MetaMetaMeta on the TableTableTable

Fan Fiction’s Predictive Value For Nielsen Ratings

2009-09-27T02:25:19Z

I found the following paper interesting and thought I would share it. It discusses the prediction value of fanfiction fpr Nielsen Ratings. Written by Laura Hale.

-------------

On January 15, 2009, CSI had one of its highest rated episodes all season. On that day, people published 26 new pieces of fan fiction, the most stories posted on the same day as an episode had aired. On September 25, 2008, CSI had it third lowest ratings day all season and people posted zero new stories on that date.

Fan fiction is a really popular outlet for fan expression of interest in television shows. The stories are creative, explore plot lines in the show and, according to many fans, help market a series in a positive way. Fans often argue that their activities mirror larger interest in a show, and that producers should pay more attention to them and cater to their fannish interests as the example provided seems to demonstrate. Fan Fiction’s Predictive Value for Nielsen Ratings tests this fan theory and answers the question: Does the volume of fan fiction published in the period around when an episode airs correlate to Nielsen Ratings?

To answer this question, fan fiction daily posting stats were gathered for the one week period around television shows where fan fiction communities existed and Nielsen Ratings were available for that show. The fan fiction data was compiled from six archives: FanFiction.Net, fanfiktion.de, FanWorks.Org, FicWad, SkyHawke, and Freedom of Speech Fan Fiction. The Nielsen Ratings data included over 720 episodes representing thirty-nine shows. Once this data was compiled, it was analyzed using Pearson’s Correlation and linear regression.

The results confirmed what many fans already suspected: Levels of fan activity, specifically in terms of the production of fan fiction, mirrors interest specific episodes of television. Fan fiction can be used to predict Nielsen Ratings. The predictive value is strengthened in several cases when it is broken down by network, genre or specific television show. The best networks for predicting Nielsen Ratings are CBS, The CW, Disney, Fox and USA. Comedy, crime comedy, crime drama, medical comedy and sports drama are the best genres for predicting Nielsen Ratings. The strongest correlations for television shows for predicting Nielsen Ratings are Burn Notice, CSI, Eli Stone, Friday Night Lights, Gossip Girl, Grey’s Anatomy, Hannah Montana, Heroes, iCarly, Law and Order: Criminal Intent, Life, Prison Break, Psych, and Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles.

This information is potentially valuable to parties with a vested interest in a television show’s performance. By analyzing content patterns around periods with high volumes of fan fiction and high Nielsen Ratings, comparing that to periods of low posting volume and lower Nielsen Ratings, producers can make changes to maintain high interest amongst fans. Non-American television networks and advertisers can better predict how their shows will perform. This method of analysis can help organizations save money as it is cheaper to monitor and track than other analytic tools.

A copy of "Fan Fiction’s Predictive Value for Nielsen Ratings" can be found at:
http://www.fanhistory.com/FanFicNielsen.pdf

The appendix can be found at:
http://www.fanhistory.com/FanFicNielsenAppendix.pdf

Writercon 2009, Minneapolis Panels

2009-08-05T21:06:22Z

I have posted write-ups of several panels held at last weekend's Writercon and thought I'd link to them here.

They are:

If You Build It They Will Come
Hurt/Comfort in Fan Fiction
The Role of Genre and Tropes in Writer Creativity and Reader Engagement
Podfic 101
Cage Match: Science vs. Magic

This is fandom?

2009-07-25T20:35:35Z

I took a look at Participate: The Revolution of Fan Culture (which made me wish that, as in most cases where "revolution" is used, people used the more appropriate "evolution.") About 16 minutes in, it discusses fanfic and references LJ. However it gives only a passing nod to the vast amount of participation in places such as FFN and LJ, to focus instead on fan films and the fans who have become part of the entertainment industry (all the interviews are with people who make a living or make money from fans). This odd skew was perhaps most apparent in one interview segment where Lucas is referenced as the fanboy who changed things by being a geek and making a geek film. I thought an even better argument for Lucas being a fan and a revolutionary was what Lucas did for the technical side of filmmaking, not to mention the financial side by demonstrating the incredible empire-building power of merchandising. What troubled me is how "Participate" skewed the definition of fan, and also suggested that the "revolution" in question was in fact the commercialization of fandom.

While I agree completely that to be a fan is to be a participant in some way, this focus on the migration of a few fans into the industry seems to be as much about fans as interviewing a well know artist about hobby painters. Sure, one's personal passions may have been the source of a professional pursuit, but to focus on the people who have taken a professional track is to ignore the vast hordes of people who lead completely different lives from their fan passions, and to the work that fans do as fans. The concerns of the professional and the concerns of the fan are different things.

This presentation of "fan culture" as a professional culture bothers me for two reasons. For one, and I could be wrong about this, it takes the view of sports fans and transplants it to entertainment fans. I suspect the idea that every sports fan deep in their hearts wishes that they could be the one on the field, pitching the perfect game or scoring the winning goal, might be true. And surely many entertainment fans would also like to be the one on the screen, or at least the one behind the scenes putting something on the screen. But I don't know that being a fan should automatically be equated with wanting to be a pro. For some people a hobby is just that, a break from one's normal life and not a frustrated desire to make a living from the hobby itself.

The second reason is, I think, an unsubtle desire for "legitimacy". And the easiest way to make anything legitimate (especially in the U.S. culture) is to make money from it. The interviews and footage for this documentary come largely from the NY ComicCon, and I think one could hardly have a better example of the commercialization of fandom (and the growing meaninglessness of the term "fan") than to feature it. People are paying attention to ComicCon these days because it's seen as a place where money can be made – not necessarily from sales but from marketing. Celebrities then follow the money and crowds follow the celebrities. Had this film focused on, say, Escapade instead I think it would clearly have been a substantially different film, and a much better exploration of fandom as a culture. Being a separate culture was discussed in the beginning in somewhat vague terms but it doesn't seem to have been the purpose of the film despite being in the title.

For example, the film later talks about how cheaper equipment and online distribution is allowing fans to create their own jobs in the industry. However this is a change hardly limited to fans. Lots of professions have found it easier and more profitable to use common technology and the Internet to make money – look at many bloggers. Were they previously journalism "fans"? Programmers have the same options, musicians have the same options, small business owners have the same option – what makes this fannish?

Strangely, it seems to me the film does inadvertently explain the lack of respect with which fans are held. If all fans are essentially failed professionals due to lack of talent, or effort, or luck, or whatever else is deemed to be important in becoming a pro, then they really are losers in a very literal sense. And I suppose this also provides a certain definition of fan, which is a person who is not simply a consumer but wishes to be an insider (but who, through sheer odds, is unlikely to succeed). There is next to no attention given to fan work that is inherently non-commercial, for example.

Machinima, one of the fanworks which has shown a particular likelihood of crossing to pro work, is briefly featured, which is what the creators of Red vs. Blue state when they are interviewed. Not interviewed? Any women. At all. There are some women seen in crowd shots and I believe a few included in the Trek improv group who appears (their segment is rather dark), but that's it. So I found it a little ironic that in post-credit clips one of the Penny Arcade creators comments "That's very insightful, maybe I should turn the camera around." The film creator? A woman. Her statement on the film includes the following:

"My hope is that it will highlight an aspect of fandom that is not always seen." Really? ComicCon and its vendors/celebrities are unseen? She interviews Joss Whedon for heaven's sake.

"It's about how creativity comes from passion and passion is what makes a fan. " So how about showing more of fan creativity instead of pro interviews?

"I want to communicate the fact that being a fan is about more than being a passive viewer, it's about participation, it's about creation. Creation of communities, of joy and of art."

So why not feature those communities? I have to suggest that if this was her purpose she has failed heartily at it. Something that I think succeeds much better? Counteragent's "Still Alive." While I would never call it a snapshot of fan culture as a whole (and I think that anyone who proposes to put something like that forward misunderstands the nature of fandoms), I think it does a fairly good job of encapsulating a very local one – and by doing that suggesting elements that may be common to many other fandoms large and small.

Thinky Thoughts on Age and Fandom

2009-06-01T01:51:10Z

Thoughts on young fans.

( It's a very strange experience for me now, realizing that I'm finally of a somewhat "legitimate" age to be actively involved in fandom. )

Tracing usage

2009-05-23T15:51:03Z

I've mentioned in my personal blog that I think 2009 is the year when fan fiction has become, if not a mainstream pastime, at least a term understood by many in the media and requiring less explanation in the press. What interests me though, is how this term is being re-interpreted by a wider audience to become, less about actual fan fiction, than about what the speaker sees as related issues. In some cases we may agree with them, in others, the usage seems a little nebulous.

For example, this blurb in the L.A. Times discusses trailer vids as part of the "fan fiction universe." While I personally feel trailer vids aren't nearly as similar to fanfic as, say, AU vids, or commentary vids that do interesting things with POV, I would agree with the title which slots creative fan work in visual form along with its written form. In a similar vein, Jon Stewart's use of the term to describe FOX news' creative reinterpretation of facts, grasps the spirit of fanfic (even though I doubt much political fanfic has actually tread that particular ground).

