GOOD WRITING, BAD WRITING
and the Slash / Gen / Het Question
[originally composed and posted 8/10/02]

Victoria is saying some very interesting things about slash and het and gen in response to a discussion on Zendom. I've not seen that discussion, but some of what she said certainly got me thinking about our labels and assumptions in fanfic. So this is Min's riff based off some points Victoria already made in her post. (It's related to it, but not necessarily a response to it.)

First, on that whole "prestige" thang . . . . Well, in RL, I write "ethnic literary mainstream," and these days, if you want prestige that's one genre in which to publish. That's not why I'm in it. I'm in it because I write stories about urban Indian women (among other things), so that's the label that gets slapped on my stuff. And I write about that subject because it's what I know, not because it's the "in thing." Ironically, most of my writer friends (including my best friend) write epic fantasy (and SF), which isn't the most prestigious of publishing genres. I even once tried my own hand at an SF novel in self-defense! But it was really just my usual political-social stuff in space. My agent Linn rolled her eyes and told me she couldn't sell it to any of the SF imprints because it wasn't really SF. And she was right.

I'm not an SF writer. And that goes well beyond the appearance of what I'm doing. And that is, I think, a crucial point in the whole het/slash/gen discussion . . . but one that, IME, too often gets overlooked. "A goat in sheep's clothing doesn't a sheep make." Or, just because two stories are "het" (or "slash" or "gen") does not mean they're the same genre . . . or that the writer of one will necessarily like the other.

Now, let me see if I can explain what I'm getting at.

I was intrigued by a couple of things Vic said, including her definitions of het, slash and particularly gen. I confess, I have problems with those labels in the first place, though I use them as often as anyone else. But they don't really fit what I write all that well -- and Vic touched on such "ill fits" in her discussion of what constitutes "gen." [Aside to Vic: I think I wouldn't go so far with gen as to say, "Gen fic usually does not contain anything objectionable in the way of sex, violence, language, mature themes, etc." As you note, that causes immediate labeling problems. Some people DO make that assumption, of course, just as some people make the assumption that slash automatically includes sex. But in both cases, I think it's erroneous. I suppose one could say 'adult gen,' but as I've bitched about elsewhere in my rant on fanfic ratings, 'adult fiction' means a lot more about the writing than the inclusion of potentially objectionable material. So yeah, the label "gen" can pose a problem.]

But . . . what does one do with "genre stradlers"? What IS a story that has some romance, some action-adventure, some social commentary, and some family/friendship interaction? Is it het? Is it gen? Is it something else? Someone label the Heyoka series for me, please. (grin) But that brings up the length issue. Longer works, by their very nature, will usually handle multiple plot threads and characters, and so they're just not going to FIT labels created for shorter works. (And the bulk of fanfic stories run under novella length, not over it.) So whether or not a writer fits neatly into the het/slash/gen division depends not just on the writer, but on the length of the writer's work. I do think fanfic writers often have a particular focus, or set of focuses, but WHAT those are (and thus, what labels best apply) can differ a great deal, and since labels should be descriptive, not either proscriptive or truncating, the labels used for any particular author should vary.

E.g., one can say that about 90% of the time, I'll write something that has a het pairing in it somewhere, but not uncommonly, it has a lot of other stuff, too, including action-adventure and social commentary. One can also say that the bulk of what I write tends towards the serious, but I've also written stories that are purely humorous, and humor or lighter moments do find their way into most of my serious stuff. So I can't quite be labeled an "angstgrrl," either (my issues with the term ‘angst' aside for the moment (g)). What one can say -- without "if, ands, or buts" -- is that Scott Summers is going to show up in every story I write, in some fashion. Thus, it's much easier to label me as a "Scott writer" -- or even (horror) a "Cyke fangirl" -- than a "het writer" or "gen writer." If a reader likes Scott (and Jean), there's a decent chance s/he will like my work. If a reader can't stand Scott (or Jean), or could care less about them, well . . . that reader might want to steer clear. (grin) One can also say, fairly, that my stories are primarily character-driven, rather than plot-driven (even those containing the aforementioned action-adventure).

