Authorial responsibility?

More on the Great Gay!Dumbledore Reveal.

People are not happy with Jo Rowling. More extreme members of the "values" camp are probably planning a campaign to keep Harry Potter away from the kids. They are around 300 million copies too late, but points for trying.

Even sane non-bigots diversity sympathisers are getting on Jo's case now.No less a liberal pillar than the Guardian Newspaper has weighed in on the issue (to be fair, James Ball's piece is on the whole quite even-handed). She should have written it into the books! She wasted an opportunity to make strong positive statement about gay people!

Realistically, COULD she have written it into the books? The books are largely written from Harry's point of view and he was not exactly going around taking note of everyone's sexual preference. (Hmmm .... come to think of it, OOTP would have zipped by a lot faster if Harry WAS doing that.) By the time Harry came to Hogwarts, Dumbledore was well into the "grandfather figure" stage of his life. Teenage boys tend not to think about their grandfathers' sexuality. Especially not teenage boys who are fighting evil forces on a regular basis.

To establish Dumbledore as a gay character within her chosen narrative device, JKR would have had to provide a context for discussing Dumbledore's sexuality at all. As it the books aren't long enough as they are! The alternative is to resort to appalling gay stereotypes (a taste for show-tunes or a prized collection of Vogue back issues) for Harry to observe and relay to us as the reader. Frankly, why should she go through the trouble to do either when Dumbledore's sexuality has nothing to do with the books' central plot? Sexuality is an interesting character note but it is hardly Dumbledore's (or anyone's) single most defining characteristic.

James Ball suggested that JKR could have made explicit Dumbledore's love for Grindelwald in The Deathly Hallows. After all, a fair few pages of that book is devoted to exposition on Dumbledore's past and the Grindelwald sub-text is quite apparent without being obvious.

Again, COULD she have written it that way? I think she knew that DH would have become ALL ABOUT GAY!DUMBLEDORE if she had done that. It would have completely overshadowed Harry, Voldemort and the Horcruxes, which is the main story she is trying to tell. This is a fandom with serious ADD. Large chunks of readers already think that Harry Potter is a teen-romance series.

James Bell wrote in the Guardian:

Harry Potter is not a story about a gay head teacher, of course. But mentioning Dumbledore's sexuality within the books would not have changed this.

I think it would have changed it. Maybe not in Britain, where attitudes towards homosexuality are perhaps more tolerant. But in more than one place I could think of, "mentioning Dumbledore's sexuality within the books" would have most certainly made Harry Potter "a story about a gay head teacher".

I like how JKR handled this. She spoke about Dumbledore's sexuality because she was asked. It was almost a throw-away fact. Yes, it is part of Dumbledore's identity but just one of the many things about him that she could not fit into the books. Not an unimportant detail, but not a big one either. Just another factoid about the greatest wizard of his age. By not making a big deal about it, she is saying that it isn't a big deal. Which is what tolerance essentially is; that differences in race, gender, colour, religion, sexuality etc., are not a big deal.

The Big Gay Dumbledore reveal

JK Rowling has "outed" Albus Dumbledore.

Finally, fandom has a canonically gay character! Canon-compliant be damned, this is the real thing, straight from the horse's oracle's author's mouth!

I gotta give it to old Jo for doing this in such style. Already, she has turned a book reading in LA's Kodak Theatre into something of a rock concert. Then she chose that particular platform to tell the world that Dumbledore is gay (to be fair, the revelation was in response to a question from the audience and I don't think she planned to say anything until it was brought up). She even had a good-natured poke at fandom when she made a knowing comment about the fanfiction that this revelation would spawn. I think I have already come across at least one Grindelwald / Dumbledore fic, so fandom is ahead of the curve here.

The good folks at Fandom Wank have documented the Internet response. Splooge was naturally the order of the day. As expected, the anti-gay/ anti-yaoi camp are appalled. But what I really love is how sections of the "pro-gay" camp are equally unhappy about Dumbledore being gay, albeit for completely different reasons. For the anti-camp, Dumbledore is an important, powerful figure of authority - making him gay is "endorsing" gayness. For the pro-camp, Dumbledore is too old, too asexual, too dead, goddamit, to be an effective poster-boy for slash. Oh, Jo, you should have just said that Sirius Black is gay. That would have sent significant portions of fandom over the moon. And since Sirius Black met an untimely end in Book 5, the anti-camp could have cited him as an example of the dangers and risks of embracing the "gay lifestyle". Everyone wins!

Away from the internet fandom, some of the reactions are just downright sad. Not unexpected, of course. And what in the world is a Values Voters’ summit?

Fandom favourites

This is one of the things going around Livejournal:

Pick 5 fandoms and do this for each of them:
1. The first character you first fell in love with:
2. The character you never expected to love as much as you do now:
3. The character everyone else loves that you don't:
4. The character you love that everyone else hates:
5. The character you used to love but don't any longer:

This made me realise that I have dabbled in quite a number of fandoms, from rather diverse sources. Hmmm, that geek rating seems even more accurate now.

Austen's World
I hope this is not stretching it, but I think that there is a valid Austen fandom. There are discussion sites, theoretical discussions by academics and amateurs alike and that ultimate insignia of fandom - fan-fiction. Whether this is technically a fandom, Jane Austen's novels remain my longest-standing source of fannish-devotion. That is enough to make it count, for me.
1. The first character you first fell in love with:
Elizabeth Bennet. P & P was my first Austen novel and Lizzie grabbed my attention the moment she first appeared. I think Darcy has now overtaken Lizzie as my favourite P&P character (because he is a gentleman despite his imperfections and those are so wonderfully human), but she will always be not just a great literary character, but a person I would like to have known. I love her spunk, her wit and most of all, her willingness to admit her faults.
2. The character you never expected to love as much as you do now:
Anne Elliot. When I first read Persuasion, I liked Anne Elliot fine, but she seemed a little understated, too quiet when held up against the liveliness of Lizzie Bennett and Emma Woodhouse. Anne improves upon re-reading and I now appreciate her maturity, her calmness, intelligence and kindnessperhaps. These are traits that are perhaps harder to come by than liveliness of spirits.
3. The character everyone else loves that you don't:
Henry Crawford. Well, it's not like everyone loves him, but people seem to think he is redeemable because he clearly does love Fanny Price. To me, his devotion is not in doubt but his character is. Even his kind treatment of her family and his own persistence in pursuing her seems calculated. His improved behaviour stems from a desire to claim a prize rather than sincerity.
4. The character you love that everyone else hates:
Fanny Price. Well, I don't love her, but I am rather fond of the old goose. She is a little preachy at times, and massively lacking self-confidence, but she is kind-hearted and a good person. Good people are underestimated and undervalued.
5. The character you used to love but don't any longer:
None that I can think of, really.

