[faux-nonfiction = fiction = truth? lies? videotape?]

[reenka]

Reading through these links about the 'real identity' of a bad-slashfic-cliche-type 'queer' writer, JT LeRoy, I ask myself questions about what's an 'authentic voice' (and how does it relate to saying 'genuine' things) and what's 'metaphorical truth' and what's a 'useful conversation about gender & identity'.
    I cannot decide on any answers; I just know what makes me uncomfortable, and I also know that people who use a 'changing identity' to run away from consistency and openness most likely have something wrong with them, something that's not working. In my experience, either people are who they are or they're fucked up, basically. Not that I don't like fucked up, because I do, but I also like to call things by name, and that's what the name is when you compulsively lie about yourself, no matter what the justification, whether or not you believe the lie or someone else does.

As a writer, I'm fully aware what I write about are metaphorical truths mixed in with lies mixed in with self-invention. When I was younger especially, what I wrote was almost entirely self-invention, stories about myself-but-not-myself. I think in many ways, though, all good fiction is 'real' even if it's not true, so it's disingenuous to talk about 'giving people a voice' through faux-nonfictional fiction. In a way, that's kind of insulting to fiction.

Bottom line, if people 'need a voice' enough, as per this interview with The Guardian, they -make- it. You don't need to give it to them, because they have it, and all they ever need to do is use it. Having a hard life or having an easy life isn't as important as the sheer innate -will- to know ourselves, to prove ourselves, that's pretty inborn. So I feel pretty annoyed whenever people try to play it like their inner voices are being stifled by -outer- voices (of like, society) to the point where they'd need help to just, uh, exist. Because like, do you really exist if you don't have an inner voice? And doesn't a strong inner voice = a strong outer voice?

Besides that, you don't need to be heard to have a voice, and especially not heard by the greatest and the biggest number of people; that's different, that's feeding your ego and creating a social bond, but it's not giving you an identity. People who are -extraverted- naturally want to 'be heard' and associate that with the nature of existence, but that's their personality biases talking. I would exist just great with no one to hear me too, because I hear myself-- I exist and don't need to prove anything to anyone. So on -those- kind of meta grounds, Laura/JT LeRoy or whoever piss me off.

There keeps being that quote from JT's book, Sarah, in these articles:
    She slowly rolled her head to me, flopped an arm over the back of my neck, and pulled me closer as if she were pulling in won poker chips. 'Everybody needs someone to know who they really are,' she laughed, and guided my head down to lie next to hers.
    I do think this relates to our need to be loved, and loved by someone who knows us truly-- but even so, I still believe that the task of knowing the entire truth of oneself can only be left to oneself alone, and if this cannot be accomplished, that's when the lies are no longer metaphorical.

And I guess it's also important for me to say that in my mind, identity is never 'irrelevant', though when we're talking about fiction, the -author's- identity isn't the point, in any case-- the character's is. Unless you like the author; in that case it's helpful to know for tracking purposes.
~~

EDIT - OMG, this is the most hilarious (and spot-on) Draco comic I've seen in ages!! HEEE! I can totally see Draco eyeing both Harry & Marcus & Krum, for sure, and Ginny singing the 'gay' song. Hell, if I were Ginny, -I'd- sing the gay song to Draco, oh yes I would ♥♥♥
    Also, holy snickers, Batman, this pic by kasche (Lady Belial at DeviantArt, the one who drew my favorite James) has got to be the hottest S/R fanart I've seen in yonks. YONKS. (And also, these bunch of Marauder 'polaroids' are way hot too.)

Comments

[scoradh.livejournal.com]

I have actually had that experience -- in boarding school, we used to go wandering o'nights and have the deepest, most philosophical half-asleep dicussions about boys and why they sucked. However, I'm more ... proud? ... of how I act when I'm as close to charming and witty as I get, even if it was a massive effort to be that, and I knew it was.

I'm not a hypocrite, but I don't think people really want to hear everything I could say about them -- so I don't. It's wierd, because I am cripplingly shy really, but I don't think anyone realises that. They think I am mad, and loud, and sometimes amusing. Probably annoying, really.

I guess I just have a problem with generic, [fill in name here] declarations of love. I'd hate it if someone loved me because I was wonderful and amazing etc., because I'm not.

By the way, you can tell me to shut up any time.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think ever since I was little (or like, 12-13 anyway), I had this fantasy of getting boys especially to open up to me to the point of crying. They wouldn't be crying on my -shoulder-, precisely, but I would see them crying, and there'd be this moment of sheer nakedness (on their part) which would be willing because they would allow me this, they would trust me. Funny, now, in retrospect, that it was never that I wanted anyone to see -me- emotionally naked, and in fact the very idea makes me highly uncomfortable (not that I hide things so much as am not demonstrative by nature, being shy, etcetc). So I can definitely understand both the desire to be cool (and funny and charming-- I certainly try to be, though, well, tend to find human company itself more tiring than any wit I may have to summon) and the desire to see 'through' people to their naked wiggling bellies, uncool as they are. Perhaps I now sound sadistic, but you should understand I mean well~:))

Anyway, 'tis true 'real' is like, by definition uncool or impressive to most people, but at the same time the cooler and wittier and prettier someone is, the more I personally wanna see them lose all that-- not in a crying jag or anything, but just, y'know, prurient curiosity as to how they'd be without all the glitter. I think knowing the 'on' face and the 'off' face is what makes one feel close and trusted as a friend, anyway. One can love both in someone else quite easily, though loving one's own 'off' face is a bit of an... um... task. Yeah.

