throw another bear in the canoe - Corrupting the establishment, part umpteen

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Corrupting the establishment, part umpteen

Sep. 24th, 2004 at 6:23 AM

However, did you know that filk (both noun and verb), filker, Sturgeon's Law, K/S and slash (as in a "subgenre of fiction") have all been added to the OED in the last two years?

(via

riba_rambles)

Fandom is busting out all over. When did we get so very mainstream?

Mood: stultified
Music:The sounds of the dayjob

Comments

( 27 comments — Leave a comment )

dark_geisha wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 06:34 am (UTC)

Goodness. It finally happened!

Link | Reply | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 06:48 am (UTC)

Well, SFnal words have been drifting into common parlance for decades--ansible, waldo, Finagle's Constant, etc--but this is the first I've heard of Fen-specific terms for fandom activities creeping into the OED.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

cheshyre wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 06:44 am (UTC)

Did you check out the rest of the SF Citations project pages?
Just what they're doing to find the earliest uses of terms. Really nifty stuff.

At one point, I started searching Lexis-Nexis, but they won't actually accept electronic resources. I was able to help verify something that they'd heard was in an IASFM issue thru my magazine collection.

Link | Reply | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 06:46 am (UTC)

the slof are mighty! the slof are strong!

*g*

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

cheshyre wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:38 am (UTC)

Actually, not my doing -- I stumbled across it after it was already going strong.

Apparently, the OED decided it would be useful to seek out various specialized communities for their specialized terminology. And they decided on SF fans as their pilot project, since there are enough of us online and we're just geeky that way about our own history.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:43 am (UTC)

Go, rob me of my delusions of your grandeur. *g*

The mainstreaming of SF is a fascinating thing to watch, though. It's like the mainstreaming of Jazz and Blues, fifty or sixty years ago.

I suspect what it's gonna look like when they get done with it is more Elvis than Howlin' Wolf, but that doesn't mean it isn't music.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

dsudis wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:05 am (UTC)

I immediately dashed off to check the OED online, which apparently is not up-to-date within the last two years, but did yield this quotation (under the verb-definition of slash as "urinate," which is a new one on me):

1973 M. AMIS Rachel Papers 189 If you can slash in my bed (I thought) don't tell me you can't suck my cock.

*giggles*

Link | Reply | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:14 am (UTC)

See? This is why I want my hard drive burned in a Viking pyre when I die.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

cheshyre wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:35 am (UTC)

Then again, you could gain permanence in the OED...
Looking up some of the other new words mentioned in my other response, I see the earliest use of clusterfuck not referring to an orgy comes from a soldier's letter in Vietnam.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:36 am (UTC)

"Clusterfuck" is such an evocative term. It's right up there with "JANFU" as one of the all-time great descriptions of military incompetude.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

cheshyre wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:36 am (UTC)

Besides, they're not accepting electronic entries anyway, since dates are more easily faked for computer files than in print.
[They're still looking for the earliest refs to "Mary Sue" -- there are documents claiming that it was used in such-and-such fanzine, but until somebody with a copy of it contacts them to confirm, they won't use it.]

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:38 am (UTC)

In fifty years, they'll *have* to accept electronic cites, I fear.

I'm reasonably certain there are people on my flist who could help them with the Mary Sue thing.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

cheshyre wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 08:04 am (UTC)

Well, from the citation site, here's what they're looking for:

Katrina Campbell submitted a 2002 cite from an article by Robbie Hudson in the Sunday Times. Malcolm Farmer submitted a 1992 cite from Henry Jenkins' "Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture". Evelyn Ellen Browne submitted a cite from a 1990 reprint of Kendra Hunter's article "Characterization Rape."; this article was a reprint from TREK magazine, and had an original copyright date of 1980, so we would like to verify the cite from the first publication. Evelyn Ellen Browne submitted a 1992 cite from Camille Bacon-Smith's "Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the Creation of Popular Myth." Evelyn Ellen Browne submitted a 1997 cite from Constance Penley's "NASA/ TREK: Popular Science and Sex in America". (N.B. the Bacon-Smith cite mentions that the term was coined by Paula Smith, in "A Trekkie's Tale" in a 1974 issue of the fanzine "Menagerie", and later quoted by Johanna Cantor in the winter 1984 issue of the fanzine "Archives V": we would like to see cites from either of these sources)

Maybe Teresa Nielsen Hayden should put out an all-points bulletin; she seems to have become associated with Mary Sues...

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 08:08 am (UTC)

Hmm. I'll drop her a comment, unless you wanna.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

cheshyre wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 08:18 am (UTC)

Go ahead, I've got enough on my plate...

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 08:20 am (UTC)

Excelsior!

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

coalescent wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:14 am (UTC)

(under the verb-definition of slash as "urinate," which is a new one on me):

It's not archaic, either, it's current. "I just need to go for a slash" is fairly common over here (UK).

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:39 am (UTC)

I'm an Ami, and I've heard it. But I've never heard an Ami use it, even ironically, as we will use other Britglish words.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

dsudis wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 08:34 am (UTC)

Ahh, good to know. Thanks!

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

cheshyre wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:22 am (UTC)

I'm using the online OED, and all the terms I listed were in there. If you search on some words, it will include extra draft definitions from the new edition, but they may not have gotten to that word in particular.

The OED is updating definitions alphabetically. The latest batch of new and revised entries go from orb to ottroye. (including new subordinate entries for orbital: orbital quantum number, orbital sander, orbital tower) And they also apparently have some new "out-of-sequence" words, including Atkins, Botox, clusterfuck, defrag (and numerous variants), "sexual orientation" and threequel, plus lots of specialized words for coffees. [I can see where this culture is going...]

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

cheshyre wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:33 am (UTC)

When you search the online OED for "slash", it gives 6 definitions from the 2nd edition.
But in the upper-left corner of the screen, there's a red button which says "New Edition: 1 result"
Click on that button, and you'll see a single listing for "slash n." which is what you want.

A subgenre of fiction, originally published in fanzines and now esp. online, in which characters who appear together in popular films or other media are portrayed as having a sexual (esp. homosexual) relationship.

Let me know if that doesn't work for you, and I'll see if I can't get a three-day public link to the definition.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

dsudis wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 08:33 am (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the tip! I normally use the second edition, so the New, with all them wacky color-changing buttons, often trips me up. *g*

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

kelliem wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 03:56 pm (UTC)

I have to say, I've never heard of 'slash' being used in a heterosexual context, so I think their definition is a bit off.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 04:01 pm (UTC)

I have, but generally not by people who write it.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

lnhammer wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 07:11 pm (UTC)

I have. And have seen religious debates over it.

---L.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

madwriter wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 08:03 am (UTC)

This is probably something else that would make Brian Aldiss unhappy, at least based on his essay in a recent issue of the MLA's journal where he complains about the mainstreaming of SF (among other things).

Link | Reply | Thread

matociquala wrote:

Sep. 24th, 2004 08:12 am (UTC)

I love it. I love the mainstreaming of SF.

I don't think it's going to hurt the edgier side of the genre at all, and--to extend my jazz metaphor, above--sometimes Grover Washington fans grow up to be Thelonious Monk fans. Or even Mingus. *g*

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

( 27 comments — Leave a comment )