I guess I believe that firstly because that is the history of it (that is, as a type/genre of fanfic), and the majority of slash existing being fanfic of a movie/book/game/text of some sort that is shared by an audience-- and therein is the separation between audience and source (though it could be a fuzzy boundary). I mean, there are variations, but yeah. It's sort of a matter of contrast to me-- for there to be slash as an action, there has to be an antithesis, a 'lack of' (or potential for) action it's acting against on some sort of meta level.
This is, I believe, the basis of the original question, though. If you have a slash fanfic author who writes for a slash fanfic readership, who now chooses to write original fic with an m/m dynamic similar to that which she writes and enjoys in slash, and she's writing it with the idea that it might appeal to a slash fanfic readership, what better term to identify it than "original slash?" No, it's not fanfic slash, which has for the history of the term been synonymous with slash, but what it is is a new form of literature, rising out of the roots of slash. As such, it needs an identifying terminology. Original slash is certainly accurate.
So yes, there should be 'unrealized or semi-realized slash potential'-- and if it's only in one person's head (the person writing), then the definition dissolves for me because you could call any piece of gay literature slash at that point, and there's no precise differentiation for that act of commentary on some existing media that is unique to the origins of slash.
I disagree. Slash has as its focus homoerotic relationships, and it's written for an audience who enjoys those relationships, but may not participate in those relationships themselves. Gay literature, in my understanding, is geared toward a gay audience, with a focus on gay culture and issues as well as homoerotic relationships. The difference in target audience and focus would of necessity make it rather difficult to call one the other. Though people have tried.
That difference between simply writing something with homoerotic content (which would automatically imply, to me, a process of exploring any developing tension) and writing something that develops the dormant homosocial/homoerotic tension in an existing work-- what would be the name for -that particular act-, then?
::cutting yet another iteration of the origin of slash, which I think we've all got by now, thanks::
I'm afraid your sentence structure makes it rather difficult for me to determine which particular act you mean. If you mean writing something with homoerotic content...well, I would call that writing homoerotica. If you mean writing something with homoerotic content with a slash sensibility, geared toward a slash audience, I would call that slash. If the characters you are writing are your own, I would call that original slash. If the characters you are writing are from another source, I would call that fanfic slash, or simply slash. Original slash needs the qualifier of "original" because slash has been specific to fanfic for so long. That, I never disputed, which is one reason I'm very impatient with the detour into the history of the term. What I am disputing is that slash cannot be applied to original work that is written by a slash author, with a slash sensibility, geared toward a slash audience.
As to your last point, writing is always a social act when you publish your writing. And I don't believe anybody has tried to claim that original slash is or must be a fandom act. I believe it's a fannish act, in that fans are writing it for other fans, and it might be argued it's a meta-fandom act, since it's an art form arising out of being involved in fandom. But I don't see anyone arguing it should be considered part of a specific fandom.
Re: Part 2
This is, I believe, the basis of the original question, though. If you have a slash fanfic author who writes for a slash fanfic readership, who now chooses to write original fic with an m/m dynamic similar to that which she writes and enjoys in slash, and she's writing it with the idea that it might appeal to a slash fanfic readership, what better term to identify it than "original slash?" No, it's not fanfic slash, which has for the history of the term been synonymous with slash, but what it is is a new form of literature, rising out of the roots of slash. As such, it needs an identifying terminology. Original slash is certainly accurate.
So yes, there should be 'unrealized or semi-realized slash potential'-- and if it's only in one person's head (the person writing), then the definition dissolves for me because you could call any piece of gay literature slash at that point, and there's no precise differentiation for that act of commentary on some existing media that is unique to the origins of slash.
I disagree. Slash has as its focus homoerotic relationships, and it's written for an audience who enjoys those relationships, but may not participate in those relationships themselves. Gay literature, in my understanding, is geared toward a gay audience, with a focus on gay culture and issues as well as homoerotic relationships. The difference in target audience and focus would of necessity make it rather difficult to call one the other. Though people have tried.
That difference between simply writing something with homoerotic content (which would automatically imply, to me, a process of exploring any developing tension) and writing something that develops the dormant homosocial/homoerotic tension in an existing work-- what would be the name for -that particular act-, then?
::cutting yet another iteration of the origin of slash, which I think we've all got by now, thanks::
I'm afraid your sentence structure makes it rather difficult for me to determine which particular act you mean. If you mean writing something with homoerotic content...well, I would call that writing homoerotica. If you mean writing something with homoerotic content with a slash sensibility, geared toward a slash audience, I would call that slash. If the characters you are writing are your own, I would call that original slash. If the characters you are writing are from another source, I would call that fanfic slash, or simply slash. Original slash needs the qualifier of "original" because slash has been specific to fanfic for so long. That, I never disputed, which is one reason I'm very impatient with the detour into the history of the term. What I am disputing is that slash cannot be applied to original work that is written by a slash author, with a slash sensibility, geared toward a slash audience.
As to your last point, writing is always a social act when you publish your writing. And I don't believe anybody has tried to claim that original slash is or must be a fandom act. I believe it's a fannish act, in that fans are writing it for other fans, and it might be argued it's a meta-fandom act, since it's an art form arising out of being involved in fandom. But I don't see anyone arguing it should be considered part of a specific fandom.