Story 199: "Dance Card" by Sab (Sabine)

[wendelah1]

After reading "Five Things That Never Happened to Dana Scully" last week, it seems appropriate that this week's offering is also about a "road not taken." Since three members separately expressed some interest in reading it, and because Sabine is an accomplished and entertaining writer, "Dance Card" is now on our dance card.

SUMMARY: The road not taken.
NOTE: This is a true story, sorta. I mean, it happened to me, not Scully, but I figured I'd plug her in to the game and see how she played it out. So that's where it stops being a true story, but those little snowy highways and dogwoods and mistakes do exist, ten, fifteen years later. Oh, and in answer to your question, yes, I did write another story with another guy Scully meets named Paul. It's a good all-purpose name; whatcha gonna do? Album and book publication dates verified with Borders.com, Amazon.com, and Cdnow.com, so they should all be correct. German translations c/o Altavista's Babelfish; let me know if they got it wrong. All "chalking" quotes copyright J. Wilson Kello, with whom I spent four years of college chalking. He is not Paul.

That will all make sense after you read the story, I promise. "Dance Card" has two sequels: "What Happened After That" and "Moonshine," which could be subtitled "What Happened After What Happened After That." The links are all to Gossamer under "Sabine" if the links get broken; the first and third are also at Fugues Fiction Archive. Discussion on any and all of the three is welcome. Sab is iamsab here and Sab at AO3, but alas, these stories have never been re-posted to either location.

Leave feedback, leave suggestions, and come back for discussion, which is still ongoing for the last two fics we read, by the way. You guys are awesome.

Read "Dance Card".

Read "What Happened After That".

Read "Moonshine".

Comments

[estella-c.livejournal.com]

It seems that I have finally achieved my least recognized, most self-destructive goal. Everyone at Book Club is mad at me.

I admit I tend to overstate at times, but let me try to explicate my overstatement. There is a lot of what Wendy referred to as "disapproval" of fics by members with specific notions of how characters should be interpreted. They stick around, though, so obviously--as amyhit said--they enjoy disagreements and find them fruitful. But disapproval is a word that makes me wonder. We all have a certain point where fanfic becomes other than fanfic, and this story probably hits a barrier and possibly crosses it. But why? Is it because it's Marysuefic? There are Marysuefics out there by the dozens, popular ones, the difference is they aren't "announced" as such. (My favorite example would be "Dance.") Is it badly written? No. Is it canon-noncompliant. That has been implied. Well, we certainly have no proof that Scully acted out at school, or harbored a secret pash, but we have no proof of a lot of things that happen in fanfic unchallenged. Scully saw herself as a young rebel, though probably no one else would think her very dangerous. Anyhow, and we go round and round on this, canon is cherrypicked about as much as the Bible. We like the Scully who slept with DW or we don't. We like the Scully who puts Mulder in an asylum in the one about the Big Bug or we choose to ignore it. She's downright mean in "Oubliette" but she doesn't get called out. She is scientifically rigorous or willfully blind. Canon supports many interpretations. It's useful when we want it to be, but it provides something of a glass crutch.

My boring old mantra: Scully (or Mulder, or anybody) is ooc when you, me, anyone doesn't like what they do or how they act. That is the flame that heats the Iolokus opposition. They don't like that Scully. You can always find a reason for a like or dislike; that's the complex and not-yet defined nature of fanfic. But I just wish everyone would try to remember that the personal preference is in literal fact what we talk about most of the time. We're all educated ladies here, we can all talk a good talk, but we're essentially defending turf. Even I, though maybe I see this a bit more clearly because I don't write fanfic. No dog in the fight.

I'm not talking rights here. As if. We have rights to opinions and rights to fight for them. But maybe we could work on being more relaxed when we come up against a Mulder or Scully--especially in this all-female group a Scully--that shocks our sensibilities. You can come up with a reason for disapproval, but it's not that hard to come up with reasons, or excuses, for the opposite.

Maybe we can trade out the terms approve/disapprove for like/dislike.

I intended no harm with my temper tantrum. I'll just take a little time out. Carry on.

[wendelah1]

You say "readers are not obliged to approve of everything an author creates." That phrase bothers me a bit. They certainly aren't obliged to "like" anything, but what does approval have to do with a basically harmless piece of fiction like this? DC doesn't advocate for rape or anything. You are saying that one may freely disapprove of how another sees a character created by yet others. It seems very judgmental, almost legalistic. I think I disapprove of it. (Which is not to say I can or would stop it.)

If you will look back at my first comment, you will note I did not use the words "approve" or "disapprove." I was echoing your use of them in my response.

But the word "approve" fits fine with what I do here, though I won't speak for anyone else.

From Merriam-Webster:

transitive verb

2.: to have or express a favorable opinion of

"We are not obliged to hold or express a favorable opinion of anything we read here."

3.
a: to accept as satisfactory

"I don't find her characterization of Scully to be satisfactory." Yep, that works for me.

b: to give formal or official sanction to : ratify

I don't think this one applies, although sometimes I wish it could, as in, "The Book Club is sorry to inform you that we cannot approve your story as written, and are sending it back to you for the following revisions, etc." That does have an appeal, but it's not what we do here.

