The former meaning to infer or read-in a gay relationship, usu unjustified. The latter is less common, and more likely to mean, literally, gay literature

According to Farah Mendlesohn, Slash fiction involves queer reading to describe such relationships, eg Buffy/Willow or Kirk/Spock

I wonder if anyone familiar with the lit could confirm my observation. Any other comments appreciated

I don't know the particular literature you reference, though I am certain some here will. However, I will comment that while I find "gay" a perfectly acceptable word, I consider "queer" to be much more like the "N" word.

Slash fiction is written by fans and is pretty explicit in its gay content. It's not a reading / interpretation as such.

Fan fiction in general and slash fiction in particular are largely products of the internet where three things apply that never previously applied in any form of publishing.

First, anybody can do it with very little effort needed.
Second, there are no editorial restraints - no-one telling you "this is unreadable rubbish."
Third, little chance of being sued for using copyright characters - there is simply so much of it on the internet and read by such low volumes of people that it just isn't worthwhile for the copyright lawyers to go after anything but the most serious offenses.

Slash fiction takes popular characters and projects onto them the homosexual fantasies of the writer. So for example you will have Kirk and Spock engaged in a passionate affair or Holmes and Watson or King Arthur and Lancelot or ... well you get the picture.

One of the odd aspects off it is that according to various surveys it is almost exclusively male homosexuality that is written about and almost exclusively women who write it. Now that I can't explain.

Incidentally the reason that I know all this is that although I said that it's largely a product of the internet it didn't start there. I have a number of book series that I have at different times in my life read and collected. I used to, for example, read the Star Trek novels and several were written by two women, Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath, which were published as "proper" books but which contained masses of unreadable drivel about Spock's unrequited passion for his captain. I also collect Sherlock Holmes pastiches and there's quite an old one called My Dearest Holmes by Rohase Piercy which is quite well written but betrays the characters in a way that would have COnan Doyle spinning in his grave.

Attempts to find fan fiction on the net for these series always end in frustration when I can locate nothing but poorly written slash fiction.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

However, I will comment that while I find "gay" a perfectly acceptable word, I consider "queer" to be much more like the "N" word.

I will make few friends by saying I feel the opposite.

The first dictionary meaning of the adjective "gay" is "Bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer" and of the adjective "queer" it is "Beyond or deviating from the usual or expected".

I feel the latter is a more accurate description of homosexuality than is the former - unless and until homosexuality becomes more common than heretosexuality and thus becomes "the usual or expected" sexual preference.

Bob, thank you for that very pertinent followup

Postscript.

The Buffy/Willow one would probably not be very common for two reasons. First female homosexuality is almost never written about in the genre. More important though Willow is already a lesbian character and the people who write this fiction would probably consider it a waste of time to bother - after all why write badly something that's already been written well?

As I've said before when I hear or read the word gay I think of two things: the gay science (i.e., poetry) and Victorian prostitutes. And, after those, homosexual men. Gay has quite a few different meanings in most unabridged dictionaries. Not as many as some words: e.g., get or set. Rather than seeing a word ruined by change, I see language changing in response to a changing world. I still suggest that, given a context, the meaning of gay (like any other polysemous word) is accessible to the hearer or reader. It's just the taboo nature of the more modern meaning that causes fits amongst some. I've suggested this before, but have usually been shouted down as being wrong. La!

Willow isn't lesbian - she's bisexual. Although a lesbian might feel pressured to take a boyfriend because it's considered the 'norm', she wouldn't lust after him or fall for him because lesbians aren't attracted to men. And Willow did just that for both Oz and Xander. It really hacks me off when bisexuality is so badly misrepresented (or ignored) in the media like that. I don't watch Eastenders but hearing about the Sonia plot, I imagine she's been labelled lesbian by now too, despite having also been attracted to men.

I don't bother with slash fiction. As Bob said, you have to wade through so much drivel it's not worth the effort.

Kalleh, the word 'queer' has been largely reclaimed by the LGBT community so as to reduce its power as a negative term.

