I don't think you're being malicious or devious, so that much is easy. I think you wanted to argue that stories don't have to be set within the real world in order to be valid, but that you did so by dismissing those stories that are set within the real world. Once you realized that you weren't just preaching to the choir, i.e. that there are some people reading your journal who weren't going to take it as a given that all writers of m/m slash would of course prefer the aspirational kind of fiction, you changed the post because you realized that your overgeneralization was distracting from the actual point you were trying to make.
So I think the reason for the changes wasn't malicious, but I also think you made those changes without really understanding the kind of story you were dismissing in the original version of the post. Or for that matter, the kind of argument the original version of your post was engaging with, which you found in the book your original post quoted. I don't think you understand why some of us female slash writers prefer stories about true-to-life situations, and I don't think you understand why some gay men would be bothered by stories that do not depict true-to-life situations.
In any case, I'm not vilifying, I'm arguing. And I'm doing that because I think you're wrong. I think your original post demonstrated that wrongness in a more obvious way than the current version does, but the comments that you're making suggest that you still don't understand. And I wish you would listen to the other point of view, and maybe ask questions about it in an effort to understand better.
no subject
Date: 25 Oct 2010 05:11 pm (UTC)So I think the reason for the changes wasn't malicious, but I also think you made those changes without really understanding the kind of story you were dismissing in the original version of the post. Or for that matter, the kind of argument the original version of your post was engaging with, which you found in the book your original post quoted. I don't think you understand why some of us female slash writers prefer stories about true-to-life situations, and I don't think you understand why some gay men would be bothered by stories that do not depict true-to-life situations.
In any case, I'm not vilifying, I'm arguing. And I'm doing that because I think you're wrong. I think your original post demonstrated that wrongness in a more obvious way than the current version does, but the comments that you're making suggest that you still don't understand. And I wish you would listen to the other point of view, and maybe ask questions about it in an effort to understand better.
-J