• anna j. clutterbuck-cook
  • contact
  • curriculum vitae
  • find me elsewhere
  • marilyn ross memorial book prize

the feminist librarian

the feminist librarian

Category Archives: fandom

the problem with being dumbledored: a thread

05 Thursday Dec 2019

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom

≈ Leave a comment

Yesterday, Twitter was buzzing with dirision aimed at J.J. Abrams and Disney for their coy teasers about the possibility of a forthcoming Star Wars franchise film having an “openly gay” character. The dynamic of powerful media P.R. machines queerbaiting is nothing knew, and it’s a bullshit move. It’s cheap, and also actively anti-queer. I wrote a thread about why, and I’m posting it here in slightly tidied-up form because I’ll no doubt need it again. 

This shit’s exhausting. That’s where I’m at.

The wages, the human cost, of this shit is to create and sustain a general public that finds queer people either unimaginable or only acceptable if you must be told they were queer (usually in retrospect, usually by straight people) because there is literally no other way to know.

Queer people, as a group, are EXTREMELY GOOD at excavating queer content from source material that looks super cisheteronormative. Why? Because for most of the 20th century, legally and culturally, that’s all we were allowed to publicly create and enjoy. So we’re incredibly dedicated and skilled at filling absences with rainbows. I mean, for fuck’s sake, how many explicitly queer fanworks are deliberately shaped to fill the cracks between scenes, episodes, seasons? Bajillions. Continue reading →

own your smut: on sexually explicit media and language

07 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom, think pieces

≈ 1 Comment

A few days ago this Tweet, from a romance author, was retweeted into my timeline:

Can we please burn with fire the notion that erotic romance authors write ‘porn’.
It is especially galling when romance authors who write chaste or mild heat books say this. Please don’t. It’s rude, fucking insulting and 100% wrong.

— Nicola Davidson (@NicolaMDavidson) March 5, 2019

I was struck by the intensity of this writer’s response (burn with fire … fucking insulting) to having her sexually explicit stories characterized as porn. As of this writing  her Tweet has been retweeted 135 times and liked 909 times. So Davidson is clearly not alone in this sentiment.

I’ve been writing and publishing sexually explicit fanfic for eight years and reading sexually explicit stories for over two decades. For at least a dozen years, I have consciously chosen to characterize what I read and write as “porn” and “smut” as a deliberate intervention targeting what I see as the harmful distinction between “erotica” (highbrow, legitimate, artful) and “porn” (crass, illegitimate, gratuitous). Obscene and pornographic works — broadly described as works created with a primary goal of sexually arousing one’s audience — have historically been dismissed and derided because of their capacity to engage our bodies in a pleasureable way. Suspect on its own, this capacity to arouse has typically required an external justification — literary merit or educational purpose — to earn widespread (though far from universal!) approval or simply the right to exist and circulate in carefully circumscribed spaces. 

Pornography is so universally understood as creative endeavor of unseemly excess that we use it as an adjective to describe objectional leveraging of emotional response in contexts that have nothing to do with sex: trauma porn, ruin porn, disaster porn. We might be moved by these things, the phrases imply, with their juxtaposed language of depicted pleasure and real-world pain … but we will likely come away feeling gross and guilty for having enjoyed the experience. I believe this is an impoverished view of human sexual pleasure and an impoverished understanding of the way sexually explicit fictions (a.k.a. porn!) can bring us joy. 

So I responded to Davidson pushing back against her framing:

As a writer of sexually explicit stories, I use erotica and porn interchangeably for my own work and the stories I read. I use “porn” very deliberately to resist reflexively anti-porn attitudes. I’d be interested in knowing why you feel the characterization is insulting/rude?

— anna j. clutterbuck-cook (@feministlib) March 5, 2019

Davidson never responded to my question but other writers did. “Porn is about sex. That’s the foundation. There can be a larger story but it’s not necessary,” one writer argued, distinguishing this type of storytelling from her own erotic romantic narratives where sex is “an integral part” of a happily-ever-after plot. “It really hurts,” Davidson wrote in response to another commenter, when fellow romance writers “start flinging the term around. You expect erotic romance = porn from ignorant media or fundamentalists or whatever. But other romance authors?” “Erotic Romance stimulates the mind and ones imagination where as Porn doesnt,” chimed in another author. “Smut [and porn] has no literary quality to it. It’s gratuitous,” wrote another. “And also burn the idea that F/F romance is also ‘porn’ – have had this said to me more times than I care to eye roll,” wrote another.

