HIGHLA-L Digest - 14 Jul 2001 (#2001-198)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:00:01 -0400
There are 12 messages totalling 595 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) (4)
2. ATTN: All Fan Fic writers (3)
3. HIGHLA-L Digest - 14 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-197)
4. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic
writers) (2)
5. Morality
6. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic
writers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:22:22 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
At 06:54 PM 07/14/01, Marina Bailey wrote:
>I'm with you on that, Sandy. But it's easy to get them confused, because
>a lot of people simply state that they don't like slash, and a lot of
>fans (myself included) are so used to being told that we shouldn't like
>it, write it or read it that we assume that people who say they don't
>like slash are trying to make us stop writing/reading/liking it.
I assumed that was the reason for it; and it's quite understandable. Maybe
if we all tried to pay closer attention to what each individual is actually
saying in their posts, and try to only respond to that individual's words
or point of view... it would make these discussions a little easier for all
of us.
>However, I know for a fact that Wendy doesn't like slash on other
>grounds. So I feel I can argue with her about it.
>
>Does that make sense?
Yep! It makes a lot of sense!
>Someone else said (and it might not be the case here) that it's often
>the slash-haters who bring it up. WHY would they do that?? In the
>hope that the actor will be shocked and disassociate himself from
>the slash fans?
I think it's probably in the hope that the actor would publicly slide with
them (the slash-haters) and thereby somehow validate their
position. Doesn't make much sense to me, but there ya go!
And I also remember a fanfic writer who handed Jim Byrnes a fanzine at a
con. I don't remember whether it was slash or not, but I do recall that it
was erotica and it was based on the Joe Dawson character. Jim wasn't
shocked or surprised by it... but most of the fans were
shocked/surprised/pissed off at this person for giving him the fanzine,
especially since many of the writers had not given their permission for
such a 'presentation'. I'm sure some of the old-timers here will remember
what I'm referring to.
-- Sandy (who dislikes slash for the same reasons as Wendy)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:29:52 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers
In a message dated 7/14/01 9:51:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Dotiran@aol.com
writes:
<< Those philosphers and theologians who reject moral relativism [which is a
broader topic than "morality"] believe that although all 50 of us in the room
will see perhaps a different side/part/angle on that 2 ton elephant in the
room --so that none of us may see the entire picture,-- nonetheless there IS
an elephant, a truth there, "objectively" present and it can eventually be
known. >>
Well then, by that definition, we are in complete agreement on this
particular point. I have no problem with the concept (if I'm understanding
you properly) that all of those individual, very different perceptions of a
reality may hint at a universal truth. My only *problem* is when one group
declares that universal truth to be of a particular nature, and that everyone
else's conclusion is not only wrong, but that questioning or opposing that
perception is going to send you straight to damnation.
To give a frivolous metaphor, there may be one 'team' of people who believe
that the only REAL form of Jello is Strawberry Jello. No other forms of Jello
brand gelatin can accurately be accepted as real Jello. And if you pick
another brand of gelatin, so much the worse!
The parallel, of course, is an invisible diety. If you belong to a particular
'flavor' of organized religion with the zeal of some fundamentalists, any
other 'flavor' (sect, denomination, intensity) of that popular organized
religion is a false, twisted abomination, and not 'real'. And heaven forbid
if you belong to a different religion!
Now, extend the metaphor a little further. You declare that the only one,
true Jello is Strawberry Jello, and you tell everyone at every opportunity
that if they do not change their opinion to your way of thinking, they are
going straight to hell. In fact, the leaders of your country believe as you
do. They tell you the country neighboring yours are Lime Jello fans, and they
organize an army, declare a crusade or war, and march on the neighbors. Any
casualties are justified because these infidels like Lime Jello...or even
*shudder* pudding! Subhuman. Damned. Not sure what flavor of jello a
particular village likes? Kill em all, says your spiritual leader, and let
god sort 'em out. So what if there's no material proof that Strawberry Jello
is the only real one? You *believe*, and your faith is enough.
Jello, of course, is not spirituality. Religion is monumentally more serious
and important than a dessert. But the logic is exactly the same. To someone
who is having Strawberry Jello legislated into the laws of their country,
told that Strawberry Jello is the only way and that any other choice is
immoral, the whole thing becomes intrusive.