Apologies Cat. Naturally I know that Willow is bisexual - though I'd say that you could certainly argue from the writing that she was never really attracted by men, simply acting out the expected social role. Her relationship with Xander was certainly more of a friendship than anything else. By the end of the final series she's pretty clear about what she wants and about her sexuality and it doesn't seem to include being attracted to men.

I'm in no real position to judge but it seemed to me that the writing of her character, and all of the characters come to that, was rather well handled. It did also seem though as if by the end of season seven she could more acurately be described as a a lesbian character who had in her younger days adopted the outlook expected by her peers rather than a bisexual character.

Hey, what do I know though?

I've thought about it in those terms too Bob, but no - the writing suggested that she really lusted after Xander but was too shy to do anything about it - and likewise, when she started to get to know Oz there was sexual desire on her part there too. If she'd been a lesbian trying to fulfil an expected hetero role there would have been far more evidence of the difficulties involved in trying to be something you're not: I've known two gay men who got married because of societal expectations, and believe me, not only were they not physically attracted to their wives (although they loved them platonically), such a suppression of their true self led to depression and even a suicide attempt, so it's not something that Willow could have hidden so well from the others and certainly not the audience. I've watched some of the earlier episodes again carefully, and in the ones I've seen there's nothing to suggest she's not happy with a boyfriend. So there are two possibilities:

1) What you said, in which case it was written badly and we should have been shown evidence of her awkwardness and distress when it came to hetero relationships, even if we didn't yet know what was wrong. Then when Tara came along the audience would have had an 'Aha! So THAT'S it!' moment.

2) Usual heterosexist polarisation of sexuality, in that you have to be one or the other. Used all too often by the media, sadly.

quote:

One of the odd aspects of it is that according to various surveys it is almost exclusively male homosexuality that is written about and almost exclusively women who write it. Now that I can't explain.

Maybe it's written by complex people who are lesbians trapped in male bodies.

quote:

LGBT community

Means...?

She probably just decide she was safer with women. Oz turned out to be a werewolf and Xander was quite early on possessed by a panther spirit.

LGBT = lesbian, gay, bi- and trans-sexual

A dear friend once said to me "unless you're planning to ask him out, what does it matter what is orientation is?"

That said, I do think the portrayal of various types of people in the media almost always has to be biased, doesn't it? How is it possible to write without any bias at all?

Thank you.

Is there any evidence that these various forms of sexual orientation have anything in common - apart from being different?

I think it has more to do with politcal solidarity, and it is not uncontroversial.

Thanks, Zmj, for that excellent link. I would have to agree that I don't link transexuals to lesbians, gays and bisexuals because I do think there is a distinction between sexual identity and sexual orientation.

That link does insult me slightly by saying: "'Queer' has many negative connotations to older people who remember the word as a taunt and insult, a usage of the term which has continued," considering my post above that the word "queer" is insulting.

quote:

Kalleh, the word 'queer' has been largely reclaimed by the LGBT community so as to reduce its power as a negative term.

Cat, I respectfully don't agree with that statement, at least in the U.S. Were I to mention that word to several of my gay colleagues (some quite young), they would fulminate! Even the young here consider the term "queer" to be insulting. And well they should! Richard has it right the way he defines it ("Beyond or deviating from the usual or expected"), and that is old-fashioned thinking to me. Gays and lesbians are just as normal as straight people; it's just the way their brains were wired.

I also believe that someone above mentioned that women were called "lesbians" and men "gay," though I couldn't find it when I looked again. We have talked about that here, but women are sometimes referred to as "gay," at least where I have been. I am in a profession where there are lots of gay people, so I do think I'm somewhat versed on what the thoughts are in the U.S. on this subject.

quote:

Were I to mention that word to several of my gay colleagues (some quite young), they would fulminate!

That's Cat's point. It is OK if a gay person uses the word, but not for a heterosexual person. Similarly, it is OK for an African-American to use the n-word to describe himself, but not for a white person to employ it.

quote:

Gays and lesbians are just as normal as straight people; it's just the way their brains were wired

I respectfully disagree.