It became clear, as I watched this Twitter thread unfold, that many people in romancelandia have very strong and negative feelings about their work being characterized as pornography. Part of this, I gather from the thread, is coming in reaction to romance writers who write less-sexually-explicit, fade-to-black, “chaste” romance trash-talking writers who choose to tell stories with more — and more detailed — sex scenes. I get it. I get the frustration over being slut-shamed. There is misogynistic policing going on here, with good-girl romance writers distancing themselves from the jezebels who are brazen enough to write sex scenes (“Chaucer! Rabelais! Balzac!“)

The problem is, responding to the charge that you’re writing porn by splitting hairs, hiding behind ideas about genre conventions or format (image versus text), and arguing that porn is “about sex” not a “larger story” (so … sex can’t be a larger story?) accepts the framing you’ve been given by your accusers. 

“Oh, but we don’t write sex like THOSE people over THERE …” is not a good look.

If we lived in a world where pornography and erotica and romance were located in roughly the same place on the respectibility continuum — where “erotica” didn’t have a history of being wielded as the highbrow alternative to lowbrow “porn”; where “romance” wasn’t struggling against the misogynistic forces that dismiss the entire genre as trivial and trashy because women — maybe … maybe … in that world we could have a valuable discussion about whether differences of genre and convention exist between romantic, erotic, and pornographic styles of sexual storytelling. But in the world we live in, staking your claim to the erotic while taking umbridge at the suggestion your work is pornographic supports a hierarchy of sexually explicit stories. It supports a hierarchy where stories labeled “porn” are dismissed and devalued in order to give you artistic high ground to stand on.

And I am not comfortable with throwing porn under the bus for the sake of respectibility. Because I think that throwing pornography under the bus means we accept the premise that stories grounded in — sometimes consisting entirely of! — human sexual expression are not really stories at all. It means we accept that writing and reading stories to turn people the fuck on — engage their embodied, sexual response as well as their hearts and minds — is categorically different (and more suspect) than engaging them as readers of fiction that elicits other types of physical and emotional reactions.

If it makes us uncomfortable to have our sexually explicit works described as “porn” or “smut” I really think the onus is on us to sit with that discomfort — maybe even to lean into that headwind — and get comfortable with that characterization even if it doesn’t feel 100% accurate in a fine-tuning subgenre sense. Because the alternative only fuels the politically powerful machinary of anti-sex sentiment entrenched in American culture, and that machinary demonizes and marginalizes — directly and materially harms — many of our most vulnerable.

If the price of defusing the charge behind the “insult” of labeling someone a pornographer is getting a little over-generous with our definitional boundaries, I say that’s an entirely acceptable price to pay.

more complicated than either/or

24 Saturday Nov 2018

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom

≈ Leave a comment

I have another short essay (essaylet?) on writing in the “Fic, Fandom & Sexuality” issue of Spark! (No. 43, 22 November 2018). I repost it here for those who may be interested. 

As a bisexual feminist, it’s been important to me from the beginning of my participation in fandom to write bisexual characters, particularly bisexual male characters. I do this for two reasons.

First, because bi erasure—particularly dismissal of bisexuality as a valid form of desire for cis men—is an ongoing problem in queer spaces.

Second, because it is a way of taking men with canonical m/f relationships and queering them without invalidating their past intimacy with women.

Currently, I’m working on a piece of Jimmy Perez/Duncan Hunter fic (Shetland) where I am navigating the fact that both Jimmy and Duncan have lost a wife and lover who was a woman, who was an important relationship in both of their lives, and figuring them both as bisexual means I can honour her place in their sexual histories while also bringing the two men together. I really like having the chance to make a narrative more complicated than either/or.

I also take particular pleasure in writing stories where older people discover that as they age their sexual desires shift in new ways—not in the sense of long-denied desire surfacing, but in the sense of recognised but marginalised desires taking on new salience, or surprising new desires taking shape.

I tend to write relationship-first stories, wherein the characters are more invested in nurturing relationships that feel right to them than they are in ensuring their relationships neatly map onto some sense of fixed orientation. And that, too, is a political decision (for me as a writer) because our culture is so strongly invested in “born this way” notions of sexual identity.

Such an understanding, requiring fixity of desire across a lifetime, does not accurately reflect the full range of human relational possibility. So I use fic whenever I can to advance a more fluid understanding of desire that focuses less on identity and more on individual people and the joy they bring to one another. And then I let the identity of each character grow out of those encounters.

don’t blame readers

11 Tuesday Sep 2018

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom

≈ 20 Comments

Tags

books, romance

My friends. My loves. My dudes.

If you want f/f books, you gotta buy books from creators who want to write f/f. That’s it. That’s literally the ticket. The more Queer books you buy from Queer authors who are doing the work — the more content there will be. The end.

Last night I saw this Tweet go by on my timeline. I let it go by and then scrolled back to find it because it was bothering  me. And then I wrote a thread about why.

I have screen-capped the Tweet for anonymity because, as I said in the original thread, the person is making a valid point about market-driven content and the need to support creators of the work we want to see out there in the world with our dollars. I also don’t want to pile on this person I have no prior relationship with. But this is a sentiment that circulates with moderate frequency in discussions about whither the f/f romance and I have some feels about shaming and blaming readers for the fact that they aren’t finding the f/f stories they want to read.

