![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmith... and other meta regarding creativity, civility, and the dangers of censorship. Let's have a big round of applause for Ozhawkauthor and the other folks who created this resource, because it says a ton of stuff that I didn't have the energy for but largely agree with.
Warning: Controversial topics, various people's opinions, and salty language ahead.
If you wish to take part in any fandom, you need to accept and respect these three laws.
If you aren’t able to do that, then you need to realise that your actions are making fandom unsafe for creators. That you are stifling creativity.
This highlights the trouble with fandom today, which is a large amount of fandom wank and fandom policing. Used to be, and I am talking several decades ago, fandom was a very accepting and open-minded place because it was full of freaks who were A) bad at getting along in mainstream culture and/or B) found mainstream culture repugnant. We came to fandom to get away from that, and we put up with other people's quirks because we wanted other people to put up with our quirks. People who wore fursuits did not throw stones at people who wore robot suits or had a stammer or never looked anyone in the eye. If we wanted to be picked on for what we like, what we do, or how we look then we could just stay in the mainstream with the mean girls and the jock bullies. We came to fandom to get away from that. Except now, fandom is just as bad or worse compared to the mainstream. That really sucks. I'm not sure where the real freaks are hanging out nowadays, but it's not the same places it used to be.
Another thing I see, looking back: I honestly give Kirk/Spock slashfic a big chunk of credit for changing gay sex from "the love that dare not speak its name" to "Aww, da kyoot!" Fandom, home of the freaks, helped make it not just legal but appealing. And someone who reads or writes K/S is a lot less likely to perpetrate or even tolerate gaybashing. That's progress, in our world, from imagining two guys banging in another world.
So yes: if you are wanking or policing fandom, you are part of the problem. Go awaaay.
Of course, the Three Laws of Fandom are not really laws. They're more like ... guidelines. We all know that herding fans is not so simple as herding cats who can easily be directed with an open can of tuna.
I recommend that readers approach the Three Laws of Fandom and other suggested parameters by applying your usual ethical measures, such as "What if everyone did this?" or "Would I feel comfortable doing this in front of my mother?" If you host a venue online, such as a blog or website, then think not just about your personal behavior online but about what kind of space you wish to create for other people and what kind of audience you wish to attract into that space. These are tools, which you can ultimately take or leave as you choose.
Remember that cyberspace is like the Jedi Tree or Underhill: it contains only what we bring into it. Choose mindfully. Because otherwise places like these quickly turn into Shore Leave Planet, less the safety features. O_O
The First Law of Fandom:
Don’t Like; Don’t Read (DL;DR)
I agree with this.
I will further add that anyone who feels uncomfortable with lots of fanwork and/or mainstream entertainment should look for genres that exclude whatever bothers them. Among the possibilities are cozy mysteries (no onscreen sex or violence, only background references, and warm tone), gentle fiction (no sex, violence, or foul language), kishotenketsu (no conflict, just contrast), and some types of creative nonfiction such as nature writing (usually no plot at all, just an exploration). It is totally okay to like, create, consume, or even need these things. What's not okay is trying to take words, books, food, or anything else out of other people's hands just because it's not suited to you.
The Second Law of Fandom
Your Kink Is Not My Kink (YKINMK)
I would have used one of the longer versions, because the coda is what makes this actually work: "Your Kink Is Not My Kink -- Your Kink Is Okay" or "Your Kink Is Not My Kink And That's Okay." Another version from the kink community is "Your Kink Is Okay -- You Are Okay," but that's a slightly different thing, meaning what you like doesn't make you a bad person, rather than let other people like what they like even if you don't.
In any case, this rule just states that you shouldn't pick on people because they like different things than you do; and conversely, you should be free to like what you like without being picked on. I like haggis. I have no idea why most people don't (other than a philosophical eww at its origin), it just tastes like sausage to me, but they don't. In fact, there's a phrase "Another haggis shortage averted!" which is used to celebrate differences in taste. I am allowed to like haggis and other folks are allowed to dislike it, and this is in no way grounds for a conflict. If I see a haggis food truck, I shall approach it; and other individuals are free to patronize the pasty truck beside it -- even if we came to the event together.
The Third Law of Fandom
Ship And Let Ship (SALS)
This is just a more specific iteration of "Live and Let Live" and also good advice.
Now let me add something from the perspective of someone who has been in fandom for decades. This nitpicking is relatively new, and it sprouted because now there is enough stuff for people to be picky about. Years ago, people routinely read or consumed things that had parts we disliked, because that was all there was. We read around it. We ignored the parts that sucked, because there were other parts we found really awesome. Some of us drew inspiration from the good parts, and made our own fanwork or original work in which we tried to leave out the suck parts. I wish fandom had kept that. We need it back, because this nitpicking is not working.
On which note, I will also refer folks to my post on Identity Literature, in which I explain that I never have the patience to wait 20+ years to get to the good stuff. If I see a new trait or character type, I like to drop it straight into the "positive protagonist portrayal" position instead of faffing around with mean stuff for decades. I've been picking out the good parts, and tossing the suck parts, all along. So for other folks frustrated by the tedious pace of diversifying entertainment, it's all laid out so you can fast-forward too if you want that.
These all boil down to:
It’s not up to you to police fandom.
[...]
That’s censorship. Don’t do it.
Well said.
If you don’t like something, you can post meta about it or create contrarian content yourself, seek to convert other fans to your way of thinking.
This is an important corollary. It protects people's right to disagree. What matters is how and where they disagree. You can do whatever you want in your own space, with your consenting audience who is free to depart if they also disagree with you. You do not have a right to a captive audience. You do not have a right to go into other people's space and tell them what to do, think, say, believe, or be -- or not. Get your own soapbox, and your own audience. Even assholes deserve to have their own space where they and their asshole friends can jerk around without bothering other people who don't enjoy that sort of thing.
I have done a lot of this contrarian stuff. (After all, Contrary is another term for Trickster.) Seriously, one reason I like Star Trek is because it so often goes right up to a great idea, and then stops just short of what I would consider the best part. Are you going to write that? No? Well then I'm having it. This doesn't even constitute borrowing ideas from them since, after all, they didn't actually go there. I'm going there on my own, because I see farther and my audience is more tolerant than what can be shown on commercial television.
I wrote "Say It Loud" in direct response to The Boys. Because I felt very strongly that someone needed to say that, so I did. That doesn't mean I want The Boys to cease to exist. As a gender scholar and literary scholar, I find that kind of bad example very useful for critique purposes. However, I never watched another episode of that show. I do wish that people felt less entertained by that kind of appalling behavior, but it is in keeping with modern entertainment. I don't feel that being appalled by the show justifies trying to erase it, so I criticize instead of censoring. In my own space.
I own a copy of The Stuffed Owl too, and actually like a few of those "bad" poems. Tastes do vary, and that's okay. Remember, 90% of everything is crud, but good luck getting people to agree on which 90% that is.
These three laws add up to the following:
You are not paying for fanworks content, and you have no rights to it other than to choose to consume it, or not consume it. If you do choose to consume it, do not then attack the creator if it wasn’t to your taste. That’s the height of bad manners.
Be courteous in fandom. It makes the whole experience better for all of us.
This is certainly true of fandom.
However, it applies beyond that. Conventionally published books and movies deserve the same respect to exist and not be censored. Also paying for something, or paying someone, is not justification for abuse unless you have hired a submissive with informed consent for specific activities that would otherwise constitute abuse. Some people are into that, which is fine; but spilling it on nonconsenting bystanders is not fine.
If you dislike something, you are free to leave your money in your pocket and not buy any more from that creator, to boycott it, to pan it in a review. In your own space or a space designated for such things. Marvel finally pissed me off enough that I don't buy their movies anymore. That's my choice as a consumer; they don't get to treat me that way; but I don't tell them not to exist.
Moving along to the further discussion part:
I certainly never expected to be accused of being a racist, misogynist, transmisogynist, biphobic, lesbophobic, homophobic, Nazi, ableist, paedophilic, rapist-defending piece of shit.
I've gotten this too. It happens rarely because I have put serious effort into creating congenial online space that does not encourage trolls, but it still happens. This is because I like to write about what I often call "intense and controversial topics." I am a writer; I write things. I am a bard and a trickster; part of my job is to aggravate people when that is called for, such as speaking truth to power. I am a historian; some of history is horrific stuff. I am an activist and a social engineer; when black smoke is pouring out the engine of a society, such as modern America, I am quite inclined to pop the hood and apply a monkeywrench. I am a hobby-linguist, and many other types of hobby-scientist; I like to dig into why things happen and how they work and what language can do.
