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 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)