That's it for me

[dolorosa_12]

I tend not to rant very much about things that make me angry on the internet, especially fandom-related. What's the point, really? But you'd think, with all the fandom fail around (fandom's attitude to what is and isn't rape makes me so angry I start hyperventilating; the endemic racism; the fact that Glee is lauded for its 'diversity' by allowing characters of colour, differently-abled and non-heterosexual characters to dance around in the background and sing back-up songs) that I'd find something that would provoke my wordy ire.

But no, it was Star Wars slash that inspired this post.

karenmiller is an Australian fantasy writer who also writes tie-in novels for Star Wars. She had this to say about people reading gay subtext into her novels.

My response, which I also wrote in comments to her blog, is here.

I haven't read your Star Wars novels. I have seen the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy, but there my engagement with Star Wars ends. I am also not a fanfiction writer, and I only read it occasionally. My fannish participation consists of reading/watching/listening to canonical material, discussing it with other fans, reading and writing reviews and commentary, and reading the blogs of its writers (like your own blog). I come to your blog mainly for the discussions of issues related to publishing and writing. I say this not because I believe that my way of being a fan is better than the fanfic-writing or -reading way - it's not, it's just a way that suits me - but because I don't want there to be any misunderstanding about the reason why I am saying what I'm about to say.

I must say that I respectfully disagree with you.

Firstly, you are using a self-serving, inaccurate definition of slash fiction. You write that slash fiction is 'the reconstructing of canon characters so that straight male characters are involved sexually and/or romantically. I don't see it as a valid interpretation of the text, I see it as an imposition of an external agenda.'. But slash fiction simply means a story where the pairing(s) or relationship(s) within it are same-sex. That is, when Ron Cowen (one of the writers for US Queer As Folk), for example, writes an episode about the canonically gay Brian and Justin, he is writing slash fiction. (True, the term is normally associated only with fanfiction, but it can be applied by extension to original fiction as it simply means writing about a same-sex relationship.)

Secondly, how far do you extend your belief in authorial control? I must say I disagree with your assertion that 'You won't catch me saying it's okay for the reader to over-rule the author as to their intent or their meaning or their position on anything to do with the story. [...] I know there's a school of thought out there that says there is no definitive truth, that no story is objectively true, that everything is open to subjective interpretation. I do not subscribe to that philosophy.'

A writer writes a story with certain intentions, but once the story is out of the author's hands, he or she has no control over how readers interpret it. Readers will bring their own individual beliefs and experiences into their interpretations, making their reaction to the book quite personal. A couple of examples will serve to suffice.

George Orwell's book Animal Farm is often viewed by those with more right-wing political beliefs as being an allegorical condemnation of communism in all forms. Left-wingers, on the other hand, interpret it as Orwell's disillusionment with Soviet communism, not a loss of faith in communism itself. Orwell may have intended one interpretation more than the other, but that didn't stop his readers bringing their own beliefs into their reading and coming up with two very different interpretations of what his book was about.

Here's another example: Sarah Rees Brennan's (main female) character Mae in her The Demon's Lexicon series. A lot of readers disliked Mae, saying she was 'a Mary Sue', 'too perfect' and so on. A lot of readers loved Mae, saying she was a powerful, resourceful teenage girl. The funny thing was, supporters of both viewpoints were using the same events in Rees Brennan's book to support their arguments. That is, they read the same source material and drew startlingly different conclusions. Rees Brennan responded to the debate herself.

The final (and most important) problem I had with your argument is that you seem to be saying that straight is the default sexual preference, that characters are straight until proven otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong (I have only seen the six films, after all) but in the case of Obi-Wan, he has no romantic or sexual relationships within canon, heterosexual or otherwise. Assuming, therefore, that he is straight is incredibly heteronormative and actually quite offensive.

It is for this reason that I am no longer going to be following your blog. As an author, you have the right to write whatever you want, but you do not have the right to dictate how your readers interpret it. I appreciate that you're responding more to people who are ascribing interpretations to your texts that you did not intend, NOT telling readers how to interpret your texts, but in the course of doing so, you expressed some beliefs with which I am profoundly uncomfortable.