These things bother people. I myself am many things that also bother people, just by existing. I'm not going to stop existing or being myself just because it aggravates the shit out of people. On the other hoof, "I may be an A-hole, but I'm not 100% a dick." I try to keep it to reasonable levels. Ultimately, I observe that not talking about problems leads to not solving problems; talking about problems leads to arguing about problems; and it's important to find a balance between a world of ignoring the problems and a world of nothing but arguments. This is a delicate balance which is in no way helped by someone jostling my elbow while I am working.
Basically, if you're going to create anything that matters, you are going to piss people off. (If you prefer to create fluff, that's fine too. People like fluff.) Some of them will be assholes about it. Maybe they'll just call you names, maybe they'll beat you up, maybe they'll murder you. All you have to decide is what you're going to do and who you're going to share it with. Some people create things anonymously. Others choose a venue with robust moderation controls. Some are closeted. Some are activists flying the freak flag proudly. Do what works for you. Don't judge other people doing what works for them.
Also, consider the ism at hand. If someone says, "You can't X because you are Y," then they are first claiming that Y is an important distinction among persons, that it is acceptable to determine what people can do based on their (physical or imaginary) traits, and that what they want is more important than other people's free will. Take racism. There is no difference in principle between "You can't drink from this fountain because you are black" and "You can't write about this character doing/saying that because you are white." They are both based on the idea that each person "is" a "race" and that belonging to a race should limit what people can do. But race does not exist in biology; it is purely a figment of some people's belief. So using a non-existent, made-up thing to tell people what they can and can't do is just ridiculous. People do it all the time though. It's a problem.
You may be stuck living in a world with idiots who believe non-factual things, and act on that nonsense, but this does not mean that you yourself must take on those beliefs. You can say racism is ridiculous. You can say sexism is ridiculous. You can choose to rule out isms as guides to behavior, and choose some other means of deciding what you will do. This will confuse people. This will enrage people. But abandoning nonsensical belief systems is the only way to get rid of the damn things.
The really powerful, really scary thing about stories is that they show people alternatives. What would it look like to have a world without racism, without sexism, without poverty? How would they make that work? I am really interested in these things. I've been writing them for decades. And one day, quite without meaning to, I found myself in a wonderful dimension which, while not perfect, has gotten a lot farther in its problem-solving compared to here. Terramagne, the world of Polychrome Heroics, is full of fascinating examples of how to do things better. As I explored it, I began asking things like, "How come nobody ever seems to wait more than 5-10 minutes for a bus? How are they doing that?" I found that their whole government budget was different. I also found that readers really like, and will pay for, and will write novel-length fanfic about, a world that shows not only what hope looks like but concrete steps for building a society that sucks less -- steps that are replicable with extant resources in our world. (We've also been surprised by how little of those improvements require superpowers.) Now if someone is deeply invested in the kind of society that thinks it's okay to overheat a planet's biosphere, they could feel extremely threatened by such alternatives; and people who feel threatened tend to become violent. The same is true for people who feel threatened by free love, gender diversity, alternative families, voluntary cybernetics, or many other things that fans like to write about.
All the people who threw those insults, who took issue with the Three Laws for ‘giving a free pass’ to discrimination of any kind, who shouted about the Three Laws being ‘designed to protect creators’ missed the point.
Worth mentioning: there's a big difference between portraying a thing, or using a word, or even shopping at a store, and supporting it. People sometimes miss this in entertainment, but there's a thing where the author can portray something in a way that makes it look bad, rather than a way that makes it look good. For a while comic books had an official rule that bad guys always had to be captured at the end of the issue; they couldn't be shown getting away with or profiting from crime. That fell, eventually, but the comics code remains an interesting period in the history of censorship and entertainment. People miss this in real life, too, where they think use or endurance are the same things as support -- then they are utterly blindsided when a new alternative opens and their supposed "supporters" dump them in droves. Never, ever mistake reference or proximity for support. Look at the context and the tone to discern the actual approval, disapproval, or ambivalence.
Yes, the Three Laws are designed to protect creators. Here’s why.
Without creators, you wouldn’t have fan content to consume.
Agreed.
Also, different tools and customs exist to protect consumers.
And every fan creator I know… LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ONE… has at some point received nasty bullshit comments on their work.
Yeah, I can't think of an exception to that either. I mean, theoretically in a planet approaching 8 billion people there probably is one, but humans are often obnoxious, so I wouldn't bet on it.
Have any of you made fanwork and never gotten nasty bullshit about it? And if so, how long have you been making fanwork?
right up to and including actual death threats in real life.
I know multiple authors with this problem. Including one who's gotten so many as to quit bothering to report them to the local police because that file is already huge and they're already aware of the problem.
No ship, or any aspect of a fictional universe, is important enough to treat another real life human being badly.
Good point.
However, this does play into the question of whether content itself can cause harm. I have, personally, written things -- not even particularly controversial things -- that broke someone's brain for a week. More than once, even. I thought they were cool things, but they were "record that breaks the record player" things. I don't ordinarily want to break people. (I have written other things deliberately as weaponized language, but that's a different thing altogether.) Plus of course, I routinely write about difficult topics that people may find hurtful. So I think about ...
* Has someone else spotted a landmine in my writing that I have not spotted, and if so, is this something I want to leave out where others might step on it? I have sometimes, but not always, put something in a drawer because of this.
* Does the gain outweigh the hazards? For particularly contentious issues, it's worth doing a risk-benefit analysis. You should be able to stipulate the benefits of a given work, not necessarily just entertainment, but thinking about difficult topics and whether the characters have made the best choices and how the insights from a creative work can inspire good things or warn away from bad things in everyday life. Or catharsis, or expressing things so others with such experiences can see they're not alone, or whatever. There are lots of possibilities. If you can't articulate what is worthwhile or productive about a work, however, then it may not be well balanced against the risks of handling very hot topics.
This point rarely stops me personally because I have lots of reasons for writing and can usually make a whole list if I need to. I don't throw matches into a fireworks factory for no good reason; I don't use heavy material if it's not needed. This kind of consideration is a thing I teach people to do, when I am teaching about writing, but I have seen few other writing teachers even touch on the topic. Most writing professors teach mechanics, and maybe aesthetics, but rarely if ever ethics. So here we are, with people floundering around each other because they haven't covered this pretty important territory in creativity or sociology.
* Can the story be told without using the bit which is prone to hurt people? Sometimes yes, other times no. Frex, I don't think being a lesbian should constitute a "get out of death free" card for characters, but I acknowledge that the "Dead / Evil Lesbian" stop-trope is a problem. I generally address this by making sure that, if there is a trait-having villain, there is also a trait-having nonvillain, thus subverting the trope's goal of equating trait with death/evil. (It happens to a lot more than lesbians; see also Bury Your Gays and Black Dude Dies First. EDIT 11/25/22:kengr adds Bondage Is Bad.) I did also create a series about live happy lesbians, oh wait, I have at least two of those, The Adventures of Aldornia and Zenobia plus Walking the Beat, just the first one was made explicitly for that purpose.
It's not about telling someone they can't create something. It's about suggesting that creators think responsibly when they are handling potentially injurious material. If you don't really need it, if it doesn't say something new and significant about a done-to-death topic, then maybe you should use some other bit instead. Perhaps some other bit would even lead to a more original and interesting story. (For example, until you stop killing all your trait-having characters, you can't write slice-of-life or upbeat stories about said trait. All that literary territory just waiting for someone to come write all over it!) If you do feel a need for it, then it's your choice as a creator whether to make that thing.
* Have I notified people that I handle hot topics which may be uncomfortable for them? Have I given some indication what is "canon-typical" for a given setting/series, or what is contained in a given work, so readers can make informed decisions about what to read or to skip? Yes, I usually try to put warnings on things. I don't always have time, and nobody can warn for everything, which is why I do not support mandatory warnings. You don't actually have a right to demand that other people do extra work for your benefit -- especially if you are not paying for that. It's what is called a "value-added" feature: an extra perk that makes one product or service (such as a story with detailed content/warning notes) preferable to some consumers over another similar product or service (such as a story with nothing or Choose Not To Warn). And I have personally used Choose Not To Warn when I felt that the standard labels offered would be misleading. Creativity does not fit into pigeonholes, and trying to force it can be dangerous. Just remember that communication is typically a good thing.
Also, this warning label in my profile is not a joke:
Warning: The content of this blog may cause permanent damage to narrow minds.
I routinely talk about quantum physics, cosmic ethics, social engineering, climate change, linguistics, and other things that can damage people's reality tunnels. The mainstream culture does not have the technology to repair that kind of damage. Look at them floundering to identify, let alone fix, things like moral injury. So it's useful for folks to know that this blog is intended for minds flexible enough to bend rather than break. I put that in there partly because I don't want people to stumble into such things without knowing, and partly because I don't want to clean up the mess should they do so.