I find it interesting that fanfic has such prominent labels related to romance or lack of romance, and what type of romance. Fanfic generally has a different set of labels than publishing, anyway. We have the het, gen, slash labels, but we also have angst, fluff, PWP / smut, and hurt-comfort labels, etc., etc. Yet, just as in publishing, all these "genres" have certain conventions, even if the best examples of each may not utilize the conventions, may skirt over them, or may twist the hell out of them. Nonetheless, the conventions exist, and I think people often react more to the CONVENTIONS (badly expressed), than to the genre itself. IOW, they're reacting to what they see as bad examples of a genre, not the good ones. To give a profic example, those who regularly diss genre Fantasy usually do so based on the writing of Misty Lacky or Robert Jordan or Terry Goodkind, not of Guy Kay or Charles de Lint or Patricia McKillip. Even if one doesn't care for de Lint's urban fantasy, or Kay's alter-world epics, or McKillips' mythopoetic style, it's pretty hard to say they're bad writers. So they're treated as the "exceptions that prove the rule." Well, the best writers in just about ANYthing are the exceptions. The rest of us muddle along in our self-appointed niches of choice, thank you. I'm hardly Louise Erdrich or Sherman Alexie, either. (God, I wish I were . . . )

But going back to conventions, the problem with them is that, if they get away from the writer, they'll weaken a story in one of two primary ways. First, the author may begin to ASSUME things instead of telling the reader, and so the plot / worldbuilding / characterization will suffer as a result. It's not as complete as it should be. Second, conventions can curtail creativity because writers stay IN the box, instead of thinking outside of it, and after all, we're supposed to be doing creative writing, not conventional writing. In short, genre conventions can become "crutches" that create lazy writing, and that's why many writing programs will require students to write mainstream. It's not entirely about bias against genre fiction (though you bet that bias can be part of it in some programs). But personally, I think avoiding genre writing can have as many pitfalls as it has advantages. If a writer never learns to handle the conventions of his/her genre, that writer will never succeed in it. There are some skills that apply generally, but if a writer's eventual goal is to write good mystery novels, taking a course in writing from an author of SF or historicals will not help the writer to write her genre of choice. As noted before, I'm not really an SF writer, regardless of whether I have a story that -- on the surface -- looks like SF . . . because I don't really think like an SF writer. Twisting and playing with the conventions is one thing . . . ignoring them is something else again.

Conventions MATTER.

And this is where I think signals start crossing, when it comes to slash/het/gen.

Let's take het. I'm not infrequently labeled a het writer, but really, I write lit-mainstream, and it's very different from het stories that are based on the conventions of genre Romance. If a reader is a grand fan of genre Romance and reads little mainstream, there's a REAL good chance she won't like what I do. My stories may even strike her as "gen," not "het" at all, because there's way too much "other stuff" going on. I've had a person or two write to me, rather baffled by the "romantic comedy" label I put on Accidental Interception because of all the "other stuff" going on in it. It wasn't a rude question, just a confused one. But I don't call that novel a "romantic comedy" because it's all romance or because it's funny. It's distinctly not funny in places. I call it a "romantic comedy" because, first, it has a happy ending, and friends, that's the traditional definition of a comedy. Tragedy = unhappy ending; comedy = happy ending. There are some pretty funny moments in it (green jell-O dumped all over a sleeping Scott, for instance), but it's not humor. As for "romance," it's a "romance" because the unifying element -- the main plot arc on which the rest hangs -- is "how Scott met Jean and why they fell in love despite the age difference." In that respect, the story does follow the conventional plot arc of romance: from first meeting to romantic consummation (marriage, engagement, living together, whatever). But that doesn't happen in a vacuum, so we also see Scott in college and Jean in med school, we find out how Scott became friends with EJ, how the X-Men were formed, how Jean got her telepathy, why Hank is blue, why Warren left the X-Men, why Frank is back in Italy even though he's madly in love with Ororo, and a dozen other things along the way. But yeah, if one is expecting a traditional romance of the publishing-genre variety, Accidental Interception isn't it.

Now, on the reverse side of the coin and speaking personally . . . I am not a fan of genre Romance. Don't hit me, if that's your ballywick. But I just can't read it. So will I like het stories that are strongly influenced by Romance conventions? No way. At the first "throbbing manhood" I'm outta there! :-) And what may be a good story by genre Romance conventions is probably going to strike me as bad, because it hits all my buttons.

