too much to read all in one go?

[lobelia321]

Have a sample:

The Russian formalist critic Vladimir Propp proposed that folktales are structured using a small number of components in different combinations, e.g. 'return', 'pursuit', and a small number of roles, e.g. 'hero', 'villain'. We can also think about fanfic in terms of a finite number of story structures underlying all individual fics. The most common of these is the boy-meet-boy, boy-wants-to-have-sex-with-boy model. (By 'boy', I also mean 'man'; and by 'sex', I mean anything from kissing to buggery.) This plays out in a number of ways:

(A) boy meets boy, boy wants to have sex with boy
(1) boy has sex with boy
(2) boy is shy / reluctant; obstacles and embarrassing situations intervene; a final revelation of mutual desire ends in boy having sex with boy
(3) boy angsts about his sexual proclivities
(3a) after obstacles and embarrassments, boy has sex with boy
(3b) boy does not have sex with boy
(4) boy wants to have sex with boy but other boy has sex with someone else; boy angsts

(I have probably missed out some scenarios but these are the main ones that come to mind.)

What is, of course, crucial to all slash is (A): there is a predetermined expectation that boy will meet boy, and that this meeting will result in the desire to have sex. No origfic, with the exception perhaps of gay porn, has this plot expectation built into it as such an absolutely integral component. If a slashfic features a number of boys, it usually becomes apparent at some point which particular boy will want to have sex with which other particular boy -- this is also where the 'pairings' rubric in the Header plays its part.

(Extract from my narratological analysis of fanfic).

So, people, what do you think? What do you think???

Comments

[airgiodslv.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. And it's one thing I hate about posting headers, because then I start watching for the listed pairing to emerge. There's no surprise. I don't think it could be any other way, though. And I honestly don't think that in well-written stories, it takes anything away from the narrative.

But that's just my opinion.

[lobelia321.livejournal.com]

because then I start watching for the listed pairing to emerge.
I tend *always* to wait for a pairing to emerge but I do like zapping to people's private webspaces on which they often omit the Header. I stumbled upon resonant8's Transfigurations that way, and one of the delights was seeing the pairing emerge bit by bit from a nebulous background of many possibilities. But then that fic is simply genius.

And I agree that it doesn't take away from the narrative in good!fic. And pathetic person that I am, I also read some fics just because I like the pairing given in the Header. I mean, if it says Bern or John Noble or B.K., I'm anyone's slave. (It hardly ever does, of course... *gnashes teeth*)

[sheldrake.livejournal.com]

I think yes. Oh I'm sorry, work is slowly frying my brain. I am reading your analysis, just very slowly, in small bits.

I'm also thinking, with whom can we slash Vladimir Propp? He's clearly asking for it.

[lobelia321.livejournal.com]

Vladi? Slash Vladi? Well, I think, it'd have to be either a fellow Eastern European formalist (Roman comes to mind! One of my favourites, Roman Jakobsen!) or a golden goose from one of the fairy tales he picks apart. Do you know that he pared fairy tales down into one-line algebraic equations??? Totally insane.

[freyafloyd.livejournal.com]

I like this list, but in my usual contrary fashion I started trying to think of how I could write slash without including A. I have now decided I want to write:

Boy does not meet boy, boy wants to have sex with fantasy boy, as he knows of no real boys he wants to have sex with.

So thanks Lobelia, for thrusting foolish plot bunnies upon me.

In fact, your list could be used for bunny purposes.

(Typical) Laz: I want to write a fic, but I have no plot.
Cordelia: Well, you have four choices, as specified by Lobelia.

My favourite type is 4. Obviously. Or maybe just 'boy angsts.'

[lobelia321.livejournal.com]

Or maybe just 'boy angsts.'

*giggles enormously* (Can you giggle enormously??)

Well, here is another extract from my narratological analysis:

In a way, all of my plot models could be rewritten as:

(i) sex takes place, boy is happy
(ii) sex takes place, boy angsts

You sensed that already, didn't you? The simplification? And you're a (ii) gal through and through! You maniac. But I'm so happy that you tigged! HELLO!!! *squeezes*

Laz is equally absurd. My model is not prescriptive!!

Boy does not meet boy, boy wants to have sex with fantasy boy, as he knows of no real boys he wants to have sex with.

Structurally speaking, you realise that this still follows model 'boy meets boy', don't you? The function 'boy' can be filled by a fantasy boy just as well as by a real boy. Hell, it can be filled by a vacuum cleaner or a stuffed toy.

[freyafloyd.livejournal.com]

Well, surely this is taking the objectification of men to an extreme, as now you're making them entirely interchangeable with objects.


Your whole narratological analysis is too clever for me to understand I'm afraid.

[lobelia321.livejournal.com]

surely this is taking the objectification of men to an extreme, as now you're making them entirely interchangeable with objects.

Yes, *cackles*, don't you love it? Am thinking of badgermonkey's irreverent toaster/vacuum cleaner ficlets, of course. And of my own Dom/stuffed toy.

Your whole narratological analysis is too clever for me to understand I'm afraid
Rot. Sometimes I think you might be the only person around who *truly* gets it.