First, this argument doesn’t engage with the fact that f/f fiction is structurally more expensive than other kinds of queer romance. I can buy three m/m stories at $2.99 a pop from authors I trust or one $9.99 f/f book from an author I have never read before. Should I be willing to pay more for f/f to support emerging f/f writers? Maybe. But what about readers who only have the $2.99? Too bad for them? Readers don’t have unlimited budgets. We make choices. Cost is a real barrier to access.*

Second, this argument flattens f/f into a single type of story you either want or don’t. Most readers have more specific tastes. I like historicals and paranormals that grapple meaningfully with gender, class, race, include meaningful chosen family networks, and have narratively significant sex. So while I want f/f, I want a pretty specific type of story — a similar type of story to the m/m and f/m narratives I gravitate toward. My other preferences as a reader don’t just swirl down the drain the minute I start sorting by the f/f category tag. If authors writing f/f are not writing in the romance flavors I enjoy, I might feel strongly about the political value of supporting f/f writers in the abstract but as a reader I have low incentive to purchase. Do I pay $4.99 for an m/m or f/m histrom paranormal my trusted social-promotional networks are buzzing about … or $9.99 for a contemporary f/f, the blurb of which makes me feel meh?

And third, those social-promotional networks really matter! Right now, the social-promotional network for f/f seems to be almost entirely separate circle on the Venn diagram from the social-promotional circle of m/m and f/m. (Much like the fandom crossover between original media that inspire f/f pairings and original media that inspire m/m pairings seems to meet only rarely.) In addition to person-to-person recommendations, the algorithimic “readers also bought…” recs in Kindle and cross-promotions at the end of m/m works are rarely (never?!) f/f.** I would totally pay $2.99 to try a new-to-me f/f author with my romance specs if they’re recommended to me by a person whose taste I find reliable vis a vis my own. This ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS with f/f. I am a queer woman romance reader, who follows a lot of queer women readers, and I almost never see this type of squeeful signal boosting of good histrom or paranormal f/f that effectively handsells the author to me (which is how I find most of my m/m and f/m authors). So the books aren’t making it in front of eyeballs is my point. The ecosystem is broken.

In sum: “Pay authors to write f/f!” is not the simple feminist fix it seems. I mean, I would be 1000% happy to be proved wrong and to wake up tomorrow morning to my mentions full of histrom, paranormal, non-transphobic, diverse, sexually explicit f/f romances for $5 or less. (Narrator: This didn’t happen.) But when I ask for recs I mostly get crickets and sympathy.

I anonymized the original Tweet above because I don’t want to attack the person who is making an important point about labor and compensation and demand. However, I think the patronising tone of the message presumes we potential readers of f/f just want good stuff for free. That we’re lazy and cheap. In my experience, romance readers — perhaps particularly romance readers who care about more diverse romance, including queer romance — generally respect author labor and care about supporting the folks who write the stories we love to read. But our feminist political commitment to supporting queer f/f writers doesn’t mean we are all rich and it doesn’t mean we want ANY AND ALL f/f content as individual readers. We pick and choose the f/f stories we will take a chance on just like any other romance purchase. And, sadly, the more times I have chanced that f/f purchase and been disappointed, the more reluctantly I approach the next offer.

One more story. There was a great panel a few years ago about the early years of On Our Backs, the lesbian feminist porn magazine. They had a centerfold — in the great tradition of porn magazines — and one of the former editors on the panel, Susie Bright, told this wonderful story.  That they used to get letters from readers AGONIZING about their feelings of desire for the centerfold. “What are her politics?” they would write and ask:

“Dear “On Our Backs,” — one letter-writer would say– “I do not know how to feel about your centerfold model. What if she’s not a good person? I do not know her politics. I cannot decide whether I should attempt to jill off to this picture when I do not know where she stands on ecology, race relations, veganism.”

And the editor was like: “Here is the gift of a naked woman! Can you not just accept this gift if it makes you feel good??”

“But I don’t know how I’m supposed to feel if I don’t know her stance on nuclear proliferation!!!”

Women who desire women (cis and trans alike, though we experience cultural pressures differently) experience a lot of shame and anxiety about not getting desire “right”. Am I feminist enough? Am I gay enough? Should I enjoy penetration if I’m a lesbian and a feminist? If I’m not turned on by this woman is it a sign of internalized misogyny? When I speak with other queer readers yearning for f/f romance in the marketplace we acknowledge the shame and self-blame that happens every time we read an f/f story we feel less than enthusiastic about: Is this just not a story I like OR AM I A BAD QUEER FEMINIST??? 