On the other hand, this post about the accurate imagineering of a car seems to be using the title to describe creative speculation. While this certainly describes some forms of fanfic, it's a bit of a stretch to apply it to car design specifically. More importantly, while fanfic is certainly speculative, this seems to put a certain emphasis on anticipating canon which seems to be very typically male to me – as if the purpose of fic is to guess (correctly) where canon will go and "winning" if one guesses right.

Whereas it seems to me that most fanfic I read seems to take a very different POV about canon, in exploring areas it's not expected to go, or reworking areas where it's been. Whether with characters or storylines, the fanfic focuses on reopening doors that have been closed off, or blazes new trails, sometimes ones where the creators were unable or unwilling to go.

All of which is to say, in what ways do we see the wider media grasping the elements of fan fiction in its more traditional sense, and where is it being broadened or applied in rather different ways?

Poll on Recs - Fun! Take! Also, Pimp my poll!

2009-04-19T06:55:31Z

I made a poll - in two parts, actually - on Recs.

Part I. Recs: Who/When/Why? is here at my IJ. It asks about how often you follow recs, like to see them, who and what they're good for, and so forth. Plus, ticky boxes!

Part II. Recs: What? How? is here at my IJ (the following post). It asks: "On a scale of 1 (NEVAH) to 5 (OMGYES) with 3=*shrug*, I like to see recs that .... " and then there are various extensions, such as "I like recs that:
... include some rating of how much you liked it (stars or such)
... quote some of the fic
... do not say it's OMG PERFECT if it isn't
and more!!!

I would *love* for a bunch more people to take it. So far, the 15+ answers are indicating some very solid trends regarding how much detail, of what kinds, a "good" rec should have (to be widely interesting). But there are some fascinating splits in opinion too, as well as a few surprises.

There are many reasons people like recs. Most say they like a lot of them - at least one or two every day - yet most fans admit they only "sometimes" go read or view the recced work.

Why is this? Are recs being presented in ways that could work better? Do they reach the right people? Mention the right things?

Please take the survey and help fill in the picture! Thank you so much. I will compile the results in a while, or if anyone else wants to do things with them, collaboration would be FTW! Both polls are public, and wide open for comments.

Poll on Recs - Fun! Take! Also, Pimp my poll!

2009-04-19T06:20:30Z

I made a poll - in two parts, actually - on Recs.

Part I: Who/When/Why? is here at my IJ.

Part II: What? is here at my IJ (the following post).

I would *love* for a bunch more people to take it! So far, the 15+ answers are indicating some very solid trends regarding how much detail, of what kinds, a "good" rec should have (to be widely interesting). But there are some fascinating splits in opinion too, as well as a few surprises.

There are many reasons people like recs. Most say they like a lot of them - at least one or two every day - yet most fans admit they only "sometimes" go read or view the recced work.

Why is this? Are recs being presented in ways that could work better? Do they reach the right people? Mention the right things?

Please take the survey and help fill in the picture! Thank you so much. I will compile the results in a while, or if anyone else wants to do things with them, collaboration would be FTW! Both polls are public, and wide open for comments.

Are you reading less?

2009-01-29T22:14:29Z

Having come across the Google Insights page today, I decided to try out some fandom related searches. The results suggested that there has been a steady decline in fan fic searches over the last four years.

Which fandoms produce good fanfic?

2008-12-07T19:21:19Z

I have a question which I hope someone out there can answer. A friend has been reading the Dresden books and enjoyed the SciFi series. She wanted to know if I could point her to any good fanfic. Unfortunately, I didn't watch the show (and haven't much enjoyed the books) so I've no idea if there is much of a fan base out there. Anyone have any pointers?

She also raised another interesting question which has made me go all thinky. She wanted to know what sorts of source materials I thought tended to give rise to a lot of good fanfic. Of course, the big problem with that question is how does one define "good fanfic"? Really, the answer seems to be that, if you are finding a lot of fanfic that you want to read, and it proves satisfying once you read it, then that fandom has a lot of "good" fanfic.

So, putting aside the fact that many of us are going to have different ideas of what "good" is, I am still intrigued by the question itself. So I thought I'd put it to a vote. What factors does a canon text have that you think contribute to a substantial body of good fanfic?

Take the Poll!

Acafen vs Squeefen, round 235

2008-10-23T06:07:45Z

The last few rounds of metafandom have focused on the aca-fen vs anti-aca perspectives on enjoying fic. And it's moving along in predictable patterns. (Not because they're inane or boring patterns--I find them fascinating every time--but because they've been done before, and there's only so many directions this can go.)

Phase 1: "I not acafan; I no like acafandom. Acafandom=mean."
Response: "Wy u no like acafandom? U dumm. Acafandom=fun."
Phase 2: "Stoopid ppl no like acafandom. They dumm."
Response: "Thx for dis post; ur rite, they dumm."

(Hopefully, by writing that in Kitteh, it's obvious that I'm exaggerating to make a point, and nobody actually called anyone else "stoopid" or "dumm.")

The anti-aca posts get a flurry of "yeah, I don't like acafandom either" replies--and a swarm of "what? why do you have a problem with acafandom? Lots of people love it! I LOVE IT! If you don't want to analyze fic & trends in fandom, don't play the acafandom game. Don't like? Don't read."

Okay, so far, so good.

Then aca-fen are inspired to write their own posts about Why They Love Acafandom. These pro-aca posts get a flurry of replies that say "YOU GO GIRL!!!" and some that say "I'm not really an acafan but I love the aca-activity." None (or not many) that say "no, I think acafandom is annoying and exclusionary and mean-spirited, at least what I've encountered of it." There are posts that say that--but not replies to the pro-aca posts. Because they know they're not welcome, and they'll get swarmed on.

Politely swarmed on, maybe. Gently offered counterpoints, from a dozen directions. With a polite but firm undertone of "if you don't like it, you can leave." Academic, literary analysis is praised; semi-academic friendly discussions are praised; non-aca discussions are dismissed as "just mindless squee" or worse.

And this is... a common reaction, to any attempt to discuss fandom from an other-than-academic perspective.

Slash is women having sex with with other women's brainz...
Fanfic is a religious exercise...
Fandom is a political/feminist act...
Slash makes people queer...
Incestfic promotes child abuse...
I just wanna watch the show & enjoy the pretty boys & think about them having sex...

Any non-academic relation to fandom is suspect, and prone to both getting direct argument and spawning a cluster of "how dare she say that!" meta posts.

I don't think this is a "problem" to be "fixed." But it's worth noting--that academic literary analysis and the not-quite-academic variations that are similar are welcome, and widely accepted and agreed with... and other forms of analysis are often critiqued or mocked. The oft-claimed "Fandom welcomes all ideas & perspectives" is a lie, except in the sense of "nobody will come to your house and beat you with sticks for saying something we think is stupid." But as far as "you will be able to connect with people of similar beliefs, and people who strongly disagree will just pretend they don't see you rather than replying to contradict you or making comments about you in their journals" (with varying degrees of directness)... no, that's not happening.

Acafan privilege:
1) I can expect to find discussions I enjoy, and feel welcome to participate in, in most online fandom venues.
2) I am free to insult venues that exclude me, and I can expect widespread agreement with the insults.
3) I will not be assumed to represent the beliefs of everyone who agrees with me on this one point.
4) I can expect not to be told that my fic is bad because my understanding of fandom is wrong.
5) I don't have to understand perspectives I don't agree with in order to have interesting discussions about fandom.
6) I can be bitchy at someone without it being assumed that all aca-fen are bitchy.

And so on.

For what it's worth, in the recent discussion, I haven't seen anyone be vicious or even mean, as I understand them. (Which is why I haven't quoted anyone; I don't want anyone thinking I'm pointing fingers at them.) Haven't seen overt rudness. Just an overall attitude of, "of COURSE aca-fandom is Good, and anything else is... maybe not good." And a lot of aca-fen and would-be-aca-fen patting each other on the back, agreeing with each other... while the non- or anti-aca fen are silent.

I don't know where I fall on the aca-scale. I've not got a degree; that puts me at "non-aca." I generally love aca-discussion, but my perspectives on some aspects of fandom are so far from the norm (inasmuch as fandom has a "norm") that they often either fall flat or draw outrage. This has given me plenty of opportunity to watch for trends, to notice patterns... and the pattern I notice is aca-fandom, as a meme (not an organization, not a bloc, not a cohesive group of people), is tolerant of non-competing memes (writing technique discussion, art materials discussion, copyright issues) and less tolerant of, sometimes contemptuous of, incompatible memes.

Rowling wins Lexicon case--but only barely

2008-09-08T21:27:44Z

Quick note on break from work.

