have some rpf meta for your monday

[jlh]

So there was a secret up at fandomsecrets that got me thinking about rumors and open secrets and "people who know things" and I thought I'd throw it open here since so many of you write RPF (as, of course, do I) and I know have Firm Opinions on the matter. (By the way, let's just take as given that RPF is cool, all right? I don't defend RPF on my own journal.) Anyway as I see it there are these issues that, when they come together, create a lot of confusion at least in my own head.

The first is the idea that it's uncool/unethical/somewhat homophobic/fill in your own negative word here to write het RPF about an out gay public figure, like Adam Lambert or Rachel Maddow or NPH. Others have made this argument, and I take their point.

(Note: I don't think this applies to that Mary Sue fic you're writing in your head, because that gets into people's sexual fantasies being right or wrong, and I don't go there. I can't imagine why it would be homophobic for me, as a cis woman, to sit around thinking that David Burtka is hot.)

The second is the issue of using our gaydar on people we don't know and are unlikely to meet, who are being at least a little performative in the spaces where we see them as themselves because they are still public spaces. I don't know Matt Bomer and am pretty unlikely to meet him, but pictures of he and his partner are not difficult to find. I don't know Zachary Quinto and am unlikely to meet him, either, but I also don't really know enough about him to have a firm personal opinion on his sexuality. That said, isn't it a little weird, that I'm expected to have a firm personal opinion on his sexuality? I mean, is saying that I don't really know anything about him so I don't know if he's gay actually my being homophobic, as seems to be implied by the Quinto fandom? I'm not saying "Surely the man who plays Spock can't be gay!" I'm just saying I don't personally know.

So where these two things come together is really my question. Does the first idea—no writing het rpf about gay celebs—only apply to celebs who are publicly out, and therefore are somewhat symbolic, etc, etc, etc? Or does it also apply to the "open secret" types like Anderson Cooper or NPH before he came out, where they weren't really trying to hide it but also never spoke about it and weren't on the red carpet with anyone? And then beyond that, does it also apply to those in the "strong rumor" category like Quinto? And where does the fangirlish shippy hysteria tip over into just general ridiculousness (like the aforementioned secret, where someone was stating the Quinto-dating-Jonathan-Groff rumor as fact)?

I guess, how much of this stuff am I required to believe, and where does my natural skepticism for dating rumors become homophobic?

Comments

[melodiousb]

I think it's largely a matter of taste, complicated by the fact that some people are unwilling to entertain others' points of view.

For me, reading RPF--and all fic, really--is about what I can believe for the course of a story. Writing it requires a little more conviction. And I do feel, as I expect the people complaining about het fic about Maddow, Lambert, etc. do, that writing an openly gay figure as straight is akin to shoving them back in the closet, while writing someone who is assumed to be straight as gay feels more like subverting the heterocentric media. But I take those feelings with a grain of salt.

Really, I feel like anything goes, pretty much. Writers can write what they want. And readers can read--or not read--what they want. Personally, I do feel kind of uncomfortable reading fic in which gay characters--or characters I interpret as being gay, whether because I think the person in question really is gay, or because I've read too much slash about them--have het sex. And I'm more likely to be comfortable with it in a no strings attached PWP kind of setting than in a situation where I'm asked to believe that the gay character is falling in love with someone of the opposite sex.

On the other hand, I'm pretty easy to convince. I'm willing to believe a lot of rumors, and I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to read or write a pairing. And I think that's fine. There are two issues here: one is a question of what you do or can believe about someone, and the other is a question of ethics. The belief part isn't really something you can control, and the ethics thing isn't something anyone can decide for you.

[jlh]

So this comment is much less about how I don't agree with you, because I think you've articulated how I actually feel and what I actually hope is true or wish were true, but I'm hesitant, in the face of other arguments.

There are two issues here: one is a question of what you do or can believe about someone, and the other is a question of ethics. The belief part isn't really something you can control, and the ethics thing isn't something anyone can decide for you.

But isn't all the conversation on the internet really claiming the exact opposite? Why make entries about how something is wrong--like writing het rpf about out gay figures, for example--if you're not hoping to convince people and thereby change what they think is ethical? We talk about ethics having to come from inside, but we don't actually behave in that way toward others; we use lots of methods of community shaming to get people to behave in a way the community has decided is appropriate. And when the community's ethics and our own aren't in line, we then turn around and attempt to shame the community. So I would argue that all the time, someone else is trying to get me to have their ethics, and I'm always trying to balance an internal sense of right and wrong with the flexibility to understand my own privilege and etc etc etc, and I tend to not be that firm in my own beliefs if that makes sense. I am not that sure of anything at all.

