How To Be Unfriended in Two Simple Steps

[kaydeefalls]

Well, shit happens, let's see how many people I lose now.

Step One: offend fandom.

Okay, so there's smut, right? Slash almost always involves smut. Great. And I still don't enjoy reading it.

I have no moral objection to the stuff. It doesn't actively squick me out, either. But once the newness of it all wore off back in, oh, June, it just started irritating me. Yes, we're slashers, we essentially write gay porn, so who the fuck do I think I am to take this pretentious, uprighteous attitude towards it? Nobody. I'm glad you all get off on vivid descriptions of pretty boys having sex. Go forth and be merry.

But yeah, I almost always skim over the smutty parts of fics. They -- dare I say it? -- bore me. I mean, how many ways can you talk about X's dick being sucked by Y, or the incredible feeling of J entering K? After a while, it all just looks the same to me. Yay, they're fucking, great, can we get to the interesting stuff now?

Okay, some people throw in gimmicks to make their smut more interesting. I tried very hard to find dom/sub hot, to see Billy-as-aggressive-dom or Dom-bound-to-the-bed as something new and exciting. But even while acknowledging the high quality of the writing -- and there are some fucking amazing smut writers out there -- I couldn't maintain any interest. Lack of conflict = lack of interest. For me, anyway. I was just frustrated, in a why-is-this-writer-wasting-her-talent-on-sex-scenes kind of way. And this happens every time some brilliant writer posts a new smutbomb-to-end-all-smutbombs. Every fucking time. I'm no fandom queen by any stretch of the imagination, but I've been reading this stuff for over a year now, and every smutbomb looks the same.

Give me plot. Give me imagery. Give me a fantastic story and well-drawn characters and interesting dynamics. How do these people interact? And not just in bed, either. Some well-written smut as part of a larger, plot- or character-driven fic will always work. Or, hey, remember the days when the sex actually impacted the STORY -- when it affected the way the characters dealt with each other, how they felt about themselves? Yeah, I kinda miss that.

Every now and then a piece of smut comes along that actually impresses me. It works. It serves a purpose and is well-written to boot. And it's part of something bigger, improves the fic as a whole. Or actually manages to stand alone. There are maybe four PWPs that I've liked enough to rec. Maybe. Probably fewer. Those are the ones I actually rec here.

The rest? Yeah, fine. Enjoy them, certainly -- most people do. Maybe I'm just a freak. But tell me what's so great about 'em. Honestly. I dare you.


Step Two: offend everyone else.

Except not. I'm not particularly conservative. There's only one issue in which my views could even remotely considered conservative, actually, but that's a topic for another time. And yet I support the war on Iraq.

How could I have been so brainwashed, you ask? How could I be so stupid? So heartless? Idiotic, even?

Because I think we've finally found a country whose leader is more idiotic, aggressive, and insane than our own. This is quite a feat. I can't stand Bush. It kills me to agree with him. But I do. Everyone's been denouncing his speech tonight. His war-mongering (in a particularly Grima-type way). But, um, dare I say it? Maybe he knows more about the situation than we do. Maybe he's just a smidge more well-informed. Maybe the thousands of intelligence officers in the service of the US and our allies have been giving him a touch more information than your average man on the street hears.

And you know what? I did pretty damn well in US History last year. I took notes on how the Allies -- not even officially allies, yet -- sat around and did bupkis while Hitler built up his army, back in the 1930s. They turned a blind eye every step of the way in an attempt to maintain peace. They were trying to avoid hostilities. Peace among nations -- the noblest cause there is, and I heartily support it. But every now and then, it doesn't work.

Yes, people will die on both sides. This is never a good thing. War in general is not a good thing. But sometimes it has to happen. This war? Inevitable. And call me selfish, but I'd prefer that our idiotic leader choose the time for it than wait a few months or years for that other maniac in the Middle East to initiate the attack on us. And, hate to break it to ya, but all evidence suggests that he will.

Up 'til recently, I was against the war. I saw in it echoes of Vietnam, of the "victorious" yet ultimately failed Gulf War. I still make those comparisons in my mind. But this war will happen whether I support it or not, and maybe I should stop being so blindly idealistic in my hopes for peace and acknowledge that the real world doesn't play fair. Maybe we need to be the unfair ones. Because I'd hate for us to wait around optimistically and do nothing, just to find out a few years down the line that we were wrong.


Whee. Opinions. Good times, good times. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, I won't hold it against you. It takes all kinds of people to make up the world, right?