(Me, I'm a ladyfingers fan, myself...)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:24:16 -0500
From: Gina Shaw <ginadc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 14 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-197)
Annie:
><< > Personally, I don't consider myself judged by any sort of universal
>"truth"
Dotiran:
> Then we better hope you are right :)
> >>
Annie again:
>Actually, no. The only person who has to worry about whether or not I am
>"right" is *me*. And that suits me just fine. I don't need anyone else to
>bother their head over whether or not my version of reality, morality and
>truth fits theirs. Thanks for the thought, though. ;-)
:: applause :: I am utterly flummoxed by people who seem to think that a)
there is only one right and true set of "moral" principles (usually, I
would note, handed down by a religious faith and held to be unavailable to
those who do not practice religion); b) they have personally found that one
right and true set of "moral" principles, c) I should adhere to those same
"moral" principles, and d) it is their business whether I do or not.
And I would disagree with Nina that DM is necessarily utterly and strictly
moral--or at least that he did not believe in a certain degree of moral
relativism. (In a desperate attempt to keep this at least marginally on
topic.) Yes, he had his own rather strict moral code--though he seemed to
violate it fairly often. He was strict on some things, such as honor and
responsibility for one's actions, and he was often a lot stricter with
*himself* than he was with others. Sometimes he was inconsistent. Sometimes
he realized he was wrong. But as much as he tried to convince various
people like Annie Devlin, Amanda, Richie, Methos, et al. to see the world
his way, neither did he judge them as being "less moral" than he. Frankly,
the whole Highlander world seemed often to be about those shades of gray
that someone (was it Annie?) was talking about earlier, and learning not to
look at the world in absolutes. Living hundreds or thousands of years seems
to teach that lesson.
Gina (who's had plenty of people tell her she's going to ... that place,
and has decided that they must all have visited already themselves to be so
sure of the entry requirements)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:36:01 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers
John says
> Making the assumption that there aren't any guests attending the Reunion
Con
> who will be mortally offended by the LACK of slash questions,
Nah, Rich and Max ain't coming, are they? ;-)
Jette
(Richard Ridings Choral Society)
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:38:30 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: K/S,
sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Marina
> Someone else said (and it might not be the case here) that it's often
> the slash-haters who bring it up.
Definately NOT in this case - she was a slash fan who wanted
some kind of "confirmation".
Jette (was there)
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:43:06 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: K/S,
sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Sandy
> And I also remember a fanfic writer who handed Jim Byrnes a fanzine at a
> con. I don't remember whether it was slash or not, but I do recall that
it
> was erotica and it was based on the Joe Dawson character. Jim wasn't
> shocked or surprised by it... but most of the fans were
> shocked/surprised/pissed off at this person for giving him the fanzine,
> especially since many of the writers had not given their permission for
> such a 'presentation'. I'm sure some of the old-timers here will remember
> what I'm referring to.
It was mostly het with one slash story - Methos/Joe.
("Backstage Pass" was the name of the 'zine)(thankfully I missed
the submission deadline, so there's nothing by me in it <g>)
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:57:45 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
In a message dated 7/14/01 2:50:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lloschin@sprynet.com writes:
<< "Marina Bailey" <fdd-tmar@NETACTIVE.CO.ZA>
> >I can think of one HL actor who was totally thrown off guard by the
> >discovery of slash..and he wasn't any 18 year old kid.
>
> Who? Who?? (You can tell me - it won't affect my slashy-fan-ness one
bit.)
No big secret here that Valentine Pelka was quite unhappy. He is a
very religious and conservative person.
And, of course, he'd never have been the wiser if some idiot "fan"
hadn't asked him about it during a Q&A. >>
Glad you brought this up. The fan in question brought it up because they were
notoriously anti-slash and wanted to bring it to the actor's attention. They
had appointed themselves his moral watchdog or something, and were probably
expecting a biscuit. I know there are other circumstances, but in every
instance I've ever heard of where a fan brought the existence of slash to the
attention of an actor, it was the same story; they were hoping to elicit the
same outrage at the stuff that they felt, and thought it would bring them
some 'brownie points' from the object of their affection.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:04:32 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Morality
In a message dated 7/14/01 4:41:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Dotiran@aol.com
writes:
<< Ashton7@aol.com writes:
> Personally, I don't consider myself judged by any sort of universal
"truth">
>>Then we better hope you are right :)<<
The only real point of difference here, Rottie, is reflected in your choice
of one single word: "We."