However, I also know that not everyone reads warnings. I've had one person throw a tantrum and flounce out after blowing past WARN ALL THE THINGS in bold red letters (plus more detailed warnings under a graybar). What could possibly make it clearer that the content is not to everyone's taste and sensitive readers should probably scroll to a different entry? Seriously, if you go past a warning like that, you have no grounds to bitch no matter what is under the cut.
* Have I provided resources that readers can use to cope with the difficult topics I bring up? Yes, I use footnotes and character modeling for that. Most creators do not provide supporting materials, and this is an extremely popular feature according to feedback ratios of about 20 "yay footnotes" to 1 "footnotes are patronizing." It's another value-added feature in much of my work, and I only charge extra when the research is adding hours or days to the writing time. Usually you get it for the standard price of a work, or in the case of fanwork that's all free anyhow.
I do this part because much of my writing has practical purpose and benefit beyond entertainment. I'm an activist. I've used many techniques. I discovered that the most effective method -- the one with the highest throughput of people saying "I did the thing" -- is plain old storytelling. So if I describe something that I'd like readers to consider trying, or a challenging situation they may face personally, then it is more likely to work if I also include additional references on how to do the thing. How to pack an emergency kit, how to comfort a crying friend, how to set up a quiet room or corner, how to make the delicious recipe the characters enjoyed so I don't have 20 people asking for it, etc. The footnotes are there because they work, and that makes them worth my time to look up. Also because I do research in progress to minimize the number of dumb mistakes that make it through. I don't need a "Ringworld isn't stable!" performance. YMMV.
Those are just some of the things I think about when writing touchy topics. And even after that, some individuals feel that a drive-by bitching is an appropriate response to reading something they didn't enjoy.
... I'm pretty sure that most if not all of those individuals put less thought into their comment than I did into my creation.
I’m going to add here an extract from a wonderful post called If you are anti-darkfic, you are anti-survivor
Someone else has already created the perfect explanation for why darkfic exists. That right there is a major motivation behind a lot of my heavier work. It is not the only possible reason, but it is a vitally needed one. I have people who follow my work for that reason.
“If you accept that censorship is wrong, then censorship has to be wrong no matter who it’s happening to. If you accept that bullying is wrong, then bullying has to be wrong even when you really, really don’t like the victim.
This is true.
Unfortunately, humans aren't actually good at this yet. Right now, America is struggling over how to have freedom of speech without it turning into a morass of abusive pr0n, deepfakes, hatespeech, and other problems. And people have pretty much given up on free speech as a result; they prefer censorship. Which has its own, even worse, set of problems that people are choosing to revisit.
If you accept that people are allowed to write whatever goddamn fanfic they want, you can’t tack on a clause that says “unless they’re writing this one thing that I, personally, believe should not be written in which case the angry mobs have my blessing to go to town”. What kind of position is that? How are you going to ask the entire rest of fandom to accept your specific personal boundaries as an objective moral yardstick?
It's not just fandom. It's people taking books out of public libraries or school libraries because they might squick someone. That's a common symptom of fascism and civilization collapse. Fans should not be helping make the world a worse place, though.
On the bright side, I spotted someone's utterly brilliant solution that is better than playing whack-a-mole with book bans. Just make it illegal to ban books. Don't Like; Don't Read!
Do make sure your library has a children's section and a gentle fiction section so people don't have to shovel through crud they don't want in order to find something peaceful if that is what they wish to read.
If every single fandom consumer gets to point to something and say “I don’t like that, it’s not allowed to exist!” the entirety of fandom would disappear in a puff of smoke.
Nailed it. That's not just true of fandom, it's also true of entertainment, free speech, politics, and society in general.
Why should you speak out for the rights of people you don't like to read things you don't like? This is why.
Fantasy does not equal Reality
True as far as it goes.
Though some of us -- particularly writers, readers, and fans -- are prone to meandering across multiple layers of reality on a daily basis. How real is quantum physics? Dark matter? Cold fusion? Faster than light travel? Any religion or its contents? If I am traveling in another dimension, and I learn something there which I bring back here and it works, then how not-real can that other dimension be? We found a damn top quark, eventually. Much of human history is all about dreams and inventions, manually moving things from a non-existent state to an existent state. Don't get too obsessed about "reality." Even matter is all just a bunch of whizzing bits of energy holding hands and pretending really hard to be "solid." A very persistent illusion, at most.
Depiction does not equal Endorsement
This is critically important in both fiction and nonfiction, entertainment and journalism, philosophy and debate. A thinker must be able to entertain an idea without adopting that idea. Some ideas are bad ideas. Mind workers are assholes. Don't believe everything you think.
Writing is as much about mood as it is about action. Characters do dumb, irritating shit all the time. If it weren't for that, we wouldn't have antagonists. And what do fans love more than villains? Almost nothing. Maybe Choosing stories, every fandom with any kind of bond is super interested in those. But every fandom I have ever seen has people slashing the hero and the villain. A great many people adore "enemies to friends/lovers" and write it over and over.
Thing is, the writer and the reader don't have to approve of the villain or their dumbshit life choices. This is indicated by how the writer describes what the villain does, and then, what happens because of it. Just because a writer's characters say or do cockamamie things does not necessarily mean the writer agrees with any of those things. The manner of storytelling will usually, though not always, at least hint the author's own perspective.
There is an entire genre, called Cautionary Tales, which is all about showing dumb things to warn people away. It appears in folklore, but also in science fiction. Seriously, sometimes I look at a news article and think, "Didn't any of you idiots READ the BOOK? Why are we even writing science fiction if nobody listens? Are we wasting our breath?" But we don't see the times when someone, in the privacy of his own lab or computer room, has an idea and then goes, "Shit, I read this in a book and it went so bad. Maybe I should just ... not do this. I'll do something else." That's what we're here for. It sucks that we rarely if ever get to see that payoff, but sometimes people do listen. If you're lucky, once in a while, some reader will drop you a line to say, "I avoided a shitstorm thanks to your writing."
If we couldn't write about bad or stupid things, that entire genre would vanish. And so would all its lessons, which would really suck.
Think very hard about that before you accuse someone of being racist, misogynist, transmisogynist, biphobic, lesbophobic, homophobic, Nazi, ableist, paedophilic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, rape-excusing or any other insult you can dream up.
After all, Agatha Christie fictionally murdered over 90 people, but I’ve never heard anyone claiming that she was a mass-murdering sociopath.
Also, as I've said before: you don't actually know things about people online. You know what they've said or shown you. They may be slanting it somehow; most people online do that. They may have traits or experiences you are not aware of; probably everyone does. Even someone you've been e-friends with for some time, probably has things you don't know about. A stranger certainly does. So remember that before you make assumptions, because "Assume makes an ASS of U and ME." Don't be an ass.
Feel free to discuss perspectives on fannish or other ethics. A further exploration is here.
Warning: Controversial topics, various people's opinions, and salty language ahead.
If you wish to take part in any fandom, you need to accept and respect these three laws.
If you aren’t able to do that, then you need to realise that your actions are making fandom unsafe for creators. That you are stifling creativity.
This highlights the trouble with fandom today, which is a large amount of fandom wank and fandom policing. Used to be, and I am talking several decades ago, fandom was a very accepting and open-minded place because it was full of freaks who were A) bad at getting along in mainstream culture and/or B) found mainstream culture repugnant. We came to fandom to get away from that, and we put up with other people's quirks because we wanted other people to put up with our quirks. People who wore fursuits did not throw stones at people who wore robot suits or had a stammer or never looked anyone in the eye. If we wanted to be picked on for what we like, what we do, or how we look then we could just stay in the mainstream with the mean girls and the jock bullies. We came to fandom to get away from that. Except now, fandom is just as bad or worse compared to the mainstream. That really sucks. I'm not sure where the real freaks are hanging out nowadays, but it's not the same places it used to be.
Another thing I see, looking back: I honestly give Kirk/Spock slashfic a big chunk of credit for changing gay sex from "the love that dare not speak its name" to "Aww, da kyoot!" Fandom, home of the freaks, helped make it not just legal but appealing. And someone who reads or writes K/S is a lot less likely to perpetrate or even tolerate gaybashing. That's progress, in our world, from imagining two guys banging in another world.
So yes: if you are wanking or policing fandom, you are part of the problem. Go awaaay.
Of course, the Three Laws of Fandom are not really laws. They're more like ... guidelines. We all know that herding fans is not so simple as herding cats who can easily be directed with an open can of tuna.
I recommend that readers approach the Three Laws of Fandom and other suggested parameters by applying your usual ethical measures, such as "What if everyone did this?" or "Would I feel comfortable doing this in front of my mother?" If you host a venue online, such as a blog or website, then think not just about your personal behavior online but about what kind of space you wish to create for other people and what kind of audience you wish to attract into that space. These are tools, which you can ultimately take or leave as you choose.