Comments

[ladyjaida.livejournal.com]

I'm not coherent yet about Bush and the war, so I'm not gonna go there.

What I will say, is this: I agree with you, 100%, on the whole idea of smut. If you try to define slash to someone they immediately assume you're writing gay porn, not gay relationships, and the vast amount of peniscockmanhoodmemberthrobbingerectionmanmeatasspenetrationdickdickdick that's out there is probablywhy. Fuck. Personally, the reason I read AND write slash is in order to delve into the heads of characters or people who interest me, create conflicts, word with issues or pscyhoses, deal with the characters as characters, not sex bombs. I can like a well-written smutfic here and there (in the same way that I don't have a One True Pairing in any fandom, because I'm open to anything if it's done intriguingly) but I hav always been and will always be about what's going on inside a character's head.

It's the buildup that makes it hot. It's the tension that makes it fascinating. It's everything before and after the sex itself that I love.

This is unproofread, but there you have it. I agree. SO very much.

[msilverstar]

Kaydee, I'm too new to be bored by smut and I disagree with you on the war, but you're a cool person and a great writer and I would be poorer if I lost you as a friend.

Hanging out with people who agree all the time are comfy but boring: respectful arguments force us to examine our positions and maybe even change them. I try hard to keep an open mind, especially with people who have shown themselves to be thoughtful. So no unfriending from me.

[bunniewabbit.livejournal.com]

Re: war -- I just feel kind of helplessly resigned to it, and wish it wasn't going to happen. That's about as far as I want to wrap my head around it, just now.

Re: slash -- I'm afraid well-written smut of any sort still does it for me, whether smutbomb or character-driven, so I have to disagree with you on that point. I've only been reading it for roughly a year, though; I can see how someone might reach the point with it that you have. Knowing your opinion, however, makes me value all the more some kind, positive feedback that you left for one of my fics a couple of weeks ago. I've gotta figure that you were either in a really benevolent mood, or that you really did like it. Naturally, I choose to go with the latter. ;-)

[tvillingar.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I have to say I share at least part of your opinion on smut. There IS such thing as 'too much smut' and sometimes my cup runneth over. Or something. Seriously, I've sometimes taken a vacation from slash and went to read some gen in some other fandom. Similarly, I've quit reading stories in the middle just because I've suddenly had enough.

Slash doesn't equal sex-sex-sex-all-the-time, at least not to me. Otherwise, how would it be different from any porn story? But at the same time, some smut is better written than some other smut. Do I even make sense? I speak mainly from the reader's POV since I haven't written that much and I'm VERY well aware of my own lack of decent plotting skills.

What comes to this war-thing: no, you're not offending me. I don't have any good or bad arguments to back me up but I'm just not agreeing with you.

[maleyka.livejournal.com]

I read your opinions on the war. And I thought about it. And I realised that I agree with you and at the same time don't. And I tried to bring this across in a post in a hopefully coherent, thoughtful, completely logical kind of way. And guess what? I read it , blushed and deleted everything I had written. And because even this short declaration makes me seem the dumbest dumb person on earth (besides Saddam, Dubya and several other leading politicians, but that's beside the point) I'll shut up now. And say that I agree 99% with you on smut. The 1% rebellion originates from the fact that I do enjoy well-written smut immensely. As long as it's the right pairing (because I'm terribly obsessive about my OTP(s). If the story couples, lets say, Dom off with Viggo or Orlando with one of the Seans, I won't read it. No matter how fabulous the author, how brilliant the concept. That's my claim to narrow-mindedness and I cling to it like a mother to her first-born). But I need good characterization and a believable concept in "my" smut just as much as every reader does. And it's always nice if a tasteful amount of sappiness is thrown in for good measure. I'm a sucker for all that I-love-and-adore-you-and-what-we-have-is-so-much-more-than-just-sex scenario.

P.S.:*frowns* That somehow wasn't much better than my own personal Iraq disaster prior to my second attempt at a decent comment, was it? Oh well. I just can't do eloquent. But, nope, no defriending from me either. 'Cause I adore your stories and appreciate your views on all kinds of things. Yeah. *smiles

[troisroyaumes]

I agree with you. Smut is boring. Long live the plot readers! I want a story to continue when I can't get more of the movie/book/anime/whateverfandomthingI'mobsessingabout.

