This has nothing to do with your original post. But your links led me to surfing, and I went to see what exactly this OTW is. And it makes me beg the question:
What do the people of OTW think about the WGA strike? Because really? Making fanfic legal or legally protected--fanfic, which is use of characters created by someone else, and in addition to being questionable copyright-wise could also be considered questionable trademark-wise--making fanfic "legal," taking away the rights of the original creator/copyright holder to control their creative work . . . isn't that similar to the AMPTP denying the writers rights to compensation for content they create for New Media? Like saying, "You created something for us, and we're going to do what we please with it, and you have no rights to stop us"?
Or am I just really hypersensitive regarding the strike right now?
I think (having read absolutely nothing of the OTW site, so if I'm making a complete nitwit of myself here, please feel free to chuckle indulgently and move along) that the key lies in whether or not money is being made. Fanfic can't be published or sold or whatever, so the use of the characters/settings/whatever does not in any way hurt the creators or cause them to make less money with their creations. Not paying royalties for episodes aired online and that sort of thing, however, definitely does impact the creator's ability to make a living with his/her creations.
Not making money doesn't automatically make it not copyright infringement, but it does lean heavily in that direction. Since the purpose of copyright is to promote progress in the arts & sciences by allowing creators to profit from their work for a while... it's hard to say how that goal is promoted if non-competitive, non-commercial variants are introduced.
But "hard to say" doesn't mean "impossible to prove to a court." Being free, even being free and not hurting the author's sales, isn't an automatic free pass--just a good defense if it actually goes to court.
All true, so thankfully most creators are not too worried about going after fanfic authors, etc. But I was mainly pointing out that the "no money" thing seems to be the primary (and crucial, I think) difference between fanfic and what the WGA strike is about.
Re: From <lj user=metafandom>izhilzhaJanuary 18 2008, 00:09:11 UTC
The one issue I have with Slash As A Focus is that it often is the one thing that periphery folk know about and ends up being the argument point. Slash is not the definition, but to some it is
Very true. Which is why I voted for responses that somehow touched on that disconnect, such as "[Slash is icky]? So is squash. There's a lot more than that on the menu." That one had the bonus of making me giggle.
The problem isn't that some people think slash is icky. Nor is it true that slash squick is homophobia, any more than any other squick indicates a phobia or bigotry against the squick topic.
But a lot of anti-fanficcers are homophobic, and sex-phobic, and express that combination as "slash is icky," and follow it up with "...and therefore no [decent] person should be doing it, and it should be stopped."
There's a big difference between "I find slash icky (and possibly disgusting), and a waste of time and bandwidth" and "I think fans who participate in slash are barbaric perverts who should have their hobby removed, by force if necessary."
There's a big difference between "I find slash icky (and possibly disgusting), and a waste of time and bandwidth" and "I think fans who participate in slash are barbaric perverts who should have their hobby removed, by force if necessary."Look at you, being all eloquent in my journal! Yes, exactly, what you said
( ... )
I got here from Metafandom. Gotta admit, I was all ready to be Defendin' The Honah of Mah Slashfic... but it turned out not to be necessary. (Which is a good thing, 'cos I'm not sure the slashfic I read has any honor to defend.)
Anyway--I understand squick. (In abstract, I think; I'm not sure I have any actual squicks, but there are plenty of topics I know I don't care to read about.) But the bingo card isn't about various fanficcer's opinions on fanfic--it's about what anti-fanficcers sometimes say, often in short, derogatory comments, and then congratulate themselves on having shown us up so perfectly.
"Slash is disgusting!" they say, as if that would (1) make people stop writing it, or (2) agree that anything associated with it by any possible stretch of the imagination should be banned.
And yeah, some fans also say slash is icky... but they're not (usually) trying to get slash fans thrown out of fandom, any more than people who say "Harry Potter bores me" are trying to shut down the Lexicon's website.
I'm having a thought-provoking time reading these comment threads, but I just wanted to pause a moment and ask if maybe your icon would marry me. Just wondering.
Also here via metafandom. Very interesting discussion you have going here. Nicely handled, with a minimum of drama.
Just as an introduction: I'm a straight woman who once said naively to a fannish friend, "What is this 'slash' of which you speak? Is it some kind of bondage and torture fic?" And then behold, here I am today writing and reading slash, and am hard pressed to write het, though I do pen gen stories. What can I say? I saw the slash potential, and followed.