Remember that cyberspace is like the Jedi Tree or Underhill: it contains only what we bring into it. Choose mindfully. Because otherwise places like these quickly turn into Shore Leave Planet, less the safety features. O_O
The First Law of Fandom:
Don’t Like; Don’t Read (DL;DR)
I agree with this.
I will further add that anyone who feels uncomfortable with lots of fanwork and/or mainstream entertainment should look for genres that exclude whatever bothers them. Among the possibilities are cozy mysteries (no onscreen sex or violence, only background references, and warm tone), gentle fiction (no sex, violence, or foul language), kishotenketsu (no conflict, just contrast), and some types of creative nonfiction such as nature writing (usually no plot at all, just an exploration). It is totally okay to like, create, consume, or even need these things. What's not okay is trying to take words, books, food, or anything else out of other people's hands just because it's not suited to you.
The Second Law of Fandom
Your Kink Is Not My Kink (YKINMK)
I would have used one of the longer versions, because the coda is what makes this actually work: "Your Kink Is Not My Kink -- Your Kink Is Okay" or "Your Kink Is Not My Kink And That's Okay." Another version from the kink community is "Your Kink Is Okay -- You Are Okay," but that's a slightly different thing, meaning what you like doesn't make you a bad person, rather than let other people like what they like even if you don't.
In any case, this rule just states that you shouldn't pick on people because they like different things than you do; and conversely, you should be free to like what you like without being picked on. I like haggis. I have no idea why most people don't (other than a philosophical eww at its origin), it just tastes like sausage to me, but they don't. In fact, there's a phrase "Another haggis shortage averted!" which is used to celebrate differences in taste. I am allowed to like haggis and other folks are allowed to dislike it, and this is in no way grounds for a conflict. If I see a haggis food truck, I shall approach it; and other individuals are free to patronize the pasty truck beside it -- even if we came to the event together.
The Third Law of Fandom
Ship And Let Ship (SALS)
This is just a more specific iteration of "Live and Let Live" and also good advice.
Now let me add something from the perspective of someone who has been in fandom for decades. This nitpicking is relatively new, and it sprouted because now there is enough stuff for people to be picky about. Years ago, people routinely read or consumed things that had parts we disliked, because that was all there was. We read around it. We ignored the parts that sucked, because there were other parts we found really awesome. Some of us drew inspiration from the good parts, and made our own fanwork or original work in which we tried to leave out the suck parts. I wish fandom had kept that. We need it back, because this nitpicking is not working.
On which note, I will also refer folks to my post on Identity Literature, in which I explain that I never have the patience to wait 20+ years to get to the good stuff. If I see a new trait or character type, I like to drop it straight into the "positive protagonist portrayal" position instead of faffing around with mean stuff for decades. I've been picking out the good parts, and tossing the suck parts, all along. So for other folks frustrated by the tedious pace of diversifying entertainment, it's all laid out so you can fast-forward too if you want that.
These all boil down to:
It’s not up to you to police fandom.
[...]
That’s censorship. Don’t do it.
Well said.
If you don’t like something, you can post meta about it or create contrarian content yourself, seek to convert other fans to your way of thinking.
This is an important corollary. It protects people's right to disagree. What matters is how and where they disagree. You can do whatever you want in your own space, with your consenting audience who is free to depart if they also disagree with you. You do not have a right to a captive audience. You do not have a right to go into other people's space and tell them what to do, think, say, believe, or be -- or not. Get your own soapbox, and your own audience. Even assholes deserve to have their own space where they and their asshole friends can jerk around without bothering other people who don't enjoy that sort of thing.
I have done a lot of this contrarian stuff. (After all, Contrary is another term for Trickster.) Seriously, one reason I like Star Trek is because it so often goes right up to a great idea, and then stops just short of what I would consider the best part. Are you going to write that? No? Well then I'm having it. This doesn't even constitute borrowing ideas from them since, after all, they didn't actually go there. I'm going there on my own, because I see farther and my audience is more tolerant than what can be shown on commercial television.
I wrote "Say It Loud" in direct response to The Boys. Because I felt very strongly that someone needed to say that, so I did. That doesn't mean I want The Boys to cease to exist. As a gender scholar and literary scholar, I find that kind of bad example very useful for critique purposes. However, I never watched another episode of that show. I do wish that people felt less entertained by that kind of appalling behavior, but it is in keeping with modern entertainment. I don't feel that being appalled by the show justifies trying to erase it, so I criticize instead of censoring. In my own space.
I own a copy of The Stuffed Owl too, and actually like a few of those "bad" poems. Tastes do vary, and that's okay. Remember, 90% of everything is crud, but good luck getting people to agree on which 90% that is.
These three laws add up to the following:
You are not paying for fanworks content, and you have no rights to it other than to choose to consume it, or not consume it. If you do choose to consume it, do not then attack the creator if it wasn’t to your taste. That’s the height of bad manners.
Be courteous in fandom. It makes the whole experience better for all of us.
This is certainly true of fandom.
However, it applies beyond that. Conventionally published books and movies deserve the same respect to exist and not be censored. Also paying for something, or paying someone, is not justification for abuse unless you have hired a submissive with informed consent for specific activities that would otherwise constitute abuse. Some people are into that, which is fine; but spilling it on nonconsenting bystanders is not fine.
If you dislike something, you are free to leave your money in your pocket and not buy any more from that creator, to boycott it, to pan it in a review. In your own space or a space designated for such things. Marvel finally pissed me off enough that I don't buy their movies anymore. That's my choice as a consumer; they don't get to treat me that way; but I don't tell them not to exist.
Moving along to the further discussion part:
I certainly never expected to be accused of being a racist, misogynist, transmisogynist, biphobic, lesbophobic, homophobic, Nazi, ableist, paedophilic, rapist-defending piece of shit.
I've gotten this too. It happens rarely because I have put serious effort into creating congenial online space that does not encourage trolls, but it still happens. This is because I like to write about what I often call "intense and controversial topics." I am a writer; I write things. I am a bard and a trickster; part of my job is to aggravate people when that is called for, such as speaking truth to power. I am a historian; some of history is horrific stuff. I am an activist and a social engineer; when black smoke is pouring out the engine of a society, such as modern America, I am quite inclined to pop the hood and apply a monkeywrench. I am a hobby-linguist, and many other types of hobby-scientist; I like to dig into why things happen and how they work and what language can do.
These things bother people. I myself am many things that also bother people, just by existing. I'm not going to stop existing or being myself just because it aggravates the shit out of people. On the other hoof, "I may be an A-hole, but I'm not 100% a dick." I try to keep it to reasonable levels. Ultimately, I observe that not talking about problems leads to not solving problems; talking about problems leads to arguing about problems; and it's important to find a balance between a world of ignoring the problems and a world of nothing but arguments. This is a delicate balance which is in no way helped by someone jostling my elbow while I am working.
Basically, if you're going to create anything that matters, you are going to piss people off. (If you prefer to create fluff, that's fine too. People like fluff.) Some of them will be assholes about it. Maybe they'll just call you names, maybe they'll beat you up, maybe they'll murder you. All you have to decide is what you're going to do and who you're going to share it with. Some people create things anonymously. Others choose a venue with robust moderation controls. Some are closeted. Some are activists flying the freak flag proudly. Do what works for you. Don't judge other people doing what works for them.
Also, consider the ism at hand. If someone says, "You can't X because you are Y," then they are first claiming that Y is an important distinction among persons, that it is acceptable to determine what people can do based on their (physical or imaginary) traits, and that what they want is more important than other people's free will. Take racism. There is no difference in principle between "You can't drink from this fountain because you are black" and "You can't write about this character doing/saying that because you are white." They are both based on the idea that each person "is" a "race" and that belonging to a race should limit what people can do. But race does not exist in biology; it is purely a figment of some people's belief. So using a non-existent, made-up thing to tell people what they can and can't do is just ridiculous. People do it all the time though. It's a problem.
You may be stuck living in a world with idiots who believe non-factual things, and act on that nonsense, but this does not mean that you yourself must take on those beliefs. You can say racism is ridiculous. You can say sexism is ridiculous. You can choose to rule out isms as guides to behavior, and choose some other means of deciding what you will do. This will confuse people. This will enrage people. But abandoning nonsensical belief systems is the only way to get rid of the damn things.
