Mpreg can *absolutely* be gender-subversive; I've read some that is. I wrote one that at least attempted to be, although I'll leave it to other people to decide if they think it pulled it off. I think some of the frustration in this argument has come from exactly that, from people feeling like there's mpreg that *does* that in ways that would have made a nom for those authors totally merited, and people are disappointed that those stories won't be publically honored in the way that "Arcana" has been. Maybe that's not fair, to frame one story's honor in terms of all the stories that haven't received the same, but I think it's a natural impulse and people, including me, are letting it goad them into overreacting.
As for your Asimov metaphor, here's why it doesn't work for me: in your scenario, *the same person* who nominated the Asmiov book "then" criticized it for being what it was -- it's an issue of timeline, first this, then the opposite. But I'm not the person who nominated "Arcana." I never would have. I haven't changed my position, I haven't baited-and-switched, there's no timeline to this. My beef, in fact, isn't even with Em, but with the person I feel nominated her story for an award it's not qualified to receive; I'm questioning her judgment in this matter. So whatever honor may compel the nominator of the hypothetical Asimov nominater to do afterwards, I don't think everyone else is bound in to the same standard. Some people may say "I don't think it was a good choice because robot stories are never good," and I'll disagree with them on that, but they're making an aesthetic choice that's internally consistent, and they have every right to seethe about something being honored that they don't think deserves the honor. There's no betrayal. I would roll my eyes at the "but it's got robots in it!" crowd, but they have a right to put their argument out there. There have always been people in fandom who think mpreg sucks, across the boards, and while I disagree with them, I can't conceive of how these particular circumstances should take away their right to keep right on saying they think all mpreg sucks -- certainly not on grounds of being consistent with former opinions, because that's what they're *doing.*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-21 02:57 pm (UTC)From:As for your Asimov metaphor, here's why it doesn't work for me: in your scenario, *the same person* who nominated the Asmiov book "then" criticized it for being what it was -- it's an issue of timeline, first this, then the opposite. But I'm not the person who nominated "Arcana." I never would have. I haven't changed my position, I haven't baited-and-switched, there's no timeline to this. My beef, in fact, isn't even with Em, but with the person I feel nominated her story for an award it's not qualified to receive; I'm questioning her judgment in this matter. So whatever honor may compel the nominator of the hypothetical Asimov nominater to do afterwards, I don't think everyone else is bound in to the same standard. Some people may say "I don't think it was a good choice because robot stories are never good," and I'll disagree with them on that, but they're making an aesthetic choice that's internally consistent, and they have every right to seethe about something being honored that they don't think deserves the honor. There's no betrayal. I would roll my eyes at the "but it's got robots in it!" crowd, but they have a right to put their argument out there. There have always been people in fandom who think mpreg sucks, across the boards, and while I disagree with them, I can't conceive of how these particular circumstances should take away their right to keep right on saying they think all mpreg sucks -- certainly not on grounds of being consistent with former opinions, because that's what they're *doing.*