slash and backslash

2010-03-24T03:15:25Z

I read some Black Dagger Brotherhood fic recently. It was in write_good, which is a bit like putting it on a serving tray. It was, of course, slash. Normally I don't bother reading slash. It was better than the canon in a lot of ways, which is the true hallmark of why there is fanfic.

My first experience with slash was in Harry Potter fic, Fred and George Weasley twincest. One of those eyebrow raising moments, let me tell you. Since then I keep seeing Harry/Draco fic. Some of that isn't horrible, but I completely disbelieve that out of the expected ~2-4 people in their year who are homosexual that they're going to be (a)male (b)at the top of their social strata (c)attractive (d) rich/powerful. Worse, even if all those things were true, it doesn't seem likely that they'd hit it off.

A lot of my problem with Drarry slash is that it usually sounds like it's written by 12 year old virgin girls. When the girls are old enough that boys are interesting but the particular boys their age are not yet there emotionally so the girls project their imaginations onto what they assume boys must be like.

In other fandoms, slash makes more sense to me.

I've long thought that Poirot and Hastings must have been non-heterosexual. Perhaps not in the books, but certainly there's that overtone in the TV version.

I've been reading fic from milk_and_orchids which is a Nero Wolfe fic group. One of the early posts there says that Archie and Nero both have things in their private spaces which are suggestive of heterosexual interest in women. Another has a link to a slashy fic. I don't have a strong opinion about Nero Wolfe's preferences, but I don't see Nero and Archie as my OTP.

I've been watching the Jeremy Brett version of Sherlock Holmes. That's been a lot more discreet than Poirot and Hastings for sure, but Watson has a lot of mannerisms that harken to girlfriend behavior.

That was when I realized that all my favorite detectives tend toward the gay. It has me questioning whether there's an association there beyond my preference for mysteries where the ignorant friend exists to ask for narration. But it logically makes sense that being homosexual in more socially restrictive times would require a lot of attention to nuance.

comments

finding the next city of gold

2009-07-13T20:44:00Z

One of the common concepts in cyberpunk type sf novels was the arcology. There is an idea that if everyone lives in high-rise buildings and those buildings are mostly self-contained in terms of work and activities and services, then it will make optimal use of the land surface of the Earth. It will cut down on commutes and no one will really need cars.

However, after living in multi-story apartments for years, I can tell you that there are serious issues with water quality and delivery. There are noise issues. There are waste disposal issues and plumbing issues. It's just not feasible to stack people's living quarters densely without running into problems where economy of scale is a hindrance instead of a boon.

But the current system of stand-alone houses a markedly unreasonable distance from most workplaces with high-priced lawn services individually contracted--- that is not right. Excessive daily commuting via private car should be actively discouraged. There is no reason society should tolerate people driving 100 miles per day just to get to and from an office.

One of the ideas that's come up in recent years would be really good for young adults just starting out especially. It's a system where the individual living space is tiny, but there are large communal areas and neighbors tend to cook together and share big items like televisions and libraries.

I think sometimes I would like that. I know it would be nice if I could call on neighbors when I need something minor done, but I hardly know my neighbors and would feel uncomfortable asking unless it was truly dire. I also know I would not mind being here to get packages for other people or letting other people's maid service in. I might not mind picking things up from the store for other people while I'm going. And it would be nice if I could get dropped off at the train station (which is near the eye doctor and the dentist both) a couple times per year. It doesn't seem like that would be completely unreasonable.

But that kind of system only works if you're willing to put a little more in than what you're expecting to get back. And the people in my building currently cannot be bothered to follow even the smallest rules about the laundry room.

I do think living in California is not a sustainable proposition for me. Given the kind of lifestyle I want, I should probably have left years ago. I want to be able to drive to things and have an expectation that parking will exist at my destination. I want to shop at stores which have sufficient product on the shelves that me buying something does not mean someone else will have to do without. I want to be able to go places without thinking, "Damn, it's the weekend, everything will be full." On the other hand, the weather is usually clement, the food choices are phenomenal (both restaurant and grocery options), and socially I am considered conservative here--- without changing my views at all, I went from being a doused-in-napalm flaming liberal to a she-must-hate-people conservative. [You should not be equating conservatism with Republicanism, the Republicans representing their party currently have no desire to conserve anything for anyone.]

But in order to have what I like about California in a place where there is still room for people, I feel like I would need to start a company and bring 10-20K people with me. There are vast vast swaths of land in the middle of the US. There are moderate-size towns there that are hurting for employers. If Google said, "Fuck this, we're moving to Nebraska, it would be cheaper for us to build an airport and a whole town and import the necessary infrastructure than it is to expand in Silicon Valley." There are places in the country that would welcome them. But it would have to be a big enough endeavor. I wouldn't feel comfortable living in Missouri or Kansas, for example---unless something was done to protect the human rights of everyone including women. I wouldn't feel comfortable being gay in Wyoming either. So if there were something along those lines, it would need to be a big enough venture that the abhorrent state-level laws could be challenged and hate-crimes prosecuted. Stores would have to be open on Sundays--- which is still illegal in many places, despite it being a blatant discriminatory practice against many other religions.

I think what might be interesting is if we could set up a couple big arcologies in somewhere like Nebraska or Indiana or wherever. These could be given diplomatic status, so women could still get contraception even in the most god-ridden of places, regardless of local laws. It might be expensive, and would require some really phenomenal architecture and structural engineering, but I do think enclosing a complete community and placing it somewhere space is not at a premium could really be an interesting experiment. But it should not be a single corporation's venture lest it be something financially unstable. And I think it would need some real oomph behind it to get the kind of diplomatic status it would need to reassure women and minorities and homosexuals and non-Christians that they could not be killed with impunity.

comments

seryn

slash and backslash

finding the next city of gold