Les Miserables (The Musical)
1. The first character you first fell in love with:
Jean Valjean, of course. He is almost the first character we meet and his story is immediately appealing. By the end of the show, he has aged many years and we have grown to regard him almost like a family member.
2. The character you never expected to love as much as you do now:
Marius. He was the cliche juvenile romantic lead (oh, who am I kidding? This is musical theatre, most characters are cliched in some way!), who was a little too concerned about his love affair when unrest raged around him. Now, when I listen to Les Mis, what I remember most about Marius is his kindness to Eponine in A Little Fall of Rain, and his introspection during Empty Chairs at Empty Tables. He is not just a romantic lead, but a person who deserves his happy ending.
3. The character everyone else loves that you don't:
Eponine. I don't get it, sorry. I don't hate her but I really do not see anything truly loveable in Eponine apart from courage (and even then, I believe it to be motivated by her obsession with Marius). She gets a great song and she is angsty. She is also something of a stalker and not a little creepy.
4. The character you love that everyone else hates:
Cossette. I could say that this is corollary to my lack of Eponine love. I think Cosette survives a horrific, possibly abusive childhood and grows up to be a caring, loving person.
5. The character you used to love but don't any longer:
Enjolras. Again, I don't hate him, but I have come to realise that his character is seriously under-developed in the show. His noble sacrifice in the end does come across as having been fool-hardy.

Harry Potter
1. The first character you first fell in love with:
Remus Lupin. And I have explained why before. This is a function of having read PoA before any of the other books. I suspect if I had started with Philosopher's Stone instead, my answer here would be Harry himself. The kid is wonderful human and REAL.
2. The character you never expected to love as much as you do now:
A tie. Firstly, Neville Longbottom. He is a minor character, but in OotP, he came into his own. His story is so poignant and his courage in dealing with his past is truly touching. There is no doubt at all why he is a Gryffindor.
Secondly, Arthur Weasley. He was a minor character, taking a backseat to Molly in the parental stakes. Now, I think he is among my favourite adult minor characters. His fascination with Muggle ways is delightful, as is his Everyman (Everywizard) normality.
3. The character everyone else loves that you don't:
Draco Malfoy. He is very popular in the fandom, partly because of the Tom Felton fangirls and partly because he has been envisioned as redeemable. HBP seems to have shown that he is in for a redemption arc. But I don't know - the kid has been a petty bully, a bigot and a spoilt brat for the better part of six books. He might be redeemable, but I don't find him remotely lovable.
4. The character you love that everyone else hates:
Nobody in particular, although if I was pushed to, I would say Tonks. Not counting the obvious villains (Umbridge and the Death Eaters), the only two characters that come in for universal villification are Tonks and Ginny. I like Tonks a lot, and am fairly indifferent towards Ginny.
5. The character you used to love but don't any longer:
Nobody.

Smallville
This show hasn't been good for a couple of seasons, but I find myself still watching it while complaining about its general suckitude. I guess that's what you call true-fandom.
1. The first character you first fell in love with:
Lex Luthor. This has a lot to do with Michael Rosenberg's initial appearance on the show; bewildered from the accident, grateful to Clark, resentful of his father and charming to a fault.
2. The character you never expected to love as much as you do now:
Chloe Sullivan. She is hands down my favourite thing about the show. I liked her pretty much from the get-go but I adore her now, for bringing a refreshing honesty to proceedings where everyone is lying their heads off.
3. The character everyone else loves that you don't:
Okay, I am going to cheat on this one. This character is only loved by half the fandom and the other half (to which I belong) positively loathes her. I speak of course, of Lana Lang. She's just so annoying, self-involved and completely uninteresting.
4. The character you love that everyone else hates:
I cannot really think of any character that is universally hated in the fandom.
5. The character you used to love but don't any longer:
Martha Kent. She started out as the coolest mom ever with a drippy son, but has gotten almost as preachy as old Jonathan. Her handling of of various situations have rubbed me the wrong way - Clark's relationship with Lex, Clark's relationship with Lana and Lois Lane's house-guesting.

Star-Trek (The Next Generation)
1. The first character you first fell in love with:
Jean-Luc Picard. I fully acknowledge that this has as much to do with Patrick Stewart as the Picard character. His dignity and gravity are such a relief after Kirk (and Bill Shatner).
2. The character you never expected to love as much as you do now:
Data. A cliched choice, I know, but there you have it. He was the source of some of TNG's most inspired episodes. Towards the end, they relied on his "emotion chip" a little too often for plot, but that didn't diminish my fondness for the old droid.
3. The character everyone else loves that you don't:
Will Riker. I am entirely indifferent to him, and to his relationship with Deanna Troi (who annoys me).
4. The character you love that everyone else hates:
Geordie. Not that he is hated, exactly, but he does not get as much attention as some of the other characters. I wouldn't say that I love the character, but I do think Geordie is funny, a great friend and obviously rather good at his job.
5. The character you used to love but don't any longer:
Nobody, mainly because I really only love Data and Picard, and they have not done anything (on either small or large screen) to change my mind.

Well, that's five. If I had a mind to, I could have done this for Arrested Development (TV), Piers Anthony's Xanth novels, the works of Jin Yong (TV adaptations), CSI (TV), Friends (TV), Seinfeld (TV), Phantom of the Opera (musical) ... the list is running away with me!

What have we wrought? (Part 3)

This is slightly delayed (ahem!) but I am finally getting around to it.

When I left off Part 2, I said "Next, Phantom of the Opera and the absurdity of Christine/Erik shipping."

The Phantom of the Opera

This should be subtitled "Attack of the Gerry Butler fangirls". As I have said before, Gerald Butler is just far too good looking for the role of the movie Phantom. Predictably, we now have a bunch of females fantasising about the sex-god Gerry Butler and completely forgetting about the murderous sociopath that is the Phantom. Fine, be a fangirl about Butler. He's a fine actor and rather pleasant on the eye. But fangirling Butler should have nothing to do with fangirling the Phantom and twisting the POTO story and characters beyond recognition.