The really powerful, really scary thing about stories is that they show people alternatives. What would it look like to have a world without racism, without sexism, without poverty? How would they make that work? I am really interested in these things. I've been writing them for decades. And one day, quite without meaning to, I found myself in a wonderful dimension which, while not perfect, has gotten a lot farther in its problem-solving compared to here. Terramagne, the world of Polychrome Heroics, is full of fascinating examples of how to do things better. As I explored it, I began asking things like, "How come nobody ever seems to wait more than 5-10 minutes for a bus? How are they doing that?" I found that their whole government budget was different. I also found that readers really like, and will pay for, and will write novel-length fanfic about, a world that shows not only what hope looks like but concrete steps for building a society that sucks less -- steps that are replicable with extant resources in our world. (We've also been surprised by how little of those improvements require superpowers.) Now if someone is deeply invested in the kind of society that thinks it's okay to overheat a planet's biosphere, they could feel extremely threatened by such alternatives; and people who feel threatened tend to become violent. The same is true for people who feel threatened by free love, gender diversity, alternative families, voluntary cybernetics, or many other things that fans like to write about.
All the people who threw those insults, who took issue with the Three Laws for ‘giving a free pass’ to discrimination of any kind, who shouted about the Three Laws being ‘designed to protect creators’ missed the point.
Worth mentioning: there's a big difference between portraying a thing, or using a word, or even shopping at a store, and supporting it. People sometimes miss this in entertainment, but there's a thing where the author can portray something in a way that makes it look bad, rather than a way that makes it look good. For a while comic books had an official rule that bad guys always had to be captured at the end of the issue; they couldn't be shown getting away with or profiting from crime. That fell, eventually, but the comics code remains an interesting period in the history of censorship and entertainment. People miss this in real life, too, where they think use or endurance are the same things as support -- then they are utterly blindsided when a new alternative opens and their supposed "supporters" dump them in droves. Never, ever mistake reference or proximity for support. Look at the context and the tone to discern the actual approval, disapproval, or ambivalence.
Yes, the Three Laws are designed to protect creators. Here’s why.
Without creators, you wouldn’t have fan content to consume.
Agreed.
Also, different tools and customs exist to protect consumers.
And every fan creator I know… LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ONE… has at some point received nasty bullshit comments on their work.
Yeah, I can't think of an exception to that either. I mean, theoretically in a planet approaching 8 billion people there probably is one, but humans are often obnoxious, so I wouldn't bet on it.
Have any of you made fanwork and never gotten nasty bullshit about it? And if so, how long have you been making fanwork?
right up to and including actual death threats in real life.
I know multiple authors with this problem. Including one who's gotten so many as to quit bothering to report them to the local police because that file is already huge and they're already aware of the problem.
No ship, or any aspect of a fictional universe, is important enough to treat another real life human being badly.
Good point.
However, this does play into the question of whether content itself can cause harm. I have, personally, written things -- not even particularly controversial things -- that broke someone's brain for a week. More than once, even. I thought they were cool things, but they were "record that breaks the record player" things. I don't ordinarily want to break people. (I have written other things deliberately as weaponized language, but that's a different thing altogether.) Plus of course, I routinely write about difficult topics that people may find hurtful. So I think about ...
* Has someone else spotted a landmine in my writing that I have not spotted, and if so, is this something I want to leave out where others might step on it? I have sometimes, but not always, put something in a drawer because of this.
* Does the gain outweigh the hazards? For particularly contentious issues, it's worth doing a risk-benefit analysis. You should be able to stipulate the benefits of a given work, not necessarily just entertainment, but thinking about difficult topics and whether the characters have made the best choices and how the insights from a creative work can inspire good things or warn away from bad things in everyday life. Or catharsis, or expressing things so others with such experiences can see they're not alone, or whatever. There are lots of possibilities. If you can't articulate what is worthwhile or productive about a work, however, then it may not be well balanced against the risks of handling very hot topics.
This point rarely stops me personally because I have lots of reasons for writing and can usually make a whole list if I need to. I don't throw matches into a fireworks factory for no good reason; I don't use heavy material if it's not needed. This kind of consideration is a thing I teach people to do, when I am teaching about writing, but I have seen few other writing teachers even touch on the topic. Most writing professors teach mechanics, and maybe aesthetics, but rarely if ever ethics. So here we are, with people floundering around each other because they haven't covered this pretty important territory in creativity or sociology.
* Can the story be told without using the bit which is prone to hurt people? Sometimes yes, other times no. Frex, I don't think being a lesbian should constitute a "get out of death free" card for characters, but I acknowledge that the "Dead / Evil Lesbian" stop-trope is a problem. I generally address this by making sure that, if there is a trait-having villain, there is also a trait-having nonvillain, thus subverting the trope's goal of equating trait with death/evil. (It happens to a lot more than lesbians; see also Bury Your Gays and Black Dude Dies First. EDIT 11/25/22:
kengr adds Bondage Is Bad.) I did also create a series about live happy lesbians, oh wait, I have at least two of those, The Adventures of Aldornia and Zenobia plus Walking the Beat, just the first one was made explicitly for that purpose. It's not about telling someone they can't create something. It's about suggesting that creators think responsibly when they are handling potentially injurious material. If you don't really need it, if it doesn't say something new and significant about a done-to-death topic, then maybe you should use some other bit instead. Perhaps some other bit would even lead to a more original and interesting story. (For example, until you stop killing all your trait-having characters, you can't write slice-of-life or upbeat stories about said trait. All that literary territory just waiting for someone to come write all over it!) If you do feel a need for it, then it's your choice as a creator whether to make that thing.
* Have I notified people that I handle hot topics which may be uncomfortable for them? Have I given some indication what is "canon-typical" for a given setting/series, or what is contained in a given work, so readers can make informed decisions about what to read or to skip? Yes, I usually try to put warnings on things. I don't always have time, and nobody can warn for everything, which is why I do not support mandatory warnings. You don't actually have a right to demand that other people do extra work for your benefit -- especially if you are not paying for that. It's what is called a "value-added" feature: an extra perk that makes one product or service (such as a story with detailed content/warning notes) preferable to some consumers over another similar product or service (such as a story with nothing or Choose Not To Warn). And I have personally used Choose Not To Warn when I felt that the standard labels offered would be misleading. Creativity does not fit into pigeonholes, and trying to force it can be dangerous. Just remember that communication is typically a good thing.
Also, this warning label in my profile is not a joke:
Warning: The content of this blog may cause permanent damage to narrow minds.
I routinely talk about quantum physics, cosmic ethics, social engineering, climate change, linguistics, and other things that can damage people's reality tunnels. The mainstream culture does not have the technology to repair that kind of damage. Look at them floundering to identify, let alone fix, things like moral injury. So it's useful for folks to know that this blog is intended for minds flexible enough to bend rather than break. I put that in there partly because I don't want people to stumble into such things without knowing, and partly because I don't want to clean up the mess should they do so.
However, I also know that not everyone reads warnings. I've had one person throw a tantrum and flounce out after blowing past WARN ALL THE THINGS in bold red letters (plus more detailed warnings under a graybar). What could possibly make it clearer that the content is not to everyone's taste and sensitive readers should probably scroll to a different entry? Seriously, if you go past a warning like that, you have no grounds to bitch no matter what is under the cut.
* Have I provided resources that readers can use to cope with the difficult topics I bring up? Yes, I use footnotes and character modeling for that. Most creators do not provide supporting materials, and this is an extremely popular feature according to feedback ratios of about 20 "yay footnotes" to 1 "footnotes are patronizing." It's another value-added feature in much of my work, and I only charge extra when the research is adding hours or days to the writing time. Usually you get it for the standard price of a work, or in the case of fanwork that's all free anyhow.
I do this part because much of my writing has practical purpose and benefit beyond entertainment. I'm an activist. I've used many techniques. I discovered that the most effective method -- the one with the highest throughput of people saying "I did the thing" -- is plain old storytelling. So if I describe something that I'd like readers to consider trying, or a challenging situation they may face personally, then it is more likely to work if I also include additional references on how to do the thing. How to pack an emergency kit, how to comfort a crying friend, how to set up a quiet room or corner, how to make the delicious recipe the characters enjoyed so I don't have 20 people asking for it, etc. The footnotes are there because they work, and that makes them worth my time to look up. Also because I do research in progress to minimize the number of dumb mistakes that make it through. I don't need a "Ringworld isn't stable!" performance. YMMV.
Those are just some of the things I think about when writing touchy topics. And even after that, some individuals feel that a drive-by bitching is an appropriate response to reading something they didn't enjoy.
... I'm pretty sure that most if not all of those individuals put less thought into their comment than I did into my creation.
I’m going to add here an extract from a wonderful post called If you are anti-darkfic, you are anti-survivor
Someone else has already created the perfect explanation for why darkfic exists. That right there is a major motivation behind a lot of my heavier work. It is not the only possible reason, but it is a vitally needed one. I have people who follow my work for that reason.
“If you accept that censorship is wrong, then censorship has to be wrong no matter who it’s happening to. If you accept that bullying is wrong, then bullying has to be wrong even when you really, really don’t like the victim.