Final Decision

(Can I say how much I despise JBig compression? Of course I can. Will anyone reading this have any idea what I'm talking about? Of course not.)

It was indeed ruled infringing. However, "a reference guide based on existing books" was not; just this case. At a quick overview, he seems to have quoted a hair too much, and not have arranged things in quite a unique enough way. In LJ's Fandom_Lawyers, Heidi8 points out that "they only awarded damages of $750 - the minimum allowed per statute - for each of the nine books."

(Sometime soon, I'll have a searchable version of the PDF available if anyone would like that.)

Issuing an injunction in this case both benefits and harms the public interest. While the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled. As the Supreme Court suggested in Campbell, "[b]ecause the fair use enquiry often requires close questions of judgment as to the extent of permissible borrowing" in cases involving transformative uses, granting an injunction does not always serve the goals of copyright law, when the secondary use, though edifying in some way, has been found to surpass the bounds of fair use. Campbell. 510 U.S. at 578 n.10. On the other hand, to serve the public interest, copyright law must "prevent[] the misappropriation of the skills, creative energies, and resources which are invested in the protected work." Apple Computer. 714 F.2d at 1255. Ultimately, because the Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide, a permanent injunction must issue to prevent the possible proliferation of
works that do the same and thus deplete the incentive for original authors to create new works.

----------
In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiffs seek statutory damages in this case. ... Since the Lexicon has not been published and thus Plaintiffs have suffered no harm beyond the fact of infringement, the Court awards Plaintiffs the minimum award under the statute for each work with respect to which Plaintiffs have established infringement. Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages of $750.00 for each of the seven Harry Potter novels and each of the two companion books, for a total of $6,750.00.

What is RPF anyway?

2008-08-29T03:56:02Z

Someone on my flist posted about a newfound enjoyment of specific kinds of SPN RPS, and asked about other people's changing attitudes towards the genre. I was going to answer but figured this would get long so I decided to write a post instead.

I think everyone agrees that RPF/RPS is a form of fanfic, though why this agreement exists seems less clear. I would guess that it's because (1) It's usually written by fans, who are often writing other kinds of fanfic (2) It's non-commercial (in many respects) and (3) It follows various fanfic conventions that we see in FPF whether that's format, archiving, tropes, and so on. So it kind of looks and quacks and waddles similarly even if many circles consider it an uglier form of duckling.

But is it really? Take the survey!

Fanworks-relevant copyright case: Kelly v. Arriba Soft

2008-08-16T15:54:25Z

I've been thinking about the case of Kelly v Arriba Soft. Short synposis: Arriba Soft Corporation, later ditto.com, had an image search engine with thumbnails. Leslie Kelly insisted that their use of his images constituted copyright infringement--these are entire images, resized to thumbnails, offered without permission, for commercial purposes. The courts disagreed; they ruled that thumbnail images are fair use. (There was also an issue of inline linking, "click the thumbnail to see the full image." That part was less resolved--but less relevant to fandom; we don't have a "click on fanfic to open the original book or movie" option.)

PDF of final ruling available at eff.org: 20030707_9th_revised_ruling.pdf; opinion filed February 6, 2002; withdrawn July 7, 2003; re-filed July 7, 2003.

The ruling mentions: "Although Arriba made exact replications of Kelly’s images, the thumbnails were much smaller, lower-resolution images that served an entirely different function than Kelly’s original images." I think of fanfic as working with the textual equivalent of "thumnails" of the original: short snippets that let you identify characters, places, timelines--but with a different purpose from the original. And while, unlike search engines, it's hard to claim that fanfic has a great public benefit, it is easy to claim that it's a creative art--and unlike search engines, it's noncommercial. This may balance out the original first-factor aspect of the ruling.

Purpose & Character of use: Transformative: "This first factor weighs in favor of Arriba's due to the public benefit of the search engine and the minimal loss of integrity to Kelly’s images".

Nature of copyrighted work: "This factor weighs only slightly in favor of Kelly". (They're definitely his creative work being used by other people. However, they're already online, the nature of which involves some kinds of copying and data transfer.)

Amount and substantiality of portion used: "Copying an entire work militates against a finding of fair use ... If the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use, then this factor will not weigh against him or her ... This factor neither weighs for nor against either party ... It was necessary for Arriba to copy the entire image to allow users to recognize the image and decide whether to pursue more information."

Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: "Arriba’s use of Kelly’s images in its thumbnails does not harm the market for Kelly’s images or the value of his images".

Final analysis: "Having considered the four fair use factors and found that two weigh in favor of Arriba, one is neutral, and one weighs slightly in favor of Kelly, we conclude that Arriba’s use of Kelly’s images as thumbnails in its search engine is a fair use."

I am not a lawyer. I am not a law student or paralegal. This is not legal advice. Rather, this is a way to think about the "copying" involved in fanfic and other fanworks: the use of elements created by someone else, edited and arranged for different purposes and a different audience. A work which aguably enhances the market value of the original (and I only say "arguably" because I don't know of any hard statistics, although we seem to all be aware that more fans=more money for original and more fanstuff=more fans).

This, much more than the Acuff-Rose case, may be the legal ruling most relevant to fanworks creators.

(crossposted at my journal & metametameta.)

Thursday prompts for Meta Friday

2008-08-15T04:35:36Z

We will all kindly ignore how many of these I've skipped. The lack of Thursday prompts has been an illusion; you just didn't see any you liked. Those were not the prompts you were looking for; scroll along.

Today's topic is Corporate Greed. (Wanna guess what inspired that?)

Canon Prompts: Do the characters you love work for a corporation? Against one? How do companies or other organizations affect your canon--and how does the desire for money affect your OTP (whether or not either one of them has any desire for money)? Is poverty an issue in your fandom? Could Kirk & Spock retire from Starfleet and sell the movie rights to their adventures, and if so, would Starfleet be able to block the release of the movies as "a danger to Federation security?" Could Sam & Dean cut a deal with the makers of Ghost Hunters and get funding for their demon-hunting--and if they did, what kinds of results would the corporate bosses insist on? There are a number of "cop" fandoms; does corporate manipulation, rather than political biases, ever determine what kind of cases they're sent on? Have you ever read or written fic where Microsoft (or your world's equivalent thereof) decides your favorite character(s) is/are the hottest new thing on the market, and tries to buy all the rights to their public appearances? How different would Mystery Men have been without the corporate sponsorship--and why don't more superheros, especially the really poor ones, seek it out (or do they have to fight off offers)? After Miles left the Dendarii, they've got a non-Barrayaran admiral; will they act more like a "normal" merc company now?

There's room here for some great Smallville fic or meta, I'm sure, but I don't know Smallville. Someone come up with an appropriate prompt or two involving Luthor Corporation and Clark.

Fandom Prompts: Do you go to conventions? Do you think someone should make a profit from them? Has your fandom gotten too corporatized recently? Does lack of corporate sponsorship (including releasing series on DVD, licensing new materials & accessories) make a fandon languish? What are some of the issues involved with licensing--when does it change from "promote the fandom and make a tidy profit" to "strip all the money possible from anyone who likes the fandom?" Does it make a difference to you, if the author/artist/creator profits, or a corporation who owns their rights profits? Have you seen fandoms suffer from corporate greed? Have you seen fandoms that were helped by it?

Meta Prompts: What do you think of the increasing corporate ownership of our common myths, legends, and lore? How about ads on the internet--they pay for a lot of our spaces, but are occasionally used to censor content--how should that be dealt with? Is it possible to set up an ad-supported adult-content-welcome site that's not overrun with sleazy porn ads? Do the corporations that control/own the spaces we post, have any rights over the content? Do some fandoms thrive in some settings because of/in spite of the sponsorship, but not others? How are the social issues fandom addresses--feminism, anti-racism activity, freedom of speech--affected by money concerns? Is it okay if some corporation you're barely aware of is making a profit from your fic, rants, and meta? Is it more or less okay if they're more actively involved? What do you see as the future of fandom in relation to corporations that own (and intend to make a lot of money from) the intellectual properties that we love?

Severus/Remus in canon

2008-08-04T17:23:46Z

Apologies if you've already read this, but I blame slashpine, who suggested I posted here. 3000 words or so of meta about moments in canon where a relationship between Severus and Remus looks like a real possibility.

I had a feeling before I started looking through the books that the biggest stumbling block to any suggestions of a Severus/Remus relationship would be Tonks, and the whole Remus/Tonks thing. Apart from Lucius/Severus, of course, which snapelike was so convinced was my subject… This really pissed me off, because (unlike Lucius/Severus) the whole Tonks storyline always struck me as crap. But as it turns out, that’s not true. Actually, re-reading it makes me wonder even more why JKR thought it was a good idea. If you want to be put off heterosexual marriage, take a look at that one. IT’s damn near impossible to find a single moment when Remus looks even moderately content with Tonks, let alone deliriously happy. He’s thrilled over Teddy, but that’s his child, not his wife.

