The Problem of Edmund
Oct. 9th, 2012 02:06 am![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
harmony-lover.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
nffr_partyWe had a lovely discussion on here about the Problem of Susan, and headcanon, and characterization, and I really wanted to create a similar post for Edmund the Just after there was this conversation in the comments over on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rthstewart's journal. vialethe really started the whole thing by saying this:
I'd like to know more about what [Tebbitt] senses in Edmund to make him so scary - I'd expect that one spy would recognize another, but Edmund having some inherent sense of danger about him is very intriguing.
And then I said about Edmund:
I've always had Thoughts about Edmund and Scariness, and so your comment intrigued me. It's interesting, because on the one hand, in my headcanon at least, Edmund is this incredibly compassionate, moral, forgiving person - as seems only right for being the Just king. But, on the other hand, there's the idea of Justice being blind, impartial, and more than a little ruthless. So he's also Scary, in the sense that he knows how to keep his fingers on everything going on in Narnia and out of it, and use that information to his advantage. Also, Justice is usually the dispenser of retribution, in whatever form it takes, and that can be a scary thing. (And yes, retribution can be just, and usually should be. It is not excessive - in other words, where Edmund is concerned, I don't confuse retribution and vengeance. Here's a quick definition of the former: Punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved.) But, retribution can be scary, depending on the magnitude of the original offense. . . . I am fascinated by the different sides of Edmund the Just, really - it's one of the things about his character that has always fascinated me, in the best way. I do see him as an incredibly upright and moral person, a compassionate judge of others, a loving and funloving brother - but also capable of planning and strategizing, spying where necessary, and being a fairly ruthless fighter where necessary, as well. He is many things, and I have a feeling that only his siblings really have a handle on how much he is capable of.
So. Who else has Thoughts about Edmund the Just, sibling, spymaster, dispenser of retribution, Duke of Lantern Waste, etc.?
rthstewart's journal. vialethe really started the whole thing by saying this:I'd like to know more about what [Tebbitt] senses in Edmund to make him so scary - I'd expect that one spy would recognize another, but Edmund having some inherent sense of danger about him is very intriguing.
And then I said about Edmund:
I've always had Thoughts about Edmund and Scariness, and so your comment intrigued me. It's interesting, because on the one hand, in my headcanon at least, Edmund is this incredibly compassionate, moral, forgiving person - as seems only right for being the Just king. But, on the other hand, there's the idea of Justice being blind, impartial, and more than a little ruthless. So he's also Scary, in the sense that he knows how to keep his fingers on everything going on in Narnia and out of it, and use that information to his advantage. Also, Justice is usually the dispenser of retribution, in whatever form it takes, and that can be a scary thing. (And yes, retribution can be just, and usually should be. It is not excessive - in other words, where Edmund is concerned, I don't confuse retribution and vengeance. Here's a quick definition of the former: Punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved.) But, retribution can be scary, depending on the magnitude of the original offense. . . . I am fascinated by the different sides of Edmund the Just, really - it's one of the things about his character that has always fascinated me, in the best way. I do see him as an incredibly upright and moral person, a compassionate judge of others, a loving and funloving brother - but also capable of planning and strategizing, spying where necessary, and being a fairly ruthless fighter where necessary, as well. He is many things, and I have a feeling that only his siblings really have a handle on how much he is capable of.
So. Who else has Thoughts about Edmund the Just, sibling, spymaster, dispenser of retribution, Duke of Lantern Waste, etc.?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-09 12:27 pm (UTC)My own head canon has changed over time and it is heavily, heavily influenced by Edmund's thoughtful, subtle adult conduct in HHB -- even a traitor may mend. I'd written him as a careful, smart, sarcastic, more foppish younger brother in By Royal Decree but that characterization has changed over time as I've worked him toward the graver, quieter person Lewis tells us he becomes. When I ended up writing a Spare Oom adult Edmund in the crossover with Natasha Romanov, I found I could not write him as an assassin or even a true spy because other ideas had really crowded that out. He's still a spy, but as developed, there's no violence -- he's investigating and documenting human rights crimes.