And I think this where some of the problem lies. It IS a genre argument . . . but I'm not sure it's the genre argument most people think it is. The argument isn't slash/het/gen. Or not entirely. The conventions of genre Romance can be applied to EITHER het or slash writing, and IME, I'd say the bulk of both are of that type. So I was kind of surprised to hear Vic say: "Because of my experience in fandom, I've always been under the impression that slash is the 800-lb gorilla of Fandom, that all "the best" writers write it almost exclusively, that it's the pinnacle of fanfiction from a *writing* perspective."

This surprised me not because I doubt her perception, but because it's not a conclusion I'd have come to about fanfic, left to my own devices. She goes on to talk about this perception as "Some people will say that slash is superior because of its transgressive or subversive nature, in taking characters who do not appear, on the surface (i.e., in the text) to be gay, and yet putting them into a realistic same sex relationship based on a deeper reading of their interactions (i.e., the subtext)...."

She already addressed perfectly well the problems with that assumption from the direction of lit theory, so there's no need for a rehash. My own thought is that conflicting conventions from very different publishing genres when viewing other niches -- while being selectively blind to the same disliked conventions in one's own niche -- is a part of the problem, too. Especially when those conflicting conventions are combined with all the traditional problems found among beginning writers.

Or, to put it in plain English . . . if I don't care for much professional genre Romance or even Women's Fiction, because it's full of conventions that aren't my bag, then if one adds to that the problems that plague most young, beginning authors of any genre, it's hardly a surprise if a good deal of amateur fanfic that's based on these models will send me running for the hills. The same works in the reverse, of course. There can be some mighty bad attempts at lit mainstream style by beginners, and readers who already find lit mainstream pompous and pretentious will find these beginners' attempts to be pompous, pretentious, AND awkward and boring. :-)

It doesn't have anything to do with "het" or "slash" because one can find examples of both (bad) types in either. As Vic already pointed out, bad writing is bad writing. It's just that we're often a bit more inclined to tolerate bad writing when it's in our genre-of-choice.

Even if fanfic tends to spring from visual mediums like film and TV (and comics), it's still a written medium, and most fanfic writers are also readers. Fanfic doesn't exist in a vacuum, and when fanfic authors sit down to write, they WILL be influenced by the style of writing that they normally read, not (necessarily) the style of the show or film on which it's based. I do think a show's style can have an impact on how its fanfic grows; it could hardly not. But I'm not sure it's the primary influence, or we wouldn't see such divergent fanfic styles within a single fandom.

So . . . if one writes slash, or genfic, in the style of lit mainstream, and has a bias/preference for that style, but only occasionally dips into het . . . well, y'know what? Chances are that any random reading will turn up stories along the lines of genre Romance, and bad genre Romance at that, because a large percentage of EITHER slash or het is genre Romance, IME. And even if one doesn't find genre Romance, one will probably find bad to mediocre fic of another type. So it can be tempting for the slash or genfic writer to think "Het is full of bad romance cliches, bad characterization, and Mary Sues." Well, yeah. But y'know, complaints from het and genfic writers about slash are usually along the lines of, "Slash is full of bad romance cliches, bad characterization, and guys who act like women." And genfic? "Genfic is boring, full of Marty Stus and badly written battle scenes." It's not because het, slash or gen are inclined to those things, but because beginning writers are inclined to those things, and fanfic is full of a lot of young, beginning writers who still have a lot to learn.

Which brings us to my last point. Vic also says, "90% of everything is crap, and slash fiction is no exception to that rule. Neither are het fiction nor general audience fiction, nor published fiction, for that matter." And I agree, in gist, if not in specific percentages. :-) I'd say fanfic is like the slushpile at any publishing house. A good half or more is utter dreck, another quarter or so shows possible promise at a beginner level, another ten percent is "almost there," but only five to ten percent is actually publishable quality. And I should qualify that by saying that not everything that gets published is what I'd call "publishable quality."