So, in conclusion, it is with great glee and fervour that I ask all Star Wars ficcers on my flist to write multiple fics where Anakin and Obi-Wan are, to quote Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett, 'gayer than a treeful of monkeys on nitrous oxide'.

EDITED TO ADD: And, she's deleted and disabled all comments on that post. So it's all right to criticise fans from on high, but criticism of her is not allowed. Sick to death of oversensitive authors. You said something homophobic, and you were called on it. Deal with it like an adult.

GAY SON OF EDIT: I unfortunately didn't manage to copy-paste/get screencaps of her responses to most of the comments, but I did copy a few of the most cringe-worthy into my Twitter if anyone wants to see her put her foot in her mouth some more.

GAY SON OF EDIT'S BOYFRIEND:
And now, she's responded by adding a note to her welcome post:
'But here's an important note: on occasion I will express a personal opinion. It may very well be an opinion with which you don't agree. I'm fine with that. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, nor do I expect anyone to alter a viewpoint to rub along comfortably with mine. But here's what I won't accept -- name-calling, vilification, aggression, hostility or any kind of trollish behaviour simply because you don't agree with me.'

Not really sure anything I said was name-calling or vilification (I said her views were heteronormative and offensive, and I said several times that I disagreed with her). Hostile, no. Stridently disagreeing, yes.

I really need to let this go.

ADOPTED CHILD OF GAY SON OF EDIT
I should add that she appears to have unscreened comments on the original post. I suspect I'm the one she views as not carrying on the discussion in a respectful manner, and I'm sorry she feels that way. But I'm grateful that the comments have been restored, as people have been telling me all day how upset they were that their discussion was hidden.

I should also add that since late last night, she's been discussing her post with many commenters and defending her position. When I went to bed, there were about 100 comments scattered across two posts, and Miller was replying to every single one. While I'm still not entirely happy with every single thing she's said, and I don't think she's adequately explained any of the more cringe-worthy comments she made (including the idea that she views people as default heterosexual - saying 'I don't really think about the sexuality of characters') but I do think that since she unfroze comments on the original post, she's been much better at realising that yes, there may have been some things she could've expressed better.

Thanks to all of you for continuing the discussion here until we were able to go back to her blog. I'm going to be doing one follow-up post some time later today, and then I think it will be time to retire my ranting on this particular matter.

Comments

This is my Obi-Wan Is Gay icon

[cyanglow]

Thank you for saving your text and reposting it here! I wish I'd saved mine, although I'm not very articulate. You're right that she reacted very immaturely, and I feel sad on behalf of my friends who enjoy her books. Especially those friends of mine who took the time to sincerely converse with her in depth on the issues, only for her to wipe it all out like it was nothing. I don't like stereotyping of any sort, even that which can be applied to writers. But this chick just pulled an Anne Rice, and she doesn't even have a fraction of the fanbase.

Re: This is my Obi-Wan Is Gay icon

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your comment! I feel terrible for fans of her books, and fans of SW in general (gay, bi, straight, asexual and everything in between) that they have to put up with comments like that from her.

If she had kept the post comments-disabled from the beginning, I would've respected that. But for her to carry out a serious discussion with sincere fans of the SW universe and then to, as you say, wipe out the discussion as soon as she felt herself losing control of it, is beyond pathetic.

I refuse to be a sycophant to a writer just because s/he doesn't have the courage to defend his/her beliefs.

Re: This is my Obi-Wan Is Gay icon

[cyanglow]

Just FYI, I've added you to my flist. I don't expect a return add, but felt it polite to let you know, since I think you're an interesting and intelligent person. :)

Re: This is my Obi-Wan Is Gay icon

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Oh, thanks for the add (and thanks for the compliment)! I like it when people let me know they're adding me, so I appreciate you letting me know, and I will certainly add you back!

[soapyhermit.livejournal.com]

Heh, good point about Obi-Wan not actually appearing to have any canonical "sexuality". He could be anything. If you think he's gay, then what in the text proves (or in the film, which is hte only reference point I have) otherwise?