This is true.
Unfortunately, humans aren't actually good at this yet. Right now, America is struggling over how to have freedom of speech without it turning into a morass of abusive pr0n, deepfakes, hatespeech, and other problems. And people have pretty much given up on free speech as a result; they prefer censorship. Which has its own, even worse, set of problems that people are choosing to revisit.
If you accept that people are allowed to write whatever goddamn fanfic they want, you can’t tack on a clause that says “unless they’re writing this one thing that I, personally, believe should not be written in which case the angry mobs have my blessing to go to town”. What kind of position is that? How are you going to ask the entire rest of fandom to accept your specific personal boundaries as an objective moral yardstick?
It's not just fandom. It's people taking books out of public libraries or school libraries because they might squick someone. That's a common symptom of fascism and civilization collapse. Fans should not be helping make the world a worse place, though.
On the bright side, I spotted someone's utterly brilliant solution that is better than playing whack-a-mole with book bans. Just make it illegal to ban books. Don't Like; Don't Read!
Do make sure your library has a children's section and a gentle fiction section so people don't have to shovel through crud they don't want in order to find something peaceful if that is what they wish to read.
If every single fandom consumer gets to point to something and say “I don’t like that, it’s not allowed to exist!” the entirety of fandom would disappear in a puff of smoke.
Nailed it. That's not just true of fandom, it's also true of entertainment, free speech, politics, and society in general.
Why should you speak out for the rights of people you don't like to read things you don't like? This is why.
Fantasy does not equal Reality
True as far as it goes.
Though some of us -- particularly writers, readers, and fans -- are prone to meandering across multiple layers of reality on a daily basis. How real is quantum physics? Dark matter? Cold fusion? Faster than light travel? Any religion or its contents? If I am traveling in another dimension, and I learn something there which I bring back here and it works, then how not-real can that other dimension be? We found a damn top quark, eventually. Much of human history is all about dreams and inventions, manually moving things from a non-existent state to an existent state. Don't get too obsessed about "reality." Even matter is all just a bunch of whizzing bits of energy holding hands and pretending really hard to be "solid." A very persistent illusion, at most.
Depiction does not equal Endorsement
This is critically important in both fiction and nonfiction, entertainment and journalism, philosophy and debate. A thinker must be able to entertain an idea without adopting that idea. Some ideas are bad ideas. Mind workers are assholes. Don't believe everything you think.
Writing is as much about mood as it is about action. Characters do dumb, irritating shit all the time. If it weren't for that, we wouldn't have antagonists. And what do fans love more than villains? Almost nothing. Maybe Choosing stories, every fandom with any kind of bond is super interested in those. But every fandom I have ever seen has people slashing the hero and the villain. A great many people adore "enemies to friends/lovers" and write it over and over.
Thing is, the writer and the reader don't have to approve of the villain or their dumbshit life choices. This is indicated by how the writer describes what the villain does, and then, what happens because of it. Just because a writer's characters say or do cockamamie things does not necessarily mean the writer agrees with any of those things. The manner of storytelling will usually, though not always, at least hint the author's own perspective.
There is an entire genre, called Cautionary Tales, which is all about showing dumb things to warn people away. It appears in folklore, but also in science fiction. Seriously, sometimes I look at a news article and think, "Didn't any of you idiots READ the BOOK? Why are we even writing science fiction if nobody listens? Are we wasting our breath?" But we don't see the times when someone, in the privacy of his own lab or computer room, has an idea and then goes, "Shit, I read this in a book and it went so bad. Maybe I should just ... not do this. I'll do something else." That's what we're here for. It sucks that we rarely if ever get to see that payoff, but sometimes people do listen. If you're lucky, once in a while, some reader will drop you a line to say, "I avoided a shitstorm thanks to your writing."
If we couldn't write about bad or stupid things, that entire genre would vanish. And so would all its lessons, which would really suck.
Think very hard about that before you accuse someone of being racist, misogynist, transmisogynist, biphobic, lesbophobic, homophobic, Nazi, ableist, paedophilic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, rape-excusing or any other insult you can dream up.
After all, Agatha Christie fictionally murdered over 90 people, but I’ve never heard anyone claiming that she was a mass-murdering sociopath.
Also, as I've said before: you don't actually know things about people online. You know what they've said or shown you. They may be slanting it somehow; most people online do that. They may have traits or experiences you are not aware of; probably everyone does. Even someone you've been e-friends with for some time, probably has things you don't know about. A stranger certainly does. So remember that before you make assumptions, because "Assume makes an ASS of U and ME." Don't be an ass.
Feel free to discuss perspectives on fannish or other ethics. A further exploration is here.
colour me puzzled
Date: 2022-11-25 07:28 am (UTC)This brings up a point I hadn't thought of until now. Either I'm posting in very sheltered bits of the internet, have been very lucky, or I'm doing something wrong/right ... but I don't recall getting any very negative comments. Occasional constructive critiques of style, which are helpful, but no 'eat shit and die' types.
OTOH, I write original creative content mostly, not fandom, so maybe that's it. I'm not running into people's preconceived notions about characters etc. But still, you'd think i'd offend someone at some point.
Or maybe nobody gives that much of a toss about what I'm doing, which is depressing.
Maybe the 'laws' are different for non-fandom works? And all the crap in fandom is the result of people feeling somehow entitled to their interpretation of the canon and being upset at different ways of looking at it, or even canon breaking fan-fics??
Re: colour me puzzled
Date: 2022-11-25 08:09 am (UTC)Wrote some stuff about teens having sex and doing kinky things with each other. Note, this was based on fantasies I'd had at that age.
But some folks on merely hearing about the fiction (not even reading it) came down on me like a ton of bricks.
Apparently, an adult who writes about teens having sex *must* be some sort of pedophile. Must want to have their current self having sex with these "children".
Say what?
People are crazy. It's just that *most* of the time you don't have them pouring their crazy all over you.
Re: colour me puzzled
Date: 2022-11-25 09:33 am (UTC)Yay!
>>Wrote some stuff about teens having sex and doing kinky things with each other. Note, this was based on fantasies I'd had at that age.<<
I have written such things. I have also had prompters pass me things based on past personal experiences or ideas, some of it pretty far-out.
>>But some folks on merely hearing about the fiction (not even reading it) came down on me like a ton of bricks.
Apparently, an adult who writes about teens having sex *must* be some sort of pedophile. Must want to have their current self having sex with these "children".<<
Okay, some people have this ... perspective ... where they see sex everywhere. They cannot un-see it. Everywhere. They think that a fully clothed child sitting on a fully clothed Santa is pedophila, because they can't imagine any other reason for it than sex. When the kid is saying "I want a pony" and Santa is delicately trying to convince them that a stuffed pony would be nice because a live pony is probably not going to happen. Now I happen to think that if someone believes a child and an adult together are always heading for sex, that person has something wrong in their head. But it seems to be a pretty widespread problem.
>> People are crazy. It's just that *most* of the time you don't have them pouring their crazy all over you.<<
Yep.
Re: colour me puzzled
Date: 2022-11-25 09:25 am (UTC):D I love illuminating new things for folks.
>> Either I'm posting in very sheltered bits of the internet, have been very lucky, or I'm doing something wrong/right ... but I don't recall getting any very negative comments. Occasional constructive critiques of style, which are helpful, but no 'eat shit and die' types.<<
Okay, I have read your work. Some of it is temperate, and some of it would send tetchy people into a frothing frenzy.
Sheltered? Perhaps. DW doesn't feed people content the way some other venues do. Mostly people find things by looking, or following breadcrumbs from another blog they read. This increases the chance of harmony and decreases the chance of people finding stuff they hate.
Also, you get to create your own blog, which further influences the audience you attract and constitutes a different type of shelter if you deliberately tune your profile or intro to explain what you're doing and what you do or don't want here.
Lucky? Yes, you are. It's nice to know folks actually can have the experience of creating without getting picked on. :D Yay!
Doing something wrong? I doubt it. You're getting some feedback, after all.
Doing something right? Possibly, if you have communicated to readers about your expectations and offerings.
>>OTOH, I write original creative content mostly, not fandom, so maybe that's it. I'm not running into people's preconceived notions about characters etc. But still, you'd think i'd offend someone at some point.<<
You're not dealing with preconceived notions, but people do throw tantrums over conventionally published canon stuff too.
>>Or maybe nobody gives that much of a toss about what I'm doing, which is depressing.<<
Possible, but see above remarks about what people you are probably attracting.
