Fandom

[poliphilo]

Fandom- I don't get it.

Why would you want to mess with someone else's characters when you can create your own?

Does J.K. Rowling take pleasure in badly written stories about her characters having sex?  I doubt it.  Why- If you admire and enjoy her work - would you want to disrespect her so? 

Isn't "fan" a bit of a misnomer?

But lets move from the general to the specific. An artist just got banned by LJ because of an image she posted of Harry and Snape.

Only the banning seems ineffective because she's bounced back and the image is viewable. (I'm not giving links. I don't want to give her any more publicity than she's getting already).

I clicked. I was expecting an image of them kissing. Boy, was I in for a surprise.

The characters were clearly modelled on Daniel Radcliffe and Alan Rickman. Isn't this defamation of character or libel of something?

Even more to the point:  British comedian Chris Langham is about to go to prison for downloading images which (I assume ) are comparable to this. 

So- forget morality- LJ needs to guard itself against prosecution.

But I don't want to forget morality. You take characters from a beloved children's book and you produce an image of them that any paedophile would be proud to own (you can quibble over whether Harry looks underage or not if you want to be legalistic and miss the point) and  I can't think of any grounds on which I'd be prepared  to defend you.

A lot of fans are up in arms and banging on about censorship.  I just watched a video of a girl give a little self-righteous speech then attempt to burn her LJ shirt with a blow torch .  Fine. Off you trot to some less scrupulous site and good luck to you!  As it happens, I'm perfectly happy to see you go.

Comments

[bodhibird.livejournal.com]

I can say this as someone who's been involved in fandom: The thing is that fans have no idea what they look like to outsiders.

I know you. I know from this journal that you're intelligent, creative, tolerant of human foibles, shrewd about human stupidity and malice. You're one of the very few people on LJ that I know to be wiser and more mature than myself (considering that a vast majority of LJ users are young enough to be my offspring). Yet you can make a post like this, and my fannish side is amazed that someone as perceptive is you doesn't "get it". My non-fannish side, however, which is, thank goodness, in the ascendant at the moment, wants to point fandom here and say, "Look. This is what you look like to an intelligent, sympathetic outsider. Do you get it now?"

Writing fanfic has been a great writing workshop for me. But my dirty secret, so to speak, is that I don't write fanfic for the shows for which I have the greatest respect. Weak source material tends to inspire more fanfic, in the fannish mentality.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this reply.

I only really encountered fandom after signing up with LJ. It baffles me- And I'm surprised- even a little shocked- at the intensity of feeling within the community. What it reminds me of is the way things were within the pagan community during the 90s- at the height of the witch-hunting craze- the difference being that paganism stands for something rather more important than the right to create porny versions of someone else's fictional universe.

I understand what you say about writing practice. And I like it that you never wrote about the shows you really respect. It sort of confirms my feeling that fandom isn't really fandom at all. If you love an artist's work you don't mess with it.

[momof2girls.livejournal.com]

I must have missed the hoo-hah, but I agree with your point. Why use someone else's carefully crafted characters to satisfy your own prurient sexual urges? Not to mention, J.K. Rowling has copyright over these characters, and could easily sue.

It would be one thing to create respectful, well-thought-out stories to continue a series you enjoy and admire for your own enjoyment, but when you use the characters for publicity and then do a flounce, you lose all credibility.

Go to some other, less scrupulous site, indeed!

[bodhibird.livejournal.com]

I think fandom was different once--less interested in itself and more in the source material. I've always identified myself as a Star Trek fan, and in the 1970s and '80s people wrote ST fanfiction, made costumes, and held conventions because it was the only way to keep ST alive. It meant something to them, it inspired them, and it had been cut down after only three seasons. That might be hard to remember, forty years and four other shows later. Even now, while people in HP fandom are producing art that to most people looks like a good argument for paedophilia, people who like to dress up as Klingons are doing charity fundraising. I don't mind identifying those folks as my people, you know?

I might also add that Harry Potter fandom is widely considered to be particularly crazy even by other fans.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Amen.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I don't have any problem with trekkers. I can fully understand wanting to live inside that infinitely extendable universe. I'm a fan myself- and I've got a poem somewhere to prove it....

This was the daddy and mommy of all fandoms, wasn't it? And the relationship between the creators and the fans has always been respectful and creative. I've got a friend who is a huge fan- and also the author of an official Star Trek novel.