Bloody heteronormity.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It was when karenmiller responded to a comment (since deleted) saying 'if you don't know the sexuality of characters, what do you assume it is?' with, essentially, 'Well, I'm straight, so I assume everyone else is, lol' that I pretty much lost it. How can she say such things and not realise what it looks like?

[citizenjess.livejournal.com]

I thought this was interesting. I tried not to play the "fandom street cred" card, and hedged around the "But what does gay/straight/bi/whatever even mean in the GFFA?" argument, but that's not to say the latter, especially, isn't a completely valid point worthy of discussion. Mostly, I'm disappointed that the OP proved herself to be 'just another oversensitive author'. I had higher expectations, I guess.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was very disappointed that she closed comments when the commenters started to disagree with her too emphatically. 'What? I'm not being validated? Oh no!!!!!'

Your point is a very good one, though, although I seem to remember her not exactly understanding what you were trying to ask (I read all the comments before she deleted them).

[citizenjess.livejournal.com]

Yeah, she seemed to misunderstand, get vaguely butthurt, or peter off into tangential discussion points a lot. Again, disappointing; also, I strongly dislike people apologizing for other people disagreeing with her. I digress though, because I'm already seeing points made badly in her follow-up post comments thread, and am trying to ignore it. Ugh.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking of writing a follow-up to her follow-up. To be honest, the thing that enrages me the most now is her assertion that she 'takes what authors say at face value'. I'm a literature PhD student and have been a book-reviewer for seven years, and the notion that one should take authors at face-value causes me to writhe in pain.

[citizenjess.livejournal.com]

Ha, I kind of pointed that out to a friend: It's like, she gets paid to expand on the movies'/other George-level canon's face value in book form. I don't see the justification as anything other than trying to explain away what was, and still is, legitimately a homophobic response. She's just kind of digging herself deeper with every reply, unfortunately.

[angelofboox.livejournal.com]

I didn't read the link and/or majority of your post; this is just regarding your Glee comment. Lauding Glee for its diversity might be somewhat incorrect, but the nature of Glee is that its intention is to have the coloured people/differently-abled/non-hetero characters in the background and sing back-up songs - if anything it's merely to exaggerate the propensity of the majority of American tv shows to do this* - but it's using it as a vehicle for comedy (and potentially criticism) by making a mockery of the fact. This was highlighted in the episode when Sue called them up with horrendously obscene nicknames; they're all aware of their status as minorities, but just as they've stereotyped cheerleaders and football players they can stereotype other things without an intent to be offensive. Why should they stereotype one but not the other?**


*The reasons behind other American shows featuring few of the afore-mentioned can be many and varied, and should not always be automatically attributed to discrimination and/or some sort of white-supremacy on the part of the production and/or viewers. People who think it's always this are probably white and trying too hard to not discriminate, or just mildly ignorant of the industry. For example, (personal experience example, I guess, because I know it would be the most accurate) you won't find many asian [in the British sense, Asian subcontinent] people in American film and television, in part because Asian diaspora discourage their children from becoming actors or take up jobs in arts-related fields).

**Sorry for rambling and non-sense making.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

The majority of my post was about authorial intention versus audience interpretation, so I feel that I can answer your comments about Glee by replying that what you say may have been the show's creators' intent, but it is not how I interpret it. Why do the 'stereotypical' cheerleaders and football players have to be the focus, if the show is about equal-opportunity stereotyping? Why are the 'minority' characters only the focus in episodes that deal with their 'minorityness' (Kurt's coming-out episode, the episode where all the characters had to ride around in wheelchairs etc)?

Your first footnote, I accept in part (and I defer in particular to your experience regarding Asian people working in the arts). However, just as I don't think it's always all some big white supremacist conspiracy, nor do I think that it's always entirely innocent reasons that 'mainstream' entertainment is so white. I'd point you in the direction of Justine Larbalestier's post (http://justinelarbalestier.com/blog/2009/07/23/aint-that-a-shame/) dealing with the debate over the cover of her book Liar (and more generally with the idea that 'black books don't sell'), but I know you never click on any of my links. Oh well...

[cereswunderkind.livejournal.com]

And, of course, there's the great big Ged scandal.

Trust the author? Hah!

