#jeevey's meta

[jeevey]

I want to talk a little bit about old women in fandom. And by old, I mean grown ups. People with houses and jobs, and potentially spouses and kids. Adults.

There's a strange belief that fandom, and in particular erotic fanfiction, is peculiarily for the young. That adults do not belong in kinkyporny fic spaces. That they ought to be ashamed to be here, in the kid stuff.

This is not true. Just ask yourself, who has the time, the savvy, the money and wherewithal to print and distribute magazines, to code websites, to run large complicated domains, to pay hosting fees year after year, to incorporate as a nonprofit, fundraise, and successfully administer it, organize conferences, rent hotels and book speakers? Not 17 year olds.

In fact, it has never been true. The first published gay erotic fanfiction was written by Australian Diane Marchant in 1974.

Diane Marchant was born in 1939. She was 35 when she published the first Spock/Kirk fic. In fact, she lived her whole life in fan spaces and had a Trekkie funeral, surrounded by fanfic friends, when she died in 2006. Should she, or anyone else, be ashamed for doing what she loved and creating the world we all live in?

I'm not mad about this. But I want you all to give some very serious thought about what you're saying when you say that some people don't belong in fan spaces. Think about it a little further, keeping in mind that fanfiction spaces have always been essentially queer spaces. They are for the ones who don't fit.

Fanfiction.net, AO3, Livejournal fandom, Tumblr fandom and all the rest were essentially, and in some cases literally created by women who were shamed for their interests and told to shut up and go away. So they built their own damn sandbox and played toys the way they wanted. You are standing in it this minute.

You know what doesn't belong in fan spaces? Shame.

So when you see folks who you think are too old to be here, just remind yourself, "These weird old ladies are no different from the dykes and drag queens who rioted at Stonewall. They made the world we live in. This place wouldn't exist without them. Right on."

[jeevey]

I love that pic it's epic and it makes me wanna write a public hand job fic staring Noel and Matt. I also had a question what made you realize Noel was into men/wanna write transistor? I was always curious.

Write the fic!!

When I came into Oasis there was not a lot of fanfiction. Liamnoel was by far the best writer in the fandom even though the stories were several years old at the time (2019). She had a story in which Clint was a small character but very compelling. I think she had him as a sort of dark, dominant, almost abusive, but very important part of Noel's sexual awakening. Like, Noel was closeted and exploring his queerness with a lot of self loathing, and was willing to be treated badly by Clint because of what he had to offer. So when I watched Supersonic a few months later my antennae were up, and my mind was totally blown by that flogging scene.

So, the more I looked into Noel's behavior and the way he talks, I was like...Nope, that checks out. This guy is just not straight. This is not what a straight guy does. The way he just sparkles around certain men. The number of photos of him being intimate with men and the very clear spark of intensity in those images. The way he constantly finds reasons to talk about gay sex, the way he turns back people's assumptions of his straightness, the way he just admits to having a male lover a few years ago, not to mention his many comments about an unsatisfying sexual relationship with Sara...it's just not straight guy behavior.

And Clint's behavior to this day makes it so clear that he wants the world to remember his special relationship with Noel. He won't *quite* say the words "My old boyfriend Noel" but he does every thing short of that. He just needs to remind everyone that he and Noel used to go everywhere and do everything together, share photos of them in bed together, make Noel reminisce about how close they were, and remind every random interviewer that they shared a bed for years. He is so possessive. I can't even.

After a while it became clear to me that Liamnoel was wrong about one thing; Noel was not a self-loathing queer. As far as I can tell he was out as bisexual and had relationships with both men and women until Oasis took off. And that that was normal for the scene he was in.

While Manchester had a reputation for homophobia , my research indicates that the young indie rock scene just wasn't that way. Gays and bisexuals were well-integrated into Manchester's culture of bands, venues and clubs going back at least as far as the mid 70s.

So, the characters were fascinating. (Clint is a FASCINATING human being) and so was the time and the culture, and I really felt driven to explore it.

[jeevey]

One of my favourite things about Noel was always how much he seemed to love his wife. I always took it on face value. But now that I think back there were times that it felt a bit OTT.

Once early days on the radio show Russell commented that Sara excerted a lot of control over him. Noel brushed that off and I just took it as Russell not wanting him to be garded in the way any man would be when their wife was around. Sara was on her way into the studio.