So shaming queer women for not buying more f/f — and blaming them, as reader-consumers, for the lack of f/f stories being published — is all tangled up in this long history of queer, feminist women worried about getting our sexual pleasure correct politically. OF COURSE readers have absorbed all manner of biases (sexist and otherwise) as part of our cultural stew. Asking ourselves why we are compelled by certain narratives and not others is TOTALLY valid. But, “buy f/f and stuff you like will eventually be written!” is…not that call to self-reflection.

*I don’t talk about libraries in this post in part because they are another access point/barrier to reading queer romance. I have a library widget on my browser that tells me if a book is available at any of the three public library networks I have access to. Only rarely are the romance novels I am looking for available to me free from the library. So readers who cannot afford even the $2.99/book pricepoints have even more barriers to access.

**Unless it’s an f/f by the same author — thankfully an occurrance growing in frequency

that is enough

08 Tuesday May 2018

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

fanfic, writing

I spoke with Atlin Merrick on Twitter about my experience writing drabbles and was invited to lightly revise those observations for this piece. It appears under my nom de plume elizajane, in Spark! No. 29 (8 May 2018) the newsletter from Improbable Press.

For the past three years I’ve run a 14-day drabble challenge (#TwelvetideDrabbles) around Christmas time. It’s the only time I write 100-word stories, but I love the discipline of it.

The challenge of looking at the daily prompt and thinking about how to create and resolve narrative tension in a way that speaks to the prompt, is true to the characters and relationship I’m writing, and comes in at exactly 100 words (a personal challenge I set myself). Each year, I write the drabbles around a particular couple and post the individual drabbles as chapters of a 1,400 word story—but each chapter still has to stand on its own as a scene.

I usually begin with an idea, a moment, an interaction, that has to be trimmed away and trimmed away in both concept and language. An evening needs to be distilled into a moment; a post-coital conversation into a single exchange. The first draft will be three hundred words, easy, and then I have to go back make sure each word I keep is essential as I slash and burn.

I typically write much longer fic—it’s rare for me to drop below 1,000 words—so drabbles are a change of pace that I have come to look forward to, in the waning of the year. Sometimes they end up prompting something longer that I take up later, but not always. There’s a freedom in that, in writing an idea in such a compressed space, and letting it go, saying: that is enough.

write the sexual intimacy you want to read

27 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom

≈ Leave a comment

obergefell_smI was invited to write five hundred words on why I write erotic fanfic. This piece, under my nom de plume elizajane, originally appeared in Spark! No. 24 (27 March 2018) the newsletter from Improbable Press.

Some of my earliest memories from childhood involve the creation of stories involving my favorite characters from literature. Even at eight or nine I was weaving romance and sexual relationships (in the vaguest of terms) into those fanworks. As a teen reader I was often frustrated by the fade-to-black approach to sexual intimacy in published fiction, and spent many hours thinking (and sometimes writing) about what might have happened after that first-kiss moment. Fanfic, for me, has been an erotic experience from my earliest memories of fanwork creation. Continue reading →

whither the f/f romance?

17 Saturday Feb 2018

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom, think pieces

≈ Leave a comment

StarCrossedTest1It’s Femslash February and I’ve been writing Jean/Hilda and Sam/Susan all month which has returned me to the perennial question of why there is not more romances (fanfic or profic) in the world featuring a central relationship between two female-identified persons. There are a lot of women writing professionally published romance and romance-centered fanfiction, and there are a lot of queer women writing it. Published romance featuring m/m relationships is a booming category (I read and enjoy a lot of it!) and “slash” is so synonymous in the fandom hivemind with male/male pairings that “femslash” carries the mark of difference: this isn’t regular slash (featuring men sexing) but femslash (featuring ladysex).

(Image: Cover of Star Crossed by Emma Barry & Genevieve Turner. The cover art features an black woman and a white woman kissing superimposed on a night sky.)

Women — especially queer women — writing romance know full well that women can fall in love with, and have smoking hot sex with other women. Many of us have done so! But “the market isn’t there” for f/f stories the way it is for m/m or f/m (or even f/m/m). Last night I read an interview with romance writer Cat Sebastian where she and the interviewer, Kelly Faircloth, have the following exchange about why we aren’t drowing in historical femslash a la the classic Sarah Waters’ novels Tipping the Velvet and Fingersmith:

There’s such a large audience of women for romance featuring two men. What do you think it is that readers see in that?

I don’t know, and I think about this all the time! First of all, I don’t know that there is an answer that we can access. This is just me guessing. I do wonder if it’s something about seeing a man through the male gaze. Maybe we are used to seeing women through the male gaze. Maybe the experience of seeing men as beings who are desired by other men is freeing, or novel, or attractive in some other way as readers. I feel like that could be it, and that might explain why F/F doesn’t seem to have taken root, which is a huge source of frustration for me. I don’t understand—where are all my lesbian historical novels? Give them to me! There aren’t nearly enough of them out there, and everybody who’s written one assured me that the reason is because there’s just not a huge audience, and they like to eat food and make money, which is totally respectable. Maybe it’s because in a novel with two women as protagonists, maybe as readers, we don’t know how to look at them without the male gaze. I have no idea, and it’s been so long since I have been in a women’s studies class, but I do feel like that’s got to be part if it.