Anyway, I’m going to stop ranting about Tonks (who would have made a lovely gay character and should have ended up with Ginny, thus pleasing all the haters of Harry/Ginny, or even with Kingsley as I can’t help feeling anyone of either sex would probably sleep with him) and get to the crucial point for Snupineers. Which is that Remus only accepts Tonks at all – and even then somewhat reluctantly – AFTER he’s found out that Severus killed Dumbledore. And his reaction to that news is actually possibly one of the strongest arguments supporting a previous Sev/Remus relationship.

“Snape was a highly accomplished Occlumens,” said Lupin, his voice uncharacteristically harsh. “We always knew that.” (HBP, 574, UK Hardback)

Now, his voice is described as “uncharacteristically harsh”. Why? Given the reputed antipathy between the Marauders en masse and Severus, why would this particular betrayal seem so terrible? Especially considering this from a man who thought one of his best mates – Sirius – killed both of his other best mates – James and Peter; and has had to face recently the realisation that Peter was in fact the traitor. He faced Peter calmly in the Shrieking Shack: why should Severus’s behaviour upset him so much?

Obviously, if he’s been sleeping with him, the idea that Sev’s been betraying the Order is going to have a personal resonance. And in fact, given this background – the man he loves having betrayed him so massively – his relationship with Tonks (yes, I’m back on that again) makes a little more sense. Why not agree to marry someone you’re SURE loves you? From a point where Remus has lost his mentor, Dumbledore – the only person prepared to give him a school place and later a teaching job – and his lover, Severus, simultaneously, he probably isn’t feeling too great (understatement of the century!). Tonks is not only persistent, she’s clearly on the side of the Order AND she is supported by the Weasleys.

“I’ve said all along you’re taking a ridiculous line on this, Remus,” said Mrs. Weasley…
“This is… not the moment to discuss it,” said Lupin, avoiding everybody’s eyes as he looked around distractedly. “Dumbledore is dead…” (582 HBP)

Remus’s comment can easily be argued to be a sub-textual suggestion of a previous relationship with Severus (look, I’m an academic, these words come with the territory), and in fact make more sense than any other reading. The “Dumbledore is dead” thing brings the whole situation of Severus back to the forefront of everyone’s minds.

But – he does end up with Tonks. And given the pressure he’s got from the majority of people to settle down with her, especially if he’s hiding a previous relationship with the Arch Enemy Snape, and particularly because the Weasleys are probably the closest friends he now has (no James, Sirius, Peter, Dumbledore, Severus…), it’s not surprising he gives in. His life is in total crisis anyway – hanging on to the few people he has left makes sense.

Okay, so having started at completely the wrong end – the supposed ‘finish’ of a relationship that I haven’t shown actually exists in the first place – I’m going to go back and try and build a case that there was ever a relationship TO finish. And, I’ve got to admit it, the evidence is somewhat on the slim side. We’re not talking hints of Hermione/Ron proportions, for example. But on the other hand, as the books are written from Harry’s p.o.v., and therefore all we get of Severus in particularly is an extremely biased view (by the way, I don’t imagine that Severus would be either flattered or consoled for Harry’s behaviour by his naming one of his sons after him – “Hey, I spent all the time you were alive slagging you off and making your life as miserable as possibly, but that’s all forgotten now, yeah? I’ve even given my son your name… not as a first name, obviously, but stuffed in as an afterthought. That makes everything better, right?” What do you mean, I keep getting off the point? Oh. Back to Severus/Lucius… I mean Sev/Remus….) Right, anyway, given the Harry-eye-view, it's unlikely that there would be much in the way of Remus/Severus romance in the actual text of the book. Harry’s blind enough about that sort of thing at the best of times. But the interesting thing is, the hints are still there – if you squint sort of sideways at the books, that is.

POA is a curious book all the way through when looking for Snupin hints. On first viewing, the very idea of a relationship between those two seems ridiculous. For example, look at the scene near the end, when Severus is taunting Remus about being “a tame werewolf,” hanging around with a “convicted murderer” and threatening them both with Azkaban, the idea of any sort of love between Sev and Remus looks really bonkers. Even by my standards. But…

Yes, believe it or not, there is a ‘but’ – even here. I’ve already beaten the ‘betrayal’ drum once, so I’m not going to linger on the point here, but I will say in passing that if Severus had been convinced by Remus that he didn’t know anything about Sirius’s escape (and Severus, in my opinion, finds it hard to trust people, so if Remus had managed to convince him then he’d feel all the more let down) and then discovered them together, it would be understandable that he’d be very angry. Still, leaving that behind for the moment…

Wolfsbane potion. I’m going to go off on one about that now. If Severus is the only person in the school who can make Wolfsbane for Remus, obviously he’s going to be asked by Dumbledore (or rather, told by Dumbledore, as Albus doesn’t precisely do requests) to make it. And if D’dore knows he’s quite capable of making it, Severus isn’t going to let him down. Probably professional pride would stop him from intentionally messing it up anyway. Okay, but why is he so very solicitous with it? Early on, Severus turns up with the potion:

He was carrying a goblet, which was smoking faintly, and stopped at the sight of Harry, his black eyes narrowing. (POA, 117, UK hardback)

Why’ve I quoted that line? Well, I think it’s interesting that it is at the sight of Harry that Severus’s eyes narrow: until that point, he presumably is not scowling. He also tells Remus when to take it “You should drink it directly;” and offers of his own volition the information that he’s made a large quantity if Remus needs more. This is in the presence of Harry: he’s unlikely to be less friendly when Harry’s not around – probably more.

What’s more, Severus has come to Remus. This scenario happens again on The Day That Happened Twice ™. Severus, realising that Remus has forgotten to take his potion, trots down to Remus’s office to find him and give him some (any double entendres you like there). Surely it ought to be Remus’s responsibility to take the potion? And if he were to forget, Severus would have a far better case for having him thrown out of Hogwarts, which allegedly is something he’s been campaigning for. “Look, he can’t even be trusted to take a simple potion. He’s a risk to students!” This, we are told, is the line he’s been pushing to Dumbledore since Remus was appointed, yet he goes out of his way to prove himself wrong.

But the thing in POA that first drew me into the murky world of Snupineers is the scene where Severus takes the Marauders’ Map from Harry and it insults him. (Incidentally, if Sev knew the Marauders’ nicknames, why didn’t they know his? Or were they too pleased with the oh-so-clever ‘Snivellus’ name to care?)

Snape strode across to his fire, seized a fistful of glittering powder from a jar on the fireplace, and threw it into the flames.
“Lupin,” Snape called into the fire. “I want a word!”
Utterly bewildered, Harry stared at the fire. A large shape had appeared in it, revolving very fast. Seconds later, Professor Lupin was clambering out of the fireplace, brushing ash off his shabby robes.
“You called, Severus?” said Lupin mildly.
“I certainly did,” said Snape. (POA, 212)

What is going on here? This is the ONLY time we see this apparent backwards-floo-powder thingy happen (in similar circumstances between other characters, people do the head-in-fire thing). Why has Severus got a special way of calling Remus to his room, if not to allow people like me to consider slashy possibilities?

Goblet of Fire is a bit of a write-off for any Lupin stuff. There’s about one mention of him and that’s all. So, moving swiftly on to OOTP, there’s one very interesting point. With all the comings and goings of people to Grimmauld Place, JKR never shows Remus and Severus together. (Pause whilst I wait for people to point out several occasions when she does.) And one of the few times that Severus’s name is brought up in front of Remus, he leaps to Severus’s defence. Carefully, since it’s to Harry, but he does.

“Harry, I know you don’t like Snape, but he is a superb Occlumens and we all – Sirius included – want you to learn to protect yourself.” (OOTP, 465, UK hardback)

Not only does he defend Severus’s ability, he also very carefully phrases it so as not to associate himself with the dislike of the man. “I know YOU don’t like Snape…” He is also obviously guilty about his previous failures to support Severus:

“Did I ever tell you to lay off Snape?” he said. “Did I ever have the guts to tell you I thought you were out of order?” (OOTP, 591)

Given the fact that Severus and Remus are never shown meeting in OOTP, it’s also interesting that when Harry tells Sirius and Remus that Severus has stopped giving him Occlumency lessons, Remus says “If anyone’s going to tell Snape it will be me!” with surprising firmness. Possibly he just wants to stop Sirius over-reacting all over the place, but it implies that Remus and Severus have been meeting ‘off-stage’, as it were. And having lots of sex, obviously, even if it doesn’t QUITE say that.

Okay, I started with HBP, so I’m going to skip on to DH now. Yes, okay, we have an extremely depressed married Lupin, but I really do need to stop ranting about Tonks, so ignoring that… When there are seven people pretending to be Harry, with seven protectors… why does Severus choose Remus and false-Harry to follow? It could be seen as a protective move, to try and make sure no one hurts Lupin.

