the joys of the lit review

okay, so i know it's been quite a while since i last posted and for that i apologize. i'm going to try and post once a week or similar from now on.

some updates on my progress:

i won't be attending vividcon in chicago in august, unfortunately. i'm rather upset i won't be able to go, but dems da breaks. so instead, i've registered to go to vidukon in england, coming up in october. i've never been to europe, so i'm really excited about it. the only fun part now is convincing my uni to give me some financial support.

my ethics application has been submitted, as well - it's been about three weeks now, but i don't think the committee have met since i gave it over... fingers crossed, everyone! many of the laws regarding media appropriation and the like are extremely strict here in oz, so i'm a bit worried about what the committee will think of my proposal. i'm using some pretty strict methods to keep the identity of my participants confidential, and i hope that will do the trick for them. but you know copyright law - it can be a sticky, scary mess sometimes.

i did a scary and massive review of feminist literature in regards to film over the past month, as well. it was all rather daunting, but i managed to slog through it and i think i've finally come up with something that's relatively cogent for the vidders. i couldn't find a single theorist or group of theorists which i found to apply to the vidding community and their practices, because let's face it - it is a hugely diverse group with a thousand different perspectives.

and then i realized - that's almost like the academics, isn't it? pick up a recent feminist media/film reader, and each chapter will have a completely different way of reading the same text. for example, sherrie inness's collection entitled "action chicks" offers interpretations ranging from Herbst's view that the lara croft is simply a spectacle created for male consumption, while Brown states that these types of heroines are transgressive as they embody both male and female attributes, and Tung argues that the powerful black female is not offered the same opportunity to be progressive as the powerful white female because it invokes an ideology of savagery instead...

and these different viewpoints reminded me of those of many of the vids i have watched over the past few months. consider luminosity & sisabet's women's work to absolute destiny's i enjoy being a girl to giandujakiss's origin stories to LC's jack.... all these vids are about people watching a show and having something to say about its portrayal of women (whether commending or condeming it). and i think it's really similar to what the academics are saying. it's a struggle over the meaning of the text.

i'm not going to get too far into this (unless anyone would like me to elaborate) because i don't want to bog this post down with theory or anything, so i'll leave that thought there for now.

i have also found some interesting work on film music theory that i am really excited to apply to vidding. if different people can watch the same show and get completely different meanings out it, then we get into a bit of a pickle regarding if a text has any inherent meaning at all, and that sort of postmodern debate. so this applies to the vids as well - if a television text doesn't have an inherent, intended, clearly understood meaning, how can a vid?

i did ponder this, and one answer i came up with was this:

a television show is made by a massive cast and crew, and even different episodes are written by different people. take a show like lost or heroes - could you sit one of the creators or writers down and ask them what their show "means"? it would be a tough question to answer, i think. and the other members of the crew could give really different answers.

a vid, on the other hand, is usually made by a single person (or small group of people). and if you want to know what a vidder had in mind when they were creating, just read their notes or commentary that accompany it. should give you a pretty clear idea, no? also, there is much more contact between the vidders and their audience than there is in terms of mainstream TV texts and their viewers. if i wanted to know what a vidder thought about their vid, i could just leave a comment on their LJ or email them. but i can't just call up eric kripke and ask what was up with season three of SPN (no matter how much i wish i could, lol).

but it turns out the answer to this question (the question of how to interpret meaning in a text) was staring me in the face the whole time.

it's the music! it's in the MUSIC!

duh.

how obvious, am i right? i realized with a massive slap to the face the other day that up to this point i had been ignoring the absolutely VITAL ingredient of the music.

lightbulbs went off. i grabbed some film music theory work... and there it is! suture theory. thank you, claudia gorbman & jostein gripsurd!

while a text may have a multitude of potential meanings floating around, the music in film acts as a suture, restricting the possible interpretations down to a more limited number. suturing the text to the emotional or psychological response intended by the creator.