The Dr Who fandom has the same family ethos to it. The people who are creating the show now were all once childhood fans.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I thought you'd approve. :)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes. It's parasitical, tasteless and crass.

I'd mind less (though I'd still mind a bit) if these weren't children's books.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I still remembering vividly selling art at an anime convention where vendors had sold NC-17 graphic novel pornograph involving rape (including tears and blood) of a boy who looked to be in six or seven by an older man... to teenage girls not yet seniors in high school.

Underage girls. Buying porn. Of underage boys.

!!!


The following year, the comcon clamped down on those vendors. It must have occurred to them that, however this activity is considered in Japan, in America selling pedophilia porn to minors can get you in serious trouble. :,

Part 1: Fandom & laws

[elf]

I am a fan. I have been active in fandom for more than 20 years, and lurking at the edges for more than that. I'm not a "big name fan," and I can't speak for all of fandom, but I can offer my answers.

Why would you want to mess with someone else's characters when you can create your own?

Why do kids play with Barbies when they can make their own dolls? Why do you drive a car someone else made, on roads someone else made, when you could be hiking on trails of your own? Why do you watch movies and TV shows--and presumably, talk about them--when you could be making your own? Why do gamers play D&D instead of the game their friends created?

Okay, maybe you don't have the skills to do all those things, and fanfic authors *do* have the ability to write. (Um. The better ones, anyway.) But even directors watch other people's movies. And talk about how they'd've done it differently, or how they liked some part, or how the sets over here could've been different and that would've changed the whole scene.

Fanfiction is exploration of and commentary on the stories. Like essays in a different format.

About the image:
Snape and Harry were not "modeled on Rikhman and Radcliffe." Have you read the books? Do you know how closely R&R resemble the book's descriptions of Snape and Harry? (Snape is, I believe, thinner than Rickman. Which picture-Snape was.)

I've researched the relevant laws. (1) This picture doesn't qualify as "child pornography," because that would require a real human child. The fictional character "Harry Potter" is not a person, has no civil or legal rights, and can be killed, tortured, raped, or whatever. (2) In order to involve the laws on "Obscene depictions of minors being abused," the picture would (a) need to depict a child (as you noted, debatable), (2a) be "obscene" by the Miller test (which requires judging it by "community standards"--which DOES NOT mean "these three members of the community found it offensive"... and LJ has repeatedly refused to state which community's standards they'll be using), or (2b) depict graphically (which means "visible genitals," which the pic has) a certain list of sexual or tortuous activities (which it does not).

Legally, LJ had no reason to remove this pic.

Aside from that, LJ's stated policy on Child Pornography--which should be the strictest of their rules--state that f, in Abuse Team member's discretion, there is reasonable suspicion that the poster did not know that the image qualifies as child pornography, suspend the user until the user agrees to remove the images, rather than terminate the journal. Note that all of fandom has been demanding STANDARDS for months--we DO NOT KNOW which things LJ finds too offensive to host.

Part 2: Morality and Censorship

[elf]

I don't tell you how to get off. I don't tell you whether it's okay to fantasize that you're Marc Antony with Cleopatra or reenacting the rape of the Sabines or pretending to be Judah and Tamar. I don't tell you you can't (or shouldn't) fantasize about being the evil landlord seducing the farmer's daughter, or the Man With No Name who's enthralled the town whore, or the lead singer of a boy-band with one of his groupies.

FANTASIES don't hurt anyone. We know damn well what the difference is between fantasy and reality--and that's part of why a lot of slashfic doesn't appeal to many people; the twists involved in creating an erotic fantasy mean that even if it's in-character and very plausible (i.e. a lot of House/Wilson stories), it just leaves some people cold.

So if, in my mind, I want to pretend to be one or the other side of "the nasty potions master seduces the young hero" or vice versa... none of your business. If I want to share that fantasy with other people who like it, again, it's not doing any damage to you, them, Snape or Harry. (Especially not to Snape or Harry, who don't even breathe.)
Don't like an erotic look at Harry Potter's universe? Don't read 'em. They tend to be labeled. Don't think there should be an erotic look at the Potterverse? Why not? By the end of the books, he's 17... I know what *I* was doing, sexually, at 17, and it wasn't "a single kiss with a friend I'd known for five years." Why would you think the Potterverse is any more celibate than this one?

Censorship:
I don't think anti-abortion-rights speeches are moral; I think they cause great harm to women and families. I don't think "all unbelievers are going to hell" rants are moral--and I *know* those have caused damage. But I'm not trying to get them removed from the web, because I believe in people's rights to have, and share, their opinions... even when I find those opinions offensive, disgusting, or delusional.