A lot of writers take his traitorous behavior in LWW and Aslan's sacrifice as the opportunity to use Edmund as a vehicle for intense angst. For some reason, his relationship with Peter is also frequently a vehicle for angst. I don't explore that first one much, except as the explanation for his extreme compassion/mercy. Aslan gave him mercy, no he didn't deserve it and to continually beat his breast over not being worthy is to demean the sacrifice. It's a calling, a very active vision of doing, a charge.
The relationship with Peter I just take as a given and I don't see the need to test it over and over again. They are brothers, they love one another, they trust one another and they both are able to develop emotionally healthy relationships outside the brother bond. I don't see the canon support for all the brother angst in book or film, but hey, whatever, not my favorite flavor of delicious cake.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-09 03:49 pm (UTC)My personal vision of Edmund... I started to type 'embraces the contradictions' but the thing is, I don't see them as contradictions, so let me come at that another way. If I had to define Edmund in a single word, it would be "competent." (Which actually applies to a lot of the Pevensies, but I digress.) There is a tendency in business and so forth these days for the word to carry a tacit 'merely' in front of it, but that's not the usage I want to invoke here. More like 'frighteningly', if you're going to preface it.
Edmund is defined, in my head-canon, by the simple ability to get things done. If it needs doing, he'll do it. He'll do it well, quietly, efficiently, and then he'll move on to the next problem. Which means that if spying and assassination is what's needed, he'll do it. I don't think moral rectitude enters the equation here, at least not in the sense that it would precipitate a crisis of conscience. I would never go so far as to suggest justice stops at the border, but I do think Edmund recognizes that his first duty is to Narnia; justice and mercy have their place, but if the choice is between defending Narnia and being 'fair' to an outsider, Narnia is always going to win. He's not king of the world, and he has to look to his country first.
Then, too, he isn't going to delegate matters that make him squeamish. If he's sized up a situation and decided that something needs to be done, he will do it no matter how unpleasant. Not to say he regularly conducts assassinations personally; a king can't be vanishing on prolonged stealth missions all the time. But he's not going to delegate the order or put in layer after layer of 'plausible deniability' to insulate himself from the hard choice.
As for the relationship between justice and retribution... Absolutely. Justice has to have an element of vengeance (and I don't necessarily draw a distinction between vengeance and retribution, personally, but that's more my etymology geek kicking in) or it isn't just. There's a quote I wish I could lay hands on right now -- it's in my inspiration folder at home, I know -- to the effect that you do no service to the law if you only show mercy and never punish. When I did personal banners for the Pevensies, I gave Edmund a pair of crossed swords, one blunted, for vengeance and mercy.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-09 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-10 01:40 pm (UTC)Two other things. Songsmith and Ilysia have both presented Edmund as presenting the appearance of being the foppish younger brother. It's an act, or mostly, but anyone have thoughts on that?
Tia raises another point that his efforts at making the most of his second chance prevents him from angsting over everything like a 15 year old Harry Potter and she, too, takes issue with the emotional dependent relationship with Peter that is often seen in fanfic. As she points out, I see him (all of them, really) as very independent and there's no need for one sibling to coddle the other. Anyone want to try to get to the bottom of these co-dependent brother relationship depictions? Where it comes from and why it's so popular in fandom? Is it another version of the white, male, buddy pre-slash/slash trope you see in so many TV fandoms -- Kirk/Spock, Starsky/Hutch, Mulder/Krycek, Holmes/Watson etc. etc? (I'm not being snide here -- that's just not my fandom interest but maybe that's what's going on here?)
no subject
Date: 2012-10-10 03:44 pm (UTC)Anyway, I digress. Edmund as foppish - I have to say this is one thing that has never entered my head, act or not, front or not. My headcanon Edmund is not Percy Blakeney by any means. Could he play the fop if absolutely necessary? Surely - but I can already hear the grumbling about fussy clothes, artificial manners, etc., etc. It's a persona that I don't think he'd appreciate, and certainly wouldn't want to wear often. Being a fop carries a large degree of artificiality (and superficiality) with it, and while I can see Edmund as being able to adapt almost any disguise, I don't think he'd care for being a dandy, at least not more often than he can help. Maybe what I would ask you all is, if your Edmund frequently plays the foppish younger brother, what purpose does it serve for him? How is it helpful?