On the war: I have this very skewed philosophy that works from a perspective that refuses to argue on behalf of U.S. interests. Personally, I'm opposed to the war because I want global politics to move towards the gradual elimination of national sovereignty in return for supranational governments. More power to the UN, etc. Religiously I don't sanction war, but it's sort of like my opinions on abortion—my morals forbid me from getting an abortion or participating in war, but I don't believe that morals should be imposed on government actions at all. So I'm not really opposed to the war on a moral stance, because I believe morality has no place in politics. I don't like this war because it creates a horrible situation historically. If this war is long and painful, with lots of American casualties, then America will return to the Monroe Doctrine and no longer attempt any preemptive measures again. If this war is successful, it sets a precedent for preemptive strikes by the U.S. which will completely discredit the UN and make it even more nonfunctional than it already is. (Preemptive strikes, despite all of Dubya's word bandying, is against the UN charter.) In short, either we have tragedy for American soldiers or a complete setback for the trend to internationalization. It's a historical disaster no matter which way you view it. I'm sure going to war with Iraq will defend American interests. That's what war does. Peace, truly long-term and global peace, always contradicts immediate interests. Think Locke and Hobbes on a national level: instead of individuals in a state of nature, we have nations in a state of nature. Just as individuals must subordinate their individual interests to the government in order to live in a social state, I believe that nations too must subordinate their interests to a larger international government. This will maintain peace, just as governments (functioning governments, I mean) prevent dog-eat-dog anarchy and disorder. But this will inevitably contradict national interests.

What I'm trying to say in my usual rambling way is: you're perfectly right, this war is good for the U.S. in terms of short-term interests. (Short-term being 10 or 15 years, long-term being centuries.) Your argument about WWII is perfectly valid. Peace is bad for the U.S. in that sense. Nevertheless, I maintain my opposition to this war on terms of a historical imperative which probably exists only in my imagination.

Still, trends are hard to change, and if we really are heading for a more international era, U.S. power will end up being checked in some other fashion. For example, all the international opposition to this war will damage U.S. political influence overseas considerably. It'll be a lot more chaotic, but history is conservative and to a certain degree almost deterministic. If things are meant to be, a war with Iraq won't considerably alter the final result. If things weren't meant to be, a war with Iraq is only historical fulfillment.

Isn't this an even better way to offend people? Declaring that you don't care about U.S. national interests....heh. In any case, I agree with your arguments about the war, but they have led me to vastly different conclusions. Ah...the pitfalls of being an armchair theorist...

...Tari

[hjartad.livejournal.com]

You're just so controversial, Kaydee. *snickers* I have to say one thing though, I hope that the hype about a certain fic being dom/sub and etc didn't stop you from reading it. Everything you said that you like in a fic, was actually IN that fic. Great character development, and wonderful conflict. Just wanted to let you know.

Love the icon, by the way. Why does that remind me of John Lennon for some reason? Hmm.

Re: The war

[(Anonymous)]

First, you are correct, the president is more informed than the people. But you then assume that everything the Bush administration does is in the best interest of our nation rather than in the best interest of the Bush administration. I think perhaps you've gotten a little too much into those Jack Ryan novels. I took American History the same time as you and if I recall correctly did better on the AP. There are times in which it is necessary for us to go to war. Afghanistan would be a perfect example. However, Saddam has never posed a threat to us. He was once a threat to his neighbors and we put a complete stop to that with the no-fly zones. To this day they have not found any weapons of mass destruction. You talk about evidence but did you ever really look at it? I examined everything presented by the Bush administration. I watched Powell's speech to the United Nations. But beyond all the rhetoric I could not find a single compelling reason for the war to occur. American soldiers are losing their lives on an almost daily basis and while I believe that now that we've won this war of Bush's we must stay in there at the very least to keep Iran out, the American people will soon grow weary and stop caring. We did not plan for the reconstruction of Iraq before the war despite the fact we had nearly a year to do so. The Iraqi people have benefited from this but we have not. North Korea and Iran were always greater threats to our national security. And if you think this was about humanitarianism or democracy than why don't we get involved in Liberia today. A country the United States created that has been at war for 12 years, is asking for our help, as is the United Nations. If the United States truly cared about humanitarianism and democracy we'd intervene there unquestionably. The fact of the matter is that Liberia and other countries like Iran or North Korea are being ignored for at least one of two reasons. 1. They do not have oil or another natural resource that companies close to the Bush administration want. or 2. They can fight back. The only group of Americans that are better off today than when Saddam was in power is the Halliburton corporation of which Cheney used to be a CEO. Hopefully now, we will still be able to fight the real threat that is Al Qaeda now that the Iraq war is more or less over.