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, if we take Le Guin into account, it's obvious that this problem is a very old one.

[sophiamcdougall.livejournal.com]

Well, look at that. *stares in bafflement*

This would be stupid and offensive anyway, of course, but it does seem particularly ridiculous when this isn't even a universe or a set of characters she created. What else is she doing but building on the possibilities another writer's work implies? If it's okay to write a character, say, going to a planet they never go to in canon, why is it so awful to have that character making out with someone of their own gender when they never do that in canon?

'You won't catch me saying it's okay for the reader to over-rule the author as to their intent or their meaning or their position on anything to do with the story. [...] I know there's a school of thought out there that says there is no definitive truth, that no story is objectively true, that everything is open to subjective interpretation. I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

This is not only silly, I don't even get how it's relevant. I do understand authors feeling somewhat conflicted about the Death of the Author theory. (Sometimes you don't want to "die"!) But unless slashers are actually hacking your computer and inserting lots and lots of gayness right into your word files and buying or stealing all available copies and burning the pages with heterosexual love-scenes on them and laughing and dancing round the flames... how are you getting 'overruled?'. Okay, fine, so your characters are completely straight (or sexless, or whatever). What harm does it possibly do you, or your them, if someone wants to muse about what might happen if they weren't? Your book is still right there!

And if we're talking about a character whose sexuality is never defined in canon in the first place... then the whole thing's even sillier.

(Personally, I cannot imagine any of the Star Wars characters having any kind of sex whatsoever. Including the ones who conceive babies right there on screen.)

[sophiamcdougall.livejournal.com]

Hee! Well, I was going to say "get pregnant" but I hate it when a couple is referred to as pregnant, so, yeah. Let's try again: I cannot see any of the characters, even the couple who do a lot of kissing and who are seen in bed together and one of whom is pregnant by the other - as ever having had sex, with each other or anyone else. How's that?

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it exists somewhere, in some fanficcer's (twisted, gay-subtext-reading) brain.

[sophiamcdougall.livejournal.com]

No, it would have been unutterably traumatic. *shudders*

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

I imagine that she views the tie-in novels as canonical, too, or at least subscribing to canon (which is really the crux of her whole post).

In any case, THANK YOU for your comment. I thought that my response might be too affected by my identity as a literature student and reviewer and reader and perhaps just a case of not being an author and not understanding how it feels to see people 'misinterpreting' your characters (I remember you saying something about how readers hadn't noticed that Varius was black), so it's very good to have your perspective on matters.

But unless slashers are actually hacking your computer and inserting lots and lots of gayness right into your word files and buying or stealing all available copies and burning the pages with heterosexual love-scenes on them and laughing and dancing round the flames... how are you getting 'overruled?'. Okay, fine, so your characters are completely straight (or sexless, or whatever). What harm does it possibly do you, or your them, if someone wants to muse about what might happen if they weren't? Your book is still right there!

This reminds me of something Philip Pullman was saying in an interview given around the time Northern Lights was being adapted as a film. The interviewer asked Pullman how he felt about his book 'being changed'. Pullman walked over to his bookshelf, pulled out a copy of Northern Lights and said, 'Look! That's my book. It's still here. It's unchanged.'

Personally (correct me if I'm wrong) I think if your book doesn't provoke speculation about subtext and themes and that kind of stuff (not necessarily gay subtext, but things not immediately apparent on the surface) then you've failed as a writer. What's the point of writing something if it doesn't provoke discussion or speculation? That's why her follow-up comment about how she 'always takes authors at face value' bothered me so much. Why bother to even read the book if you're just passively absorbing what's there on the page?

[sophiamcdougall.livejournal.com]

I imagine that she views the tie-in novels as canonical, too, or at least subscribing to canon (which is really the crux of her whole post).

Yes, but she can't even claim "But these are my characters, I created them and I know better than anyone who they really are and I can't bear these misinterpretations!" I mean, even if they were her characters I'd think she needed to grow up and I'd still think her reaction smacked of homophobia. But her own Star Wars work is necessarily interpretative of someone else's as it stands, so her attitude is even more ridiculous.