Because the movie had a good looking Phantom, the fangirls want Christine to choose him over Raoul. I understand this; I often want things to happen the opposite of how they are written; I want Mimi to live at the end of La Boheme, Guinevere not to have betrayed Arthur, poor Romeo and Juliette not to have been so stupid and my most wishful thought: for Ingrid Bergman to stay with Humphrey Bogart at the end of Casablanca. But I accept the way things have been written, however much I wish they were different.

Erik/Christine shipping is incomprehensible to me personally because I just don't see a functional relationship as a possibility for these two characters. On the other hand, I do not deny that it is as valid a ship as any that has been sailed in fandoms, canonical or otherwise. After all, people have different experiences and diffferent ways of perceiving relationships. The innocent ingenue / murderous sociopath dynamic does work for some people. And I don't really have a problem with that, as long as nobody is making any claims that this is what Leroux or Lloyd Webber/Hart had in mind all along.

Where I do have a problem with Erik/Christine shipping is the (unfortunately sizeable) rabid element that is hell-bent on distorting canon and insisting that
a) of course Christine is REALLY in love with the Phantom, as she realises after she shares that soul-shattering kiss with hi,; and/or
b) what REALLY happens is that the Phantom and Christine do end up sharing a lifetime of love.

The slight problem here is getting the inconvenience which is Raoul, out of the way. At very least, Raoul's role in the book and musical as to be reinterpreted imaginatively. This has been accomplished, to varying degrees of incredulity on my part, in multiple fanfiction stories, essays, movie deconstructions and message board posts. In all these gigabytes on the Internet, Leroux himself is rarely mentioned as a reference point.

For the purposes of shipping, I suppose it is not fair to refer to Leroux as a source; many people are probably shipping E/C based purely on the movie. Well, fine. Let's not look to Leroux then (but more on that later). Let's look to the actual source material for the movie - the POTO musical (music AND libretto).

There have been different degrees of canon denial, ranging from the merely unlikely to the downright unthinkable. It's always easier to get warmed up with the stuff that at least does not make me think "WTF?", so let me begin with the milder forms of creative reimagining. The canon denial scenarios follow.

a) In which Christine marries Raoul and lives with him till her death but is secretly truly in love with the Phantom

I will say this much: at least this scenario accepts what is implied in the musical and what is explicitly spelt out in the movie. The older Raoul introduced in the Prologue has obviously had a long-standing relationship with Christine (a relationship shown in the movie specifically as marriage).

Sign #1 of E/C true love:
Christine looking back at the Phantom as she leaves with Raoul on the boat. This is supposed to be a last look, laden with a deep regret that she will feel for the rest of her life.

It's almost plausible to interpret that short glance this way. But at the same time, Christine is singing a reprise of "All I Ask of You" with Raoul. This would make her a massive hypocrite, not to mention directly contradicting her own words. And I don't buy it that she is actually singing the words to the Phantom. (One phrase she sings is "Say the word and I will follow you". I suppose it is conceivable that she is asking the Phantom to tell her to go with him on his fugitive's flee. It is conceivable but also a very tortuous and contorted reading of the book, when the simple explanation is also the obvious: she is singing with Raoul (at one point they even sing together) and the song has been established as Raoul's and Christine's love song.

Sign #2 of E/C true love:
Raoul sings to the music box monkey in the prologue that "She often spoke of you, my friend." This indicates that Christine never lets go of her experiences with the Phantom in his lair. She speaks of the monkey continuously to Raoul, a seemingly strange thing to do if she was in a truly happy marriage with a man who had rescued her from the lair. There is only one explanation: speaking of the monkey is code for pining for a lost true love.

Sigh, sigh, sigh. Stretching and scraping, anyone? The entire segment with the monkey is nothing more than a plot contrivance to segue into the introduction of the chandelier. But even if the words were more than just a throw-away line (the libretto is FILLED with these), how does Christine speaking of a monkey indicate an unhappy marriage? If anything, the fact that she could confide details of her ordeal/ experience to her husband indicates a strong relationship, not one shadowed by a secret yearning for another man.

Sign #3 of E/C true love:
She kisses the Phantom once, is overwhelmed by passion and dives in for a second kiss. True Love!

That damned double kiss has made for the worst sort of fandom fodder. I think it was Joel Schumacher trying to sex things up and completely misjudging the balance between acted gestures and the scripted libretto.

Moments before the kiss, Christine sings "Angel of Music, you deceived me, I gave my mind blindly." She goes on to call him "Pitiful creature of darkness". The point leading up to the kiss is one of Christine realising that she must make a sacrifice to save Raoul and that she can make herself do it because she has reconciled her horror of the Phantom with genuine pity. She regards him as a pathetic figure, one that she hopes to save from himself with her self-sacrifice. Hardly the stuff of heady romance.


b) In which Christine is abused by her husband Raoul and realises that it is the Phantom who truly loves her and whom she truly loves. And in which the Phantom is NOT a twisted sociopath.

Rapist! Raoul and Wife-hitter! Raoul are two fandom constructs that have absolutely no foundation in canon, whether it be Leroux or Lloyd Webber/Black. He is a bit of a fop, young and impetuous and probably shallow. How do any of these traits translate into future abusiveness?

If anything, it is the Phantom that shows the tendency for violence (well, in the musical, he murders a couple of people , so "tendency" is putting it mildly. One thing that angered me about the movie is the soft-pedalling of the Phantom's crimes, the soft option to make him more sympathetic). I think the E/C shippers realise a basic love-triangle dynamic: cruel, obsessive lover on the one hand; ardent, self-sacrificing lover on the other; and the maiden caught between them. See, canon already provided the characters for these specific roles. There was never a need to swap Raoul for the Phantom.

I think one thing that cannot be in doubt from the musical is that Raoul does love Christine. His actions and words in the final lair are proof enough of this. It doesn't make sense to turn him into some uncaring monster (at least, not without a huge amount of backstory to explain such a tremendous emotional and personality transition).

I think there can also be no doubt from the musical that the Phantom is a seriously disturbed man. Apart from the murders, he plays mind games with Firmin and Andre, is sadistically cruel to Carlotta and Piangi and invades Christine's mind! Look, the man might be a genius, but he is mentally unstable. Christine herself said, "It's in your sould that the true distortion lies". Now, that might not be entirely his fault and therefore it might not be fair to demonise him for something he could not help, but an in-character Phantom is a twisted, very scary man whom no mother would trust with her 16 year old daughter.



c) In which Christine and the Phantom has been carrying on a love affair throughout her marriage to Raoul

In the movie, there is an added epilogue scene in which Raoul visits Christine's grave and sees a ring and rose left there by a not-so-mystery person. I read a passionately argued theory that this was the Phantom's subtle way of telling Raoul about the super-secret love affair. The sadness in Raoul's eyes during this scene was not the mourning of a beloved wife (not my words, but those engraved on the headstone) but grief at discovering Christine's infidelity. There are no words.