Their behaviour is not normal judged by the standards of the majority. Because they FEEL that their behaviour is normal or correct, doesn't make it so. And the excuse of "brain wiring" could, if taken to extremes, be used to justify anything.

Burglary? Quite normal - it's just the way the burglar's brain's wired.

Suicide bombers? Quite normal, it's just the way their brains are wired.

I have no objection to people who have different sexual preferences from the norm - but in my judgement that makes them abnormal (or queer) in that respect - regardless of how normal and nice they might be in other ways.

Richard, I expected you to disagree with me. We have disagreed before, and I am certain we will disagree in the future! I made my point about it, and won't pontificate anymore.

quote:

That's Cat's point. It is OK if a gay person uses the word, but not for a heterosexual person.

Okay, Arnie, I used the wrong example then. While there certainly may be some acceptance of the word "queer" within some U.S. gay communities, I haven't seen it.

While there certainly may be some acceptance of the word "queer" within some U.S. gay communities, I haven't seen it.

Well, there are the TV show Queer Eye For the Straight Guy and Queer Nation, an activist group, with their slogan "We're here; we're queer; get used to it!"

kalleh: While "queer" is obviously pejorative, "gay" is almost as bad as it implies a flibbertigibbety. Until just recently the latter meant simply happy or exhuberant

The thrust of my thread was a question: Whether in common parlance there's a difference betwen the meanings of the two expressions "queer reading" and "gay reading"

There's a difference in usage. queer reading sounds like the speaker is of a younger generation, and slightly more academic than gay reading. Pretty near synonyms as those kinds of words go.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

Oh, I think you're all nuts!

I am going to consult with my gay colleagues on this one.

It will depend on their age, class, and education. Like many things.

kalleh: Yes we are

But please report back on the results

Richard, do you have any idea how offensive your words are, even thinking that thieves and murderers can in any way be compared with people who merely fall in love with members of the same sex?

Behaviour can be modified; genetics can't. Sexual orientation is not, and never has been, a matter of 'preference' or choice - if it was, I'd be a lesbian. Think of all the gay people who lived in fear of being found out when it was still illegal, those who denied their true selves to fit in with the 'norm' and lived a hollow existence without love, and those who committed suicide because they couldn't live with their sexuality in a homophobic world. Do you really think that if they'd had the choice, they would have chosen to stay homosexual? Would you, if you woke up in a parallel universe where homosexuality was the norm, be able to change your sexual 'behaviour' and marry a man? Of course not. You can no more change your sexuality than I can mine, and if being 'normal' means to hold such views then I for one am glad I'm abnormal (I won't go into the whole issue of 'what is normal anyway?' as that's a whole other discussion).

Sorry, but I couldn't let that one slip by without saying something. I'm really shocked.

Nicely said, Cat. I only regret that I didn't say something first, instead of calling everyone "nuts" because they didn't agree with me. Oh, well...it has been a hard couple of weeks. Sorry, my fellow posters.

I will ask my gay colleagues, but now that I've gone on so about this, I am afraid that they'll say you're correct. I do think that the San Francisco area, as well as the UK, may have different thoughts on this than the gay community in Chicago (which is quite active BTW), as SF and the UK tend to be more liberal than Chicagoans. I will report back to you, either way; I promise.

quote:

Behaviour can be modified; genetics can't. Sexual orientation is not, and never has been, a matter of 'preference' or choice - if it was, I'd be a lesbian.

I don't think enough research has been done on this topic to prove or disprove your statement.

And my statement about thieves and murderers did not compare homosexuals with them. I was pointing out the flaws in Kalleh's argument about "people's brains being wired differently".

You could make that statement (and I am sure many do) to support any belief, no matter how irrational. Jehovah's Witnesses deny the possibility of evolution. Most people would now agree that is now an outdated and thus not a normal stance to take. But they believe it - and just because they believe it with all their fibres, does that make me wrong and abusive to suggest that they're "unusual"?