I don't know what my ask is here really. Lol. I just thought that thing you said about him being inauthentic in recent years was interesting. I've just never thought of him as someone who could be influenced. Especially not about his career but maybe its not just in recent years maybe its always been a bit inauthentic. This is not me hating on Sara I took her at her word that she always just wanted to protect him.

Maybe the sources that say she needed to keep them apart were right. But I didn't really get what was in it for her to do that. He was far more famous, wealthy and influential when he was in the band.

I think he did love her.

Being married is it really weird thing. There is a very very significant element of choice in it. Once you decide to love someone, it is a literal daily habit of continuing to decide to love them everyday. It is an action and an attitude in the continuous present. Much like eating healthy, being sober, or being religious, loving your spouse is a daily discipline.

Men tend to excel at this. They are less affected by doubt than women and they are much less critical. The tendency of men to idealize their wives is very helpful for fidelity and durability in marriage. When a man takes an attitude of, "this is the woman I love, she is exactly the right woman for me, and I don't love anyone else," the relationship is really set up for success. I think that's what Noel did. He made the choice and he didn't question it afterwards. And that is a very important component of a successful marriage. So I don't think you're mistaken and what you saw. Noel was a great husband in some very important ways.

The inauthenticity I'm talking about is not his love for her, but the health and happiness of the marriage. Noel really wanted to believe his marriage was happy. This is extremely common by the way. Men need to believe that they are doing a good job at something important, that they are in some way winning, or on the side of the angels, to continue doing their best everyday . But it was clear to me that something about it wasn't quite working.

Noel talked many times over the years about Sara's contemptuous behavior toward him. I don't really understand it, but it was very consistent. She made fun of him to her friends, she belittled his interests, she mocked the books he read and put down his aspirations for his music. He would relate the stories as though they were jokes, but with an undercurrent of bitterness which was totally reasonable . Such behaviors are obviously very destructive in a relationship, they are not loving. And it was apparently Sara's regular practice.

I want to be clear that it is healthy to be influenced by your spouse. It is not the same as being controlled. However, sometimes when a couple is not well suited together or are forcing a relationship thay doesnt come naturally, they end up becoming semi-authentic versions of themselves to make it work. Its VERY common. I suspect that's what you saw going on in the podcast. Noel was a different person around Sara, and Russell wanted to talk to the friend that he knew, not the husband of Sara.

As far as why Sara wanted to separate her husband from the band, I can definitely understand it. I'm sure that being in Oasis was emotionally exhausting for Noel. I bet their lives were much more peaceful without Liam.

Creative partnerships often are extremely intense, even romantic in their tempestuousness. By nature they compete with the relationships outside. It takes an extremely patient wife to put up with it, even without the psychosexual obsession that characterizes the Gallaghers. Their relationship was certainly erotic in its intensity . Add in the fact that Liam was family and has no personal boundaries...I really understand her frustration.

[jeevey]

Jeevey, I didn't disrespect you, questioning your points isn't being rude, it's just debating. You say I want to convince you of my point, but you want to convince your followers that Noel had a lavender marriage to Sara without providing any proof... You are convinced that Noel is bi/gay because of an alleged experience homosexual from when he was a roadie and that's why you practically afirm that Noel chose to have "basic women" to give him advantages and a good social image... There are new people in the Oasis fandom who follow you and will believe everything you post, you were the first to publicize the history of Sara's clubs and that gave you a lot of credibility in the fandom, I only ask that you be more sensible in what you do do will call for your followers true, not confusing evidences with your personal desires...

Oh, and don't call someone rude or misogynistic just because they disagree with you! This is to show that you have no arguments!

Goodbye.

Hm. Well, I do think the way you talk is a little rude. Im observing your rudeness (which is quite real) but not calling names. I mean, would you talk to a friend in person the way you write to me? I think it's unlikely. And if you did, I expect they wouldn't be very happy with it.

You must be fairly new here? Because I was creditable long before news of the divorce broke. And my ideas about who Noel is are based on far more than a single "alleged homosexual experience".

So...over the past couple of years I've made hundreds of posts about Noel’s sexual identity, with observations from the 80s through the present. I think it's clear that you didn't dig into the tags as I recommended.