Of course, this leads to the conclusion that Christine's children (again, a movie invention, with the headstone saying "beloved wife and mother") are in fact fathered by the Phantom. Oh well, as outlandish ideas go, this is somewhat better than the rapist! Raoul one. And don't get me started on the published sequels that assume this plot development (just because they have official ISBN's do not make them official canon).


Back to Leroux. For POTO, Leroux should be regarded as canon. The musical is based on Leroux, and despite the many changes, is fully faithful to authorial intent. The characters in the musical are clearly the characters in Leroux (although Raoul is much less developed and Christine is slightly more naive). Most importantly, the emotional relationships between the three lead characters are portrayed in the musical as they were written in the book. So, you know what? Leroux should be the point of reference for E/C shipping based on the POTO movie.

If people understood who canon Phantom and canon Christine are, I doubt E/C shipping would be as rabid as it is. I have no doubt that there are people who find the canonical Phantom and the canonical Christine to be a perfectly appealing pairing. But how many E/C shippers really ship canon Christine with canon Erik?

There's subtext and then there's subtext

I was supposed to be ranting about Christine/Erik shipping in the Phantom of the Opera fandom, but had this to get off my chest first.

Why do people insist on seeing homoerotic subtext in everything and insisting upon it as canon? I am fine with the first part - reading unintended (or even intended) subtext is part of the fun of reading or watching TV or movies. But subtext is subtext and until authorial intent reveals otherwise, it's neither proven or disproven. The fun is in the speculation and extrapolation because it's not proven or disproven. Insisting on subtext as gospel truth actually removes the fun element from the whole exercise!

First off, I am not homophobic. Heck, I have been reading homoerotic subtext in to Smallville since Ep 1 of Season 1. Michael Rosenberg is a one man charisma generator and playing Lex Luthor, he manages to have chemistry with Tom Welling's rather wussy Clark Kent. Of course it's pretty much dead upon arrival in terms of canonical probability; Clark Kent dated Lana Lang and goes on to fall in love with Lois Lane. It's not just subtext, it's disproven subtext! Maybe the fact that it is disproven made it enjoyable. It was never going to be happen "for real", so fans could just have fun with the phallic symbolisms and heavy-lidded exchanges of looks. I understand the Smallville fandom and its obsession with subtext seeking; it is an entertaining diversion in a show that has gone seriously downhill.

In the fandom that I am having trouble understanding, the homoerotic subtext is more or less disproven, although not definitively. But before it was disproven, fans were claiming it as canon with rather frightening intensity and certainty. The latest revelations throwing a spanner into these convictions have been greeted with much gnashing of teeth and bitterness of spirit (it should go without saying that not all the subtext-seekers have reacted like this, just a sizeable and vocal segment). Yes, the fandom is Harry Potter and yes, the relationship in question is Sirius Black/ Remus Lupin. Now that Rowling has written N.Tonks as a (seemingly requited, but that is another whole kettle of fish) romantic interest for Lupin, it is that little bit harder to insist that Lupin is gay in canon.

I have previously confessed a fondness for the Lupin character (if I was to fangirl fictional characters, he would be on the list - together with Mr Darcy, Kester Woodseaves from Precious Bane, Sir Percy Blakeney and Atticus Finch, among others - Note to self: must post on this one day). But my fondness for the character has nothing to do with my failing to see the how the gay subtext could be read as being intended. The evidence for it has not been all that convincing. And I can see alternate interpretations that just made so much more sense within the textual intent and theme of the HP series.

Some of the subtextual evidence for Gay!Lupin being in a relationship with Gay!Sirius:

"... embraced him like a brother." (POA)
Using 'brother' to mean homosexual, as in "City of Brotherly Love", isn't totally off the wall. If this was not children's literature, that is. Since we are seeing everything through Harry's eyes, I think it safe to say that what Harry saw was precisely two men who embraced like siblings. I suppose Rowling could have made it clearer by saying "embraced him like a long lost dear friend whom he had wrongly thought to be a murderer". No danger of mistaken subtext there, if she didn't intend to them to be gay! I guess she was just trying the word-economy route.

Lupin lives in 12 Grimmauld Place with Sirius. (OotP)
Many fanfic writers who don't subscribe to the RL/SB dynamic have explained this as Lupin being tasked to watch over a dangerously unbalanced Sirius. I agree; the textual evidence points to it - Sirius was falling apart with frustration from his imposed imprisonment within his ancestral home. It was only human kindness to have an old friend stay with him, especially one who is himself impoverished and perhaps in need of free board.

Lupin and Sirius give a joint Christmas present to Harry (OotP)
This has been taken as some sign of a domestic arrangement akin to marriage. If you squinted really hard, you could see it that way. But is it not more convenient (or obvious) to say that Lupin is dirt poor and probably could not afford a present himself? Since the gift was books on Defence against the Dark Arts, it made sense that Lupin would have a hand in buying the gift, even if he didn't exactly pay for it.

Wolf (Lupin) and Dog (Sirius in Animagus form)
This is by far my favourite of the misinterpreted subtexts. It is compelling, for sure, and a powerful symbolism; dog and wolf, different yet alike. But there are practical reasons for Sirius being a dog. Only as a dog could he have prowled around as he did in PoA and GoF. Imagine if Sirius was a stag, like James Potter. Imagine a stag wandering around the grounds of Hogwarts, in Hogsmeade or accompanying Harry to King's Cross station. JKR would have had to resort to unnecessarily complicated plots to avoid this incongruence. Having Sirius as a dog was a convenient contrivance and made the most sense for her story. He could be seen in human company and be relatively unsuspicious.

Not to say that these aren't valid gay subtexts, because they most definitely are. Until Rowling put out Book 6, these could be read as suggesting a non-platonic relationship between Lupin and Black. But they do not PROVE that such a relationship existed, only that it was plausible.