Later, there is a moment when it is Remus’s turn to show who his mind is lingering on. When Harry, Hermione and Ron are hiding out at Grimmauld Place, Remus comes over. His first words, after demonstrating himself truly to be Remus John Lupin? “No sign of Severus, then?” (DH, 168, UK hardback) I think it’s interesting and telling that caught by surprise, Remus instinctively refers to Snape as ‘Severus’. Since Severus’s apparent betrayal, everyone seems to be calling him ‘Snape’; yet here, Remus’s first thought is of Severus, and he refers to him as ‘Severus’.

And it’s shortly after he talks about Severus, that he says “I made a grave mistake in marrying Tonks. I did it against my better judgement and I have regretted it very much ever since.” (DH, 175). Pining over your lost love, Remus?

Right, just to finish with, a couple of character studies of our two heroes, starting with Remus.

In order to get some sort of reaction, I’m going to suggest that Remus is – at worst – a pathological liar, and at best a man with an absolute obsession about “fitting in”. Look at just about everything we see/hear about him, and it fits into this modus operandi. He goes to school and (understandably) lies to his best friends about what he does at full moon. When they become Marauders, he lies by omission in not telling Dumbledore – also understandable when he’s a kid, but close to unforgiveable, considering the perceived danger, when he comes back as a teacher. He doesn’t tell because he’s still trying to be the “good boy,” to fit in – even at the potential cost of Harry’s life. Similarly, his need to fit in makes him go along with James and Sirius’s cruet treatment of Severus despite the fact he evidently does not approve (he is said to have a “faint frown” in the Pensieve scene).

But what relevance does any of this have to a potential Severus/Remus relationship? Quite a lot, actually. Imagine Remus – desperate to be liked – discovering that he’s gay. He’s not exactly likely to stand up and be the poster child for homosexuality, is he? Any gay relationship he had would be likely to be kept extremely secretive – and as he proves by not telling Dumbledore about Sirius’s animagus abilities, Remus is Good at secrets. If, even worse, he fell for Severus I certainly can’t imagine it being common knowledge, and Remus would most likely go out of his way to keep THAT connection quiet, even when Severus is seen as a “good guy” and part of the Order. His excuses to Tonks about why he won’t enter a relationship with her, therefore, can be seen as an attempt to avoid the “real” reason of a previous attachment. When Severus is made into Arch Villain in HBP, and Remus thinks he’s been betrayed, he’s even less likely to own up. And his desperate desire to fit in could well make him, at a moment of great stress, agree to marry Tonks. So there is room in canon for a potential relationship; and Remus’s character does not make it out of the question.

What about Severus?

Given canon (and yes, I’m not that keen on it either, but this is a paper on the subject of canon, so I need to stick to it), I’m not prepared to write off suggestions of a genuine attachment by Severus to Lily, as I’ve so easily disposed of Remus/Tonks. On the other hand, this appears as “the only woman he’s loved.” So okay, he’s stuck on Lily. You can pose two possible trains of thought to allow this attachment to stand as well as a relationship with Remus. Firstly, not wanting to put another woman where he always wanted Lily, he turns to men. Or secondly (my personal choice), he has a deep and abiding love for Lily as the first friend he had – but on a platonic level. Never underestimate the power of friendship: if we are to believe that Harry would die for Ron, and Sirius did die for Harry, why not allow a similar love-without-added-sex situation for Severus? So I can circumvent Lily nicely, but would Severus ever want Remus? And if so, would he be prepared to be Remus’s dirty little secret?

I think he might. Certainly the dirty little secret bit at any rate, because I imagine that Severus’s reaction to Remus might be a little that way. Remus, to Severus, is a man who not only allegedly turns into a monster (Tonks, one presumes, has never seen werewolf!Lupin) but someone who has actually tried to kill Severus on a previous occasion. Can you imagine finding yourself attracted to what is probably the stuff of your nightmares? I would imagine Severus struggling very hard against any such attraction and being somewhat ashamed of it himself*. Plus, of course, if we’re going to talk about people who are world beaters at keeping secrets, Severus could absolutely thrash Remus at that game (and who knows, Remus might like that... sorry, slashy moment).

As a double agent, Severus would probably not be too keen on his sex life being an open book, either – one whisper to Voldemort that Severus is in a relationship (or at any rate having hot sex) with Remus would be enough to raise big doubts in Voldemort’s mind. Of course, when Remus is trying to ingratiate himself with the other werewolves, this relationship might be quite a good thing – but for all we know, the werewolf underworld are all Snupineers on the quiet.

I would anticipate Severus finding it very hard to trust Remus – but that’s borne out in the books, too: Remus clearly doesn’t know what’s behind Severus killing Dumbledore, so if they were having a relationship, Severus was keeping a lot back.

• Someone (imma?) pointed out that Severus had been noted as taking notice of Remus before, hence the incident where Sirius could play his amusing trick, so possibly the attraction came before the werewolf knowledge. If so, he must have got one hell of a shock...

A question and a plea for help

2008-07-28T09:50:33Z

I recently heard about the whole Fan History wiki drama and I was horrified to find that there was a page for me there, along with links to my old site on FFN. I have written to Laura at FH and she's taken my page down which is fine.

Except.

I started my FFN page in 2000. I haven't logged in there in about 5 years. I desperately want to take my stuff off FFN but (a) I don't remember my password and (b) I no longer have the email address I used on FFN. So therefore a password recovery doesn't work. Nowhere on FFN can I find any sort of link to any kind of customer service, contact email address or anything of that sort.

Does anyone know how I can get in touch with someone at FFN who can get my account and content deleted, before Fan History's bots trawl it again and re-post it?

Back to Basics: Slash Thoughts

2008-07-28T04:39:02Z

When I first started reading slash, it was Kirk/Spock, generally Pon Farr or "forced to perform for the aliens" stories. Then I lost track of fanfic for a long stretch, then I was introduced Harry Potter fic--a Snape/Harry AU slavefic where Voldemort had won the war. (I likes it dark.) Eventually, after reading hundreds of HP stories and dozens of Trek:TOS stories, and a handful of other fandoms, I started looking at *everything* through "slash goggles."

I never see a TV show or movie without deciding which characters are most slashy (House/Wilson, Dent/Wayne), and which would be interesting but not particularly believable (Chase/Foreman, Joker/Gordon). By "believable," I mean of course "as a relationship;" any two characters could ingest the sex pollen and bang, there we have it.

My husband will never forgive me for this, for pointing out slashy pairings in commercials. (I mean, commercials for movies, not ones that have their own slashy pairings. I have got to get around to writing that Geico caveman fic.)

So--as this is a "spark conversation" post, not a "what elf thinks about slash" post:

Do you wear slash goggles?
Do you put them on sometimes and take them off at others, or are they permanent implants?
Have you discovered clash-of-slashvision with friends, where you saw entirely different reasonable pairings from a show?
Did you run across a fic or essay that made you completely reconsider a pairing?
Are there crossover pairings you're dying to read, but you know nobody is going to write?
Have any other slash-related thoughts you've been wanting to share, but considered the subject too basic to write "official meta" about?

The Ongoing Situation

2008-07-27T05:01:24Z

Link Roundup:
On July 19, purplepopple/partly_bouncy/Michaela Ecks/Laura Hale (she is public about all these names) made a post on fanthropology about "How to maintain fandom privacy." (I'd link to it, but it's gone now.) It was a list of 15 things like "always assume anything you post online may become public" and "never give out your real name, even in locked posts" and "do not join social networking sites, message boards, or public fanfic archives." She also either changed fanhistory's policies, or reminded people that they existed--and these were there standards for respecting people's privacy: if the information can be found online, it's okay to make it easily googled.

It was, to say the least, not well-received.

Ithiliana posted How to Save Fandom From Being Outed by The Mean Girlz (TM). And Dejana posted Sometimes a brain can come in quite handy, pointing out that

partly_bouncy got ahold of astolat's real name. It's entirely possible it was posted in an obvious place and should have been better protected, and was added to FanHistory without anyone knowing that was Not Okay. Accidental outings happen. But then people tried to remove the info and... the site owner restored it.
...
If it's ever been revealed anywhere, FanHistory feels it has a right to print it, whether or not you object, and the precious line between fandom life and real life will not be respected. Even if it was posted under a friends lock. Even if it was said to a buddy in chat. If it's out there, they're taking it. All for the sake of, I assume, some pompous desire to bring The Truth to the world, whether or not it's actually useful or relevant to anything.

And they're off... partly_bouncy edited the Fanthropology post to add:

Advised to add: Apparently there is some controversy regarding the [LegalName linked to Fanname URL] article on Fan History. As referenced on the talk page for [LegalName linked to Fanname URL], we're willing to work with her to find a solution where the history can be accurately told regarding her involvement in fandom. Fan History understands people's privacy issues. It is why we are willing to work with people to make them comfortable regarding what information it out there. It is also why we want people to think about what they put out there. Given that, if [LegalName linked to Fanname URL] wishes to have the article about her changed to minimize those connections, we'd love to hear from her. We're willing to work with her, like anyone covered on Fan History, to address her concerns. For everyone else, we urge you to read our people help page, the rules, our philosophy and to actively engage on the wiki so Fan History can continue its mission to preserve the history of fandom.