That said:

some people are unwilling to entertain others' points of view

probably sums up half the time that I get into trouble on the internet. People are so definite, so absolute, so unwilling to entertain gray areas, so sure of themselves. I'm nearly always the opposite, and I find myself bending a lot, or getting steamrolled. And when I feel that way I make posts like this to check in with people and help me think my way through it without that sort of THIS IS THE TRUTH thing going on. I don't think that way, but I do have the internal suspicion that it might be better to think that way? At least one wouldn't always be relentlessly questioning oneself.

[melodiousb]

A lot of this is about what should be as opposed to what actually is, I guess. I would definitely like to think that I do have an internal sense of ethics, but, like you, I constantly question myself. And that's less about ethics that about being the kind of person that does question oneself.

But also: for every issue of ethics there's the x-axis of your opinion and the y-axis of how important you think it is. So on something like, say, child abuse, thinking it's bad is important to me, and I think everyonee else should think similarly. But on the subject of cheese--well, I think it's delicious, but not important, so if other people think it's awful, that doesn't bother me. And different people put things at different places along that axis. For me, the issue of hetfic about out gay figures is occasionally problematic, but I think of it as an issue where everyone is free to suit themselves. Obviously there are people who disagree. But they can't actually change your mind for you any more than you can make them stop trying to shame you for things that, internally, you feel okay about.

Unfortunately, I think what I'm saying is that you just shouldn't let any of this bother you, and I know that that's unhelpful, and that it doesn't really work that way. And that "live and let live" only works if everyone is doing it.

[jlh]

I actually don't feel like you're telling me to just not let it bother me, I mean, at least, you aren't just saying I shouldn't let it bother me, but saying, well, here are the limits of what's going on, which is different. And you're so right that there's being a person who questions yourself vs being a person who doesn't, and I often get blown sideways by people who don't because I forget that it isn't just that they feel strongly about this thing, but that they don't question themselves. They are vehement people.

Which also means, yes, my tendency to think "well, they care a lot about this and I don't care quite as much so they must be right" isn't the best guideline. Maybe they do care a lot, but their wanting to shame people for a thing that I personally don't think is such a bad thing doesn't mean that I have to knuckle under to them. In the comment below from/to Edith I was reminded of that dustup last year between some of the social justice folks and Astolat over her Kradam Regency AU being ahistorical in that it talked about the British Empire but at the same time had Anoop as a major character somewhat unproblematically. They felt it erased the real history of race and power that underlies the Regency era; Astolat said she was writing a romance genre fic. Perhaps this could have been avoided if Astolat had labeled her fic as such, making it clear that the story was ahistorical in the manner of a modern-day genre regency romance, but she assumed people knew what she was doing, and unfortunately some folks read it thinking it would be a properly researched historical AU, which of course it wasn't. And so there was a certain amount of wank and I, as someone who'd recently written a historical AU where I did try to deal with the issues of race, got incredibly freaked out because in order to write a story you have to change some stuff, especially if you're writing an Idol historical AU. The great thing about the show is its racial diversity, but put them back in time and you either end up with a group of people who never would have met each other (you know, like that great essay about how if Buffy were set in the UK she and the Scoobies would never have met because they all would have gone to different schools) or an extreme power differential that makes fics uncomfortable. And you either are okay with historical fiction doing a certain amount of changes, or you're not. These people obviously were not. And what I wanted to say to them was, jesus, I'm an actual historian and I don't apply the standards of academic history to any fiction. It's absurd. That said, you should probably show your work.

But I think if I show my work, then I just have to be okay, and people who don't like it can avoid me. Of course I'd rather that people I actually know and respect don't think I'm homophobic, but if they decide I'm generally homophobic because of this one issue, however strongly they feel about it and however much I agree with them generally, then I guess I really can't worry about it. You know, if other people can't see the shades of gray I can see, even after I point them out, then there's nothing more to be said.

