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.

[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2007-08-05 09:49 am (UTC)

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

That's a very big question. It's one we've been struggling with ever since Marcel Duchamp exhibited a ready-made urinal.

I was foolish to raise it.

It's probably unanswerable.

What annoyed me about this particular painting was the fact that it portrayed two characters from a children's book. I find this yucky. If it had been an image of two anonymous males it would have been fine.

I've been asking myself how far my tolerance runs. If I had come across the image by chance- in a book or a web site or on a gallery wall- I certainly wouldn't have run to call the cops. I'm a libertarian and against censorship. However by the time I found it, it was already controversial. There's been a lot of debate over whether the image is legal or not. My opinion is that LJ was wise to take it down before the issue could be tested in a court and that the artist was naive to think she could get away with it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: serenanna
2007-08-05 04:21 pm (UTC)

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

Funny you should bring up the Fountainhead by Duchamp. It was one of the first subjects my art history professor in college covered, and spend much of our time going over that topic again in learning about modern art. She even marched the class down to the Philadelphia Museum of Art just to see it and debate over that and other pieces.

I'm personally of the opinion that if anyone takes the time to make something of their own imagination with some degree of skill or intent, then to me it's art. But then again, my design background is talking probably since I do find art in something as simple as clothes.

But I'm digress, back to the subject of porn.

Oh boy, I feel like I'm about to rip the veil from your eyes for something along those lines . . .

Um, I hate to break it to you, but there's a joke passed along by a lot of funny geeks that was generated out of an anonymous BBS system called 4chan, (devoted to mostly anime, but really anything goes) of certain rules of 4chan and by extension, the rest of the internet. The most widely known rule is Rule 34, in which it's that, "There is porn of it. No exceptions."

After spending a little time on there and other sites, I have found this joke to be profoundly true! Does it disgust me sometimes? Yes, but level of tolerance runs very high. No subject is sacred, least of all things meant for children. Adults still play Pokemon after all and collect Barbie dolls. (Myself included)

Yet, no matter what I think of the more extreme examples, it's not gonna stop anyone from making them. I'll agree, your(figuratively) private journal is the wrong place to put anything you don't want connected to you in public. Yet, in most cases where I've those things, they are either f-locked anyway, linked to a site off of LJ's servers, or are in communities meant for that material . . .

The point though is all kind of moot now. Most of the anger have shifted from the pictures to LJ's handling of the matter by not being clear on their TOS changes when they had the chance, by not warning people first to remove content as promised, by outright lying to some users that they were heard and that their intended targets were the most extreme examples of pedophilia, and by taking so long to come up with an answer.

Really, that's my sticking point. Either they want to have users like us or they don't. I personally downgraded my account to basic, and if friends an fandom move somewhere else of our making or not, I'll go too. I explained this situation this morning to a friend who wasn't in fandom at all. Like you, she got weirded out about the Potter porn, yet when I told her about LJ's botched handling and false promises, she got just as angry as fans.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read all this. For a non-fan, I must say you're taking this all really well and attempting to understand. It's been a pleasure.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2007-08-05 04:41 pm (UTC)

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

I've come to the conclusion that if an artist says it's art then we have to take his/her word for it.

But just because it's art doesn't mean it's any good.

Rule 34? No I'm not shocked or surprised. I've seen porn involving well-loved cartoon characters and found it funny. I forget who the characters were or what exactly was going on.

Water off a duck's back.

I don't have anything against porn. Porn is good.

But maybe not every kind of porn. Porn that revels in the abuse of power (I don't include consensual BDSM ) is ugly. Paedophile porn comes into this category- and there was a miasma of paedophilia about the image we're all getting tired of discussing.

I agree about the way the issue was handled. I hope LJ has learned from its mistakes and won't make them again.

Thank you for your courtesy. I expected to get flamed and have been pleasantly surprised at how polite and reasonable everyone has been.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: alex51324
2007-08-06 04:53 am (UTC)

Re: Part 2: Morality and Censorship

Psst--Duchamp's urinal was just called "Fountain." The Fountainhead was Ayn Rand. I doubt either would find the mistake flattering. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)