So. Deliberately outing someone in a post already linked to metafandom. (MF removed it on notification.) You can imagine the wankstorm. But wait... in the midst of the combination of outrage and occasional mentions that really, people should be aware that privacy online is limited... background details start to appear.

Fanhistory is not a nonprofit, fan-fun endeavor. It's a money-making venture, and Laura Hale is desperately looking for investment capital. And she advocates directly lying to users: "If you are making more than you need to operate, figure out some way to kick some back to the users in give aways or contests. And then, if you're asked, tell your users that all the extra money is going into a savings account for the site to help cover costs in the long run. Say this even if it isn't true." Post also contains mention that she suggests "promote wank" as a way to generate site hits. (There's a link to a screencap. And three pages of comments.)

Ithiliana Calls her out; announces to all of fandom (or at least, all that reads her journal or follows metafandom links and like that) that LH is somebody who actively seeks to harm other fans. She lies. She outs fans by connecting their real life identities with their fannish identities. She is trying to make money from a site which is billed as "history" and which contains lies, damn lies, and misinformation.... (Go read. Lots of links. This is COMPLEX.)

Somewhere in the midst of this, Laura posts in her Twitter:
Anyone good with PR who might be able to help me with an ongoing situation? If so, would love to get in touch ASAP. Screencap. (Hence shiny new icon. Which is fully gankable, and I hope that by not making her name visible on it, can be used for any kind of PR disaster post. But probably not on LJ; I believe the filesize is too big.)

Ciderpress says: I've got the thingie. Half in English, half in squibbly. She points out that "she is making money by gleefully soliciting and generating wank, by making our fandom a fundamentally unsafer and unhappier space. She causes misery, not *just* because she can, but because it puts money in her pockets."

Posts in favor of (or at least, not rabidly against) Laura's activities:

Mofic's Some Thoughts on Fandom, Privacy, Money, and Other Stuff: "I feel like she has both lost all chance to turn her genuine love of fannish history into a career and also lost the hobby itself.... I just cannot see her as some great evil fannish presence. "

Lennoxmacbeth's FANDOM CAN GO TO HELL: "FanHistory is a business. Laura is an entrepreneur. Laura has been doing everything she can to get more page views and activity on FanHistory. NONE OF THIS IS A FUCKING SECRET.... I do not believe in hiding behind pseudonyms."

Laura_holt_pi's Out of Character: Apparently, I am Partly_bouncy: ..."the dear little airheads of OTW and the associated witless fangirls who are currently acting like 12 year old playground bullies are being a little silly about their fear of being "outed" as fans when they have made no effort to conceal their identities..."

Three people who've re-thought their support of and connection to her activities:

Carlanime's OIC: THIS is why we can't all just get along. "Goodwill in requires goodwill out, you know?"

Anarchicq's The fucked up fandom trifecta: "I've read various links to various posts that she made, in her own words, from her own fingers, that her goal is to line her pockets. That is not cool to me."

Hector_rashbaum's Airing: "I started to realize FanHistory will never go anywhere with Laura at the helm."

It's a huge wankfest. If you like wank, follow links, read other posts in the journals, read the comments... it's all gone 'splodey. If you don't like wank... I recommend staying away from the wiki in question, and not giving her any more ad revenue or site hits she can use to try to pimp fannish activity to her potential investors.

Because we deserve better.

OTW discussions

2008-07-20T15:38:49Z

Reposted & slightly expanded from a comment in a thread at LJ, because I'd like to see a broader range of discussion on the topic.

There's a new round of metafandom discussions about the OTW, sparked by the NPR interview with Rebecca Tushnet. My husband heard it; he said it made fanfic sound very normal--a hobby with some exotic fringes, which sounded like "suburban ladies hire a stripper for a bachelorette party," not like "weird lesbian sluts corrupting cultural icons." Anyway. OTW went public, which stirred up some controversy. (I haven't heard the interview; I missed it on NPR, and I can't listen to their stuff--it's streaming sound only, which is incompatible with dialup.)

The discussions about the interview have hit several journals. Some pro-OTW, some anti-OTW, some WTF-is-OTW. And a lot of the anti-OTW post have screened or blocked comments that are either pro-OTW or argumentative about terminology (which is not always the same.)

I would love to see more discussion on all sides of the OTW issues. (Even though I'm a fanatic OTW supporter. Maybe I just like wank debate.) However, the people who actively dislike OTW, seem to not want to discuss it--or at least, not with people who disagree. I understand it can be daunting to have the Hordes Of Metafandom show up at your virtual doorstep. But Metafandom will avoid linking on request; making that request can allow a slow trickle of a variety of opinions as the post bounces around one's f'list.

Most of the pro/con OTW stuff seems to devolve to two opposing viewpoints:
1) Yay OTW; it's high time fandom had an archive that wouldn't cave to a poorly-worded & not-legal C&D order. Of course they need to be up-front about that. And anyone has the right to give interviews on behalf of fandom, because there's no central committee of SMOFs to draw from.

2) Boo OTW; fandom is doing just fine without their attention-grabbing interference that's going the bring the wrath of lawyers down on us all. And how dare they make sweeping statements about "fandom," which means they're making statements about me, and those statements are WRONG.

Side 1: We will have an archive, and speak to the public, and announce lawywerese support.
Side 2: I don't want your archive or your public declarations or your lawyers.
[insert back-and-forth ~~wank~~ explanations and concerns.]
Side 1: Well, then it sucks to be you, doesn't it?
Side 2: Go to hell, rabid fanbitches.

Which, umm. Is entertaining (or was the first six rounds), but doesn't seem to work towards any kind of compromise or understanding. And the respect is getting frayed around the edges, what with the "rabid fanbitch" and suchlike commments.¹

I'd love to find out if the OTW could either shift focus, or find a way to include the concerns of the two types of detractors (which have a lot of overlap): the "OMG you will bring lawyers on us all and ruin fandom" and "Shut up and stop speaking for me" crowds.

But I don't think any kind of agreement will be reached if only the pro-OTW posts are allowing unlimited discussions. And that's disappointing--because I don't want those who want privacy, or who fear legal reprisals, to be entirely sidelined. While I think their concerns may be misplaced or exaggerated, I don't want them ignored. They are real concerns, valid ones, based on a history of social and legal smackdowns that we'd all like to avoid in the future, and the OTW (and the rest of us) need to accept that and... and... I don't know what else. Which is why I'd like to see more discussions.

(Background: OTW website, Metafandom's OTW collection, Lee Goldberg hates OTW along with all other fanficcy things, Scalzi's Whatever had a long debate about the subject a while back.)

¹ I don't think anyone literally called anyone else a "rabid fanbitch." I'm interpreting, not quoting.

Further on ratings requirements

2008-06-30T17:45:23Z

( A companion post to the last one, because required rating seems to be an issue wanting to get discussed )

The purpose of the system

2008-06-26T17:24:42Z

Spinning off: ( Reflections on the use of ratings in fandom )

Ratings: Worksafe, Standard, Mature, Explicit

2008-06-25T06:37:14Z

I've ranted about the evils of movie ratings for fic in the past. Aside from the psychosis that invades the MPAA so that eviscerations onscreen are PG, female nipples are R, and a penis is an automatic NC-17 (because of course nobody under 18 has seen one before, right?), I don't like rating the reader rather than the content. I want fics (and arts and vids) rated by what's inside them, not by who's expected to find that most appealing.

The most common non-MPAA ratings suggested are age-based, which has several problems. Rating a story "teen" can be taken to mean "intended readers are teenagers; so this is probably not interesting to anyone over 21," rather than "intended readers should be at least 14 years of age." And who's deciding what's appropriate for a 14-year-old to read? Whose standards are being used? The author's? The host site's? Certainly not mine; I know what I was reading at 14, and a lot of it's not allowed at ff.net. Is anyone enforcing those ratings? Or is "15-and-up" fic being read by 12-year-olds, and we're all pretending that labeling it "15+" is somehow "protecting" those kids who are honest enough to stay away from stuff labeled Too Old For You?

Also, in some circles, it creates a stigma for writers & readers of less-explicit content; in others, because it's assumed that "adult" means "explicit sexual content," rather than "complex and mature themes," readers can be disappointed by stories rated "adult" that don't contain what they want to read. (Death, insanity, and torture are all potential themes in adult non-sexual stories.) And readers who would like complex or dark themes—but not sex—have trouble finding those stories.

So I've been considering how to rate fic (and art, vid & whatever) content. I like the idea of four ratings, which is what most sites use, and the options of individual warnings in addition to the ratings. (Ratings are the overall "level;" warnings are for specific contents—like sexual activity, character death, or incest, which could be included in any rating level.)