I mean, this is a man who has said,

"Can't we find words other than gay or straight,"

"Love of Oasis put me back in the closet,"

and

"Speak for yourself on the straight thing, baby. I like to channel surf, me."

All when he knew he was being recorded, over a period of many years.

The guy who went to a gay rights event and snorted speed in the bathroom to boost his social confidence, and whose very next action was to chat up a cute guy and get his number.

This is the man who specified that his 2009 tour lover was a man, not a woman.

This is a guy who is visibly infatuated with tall dark men.

The guy who was photographed making out with a man and groping his dick, and cuddling in bed with a different, naked, man.

The guy whose old boss/boyfriend reminds every interviewer that they shared a bed "for years".

The guy who, when asked to name a cartoon character to have sex with, easily and without self consciousness named a male one and specified that it was because there would be aggressive fisting, and then had to think hard for a female character.

The guy who brings his gay best friend with him on every tour ever, inventing a different job for him as needed.

The guy who appears fairly indifferent to women but cannot keep his hands off dudes when he's drunk.

The guy who made a video about a young gay couple on the run, cast an actor who looks exactly like him and then opened the video with photos of himself as a teenage roadie??

Like...why are we requiring that Noel throw his very own bisexual pride parade before we believe him???

What I notice about your posts is a sort of...reluctance to do the work yourself. The evidence is all there, all you have to do is click the tag. Also a reluctance to investigate your own attitude. Defensive? Lazy? Maybe just very young? I don't know. And course, unwilling to come off anon, develop a voice and a persona of your own, and open yourself to the same kind of treatment that you're giving me.

I don't know if I really want to convince anyone of anything? I want people to be aware of what is. It's like....when you look at the whole body of evidence (via the tags) its just soooo clear. And it's astounding to me that people can be so committed to heteronormativity that they can't see it.

Believe me, I know that people take what I say seriously. I try to be serious and responsible in what I post. I try hard to just observe what i see. I don't usually write long metas, and I've never done a master post because I want people to engage with the material themselves.

Also, I'm so curious. Because "alleged homosexual experience" is exactly the kind of word the church I grew up in would use, as well as the language about leadership and responsibility; is there any chance you are an evangelical Christian?

[jeevey]

I want to talk about how breakups work. I get the feeling that many of my readers have never been in a long term, in-person, married-type relationship, and thus have never had a divorce-type breakup. It's not like you'd think.

Sometimes one partner leaves the house, you never go back, and you never sleep together or even really talk ever again. This what I did in my 18 year marriage. But he had significant addiction and mental illness and was highly combative; this is actually pretty unusual.

It's much more normal for breaking up to be a very long process. Often couples still love each other and even have good sex lives, it's just that the relationship isn't working for some reason. Even if you were sexually cold beforehand, the heightened emotions of the breakup itself lend themselves to an intense renewed sexual connection.

Its common for divorcing couples to still behave like a couple for a long time. They ask each other for help when the car breaks down or they have a medical need, they call each other when they need to process something, they go to each other for comfort, including sex, when things are tough. Not only are you used to relying on this person for a hundred concrete partnery things, in many cases you still love them a lot.

This is what I did with a long term boyfriend, it's what my sister did with a 5 year live-in relationship, it's what my best friend did with an 18 year marriage. You're ending the relationship because it's what you need, but it's hard. You still love them, you still miss them. You share friends and social connections, you might be close to each other's families. You have assets like a house or business that need to be maintained; in many cases you share kids. The opportunities to end up standing in the kitchen late at night, staring at each other and thinking about going upstairs, are basically endless.

It's common for divorcing couples to sleep together for a long time, even after there is someone new. In these cases they almost never feel like it's cheating.

My best friend divorced her husband who she loved very much because he was a relentless cheater. They slept together for years afterwards, even when she had boyfriends and he had a live in girlfriend and was cheating on that woman with other people. Her attitude was basically, "I was with him since he was nineteen, he is the father of my kid. I was here first." She eventually ended that because it was too hard on her heart, but she still breaks down whenever she sees him with another woman, more than 6 years after they split.

The point here is that it's more complicated than you think. People are messy, and they tend to love each other even in the direst circumstances. Last year I had a taxi driver in his 60s who told me all about his city, then his family. He's now friends with his ex wife after more than a decade of fighting, with the kids in their 20s. "We even slept together a few weeks ago," he said thoughtfully. "After a while that stuff that you thought was so important, it's not that important."