I don’t know! I would like for somebody to write a dissertation on that.

I also don’t understand. Like, Fingersmith is one of the best books ever.

Exactly. One of the best books ever. I feel like romance needs to jealousy claim Sarah Waters as one of our own, because Fingersmith and Tipping the Velvet are models we could use.

Also, if you look at how people could hide queer relationships around existing structures—two women could live together really easily in the 19th century.

Yes! And forever. It’s never been hard to hide a lesbian relationship. And I don’t know if that’s because we expect women to live together, or we expect single women to team up, or if it’s just because no one’s thinking there’s anything sexual behind it, so they can do whatever they want. Even if they’re married to other people, they can do whatever they want, and no one looks twice.

As Cat observes, there’s a widespread agreement that “there’s just not a huge audience,” and yet there are also perennial discussions by the (mostly female/nonbinary and many queer) people who read/write romance and read/write romantic fanfic about how we all wish there were more. I actually began writing fanfic and publishing it on Ao3 in 2011 specifically because I was frustrated by the lack of f/f representation in erotic fanworks. Writing m/m came later, although these days I have about an equal number of m/m, f/f, m/f and more complex (e.g. m/m/f or f/f + m/f + m/m) relationships represented in my overall body of work. I have felt the pull first-hand, as both a (queer cis woman) writer and a reader, toward m/m story arcs and pondered how to square the desire to read, write, and imagine those relationships with my real-life f/f marriage and my feminist values which call upon me to center marginalized voices in narrative storytelling.

So here’s my attempt to share my working theory for why f/f romance isn’t an exploding subgenre, and why Femslash February is a thing because the rest of the year femslash is such a rare flower in the ecosphere of fandom. This is in no way meant to be a definitive articulation of why f/f is so difficult to locate in our bodies of literature, and if anyone who reads this has additional insight I welcome your thoughts below or on Twitter (@feministlib).

Reason 1: Men are protagonists.

It’s widely recognized across genres that in the stories available to us in Western literature, (white) male characters are understood to be capable of carrying a “universal” narrative while female protagonists are not. Women and girls, queer or not, learn from a very young age to identify and empathize with male characters in stories across multiple formats (television, film, literature). Men and boys are presumed to need characters like themselves to remain interested in the media before them. I don’t believe this is innately true about men and boys — because I believe that women, men, and nonbinary persons share a common humanity that allows us to empathize and be interested in the humanity of one another across categories of gender, race, sexual orientation, and other differences. However, I do believe that it is a groomed preference: That women (and people from other marginalized identities) are expected, and therefore learn, to identify with characters across identity categories while men are not, and therefore do not — unless they are purposeful about cultivating that ability. It’s not a muscle they are challenged to use — while women are challenged to use it continually.

Therefore, it makes sense that even in a genre dominated by female creators, we drift toward narrative scripts that privilege male subjectivity. That means stories that include male protagonists, either in m/f or m/m relationships, feel more natural to create and consume because we are used to male agency.

This default of the male protagonist can be amplified in fanworks particularly because fanworks play with existing media that is — because patriarchy — skewed heavily toward (white) male protagonists.  While fanworks creators have done incredible work queering those canonical protagonists — including, at times, imagining them as genderfluid or trans, or genderswapping one or both characters in what would canonically be an m/m relationship — it remains a factor that canonical main characters are overwhelmingly presented as cis, straight, and male.

Reason 2: Sex Needs Dicks.

Our cultural scripts for sex are overwhelmingly heteronormative and require the presence of a penis for “sex” to have taken place. I would argue that m/m narratives, rightly or wrongly, are easier to translate in the context of these narratives because putting a penis into an orifice counts as sex in our brains in a way that sex only with clitorises does not. We also expect men to be sexually-desiring beings, and physically sexual, in a way we do not expect of women. (Again, even queer women are vulnerable to these sexual scripts because we grow up in heteronormative culture too.) In the context of the romance genre, there is typically a romantic and sexual script that intensifies over the course of the novel and culiminates — for f/m couples — with penis-in-vagina intercourse as an expression of consumated love and/or marriage. This script can be hijacked for use with m/m protagonists because you can build the sexual intimacy from handjobs to blowjobs to anal sex with kissing thrown in somewhere along the intimacy ladder depending on whether you assume that kissing is the entry point for sexual contact or a feminine-coded expression of love (meaning it falls probably somewhere after blowjobs).