IME, a shitload of fanfic is plain bad. Badly written, badly plotted, badly paced, and full of twisted or outright left-field characterizations. But you know what? That's okay. Fanfic is a slushpile, remember? Most fanfic authors are just getting started and have never written anything fictional before in their lives. Many are also young. Referencing the demographic breakdown I did on my site poll, the bulk of people in fandom are under the age of 25. But most authors don't get published until over the age of 25. (Especially not with the current mess the publishing industry is in.) Sure, there's always a hot young thing out there, and publishers like them because they make good press, especially if they're pretty. (Donna Tartt anyone? And that's not a slam; I liked The Secret History.) But most writers? No. I'd say if anything, writers tend to be less attractive than average, and on the older side. Conventional publishing wisdom is "after 30," or even "after 40." Writing is a skill that favors age because it favors experience, and experience is what you get as you loose your flexibility, your breasts sag, and you start growing hair in places you never grew it before (or if male, you start to lose hair). (laugh)

Anyway, ALL fanfic -- I don't care what "genre" -- is going to have a large percentage of what constitutes unpublishable slushpile dreck. But then, ALL writers once wrote dreck, even Toni Morrison and Jane Hamilton. You have to start somewhere. Many, many fanfic writers are learning, and learning means figuring out one's weaknesses and listening to constructive criticism. Writing is a skill that one acquires through practice, and you can't learn it if you don't do it. With the very, very, very, very rare exception, we all fall flat on our face when we start out. NOBODY goes onto an ice rink for the first time and performs a triple toe loop, ain't it?

Not all -- or even most -- fanfic writers have any desire to go on and publish professionally, but I do think a decent percentage want to write better fanfic, at least. To do so, we all have to pay our dues. Practice, practice, practice, and listen to constructive criticism. The only thing that worries me is where a writer's perceptions of her relative skill COME from. If one does want to go on to publish professionally, getting 200 good reviews on ff.net means exactly squat. Publishing is an unforgiving business, and it worries me if young writers go into it, expecting to do well, and wind up getting crushed by a mountain of rejection letters. But that's a discussion to take up on another day.

Within fandoms, certain trends can show up, so that -- for a particular period -- a lot of good writers are writing ____. But that's usually fandom specific, and more narrow than the loose labels of "het," "slash," or "gen." To pick an easy X-Men example, Alicia McKenzie walked into comicverse and inspired a ton of excellent Cable writers, most of whom write gen with light het overtones. But that in no way confirms that "gen fic is the best writing." All it means is "In X-Men comicverse fanfic, there's a distinct thread of very good Cable-related gen-fic stories." In X-Men movieverse, I think Diebin had a similar effect as Alicia did in comicverse. Diebin hit the fandom at a critical point, and (along with several others) had a large influence on creating the genre of L/R that followed. So it seems to me that it's less about genres than about good authors who hit a fandom at a critical moment and inspire other authors to write similar stories. This is somewhat unpredictable, as at least two factors have to snap into place at the same time: there must be a notably good author, and there must be a sufficient number of other writers who read her/his work, were inspired by it, and wanted to write the same character, pairing, or type of story. If we get only the former but not the latter, we have one of those "run-away favorites" but not a "fandom pivotal" story. A run-away favorite is a story that everyone new to a fandom is told they "must" read, but it doesn't necessarily generate a sub-niche in the fandom itself. It impacts the fandom, but doesn't influence it, if that makes sense. Take Benway's X-Mansion. It's certainly one of the "classics," but it's had few (if any?) imitators. Then again, who could write that kind of story like Benway could, to try to imitate it?

(This brings up an interesting question. Are there sometimes authors who are so good, they're simply intimidating? Writers largely stay away from their particular niche, for fear they can't measure up? I don't mean Benway in particular, but in general? I think I saw it in X-Files a time or two, as well, but it was such a large fandom, the intimidation factor never lasted long.)

So it's not the genre, but the sheer chance of where exceptional writers in a fandom land that determines what type of story is going to shine. And it'll move in waves, too, or trends, if you prefer. Where, when and who are the critical questions. It's like acting. A poor actor can ruin anything. A competent actor will do well with a good script, but not with a bad script. But a GOOD actor can make (almost) anything work through the creative twists he/she takes.

The same is true for writers. A bad writer is just a bad writer. But a good writer can make (almost) anything work. It's the WRITER, not the genre.