>>Maybe the 'laws' are different for non-fandom works? And all the crap in fandom is the result of people feeling somehow entitled to their interpretation of the canon and being upset at different ways of looking at it, or even canon breaking fan-fics??<<
To some extent this is true; certainly people can get very passionate about fandoms in ways they don't necessarily feel about works which are not part of a huge fandom. But people still get irate over completely original things, or something someone said that they don't think should have been said.
Humans are annoying. It's vitally important to be able to withdraw from or ignore each other. Lest they eat each other.
I'm just glad your writing experiences have generally been positive. That's awesome. People should get to make stuff.
(no subject)
Date: 2022-11-25 08:04 am (UTC)That did *not* help when I was growing up.
Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-25 09:41 am (UTC)I added that, found a description under Bondage Is Bad:
https://tropedia.fandom.com/wiki/Bondage_Is_Bad
>>That did *not* help when I was growing up.<<
My sympathies.
One reason I write what I write is so more folks can see positive portrayals of themselves, their traits, or other people they might encounter. Portrayals matter.
Also, it's good for young folks to have solid information about safe activities. Tying your partner's hands with a sock will not get anyone pregnant, but might impact blood flow, so you should know how to do that safely.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-25 05:16 pm (UTC)Mostly for teen sex and related.
Of course, the conservatives would have heart failure at the very idea. And that's *before* they realize that teaching kids the age appropriate parts of that sort of thing will greatly undermine their ability to snow kids by trying to act as "authority".
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-26 12:15 am (UTC)Good idea.
When I watched Smallville, all I could think was, "Gods, I went to school with those boys!" I kept wanting to drag Clark and Lex behind a barn and give them a copy of The Joy of Gay Sex. Which is why Lawrence has that book.
>>Of course, the conservatives would have heart failure at the very idea. And that's *before* they realize that teaching kids the age appropriate parts of that sort of thing will greatly undermine their ability to snow kids by trying to act as "authority".<<
The conservatives have greatly expanded anal sex with their abstinence programming. What kids took away from that was "save the vagina for marriage, everything else is fair game." That's never going to stop being funny. :D
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-26 02:58 am (UTC)My "fun" bit with anal sex was decades back when in an online discussion with someone whose main objection to gay sex seemed to be "anal is icky", I got him to state what percentage the population was gay, and what percentage of straights did anal.
Then I stepped him thru the math and showed that the number of straights doing anal *far* exceeded the number of gays.
While the conclusion was probably true even back then, it's almost a trick question. The lower you think the percent of gays is, the more like the math works out the way it did with him. Unless you have *totally* ridiculous percentage for number straights who do anal.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-26 03:13 am (UTC)They aren't concerned with safety. They're concerned with controlling people. They believe that if they teach abstinence, teens will practice abstinence. This is wrong, because people who can easily resist sex are less likely to reproduce, so it's a rare trait. Whereas being easily overwhelmed by rutting urges gets passed down and down.
>> My "fun" bit with anal sex was decades back when in an online discussion with someone whose main objection to gay sex seemed to be "anal is icky" <<
Well played. Though of course, not all gays like anal. Some prefer oral, or something else.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-26 03:53 am (UTC)That's partly due to the inability to realize that the way *you* think isn't the way *others* think. and that there's nothing wrong with that.
Therein lies the failure of many a well-intentioned plan or law.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-26 04:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-11-25 10:05 am (UTC)I've certainly learned *so much* about human sexuality and the id from being in fandom, and while that hasn't always been a comfortable process because I learned a lot that boggled my mind, I am still thankful for the education. If not for fandom's exploration of topics I would never have encountered anywhere else, ranging from the mere existence of loving gay relationships to a/b/o tentacle porn, I would never have figured out my own sexuality (ace), let alone the fact that people are amazingly and wonderfully complicated inside.
I'm a little sad that so many very popular things make me feel kind of sick, but I've suffered more of that from mainstream media than I ever have from fandom. At least your average fan writer doesn't think their story represents the feelings of all of humanity.
Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-25 10:29 am (UTC)I miss that too.
Though I also feel that people should have the option to read a different assignment if they know a particular one would be harmful for them. "Warnings" that don't come with the option of not reading the bad thing just add insult to injury. Students sure as hell aren't going to learn anything constructive from an assignment that hurts them.
Or to compare it to sports: stretch carefully, don't go too far or you will rip something.
Many of my readers say that they like to read my work precisely because they feel safe stretching farther than they usually would. \o/
>>I've certainly learned *so much* about human sexuality and the id from being in fandom, and while that hasn't always been a comfortable process because I learned a lot that boggled my mind, I am still thankful for the education.<<
Agreed.
>> If not for fandom's exploration of topics I would never have encountered anywhere else, ranging from the mere existence of loving gay relationships to a/b/o tentacle porn,<<
I once had someone request asexual tentacle porn, and did my best to deliver.
>> I would never have figured out my own sexuality (ace),<<
Go you! I'm glad you found it.
Indeed, I've had quite a few folks say that they discovered asexuality, aromance, agender, or other aspects of self through my writing. It always makes me happy.
>> let alone the fact that people are amazingly and wonderfully complicated inside.<<
My sexuality is a tesseract. There are all these spectra -- gay/bi/het, masculine/feminine/neuter, kinky/vanilla -- and then you throw in things like my orientation for redheads or sapiosexuality, it adds up to a lot more than 3 dimensions. I can say "queer," and it is true, but doesn't tell you that my sex/gender rotates through 4+ dimensions.
>>I'm a little sad that so many very popular things make me feel kind of sick, but I've suffered more of that from mainstream media than I ever have from fandom. At least your average fan writer doesn't think their story represents the feelings of all of humanity.<<
True. I find very little modern "entertainment" to be actually entertaining, so I am pleasantly surprised when I find something I enjoy there. With fandom, I find it easier to sort through the stuff to find things I greatly enjoy. Sure there's a lot of crap I don't like, but that's okay.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-25 09:53 pm (UTC)Oh yeah! But again, that's always been more of a problem of real life rather than fandom. I still resent having been forced to read one book in which the abused corpse of a young woman is found and it's treated like a background detail to add coolness to the hero's neighbourhood. It seemed to me to be particularly callous to set this book for 13 year olds in an all girls' school, as though it hadn't occurred to anyone that any of us would find that disturbing. In fandom I would just have clicked away.
my sex/gender rotates through 4+ dimensions
That's a great way to put it! That's why I like Queer because it tells you it's not straight, but it leaves lots of room for you to give more detailed explanations to those who seem like they want to listen.
I do wonder if some of the new puritanism is because - now that Fandom is more open, more well known - more so called 'normal' people are finding it, and coming into contact with a world of Queerness that would have been invisible to them even ten years ago. They're not coming into it with the same sense of having found a home that we felt when we found it.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-26 03:05 am (UTC)It mostly occurs in schools and workplaces, but I want people to be aware of it in case they encounter it elsewhere, like a book club.
>> I still resent having been forced to read one book in which the abused corpse of a young woman is found and it's treated like a background detail to add coolness to the hero's neighbourhood. It seemed to me to be particularly callous to set this book for 13 year olds in an all girls' school, as though it hadn't occurred to anyone that any of us would find that disturbing. <<
Someone showed "The Lottery" film in my junior high. It's about human sacrifice. Fortunately I know torture resistance techniques. I used them a lot in school. I don't think I should have to. Or anyone should. So when I'm teaching, if someone can't handle an assignment for whatever reason, I will provide an alternative.
>> In fandom I would just have clicked away.<<
Reason 1 billion and 6 to love fandom. :D
>>That's a great way to put it! <<
Not long ago I came across the concept of Swiss Army gender, hence the icon. I feel that it really fits me. I have all these different options, most of them folded away, but if I need one then I can whip it right out. :D
>>That's why I like Queer because it tells you it's not straight, but it leaves lots of room for you to give more detailed explanations to those who seem like they want to listen.<<
Yeah, that's why I still use it sometimes. It's short and sweet, but still diverse. I also like QUILTBAG.
>>I do wonder if some of the new puritanism is because - now that Fandom is more open, more well known - more so called 'normal' people are finding it, and coming into contact with a world of Queerness that would have been invisible to them even ten years ago. <<
That's one reason. Another is because it's a zillion times bigger. When people don't know each other, they feel free to be horrible, because they won't see that person again and thus won't face any consequences. Back when fandom was a small, tight-knit community people couldn't get away with shit like that. You got a bad reputation and nobody wanted you around, then you didn't have anywhere to go. So folks were more careful with each other then.
>>They're not coming into it with the same sense of having found a home that we felt when we found it.<<
Sadly so. And now it's just ... not what I want. It doesn't feel as much like home, or safe. It's no better than mundania. It makes me wonder where the real freaks have gone, because they aren't gathering the in same places they used to, and I don't believe there are fewer freaks in the world.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-26 10:12 pm (UTC)It's very nice that DW is still here. That at least seems like a relic of better times, and perhaps older fans will end up on here because we remember it's there.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2022-11-26 10:29 pm (UTC)Gender questioning
Many options including agender and nonbinary
>> I also like Quiltbag - it's certainly a lot easier to say than LGBTQIA, and it sounds cozy too.<<
Exactly.