What do you do with two women? We don’t have a widespread, culturally legible or adaptive script for that. Which leads to jokes like this:

Heres+a+helpful+graph+_a8fb5dfbfc60275175878a56cdeaa830

(Image: Imagined graph of Hetero Sex vs. Lesbian Sex. The hetero sex graph is a four-minute timeline featuring a male orgasm, an optional female orgasm, then sleep. The lesbian sex graph is a five-hour timeline featuring a rainbow tangle of sexual activity and multiple orgasms. I don’t have an image credit for this, so if you know who to credit please let me know!)

Despite the fact that f/f couples report higher rates of orgasm and higher levels of sexual satisfaction than women who have sex with men, we don’t know how to turn our queer sexual pleasure into a linear narrative (possibly because of that “time travel” squiggle around hour three…). In a genre that relies to some extent on a predictable, comfortable formula that promises readers the emotional satisfaction of increasing emotional and sexual intimacy that culminates in the formation of a committed, found-family relationship, those squiggles don’t provide clear guidence for how to move your two female protagonists from first blush to final orgasm and/or family formation.

Reason 3: Challenging Toxic Masculinity

In a world where toxic masculinity runs rampant, f/m and m/m romance (fanfic or professionally published) is a space where feminist-minded women and nonbinary folks can explore what the world might be like if men, too, were allowed to be vulnerable and desired. In romance literature and fanfic romance, male partners feel a full range of emotions related to forming human relationships: desire, pleasure, anxiety, hurt, anger, fear, pride, caring … the list could go on and on. In order for a romance plot to work, the male protagonist(s) must be a character the reader can identify with as a human being whose humanity could be made more whole in relationship with his partner — and often in relationship with extended and found family too. Romance novels assert that men can be desiring and desired, and that their sexuality is not irrevocably shaped by expectations of dominance or violence. I think this reason is part of what Cat Sebastian was getting at in the interview excerpt above, where she observed that “seeing men as beings who are desired by other men is freeing.”

As Emma Lindsay observed a year ago, dating men can make women feel like shit in part because “society labels men creepy when they are open about their sexual feelings.” Yet in order for f/m or m/m romance narratives to work, male characters must be open about their sexual feelings. A three hundred page novel centered around a man and a woman, or a man and another man, falling in love and becoming sexually intimate requires interiority and emotional labor from both protagonists in order to give the readers stake in the happily-ever-after outcome. We need to care that they care. We need to be shown that they care. Or the emotional payoff of reading the novel simply isn’t there. And because of this genre requirement, we get three-dimensional human characters who wrestle with their humanity, wrestle with their desires, and wrestle with the cultural scripts they have been handed and emerge better human beings.

This is cathartic and hopeful reading, and writing, for people who yearn for a less toxic, less patriarchal world. And it’s an act of revisioning that f/f romances don’t tackle in such a direct way (although they also must reckon with toxic masculinity, as I point out below).

Reason 4: The Shadow of Male Violence

carol-film-still-640x450

(Image: Still from the film Carol in which Carol and Therese are interrupted at breakfast by a private investigator posing as a salesman.)

For a number of reasons this year I’ve been thinking a lot about the spectre of male violence that haunts romance between women. I’m not sure if this is so much a reason that f/f stories are not created as it is an illustration of how deeply our patriarchal  narratives of romance and sex require a male presence — so much so that when we try to write them out of the narrative they become violent. In the 2015 film Carol — an adaptation of the classic lesbian pulp The Price of Salt — the two women whose romance is the central narrative, Carol and Therese, escape Carol’s estranged husband and Therese’s (nominal) boyfriend by embarking upon a roadtrip from New York to Chicago. Carol’s husband, furious at his wife’s request for a divorce — and eager to collect evidence of her perversity as leverage in the custody dispute over their young daughter — sends a private investigator to tail them. In a striking violation of the couple’s private intimacies, he ultimately ends up making an audio recording of the couple’s first sexual encounter together.

There is something heady (for me, as a cis, bisexual woman) in the realization that you can opt out of the social expectation that you give a damn what men think of you: your body, your words, your desires, your life choices, your past, or your future. Men are powerful in our patriarchal society — granted, it is power that comes with caveats regarding race, class, sexual orientation, and all the rest — and girls grow up into women understanding that they will be scrutinized by men and that this scrutiny will matter. If you are a woman who desires men (and I have been that woman, in the past) the reality of navigating patriarchal power within the intimacies of your most intense and enduring adult relationship(s) can feel like an exhausting prospect. For women who also or instead desire women, it can be liberatory to realize that the male gaze no longer matters to you. It might constrain your choices in the wider world, but it is unable to touch you in the bedroom.