BOOYAH.

i'm still in the beginning stages of developing this idea, of course, but i think it's a really positive step forward for me. a framework is beginning to appear, and that makes me really, really excited.

feel free to comment, debunk, admire, or laugh at me in the comments if you think i'm way off. at this point, i'm still trapped behind a pile of dry theorists in their ivory tower, and i have to wait until my ethics approval comes down from TPTB to actually test this with some vidders. but here's hoping!

In which I rant profusely

I'm sorry, dear readers, but I have to post this here. I have to. Warning: what follows is extremely long and contains terrible language, anger... and... oh, I can't even explain it. Go ahead if you want...

(crossposted from my personal blog)

my fangirl brethren, if you don't want to start your new day seething at the mouth, then don't read this article. it's clearly written by someone who has no idea what they are talking about, and seems determined to provoke uncontrollable rage in fans everywhere.

(it's an article about fan fiction from a radical feminist blog community, fyi.)

it got my hackles up right at the very beginning, because radical feminist always engage my innate desire to kill stupid people. because everyone knows the best way to undo problems of sexism in society is to just hate men. i mean, that's not sexist at all, am i right?

*sighs*

god save us all. i've barely even started to read it, and i'm already deeply, deeply enraged. hold on, i'll continue trudging through this mofo...

here's some gold from this monstrosity:

"in fact fan culture is highly conservative, and bolsters and propagates male supremacist ideas".

i don't even need to say anything about this sentence. i refuse to acknowledge such stupidity.

"Fanfiction is a conservative and worshipful genre of writing..."

i love when people write about things they have never read. yeah. does this writer even know what "conservative" means? fanfiction is liberal and free-wheeling to the extreme, if it's anything. i don't know many conservatives who enjoy them some quality BDSM stories (at least, not publicly *wink*). because queer characters, mpregs, AUs, crack!fics, and the like are utterly NOT CONSERVATIVE in any way, shape, or form.

and i'm only up to the 3 para... prepare for more ranting and frothing to come... *goes back to reading*

"Fanfic writers pride themselves on their respect for and fidelity to their original source material, and in their writing they rarely, if ever, do anything that questions or contradicts the ideologies underwriting the original texts. As, in most cases, these original texts are steeped in patriarchal ideologies, this means that fanfiction, likewise, is strongly patriarchal and almost always woman-hating, despite the fact that women are now the main authors of fanfiction."

i think i'm still in the introduction, too. wow. if fanfic writers were steeped in patriarchal ideologies, then slash wouldn't exist. if fanfic writers don't question or contradict the original texts, then slash wouldn't exist. because i'm quite sure the creators of supernatural didn't intend for us to write filthy, dirty mansex about the two BROTHERS in that show. nor did they intend vidders to make works like "women's work" or "origin stories", which carefully and thoughtfully pick apart the source material and expose the deficiencies in characterizations and the exploitations of characters of colour and women. do some fucking research, asshat.

i can understand where she's coming from with her argument on how, in a patriarchal and male-dominated society, that men would only view friendships with other men as valuable. this is actually an interesting idea that i never considered, but this person refuses to acknowledge homophobia on the part of heterosexual men in any form, apparently. she's making it sound like all straight men do is have homosocial friendships together and then head out for some women-bashing or rape parties. i'm beginning to wonder if she lives on the moon, or some other strange planet where this is the case...

"To say they are drawing out a ‘gay subtext,’ and to attempt to attach revolutionary potential to this act is highly inaccurate, since homosocialism is one of the foundation stones of male supremacy, and fanfic authors who endorse and strengthen the homosocial relationships of male fictional characters by portraying them as homosexual are committing an act in support of patriarchy, not against it."

i can almost see the logic in this argument, almost. but again, i think that fear of appearing homosexual is an extremely important factor in machismo and most men (in this person's warped and twisted version of earth) will go out of their way to avoid appearing as such by "proving" their masculinity. slash writers remove this entire argument (except in issue fics, of course) and posit a more idealized and libertarian version of earth in which homophobia doesn't exist. which is what i had thought most feminists were aiming for - equality and acceptance. apparently, not so much.