I've always thought Pullman's attitude was an excellent lesson on how to handle these things. On the other hand, we've all seen adaptations that are such utter travesties... I've no idea if Susan Cooper, for example, is angry about what was done to The Dark is Rising, or if she's consoled by whatever she was paid and the new audience hopefully/possibly attracted to the books. But I'd find either attitude understandable, I guess. And Le Guin's anger about the various Earthsea adaptations - there was the racefail, of course, and I remember she was also upset about the plot being changed to a standard "find the bad guy and kill him" narrative. I suppose if nothing else it must feel as if an opportunity's been missed.

As I guess I've implied, I do feel conflicted about The Death of the Author. (Literary theory was never my favourite thing anyway, and is probably the thing I miss least about my own time in academia). I think it's - well, I was going to say "a dangerous thing in the wrong hands" but actually that's too dramatic - I think it's an annoying thing in the wrong hands. I mean, sometimes people take it to the point where it's more like the Death of the Text - you know, when it doesn't matter how completely unsupported and perverse a reading is, it's STILL VALID BECAUSE I SAY SO SO THERE. And I've seen fans claiming they knew more about a given character than the character's creator and while I do think it is possible for that to happen... I didn't think it had happened in any instance I saw it, put it that way, and thought the people concerned were being silly and indeed arrogant.

However even then, I don't see the author would be much harmed by being "misinterpreted".

And the basic principle that you cannot control how people interpret your text is just self-evident. (Much less a text which is at best only very slightly yours!)

None of which even speaks to the more basic common sense question of did she really think slash was going away because she told it to? Has she met the internet?


Personally (correct me if I'm wrong) I think if your book doesn't provoke speculation about subtext and themes and that kind of stuff (not necessarily gay subtext, but things not immediately apparent on the surface) then you've failed as a writer.

It's difficult to answer this well without going into long, long ruminations on what one hopes for from the reader and what is the surface and what is subtext anyway and so on and so on. But I suppose, honestly, what I would like is for people to be utterly obsessed with what's going on in my books, on every possible level and in every possible way! However, if a reader is enjoying the book at, I suppose, a more emotional level without wishing to articulate or examine consciously what is making them feel that way, then I wouldn't feel I had failed with that reader. I want the reader to be as engaged as possible in whatever way is their way.

My reply was too long

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

However even then, I don't see the author would be much harmed by being "misinterpreted".

Precisely! This is what I spent 14 hours or so arguing about with her!

None of which even speaks to the more basic common sense question of did she really think slash was going away because she told it to? Has she met the internet?


I know!

What I would like is for people to be utterly obsessed with what's going on in my books, on every possible level and in every possible way! However, if a reader is enjoying the book at, I suppose, a more emotional level without wishing to articulate or examine consciously what is making them feel that way, then I wouldn't feel I had failed with that reader. I want the reader to be as engaged as possible in whatever way is their way.

I don't think I expressed myself very well when I was asking you about this, as your answer was really what I meant when I said 'provoke speculation about subtext and themes and stuff'. I simply meant that the book would mean something to them, that it would be more than words on a page. I suppose I expressed this idea as 'thinking about the themes/concepts of the book' because that is how I enjoy books, and is, for me, a marker of whether or not the book has meant something to me.

But, as you say, people enjoy things in different ways, and as long as the book makes them feel or think something or react in some way then I guess you've done your job.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Sorry it took me a little while to reply. I've been frantically writing a paper that I'm meant to be presenting at a conference in a week, so there has been much hanging around in libraries, and little time for Livejournalling... But you make a lot of really interesting points here, and it's fascinating to get your perspective on this.

I've always thought Pullman's attitude was an excellent lesson on how to handle these things. On the other hand, we've all seen adaptations that are such utter travesties... I've no idea if Susan Cooper, for example, is angry about what was done to The Dark is Rising, or if she's consoled by whatever she was paid and the new audience hopefully/possibly attracted to the books. But I'd find either attitude understandable, I guess. And Le Guin's anger about the various Earthsea adaptations - there was the racefail, of course, and I remember she was also upset about the plot being changed to a standard "find the bad guy and kill him" narrative. I suppose if nothing else it must feel as if an opportunity's been missed.