As I say, I experienced this as liberatory. Yet it is also dangerous. Since I have been paying attention to this spectre of male violence in the context of f/f romance I have seen it everywhere: In Cat Sebastian’s The Soldier’s Scoundrel the sister of one of the male protagonists, Charlotte, is trapped in an abusive marriage and escapes only when her lover, Anne, murders her husband. In Jordan Hawk’s Undertow a spurned male suitor not only attempts to murder Maggie’s ketoi lover Persephone but attempts genocide against Persephone’s entire species. Women are vulnerable under patriarchy whether or not they choose to have sex with men, and men who feel entitled to female attention can turn violent when they realize they have been written out of the plot. That’s an exhausting truth we live with daily, and it can be hard to read and write it in our escapist literature as well.

Reason 5: Follow the Money

Of course, at the end of the day, women — queer women, especially — do write and read f/f romance, and yearn for more. But as with any other lack of diversity in publishing, authors need editors and publishers convinced of a book’s marketability before they will give meaningful support to a project. This is why, I would argue, that we see f/f relationships written in to more and more m/m and f/m romance series as novellas or as secondary couples. Queer women — including myself — who write m/m relationships as the primary story arc will populate their world with secondary queer characters that feel authentic to our experiences. The m/m or f/m romance carries the narrative for all of the reasons outlined above, while the women-loving-women do so on the sidelines — often with the full support of their gay male or otherwise socially subversive protagonists.

Hopefully, in the not-to-distant future, we’ll see those relationships rotated with increasing regularity from the sidelines to center court. More and more frequently we are seeing f/f novels integrated into romance series with m/f and m/m pairings: Her Ebony by Maggie Chase (2017); Star Crossed by Emma Barry & Genevieve Turner (2017); and the forthcoming Last Couple in Hell by K. J. Charles (March 2018!) which I am dying to get my hands on.

Earlier this month I set up a Good Reads shelf on which I am collecting all of the f/f historical romances I come across. If you have a favorite f/f historical — or come across one in your reading life — please share! I dearly hope that one day there will be too many f/f romance novels published for me to keep up with the flood.

p.s. in #fanfic are characters the defining source?

06 Friday Nov 2015

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

comment post, fanfic, writing

This is an addendum to last night’s post fueled by the conversation I had with Hanna on our walk to work (which, more often than not, constitutes gossip about fanfic).

One of the defining features of fanfic as a genre, for me, is that it is character-driven.  Fic, the way I read and write it, is primarily about individual characters and their relationships (erotic or platonic) with other characters. It’s not about establishing the rules of the universe or about the suspense of the plot. It’s about asking “What would these individuals do if they were presented with X situation?” either in canon, in the canon ‘verse, or in a completely different setting (an alternate universe or AU).

I would actually argue that most if not all characters are independent of the authors who write about them. I struggle with the idea of characters as the intellectual property of an originating author. I feel like characters develop independent lives, such that they are bigger than one single author’s interpretation of those characters. We collectively narrate pieces of their existence. They become more real, in cultural terms, the more people tell stories about them in different iterations.

So this is another reason why I can come to fanfic that considers characters that I never met before in the source material. The fanwork becomes, for me, that first encounter, that source material. In some cases, I end up reading backwards to the “original” source material because I’m interested in that dialog between fic and canon. Other times, all I care about is the intra-fanwork conversation, the characters as collectively presented in the body of writing considered to be fannish vs. canon (however we define that). It’s about falling in love with the characters, for me, and becoming invested in the characters. And I can get to know those characters through a million shards of fic almost more intimately than I can get to know them through the singular voice of a specific published author or the narrative constraints of a television series or film.  Continue reading →

reading and writing #fanfic as a non-fan? some thoughts

05 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

comment post, fanfic, writing

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Team-free-will-354911394

Team Free Will by Jasric.
Possibly my favorite piece of 
Supernatural fan art ever produced.

This blog post is written in direct response to the latest episode of the Fansplaining podcast, “One True Fandom” (episode eight), the transcript of which I read this afternoon. I had some thoughts about the conversation which I shared briefly on Twitter and wanted to expand them into a post.

Here’s what I wrote on Twitter:

I write #fanfic for stuff I can easily riff off, and for stuff that irritates me because I think it could be better … @fansplaining

— AnnaClutterbuck-Cook (@feministlib) November 5, 2015

stuff I’m in love with it usually feels like it has too strong a presence of its own for me to transform through my own voice @fansplaining

— AnnaClutterbuck-Cook (@feministlib) November 5, 2015

reading transcript of the last @fansplaining episode is making me think anew about how I mostly don’t write #fanfic for stuff I’m a FAN of?

