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.
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
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.