All this is not to say that Edmund is not capable of wit and being socially charming and funny - of course he is - but I think it would be when and where he chooses, probably around the people he's closest to, or in a situation where it is needed. I've always seen Edmund as something of an introvert - an observer, someone who is keenly intelligent and smart and socially graceful with others, but who needs time to process after it is all over, after he's done whatever it is he's immersed in and can sit back and take stock of it.
I see Edmund as being very flexible and adaptable (highly useful qualities for a spy) but also motivated by redemption and willing to offer it to others. Those two things coexist in him, at least for me.
The codependent brothers thing. Argh. I suspect that you're right, Rth, and that it does come out of the fandom propensity for these highly charged, overly emotional m/m pairings that are pre-slash/slash. Most of these kinds of relationships in fandom drive me crazy - the Winchester brothers are another example.
I admit, though, that I tend to walk a line here as far as the Pevensie brothers are concerned. I don't see either one of them angsting over every little thing. (I'm not a fan of angst in general, so I admit to bias there.) They're both highly independent and motivated people, and while they are happy to support each other, they also know when to stay out of the way, if that makes sense. They are there for each other if needed, but not there all the time or smothering each other.
That said, is their relationship different than that of your average, England-living, public-school-attending brothers? Yes. For me, it's not about their individual personalities so much as it's about Narnia. Having lived and ruled over a place so different, so pluralistic, so accepting and loving (and this is where we agree about the "going native," Rth), it only makes sense to me that they would understand one another better than your average brothers and be able to communicate that understanding to each other. Narnia is not Spare Oom, where being emotionally reserved and standoffish is sort of the order of the day.
Am I making any sense at all? I could talk about this forever; I find it all fascinating. More opinions on all of this would be most welcome.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-10 04:48 pm (UTC)So. My Edmund's public persona is one that likes sport: riding, hunting, jousting, wrestling, etc, etc, etc. Also dancing, music, and flirting, which (let us remember and this is me glaring at various fanfic authors) are not 'girly' pursuits in the era Narnia is frequently modeled on, but very necessary skills for anyone of status. If all of that makes people think he's less intelligent.... GOOD. They'll never see him coming.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-11 04:15 am (UTC)As I said in my reply to Ruth, I disagree that this is a slash trope - I see it as hurt/comfort, which I see in het and slash and gen fic.
Although I personally do think that the Winchester brothers have a very highly charged, emotionally codependent relationship - although I don't see them as incestuous - much more so than the Pevensie brothers.
That said, is their relationship different than that of your average, England-living, public-school-attending brothers? Yes. For me, it's not about their individual personalities so much as it's about Narnia. Having lived and ruled over a place so different, so pluralistic, so accepting and loving (and this is where we agree about the "going native," Rth), it only makes sense to me that they would understand one another better than your average brothers and be able to communicate that understanding to each other. Narnia is not Spare Oom, where being emotionally reserved and standoffish is sort of the order of the day.
I do think you're on to something here - that their experiences in Narnia changed them, and their relationship, and thus the relationship is closer, perhaps, than that of typical brothers in England? I think that's what you're saying. :)
Although Narnia as "a place so different, so pluralistic, so accepting and loving" - I don't see that as canon, or at least not the canon we see depicted in the books, if that makes sense? So if I'm reading a fic, I need to see that work, you know? I can see a possibility for that Narnia in fic, but I want to see the world-building, I want to see it made real in the story before I can buy that Edmund and Peter relationship. Unless, of course, the writer labels their fic as "set in Rthstewart's 'verse" - then I know what they mean, and the work has already been done.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-11 04:48 am (UTC)"I do think you're on to something here - that their experiences in Narnia changed them, and their relationship, and thus the relationship is closer, perhaps, than that of typical brothers in England? I think that's what you're saying. :)" Yes. This is exactly what I was getting at. I can't imagine anyone having lived in Narnia for any length of time and not being changed by it. For Peter and Edmund, the things that happened to them in Narnia are literally what repaired and then strengthened their relationship as brothers, and so it only makes sense to me that their relationship would be closer than typical English brothers.