'Tis true people prolly don't wanna hear 'everything', but when others say that, I get all curious and paranoid, because my own mind doesn't work like that (and it's hard for people I like to offend me with anything I can see as 'the truth' if it doesn't mean I'm actually disliked). I like a lot of people for the faults, anyway, and am proud of a number of my own faults-- though it's true most people are self-deluded (as well as other-deluded, most definitely). :> I tend to like The Truth, though, either way. Makes me feel Special :>

'Generic' anything, but especially love, is offensive 'cause it's basically a lie. Like, 'the truth' may be ugly or just not pretty or like, vaguely offensive, but if you can't love it for what it is, then you may as well fold, right? That's why I'm so hardcore about characters being flawed and not white-washed or idealized, too-- like, if Harry likes a perfect gorgeous Draco or vice versa, the whole point is moot. Actually, I don't like too-pretty too-witty people, but that's just me.

Me, I'm just happy -anyone- talks to me to start with, and well, I like talking to you more than some :>

[scoradh.livejournal.com]

It's really quite scary, the way you pinpoint things I think as well! I don't exactly want to provoke someone into opening up like that -- as in losing their temper with me -- but it would be amazing to think that someone could do that in front of you. And terrifying. In the end that's what it's all about.

I can't imagine trusting any boy enough to, I don't know, let go off all the things 'boys hate' that I've picked up over the years. It astounds me, the way girls I know take their boyfriends for granted, PMSing over them, expecting to be bought stuff, paid for on dates, be told how wonderful and pretty they are etc etc. Just because someone loves you doesn't mean they subjugate themselves unto you.

Case in point: lecture conversation about that film Just Like Heaven. Shane said you'd never go to see that with a boy. Melissa and I refused to believe he spoke for all mankind and asked Warren. Melissa's take on it was that if the He really liked the She, he'd go with her. Just because of that. My take was a leetle different: If She promised to do some depraved things involving radiators and handcuffs afterwards, would He go?

Warrens said he would if he liked her, but that was only to get in to good books of general girlkind (I reckon).

I think it is rare to be so interested in other people. I remind myself a lot that I can't take if for granted that people care what I say, think or feel -- that's why I try my hardest to be amusing, so that at least they get something out of the process. I don't feel, aside from that, that I have anything to offer than can't be bested by half a dozen others (who are all better coiffed and eyeshadowed than me).

Oh, if I'm friends with someone I won't let myself be irritated by their faults. I can see them, sure, but I forgive them for it because they like me.

Up to a point.

I KNOW, SAME HERE. My way of doing that is to give them the odd spot or something, to at least show they're human for starters and not the 'harlequin foetus' (what happens when you fall on porcelain skin ...?). I do try to show that it's something about the people that attracts them, the package of something attractive physically + personality traits that does it. In the end, it's not really explicable, is it? Because it was he, because it was I. <-- Love that.

♥

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heh, I'm probably guilty of taking people I trust for granted, but that's because I trust them. Um. It makes sense at the time! Like, of course you couldn't count on 'people' in general, but if those people are really your friends, of course they care. I myself have a hard time really believing my friends are actually-- my friends, and care what I think/feel/etc, but then I get reminded they -are-, and it's like the best feeling in the world. And then I get all mushy and send them late Christmas cards :> I always thought the things that people valued in others (uh, looks and aggressiveness and degree of 'glitter' like clothes & make-up & accessories) were just lost on me, also. I do dismiss people a lot, I guess, so anyone who really does best you (or me) through hair-styling isn't worth worrying about. Though I guess those people would say I'm 'just jelluz' -.-

Like, in my experience, people are interesting for their personalities, y'know? Intelligence counts a lot, and cuteness also, but I've known too many empty-headed cute people and too many horrid, nails-across-a-blackboard smart people, so fie, I say. Possibly all this is because I just don't -want- to worry about impressing people and all that, even though I should if I want to 'get ahead' in life... butbutbut WAH PEOPLE ARE SO BORING WHY :( :( It's probably just too difficult for me to feel bested by most people 'cause I'd immediately dismiss any apparent superiority if I didn't feel it was bone-deep, genuine excellence as a human being or something. Uh. And how often does -that- happen? :>

It -is- pretty terrifying, the idea that someone would really be open with -me- to that abrupt and intense of a degree-- which is why I'm much more of a voyeur and read/write books instead, ahahaha. I'm not sure if this makes me a hypocrite or rather repressed myself :X

You do realize this whole 'boys are like' generalization stuff only applies to -most-, and therefore most -uninteresting- boys, right? :)) I've known a lot of geeks in my day, what can I say :> It's okay not to like chick flicks, of course, but if they're intelligent they should be able to appreciate any good movie (this is coming from someone who -frequently- inflicts slash-talk on her best male friend, and has gotten him to the point of speculating on the possible gayness of male mannequins). The whole 'men are from Mars, women are from Venus' thing has -some- validity 'cause the sexes do have differences, but like, um, communication can bridge those differences if you apply some actual intelligence, etc :>

Y'know, I don't think I've ever written a 'convincing' romance where I really showed why two people fell in love. Huh. Except maybe twice, once in an unpublished H/D novella-- so it might be my infatuation with all my unpublished writing talking-- and once in my long Ginny/Pansy fic. The trick is sort of to create a chemistry between the characters, methinks-- like, you don't need to explain why, but show how (with banter, omgsmex, sexual innuendo, etcetc). I think when writers try to show 'key traits' one way or the other, they've already failed, because it's not about traits but about people's reactions to them :>