My Four Content Ratings:

WORKSAFE: Least extreme/objectionable; suitable for any readers; no triggery, offensive, or overly-complicated content. Completely worksafe; could be printed on business brochures or run in newspapers if the topic were appropriate.
(Examples: Children's books, corporate art; newspaper articles; Emily Dickenson's poetry. )
FICNOTES: content of this type almost never includes warnings. Even if it deals with triggery content, it's so abstract as to be unoffensive except to the most sensitive readers.
STANDARD: Can contain complex themes or references to triggery content, but not details thereof; some readers will want to avoid this; some parents will refuse to allow their children access, but usually agree that it's a matter of their personal choice. May include swear words or other offensive-but-common content. Some employers might object.
(Examples: Women-in-bikini artwork, tasteful nudes like David, scripts to most sitcoms are also here. Most books. Much humor goes here, even if it deals with topics that would otherwise be considered "Mature." Most song lyrics. Shakespeare's poetry. Note: most of this content is, in fact, "worksafe;" it just wouldn't be used as corporate content by most businesses.)
FICNOTES: sometimes contains warnings, if it touches on common "squicky" topics like incest, rape, underage sex, or death.
MATURE: Objectionable to some people; squick/trigger content; substantial numbers parents prefer kids not exposed to this. May include extensive swearing. Might not be legal for radio broadcast. Readers/viewers expected to understand complex themes and accept that this content makes some people uncomfortable.
(Examples: Harlequin romances, supermarket-counter horror novels, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, many L&O episodes, much of Tom of Finland's art. "Risqué" or bawdy song lyrics. Ginsberg's poetry.)
FICNOTES: Usually contains warnings, especially if it deals with kinky sex, violence, or intensely unpleasant or scary situations.
EXPLICIT: Graphic content that many people find objectionable; many believe all children shouldn't have access to this; some of this, in picture form, is legally restricted from children. This content severely upsets some people.
(Examples: Some of Crowley's poetry. Some "bodice-ripper" novels. Reservoir Dogs. Sex manuals & instruction books. Many types of netsuke. Femalia. A Clockwork Orange, the book—movie would be Mature.)
FICNOTES: Almost always has warnings, even if only for "explicit sex." Warnings should be carefully heeded by anyone with triggers.

So. Ratings 1-4, Worksafe, Standard, Mature, Explicit or WSME.
I'm not thrilled with the labels, especially the first two, but I couldn't figure out any others that gave a sense of gradual increase, indicated content rather than recipient, and didn't stigmatize the content one way or the other. (I could've said "innocuous" rather than "worksafe," but I don't want the "lowest" rating to imply "doesn't contain as much depth as other ratings." I wanted to acknowledge that materials at any rating can be intense and meaningful.) I'm collecting lists of stuff—books, movies, art, whatever—rated this way. Got a nice little chart on my hard drive, but I get too caught up in possibilities and trying to balance the lists out, when I know that really, a lot more stuff is going to be S and M than anything else. (Heh. Yeah, there's a lot of unacknowledged S&M in the world.) I plan on putting together a poll sometime soon, and seeing how other people would rate various stories, artworks and books.

Not intended to be absolute or definitive; this is how I'd sort these. Some are borderline, and someone else might nudge them into a different column. Certainly, I welcome examples & discussion, or claims that I've got some parts just wrong.
Elf's Table O Ratings, version 0.9

	Worksafe	Standard	Mature	Explicit
Sci-Fi Authors	Asimov	Clarke	Heinlein (later works)	Richard Morgan
Vampire stories	Bunnicula	I Am Legend	Interview With The Vampire	Incubus Dreams
Sex/ Reproduction	N/A	Where Did I Come From?	Our Bodies,Ourselves	The Joy of Sex
Animation	Naruto Scooby Doo Powerpuff Girls	Ranma 1/2 Simpsons Daria	Vampire Hunter D Aeon Flux Beavis and Butthead	Urotsukidoji South Park Drawn Together
Bible	Psalm 23	Genesis 23	Luke 23	Ezekiel 23

ETA for metafandomers: remember, you can use OpenID to reply with your LJ identity--and that way, you get email notifications of replies left to your comments.

Books I Like

2008-06-20T06:55:19Z

It occurs to me that I almost never post recs, either for fic or canon.

I'm polyfannish; I like lots of stuff. I am disgustingly ecumenical in my tastes... while there's a limited selection of "stuff I seek out" and, these days, "stuff I will spend time reading," the category of "stuff I like" is huge and varied. But "oh, you know me; I like it all" is not really fair. Taking it as a given that I've read lots of scifi (for some values of "lots;" my reading in the last 15 years has been erratic), here's some of the books/stories that stand out in my mind:

I've been re-reading the Vorkosigan series. All of them. (I adore ebooks; I can carry 18 books around with me and swap between them at whim.) I've decided I should read the Chalion series, because I want to know if I like her writing, or I'm just enamoured of the vorkoverse. I have two fics in my head to write for the vorkoverse: an Aral/Bothari story set when Miles is about seven (complete with angst and guilt themes), and a genfic taking place in a council meeting on Vor just after Borders of Infinity. (I say this because I have some vague hope that if I mention fics aloud, I'll be more likely to write them. History doesn't show this to be true, but then again, it doesn't challenge the idea either.)

I love Pratchett. But that's such a given, in the fannish circles I run in, it's hardly worth mentioning and not worth discussing. What is worth discussing is that a great many Pagans consider Pratchett's witchcraft to be a sensible and useful depiction. (I mostly agree.) There's room for swarms of pagan/fannish crossover meta there. (Which I will not be writing tonight, that's for damn sure.)

Hamilton's novels. Sigh. I feel... cheap, admitting I like them. I like the over-the-top MarySueism; I like the smut; I like the OMG sex magikk savez da wurld! plots. In both series. I enjoy the magic better in the Gentry series; her magic/psychic/whatever theory in the AB books makes me wince. (Not enough to stop reading, though.) I note that a new Anita Blake novel came out in May; I haven't read that one yet. Other vampire novels? I enjoyed Interview just fine, and had read it years before there was a movie. I enjoyed Lestat as well, but believe it detracted from the original: IWTV stood alone, and shouldn't have been weakened by a series. Other vampire novels? No. I've read a St. Germaine novel, which I have utterly forgotten; if I've read others, I've forgotten them as well. (Diana Hunter doesn't count.)

Mercedes Lackey. I love Lackey's novels. Feel less guilty over those; I knew of her as a filker before she'd published novels. I've read lots and lots, and am sometimes annoyed that the world of Velgarth (that's where the Valdemar novels take place) isn't more popular in my corner of fandom... and sometimes not, because I've seen some of the horrific tripe that's written in the name of "fanfic" in that world. Makes saccharine Harry/Ginny stuff seem deep and meaningful, it does. Something about Velgarth screams for Mary Sues.

Spider Robinson. Anything & everything. Spider writes about hope, and that's such a delight in today's world, that I never tire of his books. The Starchild trilogy brings me to tears, and the Callahan's series makes me laugh. (And if anyone's up for a Callahan's GURPS game, let me know; we'll figure something out.)

Which reminds me of my other favorite "converted to GURPS" books: The Wild Cards series, edited by George RR Martin. A shared universe collection. Premise: in 1945, just post-WWII, an alien lands in the US. His people are genetically identical to humans, and because of this, some factions from his planet have decided to test their new bio-warfare device on earth. He tries to stop it, but fails. The Wild Card virus splashes into Manhattan and spreads on the jet stream all over the world. It causes mutations. Lots of them. 90% horrible painful death rate, 9% hideous disfiguration rate, 1% superpowers rate. (For some values of "disfiguration"--can include things like "vestigial bat wings"--and some values of "powers"--can include "can flip pages in book with telekenesis.") I adore the Wild Card series; I've got a special fondness for Captain Tripps (which shouldn't surprise anyone), Fortunato, Wyungare, and Jane Dow.

Hmm. Many of those are "light reading." Which is, these days, most of what I read; I'm busy enough between job & family that I avoid books that take concentration; I don't have enough available to enjoy them.

I love Sheri S Tepper books; I just don't have the energy to read them these days. I have read all the Lichtenberg & Lorrah Sime/Gen novels, and as much of their other stuff as I could find. (Have only found the first three Savage Empire books.) I've read some Gaiman; I will happily read more. I've read most of Octavia Butler's books, am looking for the rest, and mourned her death; she deserved to write another three dozen novels and become one of the great names in Sci-fi that everyone knows. I love Ellison's stories, but I love his commentary more; reading his The Glass Teat probably formed a lot of my opinions about television and the media.

Enough rambling, I think. What do you like to read? Not, "what books have been the most meaningful to your life"--we have metafandom stuff all over about that--but "what do you enjoy?" What books are your chocolate-chip cookies, your peanut-butter-and-jelly (an americanism, I'm told), your lemonade in the summer: sure, there's taste and maybe nutritional value there, but these are the ones you consume when you're not up for something elaborate. What do you find comfortable, rather than "best" or "most important?"