[jeevey]

I went to a show the other night with my sister and her guy friend. Guy friend has a massive crush on her and jealously tried to tease us about being in the front row, exchanging smiles and waves with the band, and staying late to meet them. He even deployed the G-word! Lol. Little do you know, son, there is no way in this world that you can make me ashamed of being a groupie. It is my vocation.

[jeevey]

Do you like Liam? What do you like about him? If you look at his messy personal life over the last many years you could say he is a terrible person.

I do like Liam. Have you read my story The Passing of Peggy Gallagher? It really emphasizes the things I like about Liam so I think it would give you a good picture.

I think of Liam as representing the "wild masculine"; he's emotional, intuitive, raw. He's uncontrolled, borderline crazy, and wayyy outside societal norms about correct behaviour, but deeply loving and even ethical in his own weird little way. Likely to hurt people because he's unaware/not in control of his strength, but very tender. Insightful, sees things differently from anyone else, very loyal. Infuriating and sometimes destructive.

Having grown up with a sort of absent, powerless, checked-out sort of masculinity in my home, I think Liam gave me some awarenesses I really needed. I'm scared of the wild masculine but also need to integrate it, and "getting to know" Liam's more frightening sides has been really good for me.

[jeevey]

Noel has no albums written and produced by corporations as Liam...

Well, neither does Liam. Corporations don't write or produce records, songwriters and producers do.

As I understand it, it works Iike this: a label signs a band to record an album. That's a record deal. Part of the contract is that the label advances the money needs to record and produce an album, and also owns the right to sell and distribute it, with the band receiving a percentage of the profit. It is understood that the artist will deliver an album that the label considers saleable, and both band and label will make money from the sales.

In most cases the label demands creative oversight as part of the contract, to ensure that the record is going on a direction they want. Creative oversight might include choosing the producer (who is like the director to an album), monitoring sessions, or listening to drafts. More label oversight is common when an artist is young or not well established.

The producer would generally be the one helping select songs or choosing cowriters if the artist isn't coming with complete songs. Often the producer has a great deal of creative influence. Years ago they might have been direct permanent employees of the label, but Im not sure. I think now they are contracted to the label for the project; they are paid by the label, but it's a one off situation.

Songwriters are generally freelance, not employees of the label. They may write a song and pitch it to many different singers, or they may be contracted to write a song for a particular singer. Often a team of songwriters contract to write an album *with* a singer, so the singer can get cowriting royalties, although it's an open secret that their creative contributions may be small.

So. Musicians who have a lot of money and want a lot of creative control often set up their own label. They self fund the project, which can run to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some of them self produce, which i think is often a mistake. They have a relationship with a much bigger entity who will distribute the album, like Noel has with Sony. Now, I believe that Sony has exclusive rights to distribute Noel's work, and their contract probably specifies how much work they do to promote it. But I don't know details. I'm not sure what would happen if Noel delivered a record that Sony thought wouldn't sell.

So, yes. I think you're implying that albums are more likely to be prompt when the label has more control, and you're right. Look at Motown, for example, when everyone worked directly for the label. They were workhorses! Being able to take their time is one reason why artists self fund and self produce.

Some artists achieve this creative freedom simply by their massive stature. (I dont think U2 has ever owned a label but they are allowed to take as long as they want because they are just so huge; no one would tell them no.) Noel has both those things. No one would presume to tell him what to do with an album, unless he specifically paid them to be contradictory, as he did with David Holmes for Who Built the Moon.

Liam isn't a producer and he isn't much of a writer. He needs those supports that a label can give. His label may have limited his budget, especially in the beginning when he wasn't proven as a solo artist, which would shorten his timeline for new music. (Low budget projects are fast.) He's probably got more latitude now that hes had 3 number one albums.

My personal thought, though, is that Liam is likely to keep making an album every 2 years because he needs money. He just doesn't have the same income from publishing that Noel does, so if he wants to make money he needs to keep working.

Noel's publishing income is the key to his creative freedom. There's both good and bad about that. My personal opinion is that people who self produce in their own studio for their own label often get pretty stagnant, and the albums all start to sound the same.

(Ps, there may be errors in here. If you know more about the record industry let me know!)