[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]

*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~:)