*deep breath* back to reading. (you're getting a blow-by-blow of my reactions to this article, btw.)

"slash fanfiction is a conservative genre written by women who conform to patriarchal ways of thinking, and which is characterized by lesbophobia, homophobia, woman-hatred and severe phallocentricity, both in terms of its erotic content and intellectual ideas."

utterly, utterly wrong. clearly, this person has never heard of femmeslash, which is enjoyed by many slash readers/writers (myself included). and how is slash homophobic? anyone? this just makes the author seem like an idiot, imho. women-hatred? okay, sure female characters are usually inserted as a "threat" to the pairing in question, but slash in no way could be characterized as "women-hating" - i like to think about the lack of women in terms of removing the entire issue of gender relations and sexism straightaway, as a method for writers to create a place that's devoid of these issues (most of the time) and move straight into fantasy, play, and female pleasures. also, i don't know of any gay porn that's not phallocentric. this is again just retarded - stories about male-male sexual relations would be really fucked up if they suddenly started talking about vaginas, don't you think???

here's a long one filled with idiocy:
"Sex is generally portrayed pornographically, with an emphasis on penetration, force and pain, and the overwhelming/uncontrollable need the masculine character has for the feminine character, and the feminine character’s need to be needed by the masculine character in order to have a legitimate identity. Descriptions of sex tend to focus only on the physical side of the encounter, using an excess of violent imagery, and with characters often reduced to a collection of sexualized body parts devoid of emotions or humanity. Furthermore, the same-sex male relationships portrayed in most slash stories have a use-by date: sooner or later most of the characters ‘turn’ heterosexual and get married, it apparently being beyond the ability of most slash writers to imagine anyone actually choosing a non-heterosexual identity permanently. It is evidence of in-built lesbophobia and homophobia, since this use-by date mentality means that same sex relationships in slash are generally portrayed as being illegitimate, transient, unstable, and not able to last. Only heterosexual relationships are capable of doing that, apparently. (As evidenced in the real world by 50% divorce statistics)."

wrong, wrong, wrong. unlike most male-directed pornography, slash is much more focused on the sensual/erotic side of sex. all the theorists who write about slash take pains to point out that it has much more in common with romance novels than pornography because there is more focus on romantic issues, confessions of love, non-sexual intimacy, etc. etc. (see Bury 2005, Jenkins 1992, and a thousand others i can't remember right now). yes, there are some violent fics, but all BDSM fanfic i have ever read pertains to consenting adults. and again, the focus on emotional connection and intimacy remains. (the exception i can think of it yami or x/99, but these focus on the trauma and damage done by rape and usually lead the characters toward a properly loving and fulfilling relationship to move forward.)

also, i can't think of a single slash fic that ends with the slash pairing ending and one or both of the characters getting married in a hetero relationship. seriously, not one. this statement of the author's is just patently false. if anything, the stories usually posit long-term & seriously homosexual partnerships between the characters.

"Women’s sexual desires are never mentioned, and presumably do not exist. No hint of lesbianism is ever permitted."

wrong again. (apparently, i'm on a crusade to systematically debunk this entire article.) women's sexual desires are never mentioned because the entirety of slash fic is a tribute to women's sexual desires. AHHHH SO ANGRY. again, what do straight women find attractive sexually? male bodies. (duh.) what does slash do? depict in loving and eloquent detail the male body, from a women's perspective. focus on eyes, facial features, hair, but also on hips, backs, shoulders, etc. why? because chicks think they are hot. i certainly do. *urge to kill rising* and i already mentioned femmeslash, which apparently doesn't exist for this author.

and apparently, joss whedon is one of those authors "whose primary goal is to bolster patriarchy and male supremacy in all its ugly forms".