Simply put, my philosophy is "Please feel free to regard me as hopelessly
hellbound. It's not contageous. Now let's change the subject."
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:06:36 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
In a message dated 7/14/01 6:54:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za writes:
<< I remember someone talking about how David Gerrold (I think) was
disgusted by slash and persisted in holding up slashy pictures (or was
it reading from slashy zines, something like that) at conventions
despite pleas from fans that they didn't want it discussed, and that
there were children present. Somehow, I don't think he got much sympathy
for his 'cause' that way. >>
Ah, David Gerrold. All the charm and modesty of Harlan Ellison with one
quarter of the talent.
Memories.
Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:06:32 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: K/S,
sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Actually, it was brought up first by a member of the Chronciles audience who
was a slash fan.
I've no idea whether subsequent mentions were by fans or 'moral watchdogs'.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bizarro7@aol.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic
writers)
> In a message dated 7/14/01 2:50:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> lloschin@sprynet.com writes:
>
> << "Marina Bailey" <fdd-tmar@NETACTIVE.CO.ZA>
>
> > >I can think of one HL actor who was totally thrown off guard by the
> > >discovery of slash..and he wasn't any 18 year old kid.
> >
> > Who? Who?? (You can tell me - it won't affect my slashy-fan-ness one
> bit.)
>
> No big secret here that Valentine Pelka was quite unhappy. He is a
> very religious and conservative person.
>
> And, of course, he'd never have been the wiser if some idiot "fan"
> hadn't asked him about it during a Q&A. >>
>
> Glad you brought this up. The fan in question brought it up because they
were
> notoriously anti-slash and wanted to bring it to the actor's attention.
They
> had appointed themselves his moral watchdog or something, and were
probably
> expecting a biscuit. I know there are other circumstances, but in every
> instance I've ever heard of where a fan brought the existence of slash to
the
> attention of an actor, it was the same story; they were hoping to elicit
the
> same outrage at the stuff that they felt, and thought it would bring them
> some 'brownie points' from the object of their affection.
>
> Leah CWPack
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:45:08 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers
me before--
> >>Ok, since I'm SURE your belief is based on something
> more than having heard that phrase bandied about &
> liking its ring, could you provide us w/ a summary of
> the Fair Use doctrine in the copyright/trademark
> context (origins, extent, limitations, etc.) & apply
> that to fanfic, please? <<
Jo--
> You can find the entirety of the copyright law here:
> http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/ SNIP
> A good summary of Fair Use and how it applies to fan
> fiction is at:
> http://users.erols.com/tushnet/law/fanficarticle.html
> Marina provided another good summary of how Fair Use
> applies to fan fiction. It can be found at:
> http://www.geocities.com/cc_ssd/copyright.html
No, no, no. I asked YOU to discuss Fair Use as applied to fanfic.
Regurgitating 3 websites is not at all the same thing. I was hoping for
some original thought on the issue. Of course, original thought is HARD,
just like creating one's own fictional universe & populating it w/ original
characters is HARD. It's much easier to glom onto someone else's hard work
& creativity & just use that.
Just to get you started, here's the Fair Use provision from the govt. site
above--
>>>§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.>>>
The law states pretty baldly the very few circumstances that can equal Fair
Use--"criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." Which, exactly, of
those does fanfic fall under?
--Criticism?--nope
--Comment?--nope
--news reporting?--nope
--teaching?--nope
--scholarship?--nope
--research?--nope
Oops--out of options. But, I'm eager to hear YOUR views & interpretations
on this.
Jo--
> could
> you provide us with citations to relevant case law
> showing that fan fiction is excluded from the Fair Use
> clause?
Sorry, so far no fanfic writer has been stupid enough to force a case. Of
course, that could change at any time. The Internet is quite likely to
force franchise owners to be more zealous in protecting their rights.
> Could you also provide for us proof of
> economic damage caused by fan fiction?
Copyright & trademark rights are not predicated on economic damage. They
grant exclusive rights on distribution, regardless of money changing hands.
But, if even ONE fanfic reader decided she loves fanfic so much she prefers
it to the licensed HL products & so no longer buys the licensed HL novels,
tapes, etc. or goes to see the licensed movie (such as, say, because RR is a
bit taller in fanfic than in the post-season 5 licensed offerings), then
you've got economic damage to the franchise owner.