It would probably save a lot of people a lot of angst if they just continue exploring the Lupin/Black relationship without the unfounded conviction that it was intended by the author. Why the devastation that "practically canon" has become "not likely ever to be canon"? It was NEVER canon, nor "practically" canon. Rowling was not making a comment about lycanthropy = homosexuality and did not intentionally introduce gay subtext as a subliminal message to her readers. It is fine for fans to read it any way they choose to, and in fact analysis of extra-authorial intent is part of enjoying literature. Let's just stop trying to put words in the author's mouth.

As for the belief that Rowling put Lupin and Tonks together to stop the Lupin/Black slashing, I don't buy it. Mainly because I don't think the slash community is much on her radar, and also because slashers, while so prominent in online fandom, are a very small proportion of her readership. Why stick in a (otherwise irrelevant) romantic sub-plot just to shut up a relatively insignificant minority? But it was the case, would that not be further proof that she never intended a Lupin/Black non-platonic relationship? The counter argument is that the gay subtext was intended but she got frightened by how her subtle symbolisms have taken on a life of their own, and have become not so much "subtle" as "explicit". I don't buy this either; it is giving the online fandom too much credit, and giving Rowling too litte.

Upshot: seek out the subtext, have fun doing it, be imaginative interpreting it, believe what you want from it. But don't claim that the author intended you to believe what you want to believe. And don't get mad at the her if she didn't.

What have we wrought? Popular Culture, Adaptations and the Death of Canon (Part 2)

Part 1 is here

Les Miserables
The poor victimised creature in Les Mis is Cossette. For some strange reason, people "ship" Marius with Eponine; and milksop Cossette just gets in the way. I blame it on the music. Eponine simply gets the more memorable music and the more theatrically effective moments .

Eponine's solo is "On my own", a song that has taken on its own life and is now one of the most recognised and sung of show tunes. It has a sweet melody and a yearning, aching quality that translates well as straight pop music. It makes you symphathise with Eponine. It ends with a gentle fading of appregios, a perfect applause point.

Cossette on the other hand gets "In my life" (what's with these self-absorbed wenches? "On my own", "In my life", what next?). This is a rangy soprano showcase which is fiendishly difficult to sing but less memorable than "On my own". It is much more entrenched in the conventions of musical theatre and does not work as a standalone pop song. Worst of all, it does not even end properly, as it segues into "A Heart Full of Love". Whoever sings Cossette does not get her moment to bask in a soloist's ovation.

Even the duets with Marius musically favour Eponine. She sings "A Little Fall of Rain" with Marius. This is one of my favourite moments in the musical, a beautiful and quiet lullaby in the midst of all those soaring strings and stirring brass. It is an incredibly effective piece of theatre, her singing as she lies dying in his arms. She actually dies before the song ends, which is a coup de theatre on any terms.

Poor Cossette sings "A Heart Full of Love" with Marius, a song that I also adore for its artless lyricism and youthful ardour. It goes swimmingly, but then Eponine joins in and the duet becomes a trio and ends as a trio. Later in the musical, Cossette and Marius sing together on "Everyday" which transits into a reprise of "A Heart full of Love". Before Cossette can truly start enjoying her moment in the lights, Valjean has joined in and the song again ends as a trio. Cossette gets the short end of the straw again!

If people only knew Les Miserables through the musical, I can see how there are superficial arguments that Marius might have been happier with Eponine than with Cossette. VERY superficial arguments in my opinion, based on conclusions that are fallacies.

Fallacy # 1: Eponine loves Marius more than Cossette does

There is no doubt that Eponine is in love with Marius. She gets a whole song to make that point. Cossette only has part of a truncated duet and a few lines in an ensemble piece to communicate her love. She has less music and less memorable music but that does not mean that she loves Marius any less than Eponine does. During "One Day More", she sings that "I did not live until today. How will I live when we are parted?". I think that qualifies as love, just as much as "And all I see is him and me, forever and forever".


Fallacy #2: Marius loves Eponine and what he feels for Cossette is infatuation

Shippers who insist that Marius was in love with Eponine do not give full credit to Marius's feelings as expressed in his music and his characterisation. Yes, much of his music in his first meeting with Cossette is giddy and when he sings of her in "Red and Black", he is impetuous and impassioned. Compared to the subtlety of "A Little Fall of Rain", one might say this music suggests the flush of infatuation, rather than a strong love based on friendship (which is presumably what he feels for Eponine, sigh). One might say it, but one would be wrong.

To really get at Marius's feelings about these two women, one should look at ALL of his music, even that sung when neither women are on stage. And the only possible reading is that Marius loves Cossette romantically, and his love for Eponine is fraternal more than anything else.

But let's look at some of the specific claims:

Sub Fallacy #2.1: "A Little Fall of Rain" is proof that Marius loves Eponine

This is the trouble-making song, because Marius sings "You will live .... if I could heal your wounds with words of love".

That does sound pretty darn conclusive, doesn't it? Isn't this proof enough that he loves her? Well, yes, it is proof that he loves her, as he loves Enjolras and his ABC Cafe brothers. We have to look at this song in the context of what has gone on before. Earlier, he calls her "the friend who has brought me here". He regards her as a friend and grieves for her suffering, and later, her death. There is nothing in this song that suggests it is romantic love on his part.

Later, at his wedding, he tells the Thenardiers that "When I look at you, I think of Eponine. ... She is happier with God, I hope, than here on earth." His affection for Eponine is undeniable, but again, there is nothing here that even hints of romantic love. He is at his own wedding, for starters and his tone is one of fondness and not of regret.

Sub Fallacy #.2.2: Marius does not really love Cossette, he is just infatuated with her

And of course, he marries her only because his true love, Eponine had inconveniently gotten herself killed. The mind boggles.

Where the composers tripped themselves up was to play up the "love at first sight" angle. "Just one look and I knew ... I knew it too"and "She has burst like the music of angels ..." and all that really plays into the hands of the "infatuation" theorists.

It might have started as infatuation, but it certainly becomes much more by the time he is staring death in the face. Not long after Eponine's death (the very scene, mind you, where he supposedly realises he has been in love with Eponine all along), he sings, "Do I care if I should die now she goes across the sea? ... Life without Cossette means nothing at all...". Does this sound like a man who had just realised he had all along been in love with another woman?

After he has recovered from his battle wounds and sung his lament to his lost friends, he asks Valjean, "Is gratitude enough for giving me Cossette?". These are words from a man who had grown up overnight, watched his friends die and now lives with the guilt of having survived them. This is not a man who would be grateful for having an object of mere infatuation.