I'll be trotting off to a site that doesn't think "if I find it squicky and offensive, it must be illegal. Or at least immoral. Don't want any immoral stuff on our site."

Umm... why did you friend me, if you feel this way? Is my slash affiliation that well-hidden? (These days, I suppose it might be; my interest list has been stripped since the first strikethrough.)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Extraordinary.

It's like fandom lives in a fool's paradise.

[elf]

Age of consent in Japan is 13. And fictional characters have no age, regardless of what they look like.

In America, any teenager can walk into Borders and buy a copy of Anne Rice's "Beauty" series (originally written under the pseudonym "A. N. Roquelaure), which are BDSM sexual fantasies in graphic detail. Fanny Hill is, of course, widely available and in the public domain.

It is endlessly bizarre that we have such drastically different standards for textual and visual depictions of the same thing--I don't know if it's because the lawmakers assume reading is automatically "less crass" than looking at pictures, or what.

Our actual laws on "obscene depictions of abuse of minors" might surprise you--it's likely that those graphic novels only crossed the line in one or two pages, and if they whited out a few panels, there would be no violation at all. It's possible that there was *no* legal violation at all, and the content just squicked the convention management.

You are, of course, welcome to dislike what other people enjoy reading, writing or looking at. But that doesn't make it illegal, or "wrong." The laws are written broadly to allow for a wide variety of tastes.

[kishenehn.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you, Tony.

I took a look at the drawing in question, too, and I thought it was creepy and sad and not particularly artistic ... but if fandom wants to obsess about stuff like that, I guess it's up to them.

In today's political and social climate, though, it's naïve and irresponsible of them to self-righteously expect other individuals or entities to enable the distribution of such material. The simple fact is that one of the people portrayed is underage in some jurisdictions, and no matter how you parse the law and the definition of "art," there are overzealous law enforcement types in the US and elsewhere who would eagerly and happily prosecute you for possessing or distributing such stuff. I don't agree with that puritanical attitude, but that's the way some societies are right now ... and it would be both foolish and irresponsible for LJ to ignore that reality. Enabling the distribution of such material exposes LJ to risk, and it exposes its members to risk.

Depending on the jurisdiction in which they live, individual members of the fandom should keep that in mind, as well, for their own protection. And more than anything else, they should stop their self-righteous whining -- it's not justifiable in this case, and it's not making them any friends at all.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I sat for a while with those teenagers and talked with them; they showed me their purchase and I asked them, "Why do you like it?"

The one with the book said, "Well, it's always the girl who gets raped. It's nice to see guys finally get theirs." The others sitting with her nodded (and in one case, cheered).


I think anything that promotes this kind of attitude is "wrong." Whether or not it should be illegal is one thing; but as an adult human being, I feel it's my duty to disapprove of such attitudes. People travel in packs; the more people who espouse an opinion, no matter how insane, the more safe people feel espousing it. I don't want their to be safe places for people to feel righteous about little boys getting raped to make up for previous oppressions of women.

You could always think such things. What confuses me is when it became okay to say them out loud without shame.

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I don't remember why I friended you. I guess you'd written something I liked. Or maybe you friended me first. I don't remember which way round it was.

I don't hate Fandom. I don't understand it. But I don't hate it. In fact I'm interested in it and would be glad to know more. It's a cultural phenomenon and cultural phenomena interest me.

I've no problem with people trading sexual fantasies- but I think if I were hosting a site and found people were trading fantasies on it that were arguably illegal I'd have no problem telling them to go do it someplace else.

I can see why Fandom is cheesed off with LJ for not giving it better warning. But anyone who wasn't living in the cloud-cuckoo-land of Potter Fandom wouldn't have needed a warning. They would have known in advance that that image was sailing very close to the wind.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

I don't want their to be safe places for people to feel righteous about little boys getting raped to make up for previous oppressions of women.

Well said. Using past injustices to justify current ones is (to use one man's terminology) parasitical, tasteless, and crass.

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Bear in mind that there's more to fandom (and fandom writing) than slash. :)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you say.

I'm fairly certain this image would be illegal under British law. I guess a lot depends on the skill of the lawyers involved, but anyone who allowed it onto their hard drive would be taking a risk. People have been put on the sex offenders register and even imprisoned for creating or downloading similar stuff.