That's as maybe, but you deliberatley picked two very negative examples. Why those two and not, for example, people who are incredibly heroic or philanthropic (in that if it's just brain wiring, should we admire them). That speaks volumes.

While you may be correct that there has yet to be a definite conclusion, it can also be said that evolution has neither been proved or disproved - but the weight of evidence suggests it's the most plausible explanation. Parallels can be drawn - you can't completely get rid of nature through nurture.

Finally, you didn't use the word 'unusual' - you said 'abnormal', which is far more of a loaded term. Whilst 'normal' can mean 'pertaining to the majority', socially, words take on a different meaning and now it tends to mean more 'socially acceptable'. People with natural red hair are also in the minority, but few people would call them abnormal.

I see that King's College in London has a queer studies program (which in turn holds a Queer Matters conference). Perusing its website shows many instances of queer being used in an academic and non-pejorative way. I was led to this site by googling the author of a book I'd run across, Alan Sinfield Cultural Politics: Queer Reading, Routledge, 1994. The term I was trying to think of above was not so much queer reading as queer theory.

[Fixed a mistake, which see below.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

I don't think enough research has been done on this topic to prove or disprove your statement.

There are still people who say there's "not enough research" to prove that cigarette smoking causes health problems. After all, the highest level of research (randomized controlled trials) has never been conducted on cigarette smoking, and ethically it couldn't be. Similarly, randomized controlled trials couldn't be conducted on brains of heterosexual people, versus on brains of homosexual people. However, there has been some very convincing research on the differences in the brains of homosexual people versus heterosexual people (some of it has been discussed here before, though I don't have time to find it right now), Richard, and the preponderance of evidence (which is the standard we've used for cigarette smoking) supports my stance on this. Could it change? Certainly. Is the evidence as strong as cigarette smoking evidence? Absolutely not. But there is enough evidence available to support my conclusion.

quote:

And my statement about thieves and murderers did not compare homosexuals with them. I was pointing out the flaws in Kalleh's argument about "people's brains being wired differently".

Given my above comment, I think your argument, not mine, is flawed.

quote:

I see that King's College in London has a queer studies program

Thanks, Zmj. On that argument (though not Richard's), I am going to give in. You, and the rest here, are correct. I am the one who is "nuts".

zmjezhd wrote:

quote:

I was lead to this site by googling ...

... which leads us to believe that the use of "lead" for the past tense of "to lead" (instead of led) has become the most popular "error" in modern written English.

Comments?

... which leads us to believe that the use of "lead" for the past tense of "to lead" (instead of led) has become the most popular "error" in modern written English.

What to say? It's an error; it's common. Not sure it's the most popular error, though. Maybe you can quote some stats to support your statement.

Ah...Jerry pointed out that I had made the same error recently too.

It's merely a mistake. We all make them, from time to time. It's just that we don't usually point them out.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Kalleh said the word queer (for homosexual) is pejorative and offensive. Richard conversely takes it as a neutral description meaning simply 'non-usual' or 'not expected'. He says, "The first dictionary meaning … of the adjective 'queer' is 'Beyond or deviating from the usual or expected'."

I turned to the dictionaries. Comp.OED, MW and AHD say that this term for 'homosexual' is 'derogatory' or 'often disparaging' or 'offensive'.

COED explains further, "The word queer … to mean ‘homosexual’ … was originally, and usually still is, a deliberately derogatory term when used by heterosexual people. In recent years, however, gay people have taken the word queer and deliberately used it in place of gay or homosexual, in an attempt, by using the word positively, to deprive it of its negative power."

quote:

Finally, you didn't use the word 'unusual' - you said 'abnormal', which is far more of a loaded term.

It's a matter of opinion, I suggest.

Acording to Wordweb, "abnormal has two main meanings:

Not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm
and
Departing from the normal in e.g. intelligence and development

It seems to me that the adjective describes perfectly those whose behaviour or demeanour differs significantly from the norm.

quote:

Parallels can be drawn - you can't completely get rid of nature through nurture.

