it v. positively!!) and/or have more, um, barriers of sorts-- I know I do, totally without any falseness/manipulativeness, so there are just-- different layers, and with you it's just a natural charm is the most obvious surface thing at first impression, which doesn't make the rest less charming or ... um... real-seeming... etc.... *hides now, thankyouverymuch*

Send, send! That was totally just evil!Reena, what with the questionable chairs... all imaginary... totally imaginary...

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Oh. Okay. *sigh of relief* I suppose I do have an initial impulse to hide the fact that I'm shy and talk people into liking me. So long as I am not Fandom Lucius. ;)

*sendz!*

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Although your characters are poised on a knife-edge of happiness and misery, and of lovableness and exasperation, there is nothing fragile or surface about your charm. Indeed, it is an armor-plated charm. It is like a polished granite kitchen countertop! It is like depleted-uranium tank armor! It is durable and longlasting and scratch-resistant and washable!

And I, too, want to read about the chair.

I should not comment at 4:30 am.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...I would just like to use this space to agree that I definitely think Maya's charm is washable. And possibly durable like a tank, yes. Minty-flavored, even, but that's debatable, perhaps.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It -does- make me both curious and excited to think that men, gay or not, would respond with understanding to these sort of fantasies-- like, as if they wanted to live like that but couldn't anymore than the messy reality of m/f relationships tends to reflect Romeo & Juliet. Not that one needs to go all the way to the opposite extreme and be grim and stoic, of course :D ...And then there's the fact that slash fics aren't necessarily -happy- or fulfilled, just... more emotionally honest..? Maybe that's just what we hope.

[d-copper.livejournal.com]

Nicely done ^_^. I love your explanation of why H/D is so fascinating because it expands upon my gut reactio to H/D slash, namely slash+UST = OTP.

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

UET is so what everybody wants for dinner. Not because of any sexual transgression - I couldn't care less whether they're a same-sex couple or not - but because...

Hm. Let me see. Well, let's just say that Harry/Draco only really superseded Draco/Hermione in my ships with HBP. Because now both of them obviously have strong feelings for each other. They have a fixed interest in each other. And it seems possible and yet so terribly wrong that this intense interest could become positive. Because it would change everything! Or maybe not.

My incoherence will be here all day. Try the veal.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehehe, in an odd way I do believe your affections are more canon-based than mine :D Like, I like -slash-, yeah, not so much for the sake of slash itself or the sex or anything but just in theory, I like m/m relationships, not so much sexual as just-- uh-- intense? Also, as I believe I've told you, you're (commendably) quite a lot more focused on the healthiness of relationships and all that balance/stability/compatibility... type positive stuff. Er. I just want a good game half the time, and the other half I want eternal love and cookies. I really can't decide :D But yeah, most of the time I'm less with the positive outlook and more with the uh, angst, longing and heavy petting bonding :> Not that I -want- anyone to die in the end or anything, I mean, I actually tend to hate deathfics, but I just... dwell too much on the build-up & conflict stuff and less so on the resolution and happy bunnies and all that stuff.

...I really would think much more of D/Hr if I had any sense for Hermione at all. Like... at all.


It would probably also help if I wasn't so unable to have conflicting ships most of the time, ahahaha.

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Well, I am a big fan of the angst and longing and heavy petting myself, y'know. It's - hmm... I don't know, I suppose people rubbing each other up the wrong way is even more important to me than them rubbing each other up the right way.
If you know what I'm sayin', and I think you do.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

But of course, ma cherie! <3
...You know it ain't no fun when people rub each other the right way to start with.

Er... in fics. In real life, esp. with friends, it's... nice not to be annoyed all the time, that's what I've found through my, er, exhaustive studies... yes....
Although it's nice if somehow they could do both at the same time, 'cause you know Mr Wrong and Mr Right were just so MFEO, ehehe.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Okay, I honestly can't think of stuff to add but I wanted to say this is good and yes and right. Um, yeah. What you said. Go you!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hee! I feel like I got Sister M's patented gold star of approval, yaye! :D


...I also wanted to say that I sort of have a crush on Darwin too now, what with your post. Maybe now he can mudwrestle with Einstein and Asimov for the highly contested #1 Hot Dead Scientist Guy position :>