>>It's very nice that DW is still here. That at least seems like a relic of better times, and perhaps older fans will end up on here because we remember it's there.<<
I agree. Older fans often like DW because of its longer post size, flexibility, and robust privacy tools. It's not what it used to be, but even diminished it is much better than the alternatives. Those tiny, fast social media platforms just have no appeal to me. I'm lucky my ideas fit in this universe. They certainly will not fit on the screen of a smartphone. :/
'gender? No thanks!
Date: 2022-11-27 12:25 am (UTC)I tend to use "gender: irrelevant"
Re: 'gender? No thanks!
Date: 2022-11-27 01:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-11-25 04:18 pm (UTC)I appreciate this post a lot.
First of all, I'm glad to be finding more people who have been in fandom much longer than I have. It helps me see that this is not something I have to "grow out of." Plus, as you mentioned, they have experience of fandom spaces that were, ironically, more accepting in the past.
Second, I'm so glad that there are people out there who want to talk about controversial topics in good faith. Somewhat off-topic, but I genuinely appreciate when someone presents "devil's advocate" views that I've seen so many people say are always bad. Never understood that. I find it so helpful to try to understand perspectives I don't agree with. Worst case scenario I end up pissed off for a little bit, but best case scenario, my worldview is expanded and I have a new framework for understanding things.
What I really wanted to say, though, is that by the time I was coming into fandom spaces around the age of 12/13, the "wank and policing" was in full force. It was kind of all I ever knew, and that sort of thing took over my worldview. I was a kid who already had a lot of internalized guilt for trauma reasons, so the idea that I could "secretly be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc" without knowing it had a lot of traction in my head. Thankfully I'm coming out of that now, as an adult, but wow- it's weird to think about how much strangers on the internet who weren't even talking to me affected my self-esteem.
Third thing I wanna say is that I appreciate the warnings I've seen on your fiction! I can say "Oh that sounds super interesting, but I'm not in the right headspace for it now. I can bookmark it for later." And I find that very useful.
Thank you!
Date: 2022-11-26 01:54 am (UTC)I'm happy I could help.
>>First of all, I'm glad to be finding more people who have been in fandom much longer than I have.<<
I've been in fandom for decades, and there are folks on here who've been in it a lot longer.
Two other options where you could specific what you're looking for:
>> It helps me see that this is not something I have to "grow out of." <<
You never have to grow out of fandom. Not even mortality is a limit: we have the Great Con in the Sky.
>>Plus, as you mentioned, they have experience of fandom spaces that were, ironically, more accepting in the past.<<
*sigh* MUCH more accepting. While I acknowledge that some other people experienced serious problems with sexism, racism, and other foo long ago, that was not my experience nor the experience of other fans I know. Our memories are of places where everyone generally got along, aside from the inevitable friction of different opinions and folks with patchy social skills. Nobody I saw in fandom was being deliberately obnoxious or exclusive. Which is why we were there.
The people who say fandom is more inclusive now are wanting a totally different experience, because what they have created is just not something I enjoy or feel welcome or safe in.
>>Second, I'm so glad that there are people out there who want to talk about controversial topics in good faith. <<
This is an excellent place for that. If you wish, I can point you to a few examples, but it's pretty common so you'll probably see it in action as you watch for new posts.
>> Somewhat off-topic, but I genuinely appreciate when someone presents "devil's advocate" views that I've seen so many people say are always bad.<<
I do too. *chuckle* In one of my SF settings, Devil's Advocate is an official bridge crew position on starships. Optional, but official. For captains who'd rather hear "That's a stupid plan" in the ready room than after things have blown up dirtside.
>> Never understood that. I find it so helpful to try to understand perspectives I don't agree with. Worst case scenario I end up pissed off for a little bit, but best case scenario, my worldview is expanded and I have a new framework for understanding things.<<
You might like my favorite ethics exercise:
* Get a list of ethical systems/philosophies.
https://opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/major-ethical-systems/
https://listverse.com/2015/05/05/10-completely-unorthodox-systems-of-morality/
* Get a list of current issues or controversies.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/alphabetical-list?type=u
https://libguides.evc.edu/az.php?s=114899
* Pick 3-10 topics. Pick 3-10 ethical systems. For each ethical system, derive how it would resolve each dilemma using its core principles.
* Compare and contrast the results. Is there a system that consistently gives results you find promising? One that usually fails? Which systems are better at which types of problem?
>> What I really wanted to say, though, is that by the time I was coming into fandom spaces around the age of 12/13, the "wank and policing" was in full force.<<
That sucks. :( I'm sorry fandom failed you in that regard.
Honestly, I look at things today and they are nothing like what I once loved. Libraries are metallic dens of noise. Bookstores have a big display of ebooks that you have to walk around to reach the paper books. If those were my first experiences, I would think I disliked those places -- not knowing there were better ways to make them (well, except that I have ulterior resources via farmemory).
>> It was kind of all I ever knew, and that sort of thing took over my worldview. I was a kid who already had a lot of internalized guilt for trauma reasons, <<
I'm sorry to hear that.
I write a lot about trauma and coping with it. Watch the warnings if you're in a sensitive mood, but if you like reading about how other people solve problems, it's all over my work here.
>> so the idea that I could "secretly be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc" without knowing it had a lot of traction in my head.<<
Well, there is subconscious bias, but 1) the studies for it tend to be deeply flawed, so I am suspicious of them, and 2) there are ways around it (e.g. removing the names/pictures from job applications, doing blind auditions for music).
I find "Everyone is -ist" to be among the most toxic memes humanity has propagated. Not only is it hurtful, it erodes problem-solving and personal growth. When people believe they're inherently bad, then they don't see any point in trying to change that.
How -isms actually work: All of them use the same distorted thought pattern.
* Trait is a valid way of sorting humans beings.
* Some version(s) of trait is better than some other version(s) of trait.
* That makes it okay to hurt people who are different.
* And then the person acts on those beliefs..
Of course it's possible for people to have subconscious biases. But things you don't know you're doing and thus can't stop doing are not your moral responsibility, because you didn't choose them. You are responsible for your choices. Things other people did -- especially people who died long ago -- are also not your moral responsibility. You are responsible only for things you can change and you can't change the past. Other people blaming your for things doesn't make them your fault. Only your own mistakes are your fault.
The type of body you're wearing, the culture you're standing in, what other people are doing around you, those don't determine your ethics. You decide that for yourself. If you don't agree that this or that trait makes people better or worse, or excuses hurting people on purpose, then you're not -ist. You may have to deal with the crappy results of other people's dumb -isms, but you don't have to make them your -isms. You can believe other things and work against -isms if you choose. Plenty of people do.
So that's how -isms work and how to take them apart. Any time you see someone spouting bullshit like "All white people are racists" you know it's harmful because it harmed you, and you can deconstruct it, so maybe other folks will see through the bullshit too.
>> Thankfully I'm coming out of that now, as an adult, but wow- it's weird to think about how much strangers on the internet who weren't even talking to me affected my self-esteem.<<
That's a known flaw of society in general -- humans tend to be very contextual creatures -- but it's a lot worse online than it seems to be in person. Know yourself. Know your values. Know your strengths and weaknesses. Know what is your shit and what is other people's shit, and let other people's shit stay on the outside of your boundaries. These things take practice but they can be learned.
If you find that being in a given environment upsets you or makes you feel bad about yourself, leave. A lot of social media is a monkey trap -- it holds people only because they won't let go of it. Let go, walk away, find some other venue that doesn't make weasels eat your brain. Or go outside, take a walk, weed a garden.
>>Third thing I wanna say is that I appreciate the warnings I've seen on your fiction! I can say "Oh that sounds super interesting, but I'm not in the right headspace for it now. I can bookmark it for later." And I find that very useful.<<
I'm happy I could help. A lot of my readers do that. They use the warnings more to read things at a good time than to avoid things altogether. It's all fine.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-06-28 04:33 pm (UTC)I haven't followed you for long, but you do inspire something in me, keep up the good work ^_^
Thoughts
Date: 2024-06-29 02:23 am (UTC)Thank you. I appreciate the signal boost.
>> I haven't followed you for long, but you do inspire something in me, keep up the good work ^_^
Yay! Watch for the Poetry Fishbowl on Tuesday, those tend to be lively. :D The theme will be "Thinking Outside the Box."
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-06-29 10:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2025-01-17 09:22 pm (UTC)Thank you!
Date: 2025-01-18 02:43 am (UTC)