Nobody has ever convinced me thati it's a case of "either/or". A person born of strong and athletic parents, of a race where good muscular development is normal, could grow up an emaciated weakling given the wrong nurture (take a look at most children in sub-saharan Africa). And the converse is also true.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

Finally, you didn't use the word 'unusual' - you said 'abnormal', which is far more of a loaded term.

It's a matter of opinion, I suggest.

Acording to Wordweb, "abnormal has two main meanings:

Not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm
and
Departing from the normal in e.g. intelligence and development

It seems to me that the adjective describes perfectly those whose behaviour or demeanour differs significantly from the norm.

Careful Richard, this is starting to sound like an attempt to use linguistic means to justify an offensive position.

It is entirely disingenuous to suggest that "abnormal" is not a more loaded term than "unusual". Of course it is. Yes, your appeal to authority backs you up. But it would wouldn't it, being specifically chosen for that very purpose? If I hear someone described as "abnormal", whether the speaker is speaking of sexuality, physical nature, political beliefs or whatever the automatic inference is that "abnormality" is wrong. This may, in your view, be unsupported by the dictionary, but it is nevertheless the commonly accepted usage of the word. "Unusual" does not carry this perjorative overtone.

I have dictionary here in front of me and I have just looked up the word "deviant" which is given as "different from what most people would consider normal or usual behaviour.

So by your reasoning we could substitute "deviant" for "abnormal" in your post. Surely you wouldn't claim that "deviant" isn't an offensive term in this context?

Incidentally there are several indicators of a hostile stance in your post that started this line of discussion. The choice of the term "abnormal", the specific analogies that cat objected to, the phrasings "I have no objection to but" and "I respectfully disagree" which are both common verbal markers that something offensive to the listener is about to follow, the use of the word "excuse" rather than "reason" implying as it does that there is something that needs to be excused rather than explained and similarly the implication in the phrase "regardless of how normal or nice they might be in other ways".

All of this adds up in tone to the kind of language adopted by someone who is trying to use sophistry to disguise a hostile position.

-----------------------------------------------------

Just thought I'd sling in something to do with language, as that is, after all, what this board is supposed to be about.

quote:

I have no objection to people who have different sexual preferences from the norm - but in my judgement that makes them abnormal (or queer) in that respect - regardless of how normal and nice they might be in other ways.

Remember, this is what I said at the outset and I stand by it. I have no objection to homosexuality - just as long as it remains optional and not something that I am expected to indulge in.

And I stick also to my other statement - even though the word might be considered pejorative, "queer" is a more accurate description of homosexual behaviour or inclination than is "gay".

And here I will accept an accusation of prejudice - I am prejudiced against the hijacking of the very good word "gay", a word with no precise synonym, to describe homosexuality when there are plenty of other, more accurate, words that could have been used.

I am prejudiced against the hijacking of the very good word "gay", a word with no precise synonym, to describe homosexuality when there are plenty of other, more accurate, words that could have been used.

This presupposes that words only have one meaning, which they don't. Nothing stops anybody from using the word gay in any of its older, alternative meanings. Unless, a prejudice against one of its newer meanings. It's interesting that gay is an immigrant to the land of English. That is a French loanword forced a perfectly good Saxon word out of the word nest. What was that word, I wonder?

quote:

Nothing stops anybody from using the word gay in any of its older, alternative meanings

Except, of course, that its new use has now become so entrenched that it's likely to be misunderstood. The G & S song, "A bachelor gay am I" has quite a different meaning now!

Simlarly, the term "intercourse", most useful to describe some kind of general interpersonal exchange, is now difficult to use in "normal" circles as it is usually supposed always to mean sexual congress.

The one thing I do find unacceptable in my view is the harassment some people are given when they criticise the idea of homosexuality (rather than the people themselves) which in a democracy after all is their right. Considering that some of these people may be religious and that their religion forbids it I think the right to express their convictions should be upheld. But so should it be for athiests who express similar views, rather than having to go along with the politically correct viewpoint that no-one's sexual or cultural ways are to be criticised for fear of 'offence' given. Unfortunately in a democracy it is impossible not to offend some people at some time. I can tolerate other peoples opinions that I find offensive- such as religious folk- so why can't others.
On another note,'gay' perhaps isn't apt for another reason. I've met a wide variety of people during the course of my work. I've met many pleasant gays but on the other hand (like everyone else) some have been miserable gits to whom the word 'gay' seems distinctly inappropriate!