— AnnaClutterbuck-Cook (@feministlib) November 5, 2015

Expanded thoughts…

  • I was introduced to fanfiction as a genre — a genre that resonated with my own “homegrown” approach to fictional narratives (more below) — rather than coming to it through a particular fannish community. My now-wife was the one who introduced me to the language and conventions of fic, specifically slash, because she thought I would be interested in slash fiction as a form or cultural critique and also countercultural / queer erotica. I mean, it was also a wildly successful form of nerd-flirting. But I think my introduction to the activity of fanfiction as an idea rather than as a form of participation in a specific fandom continues to shape my relationship to the practice — and to fandom culture more generally.
  • I love fanfiction as a genre in part because it’s a language to describe how I have approached fictional narratives throughout my life. Some of my earliest memories from childhood involve spinning out narrative “what if…” tales about my favorite fictional characters. Oftentimes with rampant self-insertion. As a teenager, one of my favorite category of narrative was retellings of folk- and fairytales, or mythologies from various cultures. I collected, and wrote, multiple versions of certain tales, reworking, updating, critiquing classic interpretations. Think Beauty and Rose Daughter by Robin McKinley, Tam Lin by Pamela Dean, Wicked by Gregory Maguire. When I was fourteen I wrote a 200-page adaptation of the Cinderella tale on a DOS word processing program. So when I was in my late twenties and someone said “here is this thing called fanfiction and this is how it works…” I was like Oh, yes. That. Why didn’t anyone tell me about this earlier?!
  • I read fanfiction for canon narratives with which I have zero or passing familiarity. Gundam Wing. Teen Wolf. Daredevil. I’ve never seen them. Hawaii 5-0. One episode, only well after I read widely in the Steve/Danny pairing. To me, fanfiction is both critique of (or elaboration on) the specific source material and also a broader response to popular culture. It offers up new ways of seeing what are, often, very tired stories. And stories that I as a queer, feminist-minded woman struggle to relate to. Fanfiction is a restful genre for me in many ways. I know I can come to it for queer intervention. For feminist intervention. Increasingly for intersectionality in its exploration of issues like racial inequality and dis/ability. While there are published authors whose work share these features with fic, as a genre fic has delivered most reliably in these ways. So my ability to access, and take pleasure in reading, fic is only loosely related to specific canonical ‘verses.

Continue reading →

newsflash! you can read my fanfic with no strings attached!

13 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by Anna Clutterbuck-Cook in fandom

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

fanfic

Update: 15 April 2015 15:27:05. The Organization of Transformative Works has just posted an update on the Ebooks Tree situation:

Upon further investigation, it became clear that Ebooks Tree is not hosting MOBI files of AO3 works, but linking directly to the versions hosted on the AO3 servers, and we do not currently believe they are hosting PDF files, either. The AO3 team has taken action to prevent anyone from downloading works if they were following the links provided by Ebooks Tree.

I’d say my advice below stands regarding use of the Ebooks Tree website: Why use their database if you can get a complete series of fanworks in multiple file types directly from AO3 … for free and without creating a user account?

~A.

Original Post 13 April 2015 19:34:14. It came to my attention this afternoon that the website Ebooks Tree (about which there is no “about” page) has been scraping content from Archive of Our Own and posting it in ebook format without the permission of the AO3 authors or the Organization of Transformative Works.

Five of my fanworks have apparently been scraped and added to the Ebooks Tree database. This was done without my knowledge or permission. I will probably end up writing the site and requesting a takedown of my works. [Update: I have sent the first request as of 8:32pm 4/13/15.] In the meantime, I’d like to point out that Ebooks Tree requires you to create a user account in order to access the works they scraped from my AO3 page … but my fanfiction on AO3 is freely accessible to anyone who wishes to read it, whether or not they have an account with AO3.

So, you know, rather than using a shadowy content provider that’s acquiring shit without asking first and then requiring people to create accounts with them to access it, consider visiting the beautiful AO3 interface and reading or downloading my (and others’!) work in a variety of electronic formats: PDF, MOBI, EPUB, HTML.

For ease of access, here are the works that Ebooks Tree has lifted for their content database:

After the Dance
Eureka, Jack/Nathan, Teen

Snogging On the Verge
Downton Abbey, Branson/OMC, Teen

Stolen Moments
Downton Abbey, Sybil/Gwen, Explicit

Sunrise at the Canadian Shack
Eureka, Jack/Nathan, Teen

Under the Harvest Moon
Eureka, Jack/Nathan, Mature

Also, I gotta say … if you’re gonna steal works — dude, at least do some quality checking! All of these pieces are part of larger series, and the harvester ‘bot totally missed some of my more delicious works. So honestly? They should hire better robots.

← Older posts
"the past is a wild party; check your preconceptions at the door." ~ Emma Donoghue

Recent Posts

  • medical update 11.11.22
  • medical update 6.4.22
  • medical update 1.16.2022
  • medical update 10.13.2021
  • medical update 8.17.2021

Archives

Categories

Creative Commons License

This work by Anna J. Clutterbuck-Cook is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • the feminist librarian
    • Join 37 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • the feminist librarian
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...