[elf]

Which might be a reason to restrict such content from minors, who may use graphic content (of any kind) to justify their immature rages, prejudices, and other attitudes that they should be moving through rather than reinforcing.

But none of this drama has included any notion of "restrict these journals to adults only." None of the discussion has mentioned "this might have negative effects on minors, and therefore we need good controls to keep them away from this stuff." This has not been treated like alcohol or driving--something adults are free to do, but minors aren't, or are heavily restricted at, because they are too immature to be trusted with the full consequences.

I know plenty of adult women who read that kind of graphic novel. None of them are reading it "to see the guys finally get theirs."

Part of the complexity of these laws is that every situation is *required* to be judged individually. It's *not* part of these laws to say, "there's this graphic rape comic book, and this piece of art is a similar style, catering to a similar audience, so it should be banned too."

Note that neither of the suspension pics dealt with rape, nor even with "graphic sexuality" as defined by law. (Masturbation is not "sex" according to the legal definitions. Don't ask me why.) So they're saying these pics were offensive by community standards (but *repeatedly* refuse to tell us which community's standards they're using--certainly it's not the one where their servers are hosted, in downtown S.F.), AND have no serious artistic merit.

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I do. Indeed I do. :)

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

[elf]

They would have known in advance that that image was sailing very close to the wind.

There's a *big* difference between "sailing close" and "crashing into." We've been asking--begging--for MONTHS, to know what the standards are. What's acceptable, what's borderline, and what's over the line. LJ's attitude has been "if you can't tell, then you must be over the line."

Not their statements. Their actual statements have been vague to the point of useless. When pressured, they talk about depictions of 7-year-olds being raped as unacceptable content. They refused to answer questions about late-teenage graphic content.

Stupid fandom, for believing they'd follow their own stated violation procedures and warn people that content was unacceptable before suspending accounts.

Know the picture is iffy? Yes, we could go there. It would offend many people, and it's got sex in it, and that's always iffy in any U.S. setting. However, we don't think it's illegal. (And I could rattle on for many paragraphs about why, but that's not exactly relevant.)

But the policies stated indicate that borderline TOS violations will be given a chance to remove the offending content. This wasn't.

------------
...if I were hosting a site and found people were trading fantasies on it that were arguably illegal I'd have no problem telling them to go do it someplace else...

And we've told them that if that's what they want, all they have to do is SAY SO. Tell us this is not a fandom-friendly site, and we'll migrate.

Which we're doing, because while some of us were either dense or hopeful enough to think that their past policies were still in place, we're now aware that they're actively judging things according to the Miller test, without regard to legal precedent and without being willing to explain their standards.

(I'm willing to rattle on about fandom indefinitely. More ramblings always available at metafandom, which currently is overwhelmed by this drama, but the archives touch on all sorts of subjects.)

[jourdannex.livejournal.com]

I don't get it either. I also don't ever *want* to get it despite all attempts for people to want us all to understand why we should.

I will go on record saying I am very against people showing even "fantasies" of any sexual/violent acts with people who are not minors but made to look like minors. In a word, creepy. They can defend themselves until they are blue in the face but I don't want any part of hearing about it. Call me fandom intolerant and thankful.

[elf]

How do you know one of the people in the pic is underage? There's no age listed on the pic. Who says this isn't a fantasy Harry has ten years after the end of the book? Fictional characters don't have age.

We don't expect LJ to go to court for us, and support the right to share erotica that has to prove itself "not criminal." However, we DO (or did; we got over it) expect them to STATE THEIR POLICIES.

Over and over, we asked *specifically* about HP fanfic & fanart... and every time, they replied vaguely about how rape scenes with 12-year-olds (or 7-year-olds!) were obviously not going to be permitted.

These comments led us to to believe that if a case of a maybe-18, maybe-not erotic picture came to their attention, the poster would be warned "that's not permissible content; remove it or be suspended." Not "instant suspension of this and all other journals with no explanation of our reasoning."

Don't worry--we're going. It'll take us a while, 'cos we've built a HUGE community here at LJ, and the final location is still under debate. But we're all very aware that LJ doesn't want us, and there will be arbitrary bannings at whim, and we need to find a host that is willing to state directly which community's standards they'll be using for their Miller test judgements, and their standards for artistic value.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Like you, I'm not too interested in splitting hairs.

This is an inappropriate image of well-loved characters from a children's book. It exists to be wanked over.

And it makes me angry.