I have no idea if you have anyone in particular in mind Erik, or if you consider that either my post or cat's is criticising Richard for his views.

If you examine my post though you'll find I make no mention of his views, simply discussing, as is appropriate to a word board, the words that he chose to express them.

No, no, Bob. I didn't mean on here- we're all civilised people who can hold a debate on subjects dispassionately(well sometimes passionately!) without rancour! I meant out in the wider world where some people believe other peole have no right to express their views, however repugnant they may be to others.
I still believe in democracy- the right to free expression includes the right to hold views others may consider outlandish or/and offensive.

I sure didn't mean to offend anyone by pointing out that the past tense of "to lead" is "led."

Nor do I intend to search for "stats" to support my assertion that "this is leading me to believe that this is the most popular "error" in modern written English." I don't think any such "stats" exist.

An acquaintance of mine, a man who has two PhD degees, published a book entitled "A Concise History of the Hawaiian Islands," an 84-page book in which I counted sixteen errors, in seven of which "lead" should be changed to "led." The author expresses appreciation to his daughter, an MD (Pediatrician) for "extensive editorial assistance."

For a concise discussion of this issue, please
click here.

I am so naive that I wasn't aware of the taboo against mentioning deviations from standard English committed by my fellow Wordcrafters. I'll try to refrain from that unacceptable behavior in the future. If apologies are due, they are herewith proffered.

All of us make misteaks, right, zmjezh ??

All of us make misteaks, right, zmjezh ??

I think everybody would agree with that. The explanation you link to is good, and it is one that I know and agree with, similar to the difference in the spelling of there, their, and they're, but one that still crops up in hasty writing.

Erik, I agree with you on the basic idea that in a democracy everyone has the right to say what they think, but that's never where it ends, is it? If people think in an intolerant way, they generally act in an intolerant way, sadly.

The religious far right, for example, are not only speaking out against homosexualilty but actively trying to make life as difficult and unpleasant for LGB people as possible. They want civil partnerships banned, LGB counselling services and anti-bullying projects in schools stopped, and for the whole community to be vilified ('God hates fags' T-shirt, anyone?). And all this because in the Bible - a book which has been translated and re-translated many times, there's a sentence or two that might be construed as meaning homosexuality is wrong? ("Among Bible translators there is a widespread view that in the New Testament, the two Greek words that have been translated as homosexual may mean 'loose living' or 'prostitute.'" From the second in this interesting set of articles. Also if you're interested in the subject, see here for a shortish article on Biblical condemnation of usury and how it relates to condemnation of homosexuality.)

So yes, I agree with the stance behind "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", but if a person acts in a way as abhorrent as their views and causes pain to someone else, I won't sit back and let them get away with it.

You make a good point, Cat.

In reference to the evidence about a genetic etiology to homosexuality, I have read many online articles (some peer-reviewed, though not all) on it now. Some definitely dispute the idea, though the author of that article would benefit from it not being genetic because he treats gays with therapy. Other studies talk about Dr. Dean Hamer's 1993 report of a "gay gene," though now that seems likely to be too simplistic. Research for a gay gene continues. Yet, there surely have been indications for years that homosexuality is more than a preference; this article is from 1980. The research on this continues. Probably the most balanced article I read on this was this one; though quite long, it is excellent.

In the end, the etiology of homosexuality is multifactorial in nature, and at this point we just don't know all the facts yet. It is particularly hard to be objective on this subject because of the social/political/religious views on this, which tend to marginalize gays from society. Because of the possiblility of author subjectivity, one must be very critical when reading articles on this subject. For example, psychotherapists who treat gays and try to "reverse" their sexual identity (as with the first link) will have their own reasons for concluding that being homosexual is not genetic.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,