Who said that the adaptation of Northern Lights WASN'T a travesty (I haven't seen it)? But yeah, there's no excuse for that adaptation of The Dark Is Rising. One of the best things about the series was its Britishness, and the idea, post-Harry Potter, that American kids won't identify with non-American characters is clearly ridiculous. But I think if you allow your book to be adapted, you do open yourself up to these kinds of dreadful adaptations, and your only choice is to refuse to let it be adapted. I feel terrible for Le Guin and others, but it was the film industry they were working with, after all. But film adaptations do add another layer to the whole 'who owns a text' debate, don't they?

As I guess I've implied, I do feel conflicted about The Death of the Author. (Literary theory was never my favourite thing anyway, and is probably the thing I miss least about my own time in academia).

I used to detest it when I was an undergrad, mainly because I suspected a lot of people used it to cover their own ignorance or lack of originality. But now that I'm in a field of literature which doesn't really do theory, I find myself missing it. Not enough to want to introduce it into my field, though!

I mean, sometimes people take it to the point where it's more like the Death of the Text - you know, when it doesn't matter how completely unsupported and perverse a reading is, it's STILL VALID BECAUSE I SAY SO SO THERE. And I've seen fans claiming they knew more about a given character than the character's creator and while I do think it is possible for that to happen... I didn't think it had happened in any instance I saw it, put it that way, and thought the people concerned were being silly and indeed arrogant.

I absolutely get where you're coming from here, and I think in situations like this, it's better to leave the crazed fans to it. My principles ('everyone owns their reaction to/interpretation of' the text) mean that I have to support these people's right to believe what they want. I think as long as they don't start putting words into the author's mouth ('Hey, ~insert author's name here~ supports MY interpretation! She says so right here!') then nobody is harmed.

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

The half-book of hers I read (I was a reader of her blog for the discussion of publishing-related matters) was bland, but I heard the series got quite race-faily (http://thehathorlegacy.com/the-hammer-of-god-karen-miller/) after that.

As far as growing a skin...Yeah, absolutely.

[latte-09.livejournal.com]

I have just one screen cap. And it isn't that good.
Love your post btw!
And here is a cartoon for everyone that I scribbled today.
http://i488.photobucket.com/albums/rr244/lattelover_2008/Untitled-2.jpg


(http://s488.photobucket.com/albums/rr244/lattelover_2008/?action=view&current=Untitled-1.jpg)

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the screencap. It's a pity no one got any others, as I see she is now misrepresenting what happened on her follow-up post (ie, she's saying that people were making it impossible for the conversation to continue, whereas in actual fact what happened was that she was having several discussions with people who disagreed with her (several of whom have shown up here), I came in with my post and ten seconds later she'd deleted all comments) and screencaps would make it very obvious what she had done.

Love your cartoon, and thanks for your compliment of my post.

[cyanglow]

Heh, wow. I've been down with a migraine for the past 30 or so hours so I missed her bringing back MOST of the comments, but oddly enough, my second and third ones are not there. I guess she thinks I'm a troll then. Fair enough. Any intention I ever had of reading her books just disappeared.

But it's good to see the conversation (for the most part) is back and ongoing. :)

[dolorosa-12.livejournal.com]

I didn't realise she hadn't restored all of the comments. (I'd be really interested to know what you said, or the gist of it, in any case, if you can remember.)

I think too often on the internet, people have a kneejerk reaction of 'opinion that I disagree with, expressed in slightly too combative terms'='troll'. This is, of course, not true.

Sorry to hear about your migraine. I hope you're feeling better now.

[cyanglow]

If I remember right, I basically pointed out that George is fairly lenient about how people play in his sandbox, and that slashers didn't just pop out of the woodwork after she wrote her books: they've been around since the first Star Wars film hit the theaters in 1977. I also expressed disappointment on behalf of friends of mine who are (or were) big fans of hers, that she handled the issue the way she did. She could have made her points without such a thinly veiled homophobic angle.

Ah well. In a sea of comments, it's no skin off my back. In the end, it was her own words that needed to be seen, and they have.

Feeling better, thanks! This winter has gone on far too long.