You're also right that a pluralistic and accepting Narnia is not necessarily what's in the books - I think there are arguments to be made about that, and they have been made by some people. In this case, that's just my head canon. I've always read the books that way, always felt that Lewis was creating a much more pluralistic and loving vision than he was given credit for, and so when I'm thinking about how Narnia would have affected the Pevensies, I'm always thinking in terms of pluralism, diversity, acceptance, etc. This is the man who created a romp that contained Greek gods and demi-gods, all manner of mythological creatures, humans, and a Lion who rules over all of them. Somehow I've never thought he was arguing for exclusion. ;)
no subject
Date: 2012-10-11 01:14 pm (UTC)The reason I don't see it as a slash trope, specifically in the Narnia fandom, is that most of the people writing it are so vehemently anti-slash, to the point of declaring their homophobia in their profiles on ff.net, just so everyone is clear. It can't be a slash trope for them, since they have no clue about slash fandom in general, or its culture and tropes.
You're also right that a pluralistic and accepting Narnia is not necessarily what's in the books - I think there are arguments to be made about that, and they have been made by some people. In this case, that's just my head canon. I've always read the books that way, always felt that Lewis was creating a much more pluralistic and loving vision than he was given credit for, and so when I'm thinking about how Narnia would have affected the Pevensies, I'm always thinking in terms of pluralism, diversity, acceptance, etc. This is the man who created a romp that contained Greek gods and demi-gods, all manner of mythological creatures, humans, and a Lion who rules over all of them. Somehow I've never thought he was arguing for exclusion. ;)
Oh, I don't think he was arguing for exclusion - consciously. I have a lot of issues with TLB, and exclusion is part of it. However, I do think the scene with Emeth in TLB was Lewis specifically aiming for inclusion of all (although I know lots of people who found that scene the most upsetting and exclusionary scene in the entire series, so it's not without its problems).
My point was more about fic in general - that I love to see the idea of that world explored more in fic. I love world-building and the stories that come out of it, and I want to read stories that show me how Narnia was and how that changed the Pevensies - which is something Ruth does extremely well - rather than just having the stories tell me, "oh it was different in Narnia, that's why they're this way." I'm not going to buy the characterization, if I don't have the reasons behind it, if that makes sense?
no subject
Date: 2012-10-11 07:09 pm (UTC)I can completely see this being a hurt/comfort trope, rather than (or perhaps in addition to? along with?) a slash trope.
The reason I don't see it as a slash trope, specifically in the Narnia fandom, is that most of the people writing it are so vehemently anti-slash, to the point of declaring their homophobia in their profiles on ff.net, just so everyone is clear. It can't be a slash trope for them, since they have no clue about slash fandom in general, or its culture and tropes.
I really appreciated Snacky's earlier comparison to the bromance fic of Narnia and the woobify Mulder fic and how it's hurt/comfort but not slash. That was a really useful perspective.
So how could someone who says NOT SLASH really be writing slash? Easily says I and this is where two personal things of my own kick in. First, as someone who doesn't read or write much m/m (1.8 million works and 18 years before I managed 3 paragraphs -- yes, I am an idiot and not proud of that), I am (
probablydefinitely overly) sensitive to it. I've got slash goggles on all the time and if it looks like slash, sounds like slash, reads like slash and uses common slash tropes, I'm going to call it what I see it as, authorial disclaimers notwithstanding. I've spent nearly two decades avoiding Han/Luke huddling for warmth; Mulder/Krycek nursing through illness; Hobbit RPF trapped in elevator, Merlin/Arthur slavery stories and so when I see them pop up without pairing disclosures, I notice it.Which brings me to my second point and that's in RL, I review advertising and promotional material and a really basic rule is that regardless of the disclosures, disclaimers up front and the creative intent behind a piece, you have to look at the overall context of the piece and its net effect on the audience. A single disclaimer cannot disclaim the overall net impression of a piece -- e.g., if an ad trumpets miraculous weight loss, a single line "Results not typical" won't save the ad from being misleading if the real weight loss isn't so miraculous.
