?

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: mswyrr
2007-08-05 07:34 am (UTC)
the difference being that paganism stands for something rather more important than the right to create porny versions of someone else's fictional universe.

All fanfic isn't about "creating porny version of someone else's fictional universe." True, the most focus tends to be on instances where fandom is transgressive, but there are a great many fans writing "gen" fanfic, which is meant to be an admiring imitation and continuation of the author's story, and has no more or less sexual content than the books/tv show/movie it's based on.

Wide Sargasso Sea, a famous book that takes characters from Bronte's "Jane Eyre" and fleshes our their backstory? That's fan fiction. So's the work of the authors who continued the Sherlock Holmes stories. So was the recent Nobel prize winning novel "March," which took a the father character from the famous book "Little Women" and fleshed out his life apart from his family.

The impulse to write fanfic itself is not bizarre or hyper-sexualized. It's the fundamental curiosity that leads writers to explore that might have happened, or how things came to be. Some people chose to focus on sexuality. Many don't. Please don't paint us all with the same brush.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2007-08-05 09:25 am (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out.

I hadn't thought of the Wide Sargasso sea as being fanfic but of course it is.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)