?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Eroticdreambattle [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Fandom [Aug. 4th, 2007|12:12 pm]
Tony Grist
Fandom- I don't get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:
[User Picture]From: saare_snowqueen
2007-08-04 08:30 pm (UTC)

SAY SO. Tell us this is not a fandom-friendly site, and we'll migrate.

It seems to me that's what they/we are doing. Whether or not Polifilio or I or... understand or like fanfic is not important. I doubt that J.K. Rowling has any great objection to most of the fanfic that is being written. BUT, Pedophilic pornographic images are ugly and they can be and are used to stimulate the sickness of pedophiles. We fought this same issue out a few weeks ago. IF YOU WANT TO WRITE AND POST CRAP - GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!

'FANTASIES don't hurt anyone' this is another totally erroneous and stupid statement. The young jerks who buy guns and then go out and shoot up schools fuel their obscene behavior on their fantasies.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: bleachedrainbow
2007-08-04 09:54 pm (UTC)

Re: SAY SO. Tell us this is not a fandom-friendly site, and we'll migrate.

The young jerks who buy guns and then go out and shoot up schools fuel their obscene behavior on their fantasies.

That's hardly a useful comparison unless we're suddenly talking about trade in real children/people. If we're still talking about fictional characters and fantasy then I think a more useful comparison would be water pistols, paint-balling and replica guns.

Of course, it's still not a very useful comparison, but it wouldn't be a "totally erroneous and stupid" one. Just as you can't have sex with a fictional character you can't 'shoot up' a school with a water pistol. We'll, not with lethal results.

'FANTASIES don't hurt anyone' this is another totally erroneous and stupid statement.

Please explain cause and effect. Preferably without making a random and totally unconnected statement about deadly weapons.

Even though I do sometimes share my fantasies as stories, my fantasies don't hurt anyone because I don't act them out. Those people who do act out their fantasies would act them out regardless of whether or not they new what mine were.

I'm sure many kids talk about shooting up or bombing their schools, or doing other likewise horrible things ... in fact, I know they do because I was once a child in a school and how to get such-and-such a clique/teacher back was always a favourite fantasy game. But the only person who actually goes out and does it, does it in accordance with THEIR OWN fantasy because they are sick for some reason(s) not associated with the normal human activity of sharing violent stories/pictures.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: haikujaguar
2007-08-04 11:11 pm (UTC)

Re: SAY SO. Tell us this is not a fandom-friendly site, and we'll migrate.

My confusion on this issue comes from people saying "fantasies don't hurt anyone" and the notion of intangibles like art, words, attitudes and pictures creating a hostile environment.

While I can accept that the fantasy you keep to yourself harms no one, I don't see how an entire community accepting something like drawings of children engaging in sexual activity does not create a hostile environment.

There is a double standard here I don't quite understand. Words and pictures are harmless expressions of creativity... until they're expressions of some form of harassment important to someone. I don't think we can have both, and I think the boundary gets crossed when it becomes a communal/socially-accepted thing.


That's the part I think I see missing. What is harmless in your head becomes something else again when an entire community springs up to support it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: elfwreck
2007-08-04 11:15 pm (UTC)

Re: SAY SO. Tell us this is not a fandom-friendly site, and we'll migrate.

Part of what fanfic and fanart do is to keep the fantasies in the realm of complete fiction... where a pedophile who reads "Fanny Hill" (public domain) could go out and molest a child, he certainly can't polyjuice-potion himself to earn the trust of of an underage wizard to seduce him. He can't cast a Confundus spell to confuse him. He can't beam himself onboard the Enterprise and arrange a transporter accident that de-ages Kirk to 8, and she can't use her Jedi Mind Powers to get a harem.

Pedophilic pornographic images are ugly...
1) Your judgment call.
2) The pics in question were not pedophilic, in that they had no connection to prepubescent ANYTHING. They were NOT inspirational to people who are attracted to prepubescents.

Attractive to people who like under-18s? Possibly. But that's not pedophilia... I was sexually active before I was 18, as were plenty of other people, and nobody accused me of pedophilia for it.


IF YOU WANT TO WRITE AND POST CRAP - GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!

I wish someone would say this to the fanatic anti-gay communities. Or the ones who claim blacks aren't human. Or the pro-ana communties that tell teenage girls they can live on 400 calories a day.

However... we're going. It'll take us a while; we're looking for a place with both the website options we need, and a lack of people who think that their personal squicks are somehow moral law that everyone should follow. (And yes, we've considered that such a place might not exist, and we might have to build it.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: manfalling
2007-08-05 03:24 pm (UTC)

Re: SAY SO. Tell us this is not a fandom-friendly site, and we'll migrate.

I haven't seen the images- but all this talk of raping or torturing or whatever Harry Potter is making me sick.

Because he's not a real person it's ok? That's kind of stupid. That's totally stupid. It's an image of an obscene and deplorable act, it doesn't matter if it's real or not.

If you have fantasies like that, and encourage them within yourself, and want to share them with others, then I'd say you're pretty sick.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: red_girl_42
2007-08-05 06:07 pm (UTC)

Re: SAY SO. Tell us this is not a fandom-friendly site, and we'll migrate.

Pedophilic pornographic images are ugly and they can be and are used to stimulate the sickness of pedophiles.

Ugly? Sure. But there is no good evidence out there that seeing pictures of pedophilic acts causes people to go out and *commit* pedophilic acts that they wouldn't otherwise have committed. Pedophiles are mentally ill. Most of them were molested as children themselves. Their illness isn't caused by porn. In fact, it could just as easily be argued that getting off to fictional porn (or perhaps engaging in consensual ageplay with other adults) might prevent them from needing to act out their fantasies on real children.

Healthy people who are not attracted to children do not see child porn and then suddenly go out and commit pedophilic acts. Porn doesn't create pedophiles.

Likewise, mentally healthy people do not watch a violent movie and then go shoot up their schools. The kids who have done the school shootings have had other problems that weren't being addressed. Most of them were horribly bullied. In other words, they were primarily inspired by real-life cruelty and violence.

Blaming porn or video games or Marilyn Manson songs is a great way for a criminal to deny his own responsibility for crimes he has committed. But the fact is, the vast majority of people out there see porn and hear violent songs and *don't* commit crimes. The vast majority of people are capable of separating fantasy from reality (I've had fantasies about being raped...does that mean I'm compelled to go out and actually have it happen? No.) The people who can't make that disctinction that are mentally ill. Blame the illness, not the art.

You of course are entitled to your opinions about the worth of certain works of art. I personally think that images of child sex are disgusting, and I won't let my son watch violent movies/tv shows--even a lot of them that other kids his age regularly watch. However, I am an ardent supporter of free speech and I don't think that it's okay to claim that certain fictional works are *causing* crimes unless you have the empirical data to back it up.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)