In sum, I don't care if the author says Peter and Edmund are not in a slash relationship -- if it's written OOC, as a highly emotional testing and retesting of the bond, and physically intimate (touching, crying, sharing beds, comforting broken bodies), I read it as slash and trying to disclaim the overall effect just doesn't work for me. And no, I'm not a dirty old woman (well I am, but that's beside the point). Why do we need to even get to what the author did or did not intend with her disclaimer when it's right there in black and white, where the net effect and takeaway reads as romantic, co-dependent, often sub-dom (Edmund as the sub) relationship, even if not explicitly sexual. You don't have to be having sex for it to be sexualized, you know?
Now, the real issues, I suppose is that since I don't read or write much slash, maybe I'm all wrong and none of these really are slashy and it's just me being cranky and uncomfortable and overly sensitive. I concede this is a possibility.
This got long, sorry.
Date: 2012-10-13 07:02 pm (UTC)"Slash goggles" doesn't mean "oh god this piece of fiction has two men in it, now all those gross slashers are going to come along and pair them up and ruin it!" It means, sometimes people consume media and can pick up on vibes/cues/whatever that aren't overt in the text, and they turn it into a romance. Often this is m/m slash, hence the term "slash goggles" but it also happens in het or femmeslash romances (see XF again as an example, and HP). It's picking up on the subtext, which is something a lot of fannish works do, not just m/m slash.
The problem here, for me at least, when you say "you're going to call it as you see it" - you do not like brotherfic. And you do not like slash. So calling brotherfic "slash" is really coming off bad" - "this thing is bad! it's just like this other bad thing!" And unfortunately, it sounds really homophobic. I know you're not a homophobe, Ruth, but you are expressing yourself badly with this. Calling something "slash" as shorthand for bad sounds really, really bad. Call out the bad parts of it - call it out of character, say it's badly written, say it's purple prose - but don't say "it's slash" and tell me that means it's bad.
So yes, I agree that the people who write it (in the main) are quite homophobic. Like I said before, they go out of their way to proclaim that in their profiles. But I wouldn't call it slash, seriously - I have called it "slash for homophobes" as a joke, for all the tearful cuddling and kissing and bedsharing and erasure of women/girls as characters with agency and purpose (which I admit, slash stories often do). But for me, it's quite easy to avoid and I don't have to read it if I don't like it - as the the saying goes, This Is Not My Beautiful Cake. I have experience with this. I was a SPN fan and I didn't like Wincest. But it didn't ruin my fannish experience in SPN (the show did that, but that's another story *g*).
Which brings me to my second point and that's in RL, I review advertising and promotional material and a really basic rule is that regardless of the disclosures, disclaimers up front and the creative intent behind a piece, you have to look at the overall context of the piece and its net effect on the audience. A single disclaimer cannot disclaim the overall net impression of a piece -- e.g., if an ad trumpets miraculous weight loss, a single line "Results not typical" won't save the ad from being misleading if the real weight loss isn't so miraculous.
Again, you are making slash a negative thing here. People write "this isn't slash" and you're saying, "it is and that's wrong and misleading."
In sum, I don't care if the author says Peter and Edmund are not in a slash relationship
I do. Death of the author and all that, I know, but really, I'm not going to start calling all fics where people are killed "snuff" or fics with any kind of relationship in them "romance."
This got long, sorry. #2
Date: 2012-10-13 07:03 pm (UTC)So slash is out of character (!), it tests emotional bonds, if people are physically intimate, it's slash. Well, hell, the slashers are right - someone dig up Tolkien and let him know he really did write Sam and Frodo as a m/m couple by these standards. And really, out of character? That's a writing problem, and not inherent in any way to slash.
And no, I'm not a dirty old woman (well I am, but that's beside the point). Why do we need to even get to what the author did or did not intend with her disclaimer when it's right there in black and white, where the net effect and takeaway reads as romantic, co-dependent, often sub-dom (Edmund as the sub) relationship, even if not explicitly sexual. You don't have to be having sex for it to be sexualized, you know?
If that's your takeaway, that's up to you, I think. I imagine that most of the readers and fans of these stories do not come away from them as "omg Peter and Edmund are so in love they should get married and have babies omg I'd love it!" I really think, just like people do with slash goggles, you're projecting what you want to see in these stories - unfortunately, what you want to see is very negative. I do think the author's intent counts here, in labeling it. And it kind of kills me to defend the authors and these stories because I don't like them as a whole! *g*
There's another fanfic trope called idfic. I mentioned hurt/comfort before, but these stories are also very idficcy - something writers put out because it's scratching some itch, hitting some kink, and in this case, the h/c in these stories often seem to be utter idfic to me. I think, as I said earlier, most of these authors are young, and there's probably something both appealing and non-threatening to them about about seeing the male objects of their affections in these h/c situations. Idfic is not necessarily about the quality of writing, for either the writer or the reader. It's about scratching that itch.
Now, the real issues, I suppose is that since I don't read or write much slash, maybe I'm all wrong and none of these really are slashy and it's just me being cranky and uncomfortable and overly sensitive. I concede this is a possibility.
So here you've issued your own disclaimer, after the fact of this rant. I think someone who admits to not reading or writing slash, who has in fact actively avoided it for 20 years, really doesn't have much authority to speak on the subject. And the way you've equated "slash" with "bad" has made me both uncomfortable and upset. I have to say, I think this is the part I agree with the most: you're "being cranky and uncomfortable and overly sensitive."
I think you can not like these stories. I think that's a valid thing. I don't like them either! But I think saying "they're bad because they're slash" is wrong, and like I said earlier, I don't think you mean to say it that way and you're expressing yourself badly. I'm sorry. I know this will upset you, but it upset me to read this, and I had to say something.
Re: This got long, sorry. #2
Date: 2012-10-14 04:16 am (UTC)Speaking as someone who is trained in literary theory and crit, part of what makes these texts interesting is that multiple tropes can coexist, regardless of the intent of the author. This isn't to say that authorial intent doesn't matter; of course it does. It's useful to know someone's biographical details; it's useful to know if they condemn homosexuality or not; it's useful to know if they even had it as part of their worldview. (I'm thinking of Whitman, here, for example; he lived in a time when "homosexuality" as we define it today didn't exist, but he was clearly aware of his own attraction to men and preference for their company. As a completely different kind of example, there are all kinds of queerness and gender play happening in Little Women, but we see those overtones now in a way that Louisa May Alcott never would have thought of during her lifetime.)
So, authorial intent matters - but so does the perception of the reader. There can be slash tropes and slash overtones where the author doesn't intend them; I've done it. I've gone back and read some Peter/Ed things I've written and said "Hmm, I didn't intend to go there, but I can see how a reader would go there." Readers are going to have different interpretations of what they read, regardless of authorial intent. What looks like slash and feels like slash to one person may not to another.
Here's an example that's perhaps a little more relevant: The Holmes/Watson fic. There are plenty of writers out there who deliberately write Holmes/Watson slash, using all of the tropes, gleefully acknowledging that they love the pairing. The RDJ movies have deliberately exploited these undertones; the cast has admitted as much. Would Doyle have seen any kind of homosexual relationship between his characters? Absolutely not. He didn't intend it; he couldn't have, because "buggery," as they called it then, was an act and not an identity. (Or, if it was an identity, it was so far underground that it's almost impossible to know how it would have been negotiated.) But what we see in the stories evolves with the culture, and readers are going to have different interpretations of Holmes and Watson than they did a century ago. It's entirely plausible, now, to see that as a homosexual relationship, even though Doyle would have never seen it that way. It can look like slash and be read as slash regardless of authorial intent - but the author still has a right to stick to their own conception of the work and say, "This is where I was going; this is the story I was writing; this is what I intended with this relationship." The two always coexist - and that, lovelies, is why I have a job. :) Brotherfic is not slash - and usually the authors are very fierce about the fact that the writing is not slash - but it can feel like slash. It can also be h/c, and it could also very well be idfic, where the writers find something appealing in the idea of the characters being vulnerable.
Just some food for thought. Don't dismiss the idea that all of this coexists - and that, intentional or not, none of it is "bad" in an interpretive sense. (It's quite often bad writing, but that's another problem.)
Re: This got long, sorry. #2
Date: 2012-10-14 10:29 pm (UTC)Thank you - I think you really summed up what I was trying to say, only with far less tl;dr.
Re: This got long, sorry. #2
Date: 2012-10-14 02:12 pm (UTC)Re: This got long, sorry. #2
Date: 2012-10-14 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-11 03:58 am (UTC)I think it's more a hurt/comfort trope, which is not, as you're saying, a slash or pre-slash trope only. In fact, one of the most outstanding examples of it I've ever seen was in X-Files MSR fandom, where it was so prevalent, a term was coined for it: Muldertorture. It's also known as "whump" - basically piling on and breaking the woobie (generally in the Narnia brotherfic, from what I understand, this is Edmund) and having another character there to comfort and love him and catch him when he falls and put him back together when he breaks. Sometimes there's a sexual component, sometimes not, which I why I say it's not specifically a slash thing. Sometimes the woobie is hurt to the point of infantilizing, sometimes it's just a trauma (or two or three or a hundred) to get over.
I think a lot of the Narnia brotherfic writers are young, and even if they're not, I think there's an element of idealizing the Pevensie brothers, and wanting to put themselves in the place of the comforter. But they're fandom savvy enough to understand that writing an OFC will get them slapped with a Mary Sue label, so they go with what they see as a non-sexual situation of "brotherlove." It's wish fulfillment, I think, especially with the younger writers - so many girls dream about "fixing" the object of their affections, and having him "need" them.
There's also the "special fan" element in this too: "I'm not like those EW slashers! Or like those SILLY Mary Sue writers! I write pure brotherlove! C.S. Lewis would totally approve of MY fic, unlike all those OTHER gross non-canon ficwriters!"
On a personal note, I am always amused when brotherfic writers are like, "EW INCESTFIC! I assume those people don't have siblings or else they'd be fucking them!" because I am always thinking, "EW BROTHERFIC! I assume those people don't have brothers, if this is how they think they boys act." :D
no subject
Date: 2012-10-17 12:31 am (UTC)Not that I'm saying all slash does this, or even that it is a slash thing in general, but I feel like I see a lot of slash and brotherfic that really seems to come from a place of "the men are more interesting to write about, their feelings are more important, and if I want them to have a relationship, it's got to be with another man (sexual or not), because that's more important." And...I'm not sure where I'm going with this. ::throws hands up:: I guess I wonder sometimes if that's the reason a lot of the brofics read like slash, and the reason that bromance as a genre works the way it does.
I guess also maybe that there are people who are turned on by a lot of the same things slash (well, romance at all) tends to have--sweeping declarations of emotion, tense situations, feelings everrrrrywhere--but then they want to write something that isn't slash, and between fandom's anti-Mary Sue bias and the sexism that is, well, everywhere, we wind up with brotherfic.
Sorry sorry, late reply!
Date: 2012-10-19 07:53 pm (UTC)Aside from all my other thoughts on the subject, I have to agree with this 100% because yes, this is a thing that slash does (and that's not even getting into the overt "ew vaginas" crowd) and brotherfic does it too. Men's stories are the IMPORTANT ones and those silly little women better just sit down and get on with their knitting.
