It's not so much that I don't think one's own characters don't have secret lives-- it's that I don't think one could conclusively determine what they are for another writer's text. I am, in fact, a writer-- and I don't 'know' things (rationally) about my characters so much as I seem to draw new information (often enough extraneous to the story) from the 'ether', so to speak. I don't 'know' so much as feel. There are quite a number of ways to both write & read/perceive a text, is what I'm saying.
But considering that what we're talking about is the lives of one's own characters, then I'm not sure what point you're making with the above. That there are multiple ways to read a text? Well, yes, that's a given, and not really germane to the discussion. That an external text must exist from which slash can be derived but which is not, in itself, slash? I think we may just keep disagreeing on that point, but it's because I weigh in a certain sensibility and gearing toward a certain audience as well as the idea of making subtext into text. There are a few different parts to my definition of slash, and making text of subtext is more incidental than integral. Yeah, I'm playing with something I already see in a fictional relationship, but that relationship doesn't necessarily have to exist outside my own head in order for me to slash it.
But yes, I know there are certain inferences one can make with a higher certainty than others, based on 'evidence' and subtext and one's knowledge of human nature, when going from another's text. However, I'm just saying these inferences are inconclusive, unlike with a story one writes oneself. That is to say, literary criticism isn't a hard science, you know?
Indeed it's not, but I wasn't arguing anything that implied it was. Once you leave basic concepts of spelling, grammar, and punctuation behind, a lot of litcrit becomes very subjective, if still valuable. I'm just pointing out some of the subjective factors that have gone into the concept of a genre known as "original slash."
I suppose partly it's that I meant you could slash things with non-existent subtext, too-- and it'd still be slash-- and it may be OOC but in a way, anything you write as a fan-writer is 'OOC' to a degree since you cannot know the complete truth about the characters as the author does. One can approximate, of course, but never 100%. Anyway, people sometimes slash just because they think two characters -could- have an interesting relationship, not because they do-- and I don't know if that's not slash (or even OOC) by definition so much as AU of a certain sort.
Here, I think, is part of the difficulty. I personally know of no authors who slash without some kind of subtext or inferred subtext. What I mean by inferred subtext is that they take a look at character A from fandom B, match his personality and behavior up with character C from fandom D, and determine, based on their own understanding of human nature, that these characters would have subtext. Now you or I may not see the subtext, but that doesn't mean it's not there, if only in the mind of the slasher. And really, when dealing in the realm of fiction derived from fiction on a sublevel, the presence of subtext even in the mind of one person is nothing to sneeze at.
In any case, this has wandered a little afield of the original topic, and discussing the presence of subtext in original slash would only be wandering further, so I'll wrap it up by reiterating that I do think original slash exists as a genre. I've written it, read it, and discussed it, and that's plenty of proof for me.
Re: Part 1
But considering that what we're talking about is the lives of one's own characters, then I'm not sure what point you're making with the above. That there are multiple ways to read a text? Well, yes, that's a given, and not really germane to the discussion. That an external text must exist from which slash can be derived but which is not, in itself, slash? I think we may just keep disagreeing on that point, but it's because I weigh in a certain sensibility and gearing toward a certain audience as well as the idea of making subtext into text. There are a few different parts to my definition of slash, and making text of subtext is more incidental than integral. Yeah, I'm playing with something I already see in a fictional relationship, but that relationship doesn't necessarily have to exist outside my own head in order for me to slash it.
But yes, I know there are certain inferences one can make with a higher certainty than others, based on 'evidence' and subtext and one's knowledge of human nature, when going from another's text. However, I'm just saying these inferences are inconclusive, unlike with a story one writes oneself. That is to say, literary criticism isn't a hard science, you know?
Indeed it's not, but I wasn't arguing anything that implied it was. Once you leave basic concepts of spelling, grammar, and punctuation behind, a lot of litcrit becomes very subjective, if still valuable. I'm just pointing out some of the subjective factors that have gone into the concept of a genre known as "original slash."
I suppose partly it's that I meant you could slash things with non-existent subtext, too-- and it'd still be slash-- and it may be OOC but in a way, anything you write as a fan-writer is 'OOC' to a degree since you cannot know the complete truth about the characters as the author does. One can approximate, of course, but never 100%. Anyway, people sometimes slash just because they think two characters -could- have an interesting relationship, not because they do-- and I don't know if that's not slash (or even OOC) by definition so much as AU of a certain sort.
Here, I think, is part of the difficulty. I personally know of no authors who slash without some kind of subtext or inferred subtext. What I mean by inferred subtext is that they take a look at character A from fandom B, match his personality and behavior up with character C from fandom D, and determine, based on their own understanding of human nature, that these characters would have subtext. Now you or I may not see the subtext, but that doesn't mean it's not there, if only in the mind of the slasher. And really, when dealing in the realm of fiction derived from fiction on a sublevel, the presence of subtext even in the mind of one person is nothing to sneeze at.
In any case, this has wandered a little afield of the original topic, and discussing the presence of subtext in original slash would only be wandering further, so I'll wrap it up by reiterating that I do think original slash exists as a genre. I've written it, read it, and discussed it, and that's plenty of proof for me.