After the fall of the barricades, he refers to her as "my beloved Cossette" and "my love". I think the writer's intention is clear - he loves her. And because he loves her, he marries her.


Les Miserables in Canon

If we put aside the musical and consider the book, the entire shipping issue is completely moot. Eponine as portrayed in the book would never be considered a viable love interest for Marius. Victor Hugo never intended her to be and did not write her in a way that left any room for ambiguity. Eponine in the book is, to me, more interesting than the musical version but not a tragic romantic figure. She is a bit scary and has a stalkerish streak, if anything.

Cossette in the book is much more developed and her relationship with Marius is never less than convincing. Her innocence and kindness are recognised as virtues, and if she is less interesting than Eponine, we are never in doubt that she is a good person who deserves happiness. Marius's feelings for her are never in doubt. There is no love triangle with Eponine because Eponine is never in the picture as a romantic rival. Victor Hugo did not write that story. I wish the fans would stop trying to do it for him.

Next, Phantom of the Opera and the absurdity of Christine/Erik shipping.

What have we wrought? Popular Culture, Adaptations and the Death of Canon (Part 1)

The point of this post, when I finally get around to it, is that adaptations of literature in popular culture have tended to emphasise an overly romanticised angle, spawning fandoms that are copiously creative in their worship of romantic pairings, but seem to have no regard for authorial intent in the original sources.

What got me thinking about this was a movie which is not even technically an adaptation of a book. I recently read a few online opinions on the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur triangle and there was an uniform distaste for the glorification of the adulterous pair's passion for each other; as if passion excused Lancelot's betrayal of his king, or Guinevere's betrayal of her husband. I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I wish the entire Lancelot plot was never in the classic Arthurian writings. It detracts from the true glory of Arthurian legend - the tales of courage, chivalry, battles, brotherhood, loyalty, love, magic and mysticism. The love triangle with Lancelot was just a rather tawdry distraction.

Then I came across First Knight while channel surfing. An entire movie ostensibly inspired by the King Arthur legend, and it had this tagline: "Their greatest battle would be for her love."
No prizes for guessing what was important to the film-makers. Not the battles for independence and sovereignty (although battles formed the backdrop), not the Knights of the Round Table (although several knights were featured), not Merlin (this was alas, not a wizard-world version of Arthur) , not even the creepy incestuous Morgaine/Mordred subplot (again, no magic in this version). Nope, the most important thing about King Arthur is that he had a wife who fell passionately in love with a young handsome knight and their love could not be denied. Yeah, well, ho-hum. I might be more interested if Lancelot wasn't played by Richard Gere, who was just so uncomfortable in period costume.

The thing is, I don't really much mind how film-makers choose to interpret the Arthur story. There is not one fixed text that they could faithfully follow or carelessly defile, as is more often the case. There are so many accounts and versions from Tennyson to White to Zimmer-Bradley. Canonical King Arthur is a many-headed creature. A romanticised approach is not at the expense of textual faithfulness, so I can live with it, although I reserve the right to decry shoddy film-making and maudlin sentimentality.

Too often though, romance is highlighted in book adaptations to the extent that it is deterimental to other textual points. While book purists cringe, the adaptations find new audiences and new fans, many of whom are of the "shipper" breed. I am not sure why, but female fans are especially quick to hook into the romance angle of any story. Even if romance is only a minor plot point in the original, fans have the ability to magnify it and analyse it to death.

This is still not so bad if the romance is within the realms of canon. The 1995 BBC mini-series adaptation of Pride and Prejudice launched a million Darcy-Lizzie ships, on the strength of one wet shirt, one exchange of looks and a very chaste kiss. Lizzie and Darcy did marry in the book, so this was a Austen sanctioned relationship.

Where it starts to get weird is when people start "shipping" pairings that are not in the original books and are clearly not within authorial intent. The two fandoms that come to mind immediately are the BIG 2 musicals - Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserables. Both are based on French novels and both have pseudo-operatic scores with lush melodies. And both have spawned rabid fans wishing death on one half of the central romantic pairing.

To follow in the Part 2: Les Miserables

The 12 Character Fanfic Meme: Austen Edition

This had to be done. I had so much fun with the last opera version, I had to repeat the exercise, using characters written by my favourite author. That's right, Jane Austen. Nothing is sacred, after all. And there are TONNES of Austen fanfics, including numerous multi-novel crossovers.

Technicalities of this exercise:

• I chose two characters, one male and one female, from each of Austen's six finished novels. So convenient that she wrote 6 novels and this meme needs 12 characters!
• To avoid squicky incestuous pairings, I chose pairs of characters that are not related by blood. Not even first cousins, although Austen herself had no qualms about those (witness Fanny Price and Edmund Bertram).
• No child characters, for obvious reasons. Imagine ending up with Margeret Dashwood/Mr Wodehouse. ** Mind needs to be sandpapered
• No established couples that are married or engage in canon. That just makes things boring, no?
• Minimal number of central characters. The supporting characters need their day in the fanfic sun. So, no Lizzie, Darcy, Knightley or Anne Elliot, even though they are my favourite characters in Austen canon.
• I used Excel to randomly sort the characters into the order I am using for this exercise. I might have seen the questions before, but thanks to the random ordering, I have no idea what combinations will be thrown up.

The 12 Austen Characters:

1. Charlotte Lucas-Collines
2. James Dashwood
3. Henry Tilney
4. Mr Wodehouse
5. Jane Fairfax
6. Captain Benwick
7. Isabella Thorpe
8. Elizabeth Elliot
9. Lucy Steele
10. Tom Bertram
11. Mary Crawford
12. Mr Wickham

Here goes nothing!

Have you ever read a Six/Eleven (Benwick/Mary Crawford) fic? Do you want to?
No, can't say I have. Would I want to? Only if well-written. This is an unlikely pairing and their differences is great fodder for an imaginative writer. I can see how these two characters can fall for each other; she certain could be his type, at least. I think she might like his literary tastes, although not his tendency towards melancoly.

Do you think Four (Mr Wodehouse) is hot? How hot?
Errrrr, I really prefer NOT to think about Mr Wodehouse that way. I suppose he must have been quite attractive in his youth, to have produced Emma, who is by all accounts a young woman of pleasing countenance.