I took the "Why should I let your homophobia define what I do with my free time?" response as just one answer to anti-fanfic attacks. There are people who hate slash who are, in fact, homophobic, and thus deserve that response. Are they the only people who find slash icky? No, of course not. Thus there are a huge number of responses that can be made to anti-fanfic, anti-slash people, running the gamut from "I beg to disagree" to "Kindly go fuck yourself." This was but one response.
Being anti-slash does not automatically mean homophobic...not in every case. But sometimes it's
( ... )
Very interesting discussion you have going here. Nicely handled, with a minimum of drama.
Thank you. I am all about minimizing the drama, so long as discussion can go forward. :-)
people do exist who dislike slash who ARE anti-gay as well, who do not wish to see it represented in any way, shape or form. "Why should I let your homophobia define what I do with my free time?" is a legitimate response...to THEM.
Yes it is. Which is why I posted my thoughts here, rather than making a point out of giving them over at otw_news. Because it is a legit (and cleverly snappy) comeback to a common and often very offensive comment.
I'm not sure I'd say that I found the response insulting, per se (though I see it coming across that way). It's more that I often run into an attitude in most of my fandoms (brother and buddy shows, the majority of them) that if you're not supporting slash, you're the enemy. And since I have all kinds of respect for the OTW project, I don't want to see that attitude get legitimized there, on behalf of myself and any
( ... )
I can tell you that I personally have a bit of an incest squick, and many on my friends list are Supernatural fans who slash the brothers. It did take a little refocusing on my part to not twitch at that; fortunately I've reached a point where, though I don't write it (or see it, frankly) myself, I'm perfectly happy to beta stories for friends of mine who do. I love it when everyone makes nice - slashers, genners, hetters (are these actually words?) et al. It's important to remember that we're all in this together.
I love it when everyone makes nice - slashers, genners, hetters (are these actually words?) et al. It's important to remember that we're all in this together.
Oh, I agree; especially with groups like OTW (which is such an awesome thing, man, I hope it becomes everything it's planning to be). Although if I had fandom friends who wrote incest fic, I hope they'd respect me enough to find other fen to beta those particular stories. My gag reflex for incest (and the moral outrage I sometimes feel around people who treat the subject too lightly) is pretty high.
Thanks again for a provocative, interesting post.
Wow, thank you. I'm glad you're using "provocative" in the positive sense. *g* I wasn't sure what to expect when I got linked from metafandom.
With some slashers (us lit-geeks, maybe?) your explanation might run into a particular objection: specifically, that a pre-existing platonic friendship is being disrupted or "altered" for a slash story. I hope you'd at least consider a different scenario -- that you and the slash people just have different readings of the same text, and that the slasher who "alters" what you see as a clearly non-sexual and non-romantic relationship may be working from an oppositional reading of the same character dynamic that you enjoy as a friendship. It's not that there's anything wrong with your fanfic preferences -- it's just that your explanation for your preference reads as if it assumes ownership of the "correct" readings of a show, book, etc. on behalf of the gen and het subfandoms.
Hey, fellow lit. geek! I majored in English Literature, and frankly, had the exact same problem with a lot of current literary analysis that I have with your comment here
( ... )
Even most slash fans seem to prefer their fic to involve the characters behaving more or less as they would in the source text. In that sense, "canon-compliance" is fairly uncontroversial (as OOC characters are either a sign of badfic and/or crackfic and/or parody of some sort, which is a different issue entirely). What I seem to see more in slash fandom (and this might be a function of my circles; most of my involvement in the slash crowd has been among older fans, with a good number of us dating from pre-internet slash fandom) is more departure from the most obvious readings, and creative exploitation of ambiguities in the text. It's almost easier from this perspective to slash characters from more heteronormative source texts -- a straight-identified (or, and it's an important distinction, straight-assumed) character in a queer-positive social environment would seem less likely to be closeted or confused. At the same time, the queering of heteronormative texts can be carried out as a sort of playful subversion of the standards
( ... )
Comments 70
What do the people of OTW think about the WGA strike? Because really? Making fanfic legal or legally protected--fanfic, which is use of characters created by someone else, and in addition to being questionable copyright-wise could also be considered questionable trademark-wise--making fanfic "legal," taking away the rights of the original creator/copyright holder to control their creative work . . . isn't that similar to the AMPTP denying the writers rights to compensation for content they create for New Media? Like saying, "You created something for us, and we're going to do what we please with it, and you have no rights to stop us"?