An important distinction is that when we express approval or disapproval of a fanfiction, we're giving our opinion of the story, not the writer. I didn't say Sabine was a bad writer or had crossed a line for writing what she did, I merely expressed that despite the quality of the writing itself, I felt let down by the story she wrote, because of the characterization. I felt disappointed. By the end, it wasn't as much fun for me as it was for some others. Yes, I agree: I'm making a judgment about a work of fiction. That's what critics do. Characterization in fanfiction is a key element.

This next part is hard for me to say, but I feel I must.

My boring old mantra: Scully (or Mulder, or anybody) is ooc when you, me, anyone doesn't like what they do or how they act. That is the flame that heats the Iolokus opposition. They don't like that Scully. You can always find a reason for a like or dislike; that's the complex and not-yet defined nature of fanfic. But I just wish everyone would try to remember that the personal preference is in literal fact what we talk about most of the time. We're all educated ladies here, we can all talk a good talk, but we're essentially defending turf. Even I, though maybe I see this a bit more clearly because I don't write fanfic. No dog in the fight.

Ascribing people's opinions about the text to "defending turf," seems like an easy way to avoid addressing their actual arguments. The act of criticism is a different process from the act of writing fiction. While a person's critical viewpoint is no doubt reflected in the fiction they write, it seems reductive to say off-handedly that someone's criticism is only an adjunct to their fiction or vice versa.

I'm not talking rights here. As if. We have rights to opinions and rights to fight for them. But maybe we could work on being more relaxed when we come up against a Mulder or Scully--especially in this all-female group a Scully--that shocks our sensibilities. You can come up with a reason for disapproval, but it's not that hard to come up with reasons, or excuses, for the opposite.

Maybe we can trade out the terms approve/disapprove for like/dislike.

Maybe we could, but I'm not going to agree to that. I think you must have a dog in this fight; otherwise, why keep insisting that your approach is the one to use? And for the record, I didn't feel shocked by this Scully; moreover, I doubt she was even supposed to resemble Scully.

I accept your apology, however Limbaugh-esque.

[estella-c.livejournal.com]

So I fell asleep and thought of a couple of reply-points.

I don't think you can accuse me of avoiding actual arguments. What have I been doing all this time?

I do not keep insisting that my approach is the only one to use. I mention that it might be one to try.

Incidentally, several people, including you, deny that this Scully is really Scully. You mention a real-life connection with the author. But no one has even tried to convince us that this Scully in anticanonical. I personally have been given no reason to throw her under the bus. Nor have I thrown many characterizations out, thinking back, except those that didn't appeal to me emotionally. The one in "Melancholia," for instance. I don't disapprove of "everyone else's" characterizations. I just get tired of having them used to fend off variations. amyhit actually said that now reading "Dance Card" made her grit her teeth. I think that's sad. It certainly wasn't written to cause pain. EHAGT was written to cause pain!

I know this Scully doesn't shock you, Wen. Nothing shocks you. I said "shock your sensibilities," which is somewhat different. Turn you off, in other words. At a polite social gathering, you'd snub her.

I'm going to reiterate something I once said to you privately. Criticism involves judging characterization. But no fiction critic, and I've known several, is expected to evaluate the same characters for year after year. (Maybe drama guys who watch nothing but Shakespeare, poor things.) Which is what we're doing here. It has, I suspect, built-in dangers and opportunities for ennui. This is why we must try to appreciate as many variations as we can lest we go, in clinical terms, stark, staring bonkers.

Or, perhaps, we are already all mad here.

[wendelah1]

But no one has even tried to convince us that this Scully in anticanonical. I personally have been given no reason to throw her under the bus.

The problem with that approach is that there is nothing I can say to convince you. It's an unanswerable question and an argument I can't win because my beliefs about characterization come from watching nine seasons of TXF over and over, and yes, from writing about the series for the past five years. I don't think there is anything wrong with reading stories differently than I do, but I don't want or need to defend my views on her character.

I know she wouldn't get drunk at a party when she was still on a case, knowing she had to meet with someone the next morning.

It's unprofessional.

I know she wouldn't use Mulder sexually to make her feel better about herself and her life because just because someone she knew from college got married.

That's unkind. Besides that, why would she care? She's committed to Mulder at this point in the series. It's season six, not season one.

Scully doesn't believe in "soulmates" and she wouldn't fall apart emotionally because some guy she'd never even had a romantic relationship with sent her an invitation to his wedding. See above.

Scully would never say to Mulder, "let's have an affair."

That's a terrible, cheesy bit of dialogue and this isn't the Lifetime channel.

She wouldn't ask the man who she knows full well loves her beyond reason (Antarctica!) to sacrifice his self-esteem to raise hers. Yes, he'd do it, but that's not who she is. She made choices, and she won't risk what they have and their mission for easy sensation and a quick roll in the hay. Someday, maybe, if they're lucky and if they survive, they'll be together, but not that way. Never that way. She has other things, important things like saving the planet, to focus on. In the meantime, she has her vibrator.

I can go on but I think that's probably enough. I see no traces of my Scully anywhere in "Dance Card" or its sequels, and Sabine was unable to convince me despite her brilliance to believe in her version instead of mine, not even for the duration of one story. You can make counter-arguments about how Scully is human and human beings can all make mistakes, etc. but I think on this one, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Have a cupcake?