What would happen if Twelve (Mr Wickham) got Eight (Elizabeth Elliot) pregnant?
Hahaha. First off, I am so glad I didn't get a male pregnancy with this one. I can actually see these two having a steamy affair, and Elizabeth Elliot making sure that both kept a very tight lid on it. If Wickham got Miss Elliot pregnant, she would turn to Mrs Clay for a quickie abortion and probably not tell Wickham a thing.

Can you rec any fic(s) about Nine (Lucy Steele) ?
I have seen a few comedic pieces about Lucy Steele, but not read them myself. I guess she really is not on my fanfic radar.

Would Two (James Dashwood) and Six (Captain Benwick) make a good couple?
They would be temperamentally suited, but nothing much might ever get done because of their chronic passivity.

Five/Nine (Jane Fairfax/Lucy Steele) or Five/Ten (Jane Fairfax/Tom Bertram)? Why?
Jane Fairfax/ Tom Bertram. And not because this is a heterosexual pairing. Superficially, Tom Bertram bears some resemblance to Frank Churchill. Jane Fairfax likes her cads, I think. Lucy Steele is too lightweight and probably too silly for Jane On the other hand, I think Lucy Steele could like the Jane Fairfax "type" quite a lot, and both of them are great at keeping secrets, so who knows? For my money, though, Tom Bertram and his excesses are more Jane's cup of tea.

What would happen if Seven (Isabella Thorpe) walked in on Two (James Dashwood) and Twelve (Mr Wickham) having sex?
She'd plot to blackmail James Dashwood out of his fortune and spread vicious rumours about Wickham.

Make up a summary for a Three (Henry Tilney)/Ten (Tom Bertram) fic.
Two boys meet at Eton. Profligate Tom Bertram and charming Henry Tilney form a bond built on a shared ability to not take life too seriously. One weekend in the country, an encounter with a group of giggling girls send them running for cover ... and into each others' arms. (Hey, I am not a slasher by any means, but school-aged Henry and Tom engaging in a spot of experimentation is conceivable.)

Is there such a thing as One (Charlotte Lucas) /Eight (Elizabeth Elliot) fluff?
Well, this would make an interesting, and oddly plausible, femmeslash pairing, but not a fluffy one. Elizabeth Elliot is too sharp around the edges for fluff.

Suggest a title for a Seven (Isabella Thorpe)/Twelve (Mr Wickham) hurt/comfort fic.
"Relying on the Comfort of Hypocrites". I'd like to see this pairing happen; they are both so deliciously amoral.

What kind of plot device would you use if you wanted Four (Mr Wodehouse) to deflower One (Charlotte Lucas-Collins)?
** Choking ** Mr Wodehouse suffers from a rare ailment that can only be cured by his "taking" of a virgin (assuming that Charlotte hasn't married Mr Colllins yet).

Would anyone you know read Seven (Isabella Thorpe) slash?
I could think of people who might, yes.

Does anyone you know read Three (Henry Tilney) het?
Heh, a resounding yes. Much of the Republic of Pemberley would read Tilney het, I think. Even if the fic doesn't involve Catherine Moreland.

What might Ten (Tom Betram) scream at a moment of great passion?
"Oh, good Bertram!".

If you wrote a song-fic about Eight (Elizabeth Elliot), which song would you choose?
"My Way".

If you wrote a One /Six /Twelve (Charlotte Lucas / Captain Benwick / Mr Wickham) fic, what would the warnings be?
Threesome, slash, bondage (Charlotte/Wickham), suggested masochism (Benwick).

What might be a good pick-up line for Two (James Dashwood) to use on Ten (Tom Bertram)?
"Care to burn some money together?"

When was the last time you read a fic about Five (Jane Fairfax)?
About a year ago. It was a Jane/Frank missing moment fanfic about the circumstances behind their secret engagement.

What is Six's (Captain Benwick's) super-sekrit kink?
SM - the M part of it. I don't know why, but I get that vibe from him.

Would Eleven (Mr Wickham) shag Nine (Lucy Steele) ? Drunk or sober?
Hell, yes. And he wouldn't need to be drunk either. Neither would she, probably.

If Three (Henry Tilney) and Seven (Isabella Thorpe) get together, who tops?
Hahaha. A canon-possible pairing from Northanger Abbey. Isabella would like to imagine herself on top, but Henry would always get the upper hand on her.

One (Charlotte Lucas) and Nine (Lucy Steele) are in a happy relationship until Nine (Lucy Steele) suddenly runs off with Four (Mr Wodehouse). One (Charlotte Lucas) , broken-hearted, has a hot one-night stand with Eleven (Mary Crawford) and a brief unhappy affair with Twelve (Mr Wickham), then follows the wise advice of Five (Jane Fairfax) and finds true love with Three (Henry Tilney). What title would you give this fic?
"The Path to a Good Man is Paved with Hellish Encounters". I love how Charlotte has to get entangled with a bunch of Austen's most devious characters before ending up with her most likeable hero.

How would you feel if Seven (Isabella Thorpe)/Eight (Elizabeth Elliot) was canon?
Wow, Lisptick Lesbian Bitch Femmeslash heaven!

The 12 Character Fanfic Meme: Opera Edition

There's a meme going around the Livejournal community, particularly the sizeble segment that read and write fanfiction. I found it in the Harry Potter community, but it probably has spread to the other large fandoms - Buffy, LoTR, Star Wars etc.

I thought I'd do something a little different and use characters from the world of opera. Yes, there is such a thing as opera fanfiction (I haven't read any yet, but I have seen it *shudders*).

The Meme:
First, write down the names of 12 characters. Then read and answer the questions.You can't look at the questions (or click on the cut) until you write down the 12 characters you're going to use.

My 12 characters from the world of opera (I have tried to spread it around a little, but ended up with two Pucinnian heroines. Perhaps I should drop Tosca for Aida? Naah, I like 'em wenches who murder for love).

1. Flora Tosca (Tosca)
2. Melisande (Pelleas et Melisande)
3. Siegfried (Wagner's Ring Cycle)
4. Porgy (Porgy and Bess)
5. The With (Hansel and Gretel)
6. Otello (Otello)
7. Lucia (Lucia di Lamermoor)
8. Turandot (Turandot)
9. Don Juan (Don Juan)
10. Oktavian (Der Rosenkavalier)
11. Cinderella (La Cerenatola)
12. Canio (Pagliacci)


Questions have been adapted. I don't maintain a friend list here, so those questions have been changed slightly. And opera fanfic isn't something I want to get my mind around, so I have dropped a couple of questions on who might read and write this stuff.