Which doesn't mean some books aren't both. But not everything is.

Class issues in U.S. television

2008-06-15T01:22:07Z

The issue of class--lower, middle, working, whatever--went around in several blogs a few weeks back, and I wound up thinking about how "lower class" or "working class" characters are depicted in some shows. (Married With Children, Roseanne, What's Happening.) It was pointed out to me that you can't really expect realism from a sitcom; they're not supposed to be accurate and meaningful--they're supposed to be funny.

Okay, that's a good point. So how about the shows about lower-class main characters that aren't sitcoms?

Erm...

Ahh...

Yeah, how 'bout those shows?

Okay, let's make it a game. The rules are: Name a show, or if we're really lucky, some shows, that are centered around lower-class or working-class characters, and are not sitcoms.

In case anyone's not sure what lower-class/working class is (because it's a blurry topic, especially in the US), we'll start with exclusions.
Lower-class characters are NOT:

Doctors, or any trained medical personnel.
Lawyers, or anyone attending law school.
Anyone attending college (exceptions are possible, but I don't believe there are any TV shows, current or past, about lower-class characters in college).
Anyone working in an office on a salary instead of hourly wage.
Cops. (Not that cops can't be lower-class characters, but that they exist in a very special and privileged social niche, and shows about cops are not shows about lower-class lifestyle.)
Anyone with a 6-digit income.

TV shows only. No movies. There are movies about everything; the question isn't "have lower class characters ever been depicted accurately by Hollywood?" but "is Hollywood willing to show lower-class characters on a regular basis?" Movies are one-shots; there isn't any "gee, how does that affect them next week?" to deal with.

There's also some question about what a "sitcom" is, because some shows try to blur the line between comedy and drama.
Deciding factor: If there's a laugh track or audience laughter, it's a sitcom. "All in the Family," no matter how touching and accurate, is a sitcom... it's meant for non-lower-class audiences to be able to laugh it off, not make them think, "damn, that's a hard way to live."

A few possibilities have been mentioned:
Eastenders, about which I know nothing; I live on the wrong continent.
Room 222, a show from the early 70's, about (at the time) relevant and important political issues. Billed as comedy-drama by the network.
The Bill Cosby Show, 1969-71, about which my husband remembers little; apparently also pushed as comedy-drama, possibly without a laugh track. (Wikipedia calls it a sitcom.) ETA: this is not the same as the "Cosby Show" of the 80's. That one was about a family of doctors; this one's about a high-school PE teacher.
Heroes is possible: several prominent characters are lower/working-class. Of course, they all have superpowers. Hm.

There's a few others, mostly mysteries, or with fantasy elements. There's a part of me that thinks "ah, Hollywood only deals with poor people as subjects of humor or horror."

Supernatural, of which I have seen exactly one half an episode; other people will have to tell me if it's accurately a "lower class" show.
Kolchack: The Night Stalker from 1974; a reporter who keeps getting caught up in X-files-esque stories.
Snoop Sisters, 1974: mystery show
Rockford Files, about a private investigator.
I've been told there are couple of other "investigator/mystery" shows that are possibilities.

Then we get a handful of "hillbilly/outback" shows, about families away from The Comforts Of Civilization:
The Waltons
Little House on the Prarie (although it's worth noting, they're not exactly "lower class" in their setting, but they are in comparison to NY of the time)
Lassie

Outright sci-fi & fantasy don't count: Firefly, whatever class its characters are, was created as a showcase for those characters, rather than reflecting an existing world. Red Dwarf, ditto: while Lister is certainly working/lower-class, the show has nothing to do with "his life as a lower-class character." (Also, sitcom.) Ditto American cartoons. Anime is negotiable, although someone who's not me will have to do the negotiating. Period pieces: the focus must be about lower-class characters in that setting; Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman is NOT a lower-class character.

Lists of lower-class characters in other shows are also welcome, but a separate issue. I'm looking for shows focused around lower or working-class lifestyles.

From what I've sorted out so far, the possibilities are:
Investigators, preferably of Weird Stuff, because investigating family disputes in ghettos is not good TV,
People so poor that their life conditions might as well be another country,
Teachers.
People with Exotic Powers.

No serious tv shows about bus drivers, janitors, construction workers, women's shelters, homeless people of any sort. No TV serial version of Do The Right Thing, The Public Eye, Billy Jack (or modernized version thereof), Chocolat (although I assume if it were serialized, they'd try hard to drop the "river pirates" to occasional characters, and tone down Vien's lower-class mixed-race background), Across the Universe, Malcolm X.

There's no shortage of lower- and working-class characters, situations, and concepts that good TV could be built around... so why hasn't it? There's modern, historical, and fantastic settings possible; there are gritty, abstract, or political possibilities--why do they get overlooked when the studios plan the new seasons? Are mysteries and "way out in the boonies" the only blue-collar situations worth exploring?

Warnings for "chan;" archive content policies

2008-05-26T19:40:30Z

I'm in the OTW's content policy focus group. (My, that's a mouthful.) What that actually means: We read the TOS and suggest changes & clarifications. The discussion group doesn't get to make any decisions; we just get to heckle. The committee gets to receive heckling, ask for more details, and decide which of the heckles are worth changing the policy for.

I'm not sure how much secrecy is involved with this, so I'll try not to reveal anything too specific.

OTW's content policy is nifty; it's gonna be different from every other TOS I've read. (It occurs to me that I don't know if anybody else reads TOSes for entertainment, or compares them to other TOSes. I gather that some fen look for "they be steelin my copyrites!" phrasing, but not more than that.) I read TOSes. I read prepackaged licence agreements, when I have time.

OTW's policy lacks key phrasing that many sites use:

You agree to NOT use the Service to:
Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive to another's privacy (up to, but not excluding any address, email, phone number, or any other contact information without the written consent of the owner of such information), hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable...

OTW will require users not to post anything illegal. Duh. That includes unlawful, harassing, tortious, defamatory, obscene, libelous and some kinds of privacy info. They have some additional privacy stipulations, which are important to a lot of fandom aside from legal considerations. They reserve the right to remove trolls. (The word "troll" does not, at this time, appear in the TOS. But there's phrasing that means "trolls will be thrown out.") They do not have a "removal of offensive content" section. Instead, they have a "don't like? Don't read" policy (again, my paraphrase), with tagging and ratings to make that much more possible than many archives.

Today, at 3pm my time (a few hours from now), is the beginning of the third week of this round of discussions. We'll start going over the ratings-and-warnings section. I sent in some notes. The original section we're discussing today is about 1200 words. My commentary runs about 1600 words. And that's before starting to "discuss" anything.

Because as much as I absolutely *adore* the idea of setting up ratings and filters so you don't see what you don't want to see, rather than saying "you can't post what squicks me," I worry. I worry that a rating of "teen" will be used to imply that some fic should legally be forbidden to minors; I worry that a warning for "chan" will be used for accusations of child pornography.

I'm trying to figure out what "chan" is. For the f'list not aware of fanfic terminology: it means "sexual activity with a young person." (I believe "chan" is Japanese for "child," or something like that.) How young? Depends on culture, depends on author. Legally underage? Not necessarily; in Japan, age of consent is 13. Doesn't necessarily mean explicit. And while it's easy to decide what "underage" is for people, and not much harder to decide what "sex" is (it gets blurry in some areas--giving a 9-year-old an enema is not anal rape; two seven-year-olds kissing is not sexual harassment.), it doesn't all translate neatly to fanfic.

So... while I'm pondering, I'll open it up to the f'list: what do you consider "chan" is? Or "underage sex" in fanfic? Assume, for the moment, that it's all legal (because it is... stories like Fanny Hill and The One-Hundred-Dollar Misunderstanding are legal) and just go with what you'd consider needs a warning for "underage sex." What age do you draw the line at? Is it "legal in your area," or something else? Does it change if the people involved are of very different ages?

Then get weird. Does it change if they're not humans? At what age can an elf consent? How about a dragon 'morphed into human form? (How about not in human form--when does sex between a dragon and a unicorn need a warning for age?) Vampires in child bodies? Faeries who always look like 10-year-old humans with wings? Human clone children who look like voluptuous adults? Demons? Aliens who only live ten years and are mature in two? An adult psychic who transfers his mind into other people's bodies? A child psychic who does the same? How about dream invasion: if the sex isn't "real" in the story, does that count? Can energy beings have chan? How about the Ood? Does nonhuman sex within its own species ever need an age warning? Does the body matter more, or the mind inside, or is either enough to call something "chan?" Does it matter how explicit or detailed it is?

For a rating system of "chan/not-chan," where do/would you draw the lines, epecially when normal human biology isn't involved? Do you think it's a simple and obvious decision, or a more complicated issue?

Crossposted at my journal.