WHAAAATT????? the man who brought us one of the most complex, well-drawn, and kick-ass women on television? the idol for teenage girls everywhere as an emblem of girl power? (that would be buffy, of course.) and also his characters on his other works continue to be some of the greatest female characters on television - because everyone knows that zoe, inara, and kaylee on firefly are examples of male supremacy in television, right? FUCKING GOD! i mean, whedon's mother was a noted feminist who passed on all her ideals to her son, and he's won AWARDS from "equality now" for his feminist work--- see this video for his speech at the acceptance.

as for the psychology of slash, the author writes:
"There are thousands of women, all over the world, who, thanks to our wonderful friend male supremacy, cannot relate to themselves as women. They can only relate to men, because only men are considered to be fully human. So they fall in love with the heroes of film and literature, and the ‘geniuses’ who create these texts, and they fool themselves into believing that these men speak universal truths, that they are speaking to everybody and about everybody, women included, when of course they are not, they are only speaking to men in the language of male supremacy that is death and poison to women."

what about the massive communities of slashers? huge global networks that exist online with a primarily female membership, who regularly support, assist, and care for each other through the internet? see also: my previous comments about women's desire for male bodies. it would seem a bit more strange indeed if hetero women all over the world were spending their time writing about lesbian sexuality, don't you think? of course straight women will desire males! i think this author is undermining women's pleasure and desire altogether, denigrating who they choose to find pleasurable and enjoyable. wait a minute - aren't radical feminists supposed to support women's rights to choose their own sexuality? all the women i know would certainly not be pleased if they were told that what they find sexually pleasing is "no good". and in no way are slashers and fanficcers "duped" by the media - most fanfic and vids purposefully and thoughtfully critique and analyze the media for their white heteronormative narratives. (yeah, social theory background!)

"Slash comes about because women under patriarchy cannot recognise their own sexual desires..."

my god, i'm repeating myself now. see the above rant. i can't handle how retarded this is.

"Despite writing about gay men, and sometimes claiming to be ‘for gay rights’ (whatever that means), most women involved in slash communities would choke in horror if they were ever to be mistaken for, or tainted as, lesbian.....but they are not in the least turned on by the idea of two women together....Yet what do we have with slash fanfiction? Hundreds and hundreds of heterosexual women writing erotic stories for each other in order to turn one another on…is it just me, or is that starting to sound a bit lesbian?" [ellipsis added]

wrong wrong wrong WRONG WRONG WRONG again. the slash community contains many lesbians, bisexuals, and other queer identifications. in fact, usually more than the general society (my friend david's masters' thesis on yaoi fangirls demonstrates this statistically). slashers are the most accepting group of people i know on the internet - i can't think of any slashers who would be afraid to be mistakenly identified as lesbian, can you? and where is her evidence of this? i troll LJ every day for several hours as i research vidding communities, and i have not seen a single suggestion or hint at what she is talking about here. also, entire communities of het women writing stories to turn each other on? isn't that what romance fiction writers do? and no one ever accuses them of being lesbians, do they? oh yeah, and again ignoring the audience for femmeslash and the fact that many slashers like both. seriously.

"... I think its [slash's] very appeal to different women across these divides is further evidence of its ultimately conservative nature."

this doesn't even make sense. just people lots of people watch american idol doesn't mean that they are all conservative, does it? what about heroes? or lost? just because something is popular doesn't mean it's conservative. again, this author has no evidence. why don't we turn to look at those scholars who have actually survey slash communities? let's see.... Bury (2005) notes the higher presence of queer self-identification in the Due South slash community, as does Jenkins in his essay in "Theorizing Fandom" (I think 1992). as does david in his master's thesis. and as did i in my fieldwork in the yaoi fandom. people in all of this research also self-identified as feminist, as believers in gender equality, and as liberal. i don't know a single conservative slasher (although they certainly exist, i don't know if any personally). this author LIES and MAKES FACTS UP.


the comments in for this essay also cause me to froth at the mouth in anger. I CANNOT STAND feminists who basically say, "as women, you can make whatever choices you want to, as long as we think they are appropriately feminist. also, we get to decide what constitutes 'appropriately feminist'. also, we suck."


wow, what a way to end my day at the office...... i feel like punching someone in the face now. someone save me from this stupidity.