Have you ever read a Six/Eleven (Otello/Cinderella) fic? Do you want to?
Heh. Jealous general and innocent princess-to-be. It's not a stretch. Desdemona could well have been a Cinderella type before marrying Otello. Obviously, I haven't read any fic with this pairing, nor does it probably exist. But I could get behind this, if I am bored enough.


Do you think Four (Porgy) is hot? How hot?
When he sings "Bess, you is my woman now", he's hotter than Jude Law and Colin Firth put together. But that might have something to do with the drop-dead-gorgeous Gershwin music, rather than poor old Porgy himself.

What would happen if Twelve (Canio) got Eight (Turandot) pregnant?
"Off with the clown's head"!! I don't know if he could ever get close enough to her to get her pregnant, though.

Can you rec any fic(s) about Nine (Don Juan)?
Don Juan the opera character, no. Don Juan the literary character, probably a few. He's popular with the ladies, this one.

Would Two (Melisande) and Six (Otello) make a good couple?
Wow, I am getting het couplings so far (but probably spoke too soon! Watching out for disturbing slash to come, I am sure). Well, they both die at the end of their respective operas, and Melisande does have a vaguely Desdemona like vibe, so yes, I can see this couple happening.

Five/Nine (The Witch/Don Juan) or Five/Ten (The Witch/ Oktavian)? Why?
This is cracking me up. I am still managing to get het couplings, but only just. Oktavian, after all, is sung by a mezzo-soprano. Choice between Don Juan and Oktavian? Don Juan, hands down. Oktavian ain't man enough for The Witch!


What would happen if Seven (Lucia) walked in on Two (Melisande) and Twelve (Canio) having sex?
5 minutes of impassioned coloratura expressing shock and a dismayed realisation of being just the slightest bit intrigued. Melisande would be serene and inscrutable. Canio would be guilt-ridden. (Hahaha, still getting the het coupling!)

Make up a summary for a Three (Siegfried)/Ten (Oktavian) fic.
Siegfried finally gets squicked about having an affair with his own aunt and leaves a broken-hearted but brave Brunhilde. He travels the world (well, western Europe, I suppose) in search of his destiny. In Austria, he meets a newly-divorced Oktavian, whose ex-wife Sophie has left him when his voice refused to crack even after 5 years of marriage. Together, Siegfried and Oktavian nitpick the plotholes of their operatic past and form an unlikely alliance to preserve the right of composers to write lush scores requiring over-sized orchestras. (Hey, first slash couple, but like I said before, Oktavian is dodgy anyway).

Is there such a thing as One (Tosca)/Eight (Turandot) fluff?
Haha, femmeslash with my two Puccinian heroines!! Turandot and fluff? The mind cannot compute such a possibility.

Suggest a title for a Seven (Lucia)/Twelve (Canio) hurt/comfort fic.
Oh, this is practically "canon", isn't it? Or would be, if the two were in the same opera. I am not sure who would be comforting who more, since they are both great figura tragedia. I can hear the duet now - a violent clash of coloratura and anguished verismo. And the title? "Madness shared is madness doubled". Or maybe "Caterwauler and Clown: A Meditation on Crying, Craziness and Cluelessness." (Still with the het pairing!)

What kind of plot device would you use if you wanted Four (Porgy) to deflower One (Tosca)?
A good old fashioned courtship. Porgy, in my books, is essentially a good-hearted romantic, if a little inclined towards jealousy, as is Tosca. Heck, he just needs to sing "You is my woman now" and she'll fall into his arms (such a great, great, great operatic duet). (The het continues!)

Does anyone you know read Seven (Lucia) slash?
Is there such a thing as Lucia slash? Don't want to know, really. Who would you slash Lucia with? Don't want to know that either.

Does anyone you know read Three (Siegfried) het?
If there is Siegfried/Brunhilde het, yes, there are people who would probably read it, if they could get past the semi-incest angle.

What might Ten (Oktavian) scream at a moment of great passion?
"Marie Therese!" (well, that's the opening line of that wonderful trio in Der Rosenkavalier which builds rather orgasmically)

If you wrote a song-fic about Eight (Turandot), which song would you choose?
Well, I could cheat and say "In questa Reggia" which Turandot herself sings. For something a little more contemporary, "Fever". Or "I Can't Make You Love Me" - told from the Calaf's Point of View, of course.

If you wrote a One (Tosca)/Six (Otello)/Twelve (Canio) fic, what would the warnings be?
Murder, suicide, extreme morbidity, all major characters dead by end of story. Boy, this is what you get when you put three Italian operas together! (As threesomes go, this isn't a bad combination!)

What might be a good pick-up line for Two (Melisande) to use on Ten (Oktavian)? "What's your Symbolism?" Really, I can't imagine Melisande using a pick-up line on anyone, not even Pelleas! Oktavian might try something on Melisande, though. (Het-ing on!)

When was the last time you read a fic about Five (The Witch)?
Well, not ever, really.

What is Six (Otello)'s super-sekrit kink?
Bondage with hankies!

Would Eleven (Cinderella) shag Nine (Don Juan)? Drunk or sober?
Yes! Drunk AND sober. He's Don Juan, after all. I think that Cinderella could be quite the lusty wench. Nobody pulls of her coloratura fireworks without having a bit of fire in her. (Oooh, the het pairings continue ... what did I do right, or wrong?)

If Three (Siegfried) and Seven (Lucia) get together, who tops?
Lucia. Siegfried is too naive for tops. (And onward het couplings!)

One (Tosca) and Nine (Don Juan) are in a happy relationship until Nine (Don Juan) suddenly runs off with Four (Porgy). One (Tosca), broken-hearted, has a hot one-night stand with Eleven (Cinderella) and a brief unhappy affair with Twelve (Canio), then follows the wise advice of Five (The Witch) and finds true love with Three (Siegfried). What title would you give this fic?
Hehehe, I LOVE this. I would title this "The Fairy Tale of Flora Tosca: How I dated a slut but learnt to love a virgin". (Starts and ends with a het pairing!).

How would you feel if Seven (Lucia)/Eight (Turandot) was canon?
Okay, for this to be "canon" someone would need to write an opera pairing Lucia with Turandot. Nothing off-putting about this combination, but they are an extremely unlikely pair. Over the top Lucia and ice queen Turandot. I think I might actually find it rather boring! Now, Lucia/Tosca would have been more like it! (Okay, it ends on a femmeslash note!)