Gina--
>>>And I would disagree with Nina that DM is necessarily utterly and
strictly
moral--or at least that he did not believe in a certain degree of moral
relativism. (In a desperate attempt to keep this at least marginally on
topic.) Yes, he had his own rather strict moral code--though he seemed to
violate it fairly often. He was strict on some things, such as honor and
responsibility for one's actions, and he was often a lot stricter with
*himself* than he was with others. Sometimes he was inconsistent. Sometimes
he realized he was wrong. But as much as he tried to convince various
people like Annie Devlin, Amanda, Richie, Methos, et al. to see the world
his way, neither did he judge them as being "less moral" than he. Frankly,
the whole Highlander world seemed often to be about those shades of gray
SNIP>>>
DM changed his mind, looked at different aspects, etc. but he ALWAYS made
moral judgments & acted on them. Sure, he was sometimes wrong, even in his
own later view; the times changed & so did he. As to Methos, DM's decision
in the end to "forgive" him his Horsemen days was as much grounded in
morality as his early shock & outrage were. DM never accepted Amanda's
behavior as morally sound--not in hundreds of years. There's nothing in
DM's character or the HL universe in general promoting the "it's fun &
you're mean" or "what IS morality, really?" view that fanfic supporters have
been touting here lately.
Marina (about what Wendy wrote)--
> Wendy wrote: (Not a 100% believer in the concept of "if you don't like it,
don't look".)
>Could you explain that a bit more? Cause I don't think I get it.
I'm sure Wendy will respond for herself, but the problem I have w/ the "if
you don't like it, don't look" excuse is that the franchise owners, actors,
etc. don't HAVE that option. Even if they never look at fanfic/slash
(again), they still know it's out there, & they are entitled to believe it
undermines their ownership rights or careers.
John--
>>>Making the assumption that there aren't any guests attending the Reunion
Con
who will be mortally offended by the LACK of slash questions, then who cares
about the people who would want to ask slash questions knowing that some
guests WILL be offended and who now can't?>>>
I don't WANT slash questions asked at cons--ick. But, Lynn said--"Yes, we
have several common-sense limitations that we hope will make the experience
better for everyone." Now, that's obviously not the case, since
pro-slash-askers will NOT have a better experience it this rule restricts
them. Do I care about them? No, but Lynn goofed, & it's my job to watch
her. (She would be so disappointed if I didn't.)
Also, I find it hypocritical to sweep fanfic/slash under the rug at cons,
because it bothers the GOH so very much, if (& it seems to, judging from
comments here) that makes the fans in favor of it feel better about it all.
I just don't think doing something surreptitiously makes it right. And
doing something "surreptitiously" ON THE INTERNET is just nuts.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:55:56 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Lynn--
> No big secret here that Valentine Pelka was quite unhappy. He is a
> very religious and conservative person.
Um--why do you assume that's relevant to his reaction to slash? As opposed
to professional concerns, or others things totally?
Lynn--
>And, of course, he'd never have been the wiser if some idiot "fan"
>hadn't asked him about it during a Q&A.
Yet, whatever it is about slash that bothers him would still exist, even if
he had remained ignorant. If my hubby's cheating on me--I need to know,
though being told wouldn't be pleasant for anyone & all sorts of problems
might ensue. I'd hope not to be told publicly, but I'd hope to be told.
Leah (about the above)--
> Glad you brought this up. The fan in question brought it up because they
were
> notoriously anti-slash and wanted to bring it to the actor's attention.
Jette (ditto)--
>Definately NOT in this case - she was a slash fan who wanted
> some kind of "confirmation".
John (ditto)--
>Actually, it was brought up first by a member of the Chronciles audience
who
>was a slash fan.
Interesting disagreement....
Annie & then Marina--
> he just wanted it
>clear that if the fans thought about it that way, it was in *their* minds
and
>not what was intended to be portrayed *on the screen*. I think that most
fans
>"get" that concept, even the ones who love slash the most.
>Exactly! That's it! Slash fans *know* that slash is in the eye of
>the beholder.
Really? Because that's not what I've gathered from previous slash
"discussions." Those in favor of it always tended to force the view that it
was _there_ on screen (always trotting out the same few scenes) for anyone
not too stupid &/or homophobic to see it. So, that's not the case? Slash
writers are making it all up?
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 14 Jul 2001 (#2001-198)
************************************************