re: your recent post abt modern au = sign of facism, i was just about to ask if you've seen this post (tumblr . co m/ sab ertooth walrus/8028 4524 0570544128) and was curious about your opinions on it - i think the OP's assertions about the "slide away from complex plotty violent work and towards kidfic and coffee shops AUs" is well. questionable at the very least but i do think the last reblog has Points re: coffeeshop AUs and the like being very sanitized surface-level fantasies but at the same time i get people wanting to read about coffee shop AUs while not wanting to read about unionbusting/long work hours/Reality of working in a coffee shop bc it's well. a fantasy world and ideally both the reader and writer know this. similar to the post abt ideologically meeting shit where it's at
something i've been thinking about lately is the line between the act of literary/artistic criticism in relation to fic and fanthropology / fandom sociology and the complexities thereof. literary/artistic criticism is useful in that it allows us to ask analytical questions about the field of the text and to pick apart the ways in which fan texts are constructed and in that process ask questions like those raised in that post i.e. what ideas are embedded in this and what do they express in what they do or do not show. however, in fandom unfortunately, the act of literary/artistic criticism rarely stops at criticism alone and immediately veers into fanthropology / fandom sociology i.e. this says something about people and fan culture. it does not attempt to historicise these works, then, in a fannish cultural tradition; it does not attempt to engage with the people behind these works and ask how they think of these texts; it barely tries to even observe the ways in which people interact with, talk about or think about these texts. this slippage produces, i think, a lot of very fine-sounding statements, but when you poke closer, look at the past and present of fandom traditions or even try to poke outside of your enclave of fandom, things can fall apart very quickly.
this is a long preface to essentially arrive at this: too many times, literary criticism is used to generate statements that often moralise in very sweeping ways about why people do what they do. as a result, conversations that could be productive and thoughtful become fraught and circular. the post you've linked is an example of just that.
is it true that the preoccupations of fandom reflect the preoccupations of broader cultural products, which in turn reflect both prevailing mindsets and cultural conditions that allow only this narrow set of cultural products to be released? yes. is it true that it works in a neat one is to one fashion? i don't think so and i think that if we're going to make glib and grand statements like that, we should argue it better.
neither of these arguments are convincing. the first (and i'm clubbing in the tags in the second screenshot here) is pretty insubstantiated. a quick gander through differing fandoms on ao3, ffnet and lj will indicate that modern aus and kidfic have always been with us and have always been plentiful, as have been the complaints about them. moreover, their distribution varies from fandom to fandom. has the op really witnessed a rise in their prevalence across the board, or have they spotted an emerging trend in a specific fandom, or have they changed fandoms? unclear! is it neopastoralist? idk, i'm not sure that we can suggest this is exactly like aristocrats writing about a fanciful imaginary of the countryside for nationalist purposes! amongst other things, you have to reckon with the following: a) you do not actually know the biography & positionality of the people writing these fics & cannot make these judgements and b) if you argue this solely on the terrain of textual criticism, you must reckon with the possibility of canons themselves containing pastoralist / romanticised tendencies which carry over into fic (is any work of popular media depicting the professions they claim to depict with any realism? i think not. some exist in more romanticised versions than others and its worth asking if that also affects how the fandom responds.)
the second argument is more substantiated and i think thoughtful for what it is as a piece of literary criticism, but unfair when it comes to what the pleasures of a coffee shop au are for both writer and reader: "These topics are Political and Depressing and Must Be Avoided, because Political and Depressing things are antithetical to this kind of escapism. ... In order to be convinced and soothed by this fantasy, you must suspend your disbelief and avert your eyes. You must filter the coffee shop through a neopastoralist lens."
i'm sort of curious about the phrasing of "convinced and soothed by this fantasy". either you are or aren't. as you rightly observe, most people aren't presenting their coffee shop aus as this strike for greater justice and politics & therefore its a bit unfair to evaluate those works on those terms! but also what is the fantasy? what is the escapism taking place? are all escapism(s) identical? is it worth interrogating what the escapism looks like? maybe! possibly! are there ways to do it in which we don't imply charged accusations about people? but here we also get into the dangerous terrain of biography right? because my question is, what is the difference between the wage worker writing a romanticised version of their work to escape from the ugliness of reality versus an upwardly mobile middle class white collar worker writing a romanticised version of a working class workspace because they have no idea about reality? do YOU as a reader know who is writing what? can you judge the conditions of their escapism without knowing these facts? what makes it different? what doesn't?
i'm not asking this as rhetorical gotcha questions, so much as questions that i've been mulling over of late, because to my mind they also exist side by side with some of the thornier questions about representation and escapism in fandom and i'm trying to work out what my thoughts are on this. bc that's the other thing right? what makes one fantasy more "radical" than the other? is realism the only route towards a radical politics? why do we think that? what really is being escaped anyway? what is it being escaped towards?
and like, if you've followed me for a while you'll know this is not a defense of cosy fiction and its politics, but more a question of how to critique with greater incisiveness and with more thoughtfulness.
full disclosure: i've read plenty of coffee shop aus in my time. i've arguably also written the depressing version of it (twice). i think its interesting that people problematise the soft and cosy romance meet cute version, but i don't think my "depressing" version of those aus is actually any more realistic! both are really just background settings for two different kinds of not very realistic spy & revenge stories even if they do feature different kinds of politics (yes even the politics of why and how the characters are where they are)! arguably, the "serious" tone may lead readers to believe that its "realistic".
at the same time, the coffee shop aus i've read generally tend to feature one or more of the characters as workers and maybe the love interest as a customer and so many times its clearly a fantasy of escape from the drudgery of work right? that instead of the dehumanising reality of customer service, suddenly you are humanised and that someone cares for you in this space of your dehumanisation. to those outside of this sphere of work, it hits very much in the same space of alienation/rehumanisation and tenderness. its romance, right? most times you are explicitly invited to identify with one of the characters and participate in this act of romance. its a fantasy space and its labelled as such: we know the journey we expect to take emotionally through this particular landscape, because the author has labelled it as such for us.
yet we return to the question: can fantasy be separated from critique entirely? is all pleasure uncomplicated? i don't know that they are! but how do you delineate between pleasure that is complicated and pleasure that is uncomplicated? aren't all pleasures complicated by the reality of politics? does it matter? what is the harm being done, if at all, in participating in this particular fantasy?
which i guess is where i come down on - and what the second person realises, but can't quite commit to. ultimately this really doesn't matter when there's no harm done. there are plenty of other far more popular and romanticised tales of coffee shops (popular tv sitcom friends, for example) that contribute to an imaginary of the happy, friendly workspace. as far as escapist fantasies go, you could do worse. i'm far more weirded out by the escapist fantasies of therapy / therapyspeak / the rituals of "communication" in fandom, which is not something i've seen an equivalent of in fiction/media - if you ask me. i'm far more worried about the harms perpetuated through political ignorance via vectors of race, gender, disability, imperialism etc in fandom and the ways in which escapism comes to function as a protective mechanism against knowing about this. are coffee shop aus part of this? maybe? i just don't think its significant enough to warrant channelling my energies in that direction.
tl;dr: great textual criticism in the second half, piss poor fanthropology, as so many analyses of fandom purport to be. if you want to analyse fandom, you have to at least be curious about why people do what they do and approach that with an open mind. and also, i do think you have to ask: am i putting the cart before the horse in hoping that controlling these fantasies will produce good politics?