[edithmorningstar]

I think there's some point to it, but really, not enough to stop someone who's moved to write a fic from going ahead and feeling good about it. There are sensitive ways to do it, I think. Ways that don't erase that person's queer identity. For example, Adam Lambert fics where he has casual sex with a or many women, because it just ends up happening to him as part of his crazy rockstar life on the road, or because, hey, blowjob, etc., but where it's still clear he's *into* guys and his primary attraction and love orientation is toward guys. Or where he gets together with Kris's wife Katy because that's how Kris and Katy are willing to let him have Kris, and it's not just to do a duty but because he loves her as a person and his attraction for Kris can include her as being a part of the Kris package, and someone Kris loves and is hot for. It may not be realistic, but it doesn't pretend Adam isn't a big out queer.

What I might find problematic would be more the kind of fic where an out gay person was portrayed in RPF as an always-straight character, with no mention of queer sexualities or addressing the fact that a change had been made from that person's life canon. That's along the same spectrum as that whole wank about the bandom fic where the author wrote a Jewish performer as Christian. Without going down that slope, at the time I remembered thinking that she could probably have done that story, if she felt compelled to do it, and still not erased his Jewishness, by deliberately using the story to explore the what-if. What would this character be like if he didn't grow up as part of a religious/sexual minority? or a *different* minority? How would it change what we know about who he's become? Take Adam again, and explore if he would have the same drive if he hadn't grown up different from his peers in several ways. Would the Adam who grew up straight and Lutheran have been OK with stage success and not taken the Idol leap to try for superstardom?

If I were trying to write that kind of story, I'd want to be open from the start, in the notes, about what I was doing / exploring and why. Basically, also, warn for a non-canonical change to the character's core identity. If the fic then turned into a wish fulfillment Mary Sue, it would be hard to justify posting it if it was standard practice to include notes about why you made that kind of change. OTOH, if a fic says up front, "I am shamelessly pretending this person likes women so I can write him boinking my fictional stand-in" then everyone who cares would know to avoid it anyway. I think it comes down to acknowledgment, even just the very minimum of noting that you're doing something controversial and that you recognize it may offend some people that you've done it. IMHO that goes a long way to making it not feel like an erasure.

If it started becoming a huge trend - ie, a huge chunk of fic about Adam Lambert has him written as always-het - I'd start to see it as a more systemic rather than individual issue. Then it would be edging into collective practice of erasure. But for just a handful of fics, looking into the what-ifs? It's not a lot different than writing always-a-(straight)-girl fic about a gay man, either, and that's pretty commonly accepted.

People who think that not tinhatting their favorite RPF ships or their beloved closet cases is homophobic are, quite frankly, nuts. If Quinto hasn't said anything about his sexuality, then it's as much up for grabs for discussion as anyone else's. Heck, even Anderson Cooper isn't truly canonically gay if he never comes out.

I see erasure as problematic if it has the effect of undermining the claimed identity of a person or character. If an identity is unclaimed, it can't be undermined.

[jlh]

The funny thing is that the people I know who initially broached the subject and are the most hard core about it are Adam Lambert fans, hence the prohibition of all het fic from that glambertfic comm including the kinds of situations you mention. I've been pushing at the edges of this question for a while but unfortunately they never comment to clarify how they feel about it.

I should say that all the Zach/Zoe fic that I read portrayed Zach as queer and a little confused that he was suddenly into some girl but rolling with it. So even though Quinto hasn't claimed that identity publicly it was by and large maintained in the stories.

With the Gabe Saporta thing, I think a warning would have been good--as it often can be for AUs where people have different assumptions. (For example, if Astolat had been clearer when she wrote that Kradam Regency AU that it was a costume epic/BBC-esque color blind casting story and not trying to be particularly historically accurate, then the people who got so angry with her might have not read the story in the first place. But that whole wank, I don't know, I don't know how much I can be there with them for that one.) So if you as a writer decided to explore something with the full knowledge that you're changing something about the person, that has to be fair game, and those who don't want to see that can avoid it.

Interesting what you say about closet cases and their fans. I think that yes, we can't, as the public, be expected to be respectful of something that hasn't been made public yet. And there is something unseemly about the vehement denials of certain fans of celebs who might be gay--the ClayMates come to mind here--but the air of homophobia doesn't come from the "we don't know that", because that part is true. It comes from the "he can't possibly be gay" because that's a homophobic thing to say; anyone can be gay. Saying "I don't know what their sexuality is because they haven't said anything" isn't being homophobic; you're not saying, "Since they haven't come out they must be straight." But you know, the internet, there can only be two sides, no gray middles please. Also part of this is the ontd culture of being a 'person who knows things' and the skepticism of same.

If an identity is unclaimed, it can't be undermined.

An excellent way to look at it!