[LMB] Re: Slash (was OT) now Bujold Romance/Slash Meta

[Kirsten Edwards]

(Don't forget that if you lose the Bujold tack (about 1/2 way down) to
switch back to the "OT" marker--!)

Marna wrote regarding my (and possibly Bill. W.'s) irritation with the
"oh, they can't merely be true and loyal friends, with a bond greater 
(for them), albeit different than any of their romantic partnerships"

To suggest that, "while there's a certain amount of that at play, 
there's also a diametrically opposite motive, which is 'so why does it 
have to be SO different? So they're boinking; why does that mean they 
aren't exactly the good and true friends shown in canon?"

To which I reply (as she no doubt expects me to) that we live in a 
Dionysian age, those of us in the West (the rest of you can pipe up 
with your local zietgeist, of course) and hence have rather more 
use for Apollonian correctives. I would also like to add that the
"so they're boinking?" is probably best applied to homo-sexual
stories (aka "slash"--?) as the sex therein really does seem to 
fly as an uncomplicated layer in the relationship (again, with
 the !!?? caveat that Real Live (TM) gay lovers would no doubt
volunteer)

Which brings me to something that Lois wrote a while back (I am still 
playing a v. mad game of "catch-up on the internet stuff" after an 
enforced GAFIATION-cum-24-cum-Veronica Mars Marathon. But I 
digress) that struck me as interesting-but-flawed. For values of flawed 
equalling "heh, I'm d-d'd if I can put my finger on what's troubling me") 
That line about the "status emergency"  tied in with the "why
CAN'T they be boinking too?" helped me realise that there was a 
uniquely 20th century blindspot there.

It seems to me that, in a broad look down the avenues of history,
what men have wanted is not [*] a barque of frailty, but a wife. Not 
to "win" i.e. "be the screw-er" but "win a woman to care for him" in ways 
that yes, culturally, another man can't/won't do for him. Because of 
course, screwing, fairly inevitably, tended to involve children, 
descendents, and family connections--which are both good and difficult 
things.

Only in our modern Western age have we been able to divorce the 
sexual goodies from the big messy human family package (Cue the 
cordwainer smith djinn for ironic effect here) 

Think about it. How many romances do you read in which the heroine 
and the hero have their kids in the picture?  

s
p
o
i
l
e
r
Imagine how Miss Fawn's sexual healing would've gone if she'd been 
farther along, say, with twins, and had (1) spontaneous abortion + (2) 
live birth and been (3) nursing the survivor?

Hella romantic, no? No.

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

The question simply doesn't arise with slash. The characters can 
sidestep that whole "diaper-years" crushing of the Big Romance entirely 
and stick to the fun.

Anyhoo. Am I on to something here--?

Sorry to be so long-winded about this--My 'net time is limited and I lack 
the time to be short.

Kirsten "No brevity, some wit?" Edwards

[*]There is an hilarious and slightly poignant explication of this in a 
scene in JCW's FUGITIVES OF CHAOS in which my favorite multi-
dimensional amazon attempts to seduce/flirt with a robot.


________________________________________________________________________
FREE for 30 Days! - Holiday eCards from AmericanGreetings.com
http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/index.pd?c=uol5637