Or am I just really hypersensitive regarding the strike right now?
Reply
Reply
But "hard to say" doesn't mean "impossible to prove to a court." Being free, even being free and not hurting the author's sales, isn't an automatic free pass--just a good defense if it actually goes to court.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Very true. Which is why I voted for responses that somehow touched on that disconnect, such as "[Slash is icky]? So is squash. There's a lot more than that on the menu." That one had the bonus of making me giggle.
(Pretty icon, btw; I love that movie.)
Reply
But a lot of anti-fanficcers are homophobic, and sex-phobic, and express that combination as "slash is icky," and follow it up with "...and therefore no [decent] person should be doing it, and it should be stopped."
There's a big difference between "I find slash icky (and possibly disgusting), and a waste of time and bandwidth" and "I think fans who participate in slash are barbaric perverts who should have their hobby removed, by force if necessary."
Reply
Reply
Anyway--I understand squick. (In abstract, I think; I'm not sure I have any actual squicks, but there are plenty of topics I know I don't care to read about.) But the bingo card isn't about various fanficcer's opinions on fanfic--it's about what anti-fanficcers sometimes say, often in short, derogatory comments, and then congratulate themselves on having shown us up so perfectly.
"Slash is disgusting!" they say, as if that would (1) make people stop writing it, or (2) agree that anything associated with it by any possible stretch of the imagination should be banned.
And yeah, some fans also say slash is icky... but they're not (usually) trying to get slash fans thrown out of fandom, any more than people who say "Harry Potter bores me" are trying to shut down the Lexicon's website.
Reply
Reply
Just as an introduction: I'm a straight woman who once said naively to a fannish friend, "What is this 'slash' of which you speak? Is it some kind of bondage and torture fic?" And then behold, here I am today writing and reading slash, and am hard pressed to write het, though I do pen gen stories. What can I say? I saw the slash potential, and followed.
I took the "Why should I let your homophobia define what I do with my free time?" response as just one answer to anti-fanfic attacks. There are people who hate slash who are, in fact, homophobic, and thus deserve that response. Are they the only people who find slash icky? No, of course not. Thus there are a huge number of responses that can be made to anti-fanfic, anti-slash people, running the gamut from "I beg to disagree" to "Kindly go fuck yourself." This was but one response.
Being anti-slash does not automatically mean homophobic...not in every case. But sometimes it's ( ... )
Reply
Thank you. I am all about minimizing the drama, so long as discussion can go forward. :-)
people do exist who dislike slash who ARE anti-gay as well, who do not wish to see it represented in any way, shape or form. "Why should I let your homophobia define what I do with my free time?" is a legitimate response...to THEM.
Yes it is. Which is why I posted my thoughts here, rather than making a point out of giving them over at otw_news. Because it is a legit (and cleverly snappy) comeback to a common and often very offensive comment.
I'm not sure I'd say that I found the response insulting, per se (though I see it coming across that way). It's more that I often run into an attitude in most of my fandoms (brother and buddy shows, the majority of them) that if you're not supporting slash, you're the enemy. And since I have all kinds of respect for the OTW project, I don't want to see that attitude get legitimized there, on behalf of myself and any ( ... )
Reply
Thanks again for a provocative, interesting post.
Reply
Oh, I agree; especially with groups like OTW (which is such an awesome thing, man, I hope it becomes everything it's planning to be). Although if I had fandom friends who wrote incest fic, I hope they'd respect me enough to find other fen to beta those particular stories. My gag reflex for incest (and the moral outrage I sometimes feel around people who treat the subject too lightly) is pretty high.
Thanks again for a provocative, interesting post.
Wow, thank you. I'm glad you're using "provocative" in the positive sense. *g* I wasn't sure what to expect when I got linked from metafandom.
Reply
With some slashers (us lit-geeks, maybe?) your explanation might run into a particular objection: specifically, that a pre-existing platonic friendship is being disrupted or "altered" for a slash story. I hope you'd at least consider a different scenario -- that you and the slash people just have different readings of the same text, and that the slasher who "alters" what you see as a clearly non-sexual and non-romantic relationship may be working from an oppositional reading of the same character dynamic that you enjoy as a friendship. It's not that there's anything wrong with your fanfic preferences -- it's just that your explanation for your preference reads as if it assumes ownership of the "correct" readings of a show, book, etc. on behalf of the gen and het subfandoms.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment