![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bironicAfter a week's recess I finished the Bunker book -- anticlimactic after the mess of suicides, and more melodramatic than I remembered when I jumped back in, unless O'Donnell's tone changed when writing about the breakout. But it did boast a quote featuring, bizarrely, some sex advice from Hitler (e.g. "below the umbilicus, all men are goats or satyrs"), as well as a petty catfight between Hans Baur and Albert Speer. I don't mean that last bit to sound silly, though I did chuckle at it. Actually, I do mean it to sound silly, but I don't mean to make light of the men themselves. They and their actions shouldn't be reduced to a joke about bickering Reich officials, but at the same time they were men, people, humans, who had the same urges and flaws and strengths and stupid disagreements as anyone else.
That's one of the toughest parts of contemplating Nazi Germany, I think -- grasping at the same time the horrific deeds performed/orders given and the fact that they were simply men behind them. That's what got some people so riled up over the so-called "humanization" of Hitler in "Downfall," (a) as if he weren't human to begin with, and (b) when all it did was show that there was more to him than histrionic public speeches, a fact not only common-sensical but also already well-documented. They'd prefer a two-dimensional portrayal, as though any hint of humanity in him would -- what? Inspire imitators? As if the best way to prevent a repeat of history were to strip all recognizable psychology and personality from the perpetrators, teaching us that everyone involved was an aberrant, immoral superhuman/demon instead of confronting the frightening prospect that it was normal people who did, and can, descend to such evil, or let it happen around them. Portraying them as inhuman might be easier but it prevents a sympathy, however scary or uncomfortable a bond to enter into, that allows us to say, Yes, these were people who made incomprehensible choices, just as people today could make incomprehensible choices. Those moments of humanity -- being nice to dogs and secretaries, bickering over trees and lampposts, calling each other names -- remind us that people committed these acts and others could commit them again. It's the historical equivalent of 'Make them laugh and drive the dagger home' -- open us up to comprehending them as humans, then tell or remind us what they did. Pushing them away from us, ostracizing them from humanity, denies that others can become like them.
On the other end of the spectrum, I was sifting through LJseek results for "Thomas Kretschmann" and found not only actor slash (Kretschmann/Brody after "The Piano," for instance) but Nazi RPS. I was fairly stunned, not by the existence of the stories themselves so much as by the barrage of ethical issues that strafed my brain upon seeing them and by the comprehension of the difficulty of answering them for oneself, let alone trying to reach a consensus among fanfic writers or readers or the general public. Questions about the extent to which these traditionally evil figures ought to be "humanized"--the risks and benefits of considering them as sex objects, particularly based on film portrayals--the place of fiction in WWII/Holocaust studies--about using fanfic to break these people down, integrate them into ourselves, digest them, make them our own.
I didn't read any of the stories, nor do I remember the pairings, so I can't comment on the quality of the work, whether the writer(s) used the opportunity to tackle some of the really tough subjects or whether it was PWP of clearly actor-inspired characters. Probably it's like any other group of fic: mostly bad. Is -- should mostly-bad Nazi RPS be somehow worse than mostly-bad Boy Band RPS, ignoring their heinous acts for the sake of titillation? Or is this a harmless, even progressively healthy, way of proving the earlier point, taking these infamous figures and making them human, even making them sex objects as easily as is done with any other person -- saying "you will not frighten me," "I will tame you and what you did"? That's the theoretician talking. Hoping. In reality, probably, some or many Nazi RPS writers are basing their characters on movies and not thinking much of the implications at all.
It's just ... it's not quite accurate to split identities this way, but as a woman and a born-and-raised Jew who by nature and education sympathizes with the victims, it's uncomfortable to think of a PWP with, say, Speer and Baur, but as a slash fan I can also understand the temptation. The scholar part of me sees both sides, too. I think it's easier to do FF on fictional(ized) versions rather than the real thing; to write or read a story about Amon Goeth as played by Ralph Fiennes in "Schindler's List" or Hermann Fegelein as played by Thomas Kretschmann in "Downfall," for example, rather than one about Speer after reading his memoirs or Goering after reading his biography. That way they're already one level removed from reality -- two, I suppose, the first being the history or interviews or books on which the characters are based.
Thoughts, please?
That's one of the toughest parts of contemplating Nazi Germany, I think -- grasping at the same time the horrific deeds performed/orders given and the fact that they were simply men behind them. That's what got some people so riled up over the so-called "humanization" of Hitler in "Downfall," (a) as if he weren't human to begin with, and (b) when all it did was show that there was more to him than histrionic public speeches, a fact not only common-sensical but also already well-documented. They'd prefer a two-dimensional portrayal, as though any hint of humanity in him would -- what? Inspire imitators? As if the best way to prevent a repeat of history were to strip all recognizable psychology and personality from the perpetrators, teaching us that everyone involved was an aberrant, immoral superhuman/demon instead of confronting the frightening prospect that it was normal people who did, and can, descend to such evil, or let it happen around them. Portraying them as inhuman might be easier but it prevents a sympathy, however scary or uncomfortable a bond to enter into, that allows us to say, Yes, these were people who made incomprehensible choices, just as people today could make incomprehensible choices. Those moments of humanity -- being nice to dogs and secretaries, bickering over trees and lampposts, calling each other names -- remind us that people committed these acts and others could commit them again. It's the historical equivalent of 'Make them laugh and drive the dagger home' -- open us up to comprehending them as humans, then tell or remind us what they did. Pushing them away from us, ostracizing them from humanity, denies that others can become like them.
On the other end of the spectrum, I was sifting through LJseek results for "Thomas Kretschmann" and found not only actor slash (Kretschmann/Brody after "The Piano," for instance) but Nazi RPS. I was fairly stunned, not by the existence of the stories themselves so much as by the barrage of ethical issues that strafed my brain upon seeing them and by the comprehension of the difficulty of answering them for oneself, let alone trying to reach a consensus among fanfic writers or readers or the general public. Questions about the extent to which these traditionally evil figures ought to be "humanized"--the risks and benefits of considering them as sex objects, particularly based on film portrayals--the place of fiction in WWII/Holocaust studies--about using fanfic to break these people down, integrate them into ourselves, digest them, make them our own.
I didn't read any of the stories, nor do I remember the pairings, so I can't comment on the quality of the work, whether the writer(s) used the opportunity to tackle some of the really tough subjects or whether it was PWP of clearly actor-inspired characters. Probably it's like any other group of fic: mostly bad. Is -- should mostly-bad Nazi RPS be somehow worse than mostly-bad Boy Band RPS, ignoring their heinous acts for the sake of titillation? Or is this a harmless, even progressively healthy, way of proving the earlier point, taking these infamous figures and making them human, even making them sex objects as easily as is done with any other person -- saying "you will not frighten me," "I will tame you and what you did"? That's the theoretician talking. Hoping. In reality, probably, some or many Nazi RPS writers are basing their characters on movies and not thinking much of the implications at all.
It's just ... it's not quite accurate to split identities this way, but as a woman and a born-and-raised Jew who by nature and education sympathizes with the victims, it's uncomfortable to think of a PWP with, say, Speer and Baur, but as a slash fan I can also understand the temptation. The scholar part of me sees both sides, too. I think it's easier to do FF on fictional(ized) versions rather than the real thing; to write or read a story about Amon Goeth as played by Ralph Fiennes in "Schindler's List" or Hermann Fegelein as played by Thomas Kretschmann in "Downfall," for example, rather than one about Speer after reading his memoirs or Goering after reading his biography. That way they're already one level removed from reality -- two, I suppose, the first being the history or interviews or books on which the characters are based.
Thoughts, please?
no subject
Date: Feb. 21st, 2006 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Feb. 22nd, 2006 02:06 pm (UTC)*goes to comment*
*pauses*
*notes down B's comments carefully to cite in RPS paper*
HAHAHA, ALL YOUR CITATION ARE BELONG TO US!
Anyway. :)
There's not much I can add to such an insightful analysis; I definitely agree that most people are probably basing their slash on the fictionalised film characters rather than on the historical figures, and that provides an extra layer of distance. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, there's a certain chill that comes over me when I think of someone slashing, say, Hitler and Himmler after reading Nuremburg testimony that doesn't happen when I think of someone writing that story after seeing "Downfall". It seems more natural, I suppose, and more playful/harmless - entering into the semi-fictional world of the film rather than getting off on the real (or at least only somewhat fictionalised) world of the history. On the other hand, it seems rather more irresponsible; I think that if someone is writing Nazi RPS, they should try to approach the history as closely as they can, so they're really aware of what they're writing and the implications of it. It's protecting yourself too much to write about Fegelein and pretend you're only writing about Thomas Kretschmann, for example.
Is -- should mostly-bad Nazi RPS be somehow worse than mostly-bad Boy Band RPS, ignoring their heinous acts for the sake of titillation?
I love that "heinous acts" could apply to either the Nazis or the boy band here. :)
Or is this a harmless, even progressively healthy, way of proving the earlier point, taking these infamous figures and making them human, even making them sex objects as easily as is done with any other person -- saying "you will not frighten me," "I will tame you and what you did"?
I would even go a step beyond "tame" or humanise. I was talking to a friend about slash recently, and she mentioned that she and a lot of the female slashers she knows are very strong women, and wondered whether there was some part of some female slashers that wanted to top with their characters in the way women can't really top with men in real life - or as she put it, "Some part of you that wants to say to them, 'I'm going to be the one to have you on your back with your ankles in the air.'" And I'm reminded of the writer who said that in any story she wrote, she was necessarily the top because she was in control. So I wonder if Nazi RPS couldn't be used to control, dominate, even punish or ravish these men - and not just them, but perhaps the Holocaust itself and the violent images and gnawing horror that go with our recollections of it?
As you said, it's tough to assess an entire genre, because we don't know how these stories are being used and how responsible (yes, it's my favourite word again) the authors are being to their material. And frankly, reading enough to make a valid assessment would give me the screaming heebee-jeebees, so I won't. :)
no subject
Date: Feb. 22nd, 2006 06:06 pm (UTC)Hard questions! Do fanfic writers have that responsibility -- or any responsibility? Is it better or more horrifying to write an explicit story based entirely on historical evidence? How much does it depend on what the story says, does and/or implies, or on what the author wanted to accomplish? Rargh.
It's protecting yourself too much to write about Fegelein and pretend you're only writing about Thomas Kretschmann, for example.
Or to write about Thomas Kretschmann and pretend -- or think -- you're really writing about Fegelein. Or "Fegelein." Which is some strange mix of fanfic, actorfic and Nazi RPS.
I wonder if Nazi RPS couldn't be used to control, dominate, even punish or ravish these men - and not just them, but perhaps the Holocaust itself and the violent images and gnawing horror that go with our recollections of it?
Which, like the proposal about taming/humanizing, sounds nice as a theory, and would do well to defend or explain the practice, but I wonder whether it applies to the writers, at least their conscious intentions, and if so then what sort of percentage we're talking about. Because a lot of the slash studies put forth some cracking good theories about gender redefinition and the like, while some writers put up their hands and say, 'Um, sounds good, but I do it because the men are hot.' I like both of our ideas but it's all too easy to get carried away with an academic theory only to find that a huge gap has opened between it, the stories and the author's motivations or goals. Dammit, I'm going to have to read more about this, aren't I.
As you said, it's tough to assess an entire genre, because we don't know how these stories are being used and how responsible (yes, it's my favourite word again) the authors are being to their material. And frankly, reading enough to make a valid assessment would give me the screaming heebee-jeebees, so I won't. :)
It does invite more scrutiny. I will admit I'm curious; but like you, I'm not sure how traumatizing the stories would be. I guess I wanted to ask some of these questions (and finish other projects, but that's another issue) before dipping a toe in the water. Maybe the first steps are checking out community discussion and seeing if there's any literature available on the subject.
no subject
Date: Feb. 22nd, 2006 06:16 pm (UTC)