I see what you're saying about making your own subtext overt within the course of the story-- I think any good (romance) story does that (by which definition it'd always be slashing itself as well as the source). I tend to think of the source as non-overt because I think of 'slashing' as something the audience does. And since I -am- my own audience sort of, I can see the potential for slash, but feel if I delivered it, I'd be writing straightforward romance and not something that can be slashed (by others).
I think we're just going to keep disagreeing about this. I don't believe it's necessary for slash to have to be written by someone other than the author of the piece being slashed, and I don't believe the piece being slashed has to exist first as a non-slash work. I agree that slash is romance, but it's a subset of romance, and I find the specificity of the term useful.
I think the difference we have is a question of whether the writer is an 'audience' (of an outside source of which the reader is also the audience of simultaneously) is necessary for something to be defined as 'slash' (which means that 'slashy'-- that is subtextually charged-- is something else, really).
I've always taken slashy to mean that there's unrealized or semi-realized slash potential in whatever is being called "slashy." Where I think we're actually disagreeing is whether or not a slashy source must exist somewhere other than the author's head in order for slash to be written. I believe an author can write original slash if she sees the slashy potential in her own characters and runs with it. You seem to believe the non-slashed source has to be written down/filmed and distributed before slash can be written about it. Am I understanding you correctly?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Part 2
Date: 2004-11-20 01:52 pm (UTC)I think we're just going to keep disagreeing about this. I don't believe it's necessary for slash to have to be written by someone other than the author of the piece being slashed, and I don't believe the piece being slashed has to exist first as a non-slash work. I agree that slash is romance, but it's a subset of romance, and I find the specificity of the term useful.
I think the difference we have is a question of whether the writer is an 'audience' (of an outside source of which the reader is also the audience of simultaneously) is necessary for something to be defined as 'slash' (which means that 'slashy'-- that is subtextually charged-- is something else, really).
I've always taken slashy to mean that there's unrealized or semi-realized slash potential in whatever is being called "slashy." Where I think we're actually disagreeing is whether or not a slashy source must exist somewhere other than the author's head in order for slash to be written. I believe an author can write original slash if she sees the slashy potential in her own characters and runs with it. You seem to believe the non-slashed source has to be written down/filmed and distributed before slash can be written about it. Am I understanding you correctly?