So, yesterday I wrote a 2k essay on the "Helicopter" story, then sent it to trans friends and sat on it. I probably won't publish the whole thing, but since we now evidently know the Isabel Fall is a trans woman, I've boiled down my thoughts. Here goes. (15 tweets)
While I am coming at this first through an authorship lens (which I lecture on at my day job at Napier), I will comment a bit on the story as well. In the digital age, we have become very used to knowing who an author is. Being able to google them, see them @ events, etc.
It means we rarely read a text with absolutely no paratext. We're primed. Yet Isabel Fall was a one line bio & no photo. This means anyone going into it was prepped by some discourse on line but mostly: the title. And this title was very provocative--a transphobic meme.
Without ANY context, it can be difficult to go into that thinking the author is doing it in good faith. If you go into the story thinking the author is a troll, you'll likely read it differently than going in with the assumption/knowledge the author is trans. Same text.
Barthes in "Death of the Author" argues that authorial intent is unimportant. The author is not the arbiter of truth of their own work. Every reader brings their own experiences & releases their own meaning. SHOULD we have known more about Fall? Would that have helped? (IDK)
I will say seeing people respond to the story w/ comments like 'this author is DEF a cishet white male' or 'NO woman thinks of womanhood like this' is less helpful. I'd argue it's better to look at the text itself. Spoilers for story follows.
Personally, I thought the story was ambitious--too ambitious. I liked the prose. Certain elements really resonated & stuck with me and sang loud. Other notes jarred. It's difficult to pick out the Barb's idea of gender identity vs physical sex vs gender performativity.
The romance with Axis that also linked gender and sex further complicated things. Is Barb using gender stereotypes as a shorthand to tell us the binary is bullshit or is she/they doubling down? The execution leaves the purpose muddled and it's doing a LOT in a short story.
The story is meant to subvert a trope and also make us ruminate on our approach to gender today by extrapolating to a cyberpunk future. The problem with defamiliarization in SFF is it's hard to make the unfamiliar familiar in a new, made up world.
Simon Spiegel writes about this a lot more here: researchgate.net/publication/28… TLDR is in a short story we have so little space to understand all the new things before we're asked huge questions about gender.
Militarized gender is quite a big topic to handle. At the same time, would this sort of premise stretch into something longer? Would it benefit with a polyphonic approach and multiple protags of different genders? (again, IDK)
Barb is clearly brainwashed and prickly and hard to empathise with (I mean the name gives us a hint.) This means everything is filtered through her skewed worldview. We have to work even harder to try and get the worldbuilding clues on gender in a wider context.
Personally I empathised more with Axis and would have been interested reading the story from their POV since they're questioning/undergo way more character change.
Basically, I think the author bit off more than she could chew, but I still applaud her for trying to do something so bold, even if it hasn't worked on the page. Causing unintentional hurt to your community is particularly painful--I've been there. I sympathise.
I'll end with my nb's friend's thoughts on the story (they didn't want to be tagged): "Part of me hates it. Part of me appreciates the writing. Part of me feels it’s bullshit. Part of me felt represented." It is, without doubt, a story that sparked a conversation. /end
*this should be making the familiar unfamiliar*