Personally, that's the thing I object to the most about Narnia brotherfic - that Susan and Lucy are relegated to supporting characters at best, and left completely out of the story at worst. It's like they have to lose anything about them that's interesting and intelligent to step aside and let the story be about ~~BROTHERS! Like, Edmund and Peter are their brothers too! If one of them is going through a rough patch, wouldn't it make sense for them to care? But no, in all brotherfics, they're like, "oh bummer, Ed's upset, better let Peter handle it, I'll go make tea or something" which is just SO. WEIRD.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-10 07:03 pm (UTC)The other is his sense of fairness. I think he is extremely fair and I'll make him play devil's advocate often, sometimes to the point of annoying others AND himself. He often starts sentences with, "Well, to be fair..." Edmund has the gift of perspective, and he shares that with others.
He is the Just King, and for Edmund, justice is a slow process - he likes to gain all the facts and information necessary in considering all cases, and he is never quick to judgement, because he would hate to make a mistake. He can temper justice with mercy, and he does not confuse retribution with revenge.
That said, even with good humor and fairness, Edmund can be cranky - I get this characterization from VDT, where he is often annoyed with Eustace, but does attempt to be fair and patient with him, despite how trying this is.
Edmund is both a voracious reader, and a compulsive diarist - he is never without a journal and a pen, and is scribbling notes to himself at all times. I like the fanon of Edmund being a spymaster, although I more tend to think of him as an information gatherer, as opposed to a ninja-type spy, dangerous and cloaked in shadows. He basically likes being well-informed of everything (see above), for the good of Narnia (also, he's inherently nosy). He knows how to operate in secret, of course, and he has friends and informants everywhere. He writes extensive, detailed reports of his activities that his siblings groan over reading. :D
Like Song, I see him not as a "fop" or "dandy" but as a younger brother, more playful and carefree (think of Corin's glee in HHB when he finds out he doesn't have to be King, because Princes have all the fun). So while he can be serious and contemplative, he's also fun - he's athletic, and extremely competitive (to the point where he often has to reign that in) and a great flirt. He's musical - can play a few instruments. I think he's an introvert who can put on a great show of extroversion.
I think he has friends (and lots of friendly acquaintances), and he's extremely loyal, but keeps mostly everyone except his siblings at a bit of a distance. He considers Peter his best friend, and they're competitive with each other. He and Susan are closest in temperment and complement each other in terms of duties and work, while he and Lucy share a bond as youngest siblings, and in the pursuit of fun.
I also agree with Song that he's competent - he's very good at what he does, and I suppose that could make him "Scary" - although not in the sense that he actually tries to scare people.
I don't subscribe to the angsty Edmund so beloved of fanon - I don't see that characterization in canon at all, so I have a hard time seeing it/reading it in fic. He's introspective at times, but not constantly navel-gazing, nor is he constantly plagued by self-doubt or feelings of inferiority. I think he's a person who had a bad thing in his past, but he's put that behind him and has moved on from it. He's informed by his past actions, but not haunted by them - it's just one facet of who he is, not his entirety.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-11 01:44 am (UTC)It sounds like we're all using the Myers-Briggs version of introversion, which is the person who can be extroverted, but on his own terms, and who needs that opportunity to retreat and reflect afterward as opposed to the true extrovert who is energized by people.
Anyone want to take a stab at a Myer-Briggs profile for Edmund (or any of the others?) Do we assume that Peter is an ENTJ? What would Edmund be?
no subject
Date: 2012-10-11 01:15 pm (UTC)More on Edmund to follow....
always late to the party!
Date: 2012-10-17 01:03 am (UTC)I've always seen him as quieter than Peter, slighter, more introspective and more observant. I think he would do well with someone who could make him laugh, or alternatively someone who would sit up with him and stargaze and wax philisophical. I think he is more theoretical than his siblings. I think he gives second chances.
I vacilate a lot on whether I see Edmund as straight or gay or ace or bi. I think I've written him every which way. In England, I sometimes think he is better at integrating his past and present than, say, Susan, who has to shut down the Narnia talk, or Peter, who has a hard time adjusting. I think Edmund, like Susan, could have a relationship and never tell that person about Narnia. I don't see that with the other two.