Really enjoyed the paper! Of most interest was the lit review which was all new to me and incredibly informative — must add some of those to my reading list. Certainly I think your focus on the problematics of the existing theory and the inevitable oppositional discourses that arise is very pertinent and I think you're on to something there...
I also liked the way you used your own experiences and impressions in the story. I am strongly FOR putting the author into the critique as a site of meaning. I think it's important to establish ourselves as part of the discourse and not as outside evaluators — which you were very intent on doing, stating yourself as fan and critic.
I don't know whether you meant to suggest that the fan is also a critic as the corollary of your argument but I certainly think that's relevant too. As fans, I think we are highly sophisticated in our "readings" — acutely aware of the structure and form of the television show and its effect on us. And our interactions with other fans involve critiques and readings and theories of the text. The fanfic writer is a critic who expresses her interpretation in narrative form — constantly interpreting and reinterpreting the text using the codes of language and culture. The difference between most fans and Jenkins, Penley etc. and yourself is the form of the critique.
A friend of mine is doing her PhD in fictocriticism and she was very interested in fanfiction because it sounded like fictocriticism to her — it's basically critique expressed in narrative or poetics. I was very resistant to the idea when she told me about it because I did not want someone to hold up a story of mine as my interpretation of the text (i.e. someone looks at "Objects in the Mirror" and says, "cgb obviously sees Olivia as comfortable with her sexuality while Alex is not," or something). But I'm warming to the idea of fictocriticism — as long as we acknowledge that multiple interpretations exist and a story is just one interpretation.
On LJ [livejournal.com] recently there was a "meme" of sorts going around asking people to define their characters. It was mostly a Stargate thing so we got a lot of "my Daniel is... blah blah blah..." I commented that I would find it difficult to define my Sam because she is constantly changing in my mind — some days she is straight some days she isn't. A response to my post said, "well rather than dealing with the big issues first why don't you start with her background — what she was like in school etc?" and I said, "well — even her background is not conclusive to me."
I believe that most of us interpret and reinterpret our characters and only ascribe "fixed" meanings because the norms of critique do not allow us to have "floating" definitions — i.e. Olivia can't be gay and straight at the same time.
Which brings me back to your paper:
I can claim that Olivia's lesbianism is "in" Law & Order: SVU (as I will do shortly) only to the degree that I (and you, my readers) are willing to abandon absolute oppositions in favor of a model where the inside and the outside interpenetrate, where the borders of the television text are permeable, compromised by intertextual relations and infiltrated by audience readings, and where the presence of lesbian desire does not preclude other identifications and erotics
Exactly. But I think that the structures of meaning and interpretation must also be penetrable so that meanings are not fixed (and where Olivia is both gay and straight in the one interpretation at the same time).
Interpretation is utilitarian of sorts — when I choose to interpret Olivia as lesbian I do so for the purposes of writing her as a lesbian. At this time I interpret the text and the visual, audio and narrative cues as portraying a lesbian detective.
But if you were to ask me if I think she could be a lesbian, I would say she could be but she could also be straight — unless it is useful for my purposes she is both at once and neither — hence the context of interpretation is as significant as the "codes" in the text. [...]
If the text... is a set of codes then it is open to us to exercise different meanings that can be arranged from these codes — either via critical interpretation, via discussion amongst our peers and/ or via fanfic.
For this reason I was kind of disappointed you chose not argue for a lesbian Olivia (although I did understand your reasons for doing so). I think it would have been the next step after you broke down the norms of either/ or to exercise your own meaning and to argue for its validity.
[ bibliography ("next" link below is BROKEN) ]
responding
I certainly did mean to suggest that the fan is also a critic (I got that idea, in large part, from the Hastie article). But I think you do a good job here of outlining the ways this mapping of one onto the other is problematic and convoluted -- largely because of loaded expectations about what critique is. To summarize you: critique, by definition, is supposed to be fixed, much as sexuality is supposed to be fixed. When in reality both are more fluid, multiple, and fragmentary than we (have the language to) give them credit for.
Aren't you contradicting yourself by saying you wished I'd argued for a lesbian Olivia, after emphasizing the importance of cultivating a discursive space where she can be "both at once and neither"? I argued that Olivia *is* a lesbian as much as I felt I could justify theoretically, politically, morally. If there's a coherent way to make this case more strongly, it's beyond me. Ultimately, I wanted to avoid belittling or closing down other possible interpretations, for precisely the reasons you state.
I think, also, that the majority of the work on slash takes just this tack: "If the text... is a set of codes then it is open to us to exercise different meanings that can be arranged from these codes." But I really do believe the relationship is more turbulent than this optimistic model suggests. Certainly interpretation is as important and authoritative as textuality, but I think that texts facilitate certain readings and resist others in particular ways that are under-theorized. It's those avenues of inquiry that I was trying to open up in the paper.