It's Different Because They're *People*!

[neadods]

I joined metafandom because it posts interesting links to fannish happenings around LJ, and hey - if fanthropology is good, than more of the same must be better.

We'll see how long I last now that my first post has led me to Sprat's commentary on Real Person Slash: "I know this is a sensitive area in fandom, and I know there are a lot of people for whom this is, like, A Really Major Deal--not just a personal squick, but an actual ethical issue having to do with the right to privacy of the actors in question. And the thing is, I honestly do not understand why."

Because they're people, that's why!

I commented in the thread, and I tried to keep my tone reasonable, but I am one of those folk with "an actual ethical issue" about this, and it's very simple to explain why - whether the actors in question know it or not, whether they read it or not, whether they care or not, real person fiction demotes a human being to the same level as a fictional character.

There are levels of this, some not all that offensive. For instance, obligatory disclosure, I once wrote a real person fic. I put a fictional character on a Julia Childe cooking show, which necessitated having Julia Childe in the story. But I don't feel that I denigrated her because I showed her doing her doing her job. And I've read plenty of fanfics where the actor gets sucked into the character's world, or vice versa. When the real person is written in a situation dealing with their job, and written in a manner that fits their character as known, then - well, you can argue that a line is crossed, but it's harder to argue that a person has been damaged or insulted.

But when you start talking about private issues - love, sex, family - in a public fiction, then you start treating people not just as moderately fictional, but as dancing meatpuppets. Real person slash - particularly slash about het humans (I get the impression that Sprat is writing about Paul Gross, who is married) depersonalizes the subjects even farther into breathing sex toys. Sex toys that are getting their workout not in the confines of someone's skull, but right out there in public for the amusement of the masses.

How can you not see that as ethically creepy?

There appear to be two arguments in favor of RPS. First, that the actors are attractive and sell their sexuality in their work. But just because they're selling the sizzle, it doesn't mean they're signing away their rights to control the steak. Where is the ethical line between saying "if actors wanted privacy they wouldn't be actors" and "if women don't want to be raped, they shouldn't wear miniskirts"? Because from where I'm standing, I can't see that line at all. RPS may not be as violent or violating as an actual rape, but it springs from the same mindset - that anyone that attracts is responsible for slaking the sexual arousal - regardless of that person's opinion, interest, or even intent. The same can be said for stalking. It's a fine, fine line between just writing about fantasies with someone and making those fantasies real.

And y'know what? Even if you NEVER plan on making said fantasies real, if you publicly post something torrid about an actor and then go see them, what is it going to look like - to the actor, to the authorities, even to the rest of the fandom? Better pray nothing happens to that actor when you're around, because you've made yourself public suspect #1 without ever banging more than your keyboard.

Second, is the argument that "what they don't know won't hurt them." Well, yeah. The odds of someone finding a specific story about themselves are pretty low. BUT - that doesn't mean it won't happen, not with the global, lingering nature of the Internet. Plus, while the odds of a single person finding a single fic might be low, what about the widening pool of people associating with that person? Their spouse, their children, their friends, their parents - is it really safe to assume that none of these people will trip over the story? Equally important, is it safe to assume that because the story is not about them personally that they won't be hurt/shocked/upset/appalled? Do they deserve to be hurt just because you wanted to get your ya-yas off with a person instead of a character, and wanted to do so in a semi-public forum?

Not to mention that just because they don't say anything directly to you doesn't mean that they don't know. If you suspected someone of stalking you, would your first impulse be to talk to them, or to gather up your information and quietly talk to the authorities? Particularly if they might be going somewhere, say, a convention, where you might attend and they were worried about their safety? (I work conventions, I've been in fandom for decades. I am so not joking here. It only takes one stalker scare for a fan club to lose their star or for a previously wonderful guest to stop coming.)

Is it really all worth it just to be able to write a story about a real person? A person you don't know anyway? Trust me, no matter how friendly they are, how many interviews they give, you don't actually know them.

Think they're hot? Think they ought to be with someone of your choosing? For the love of sanity, write about their character and you can safely bang 'em like a gong. Fictional people doing fictional things is a victimless crime. But for heaven's sake, if you're attracted to an actual person then grant them the dignity of treating them like people!

And no, the golden rule doesn't apply if you wish people were writing torrid RPS about you. Get a sex life of your own!

Comments

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

Where is the ethical line between saying "if actors wanted privacy they wouldn't be actors" and "if women don't want to be raped, they shouldn't wear miniskirts"? Because from where I'm standing, I can't see that line at all.

Thank you, thank you, beyond WORDS thank you.

[phoebesmum.livejournal.com]

Seconded. Those are exactly the words I wanted to say, but didn't quite have the nerve to do so. Thank you!

[peggin.livejournal.com]

I just want to say, I agree with every word of this. I have several people I consider close friends who write RPS, and as much as I usually try to read anything written by any of my friends, when it comes to those stories I can't even bring myself to click on the links. It just feels like such a violation of the actors' privacy to me.

I also don't get the need for it. I mean, if you want a fantasy story about the actor with you, go ahead and write it for your own amusement, but for God's sake, don't post it for the whole world to see! I especially don't get it when it comes to slashing the actual actors who play a couple on a TV show - like in Queer as Folk fandom, we've got Brian and Justin... they're a couple on the show and there is a *ton* of fic written about them. Why do people feel the need to take it that one step further and write stories about Gale (who plays Brian and is straight) and Randy (who plays Justin, is gay and is in a long-term committed relationship)? Why aren't stories about Brian and Justin enough? I just don't get it.

Anyway, I'm saving this to my memories. Next time one of my friends asks me why I won't read their story, I'm just going to point them here.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

For me, it's not even the violation of privacy as much as the violation of their *humanity*! The very notion that a human being is being treated like a Barbie doll creeps me to the max.

I especially don't get it when it comes to slashing the actual actors who play a couple on a TV show

I don't get that either. My pop-psychology hypothesis is that some folks simply can't distinguish between the role and the actor, because that happens outside slash too. I remember quite a lot of people chirping about how WONDERFUL and ROMANTIC and HEARTFELT it was that Ron Perlman and Linda Hamilton were really really really in love JUST like their characters. And I got in a lot of trouble when I pointed out that if true, it wasn't so romantic for his wife, her husband, or either of their sets of children.

To be fair, I also know the converse; I know someone who refused to watch Reimington Steele because "they hate each other, you know, they're not really in love." Yeah, it's called acting. That's what they do for a living, and I was actually kinda impressed that they could have such onscreen chemistry considering the personal animus.

Anyway, I'm saving this to my memories. Next time one of my friends asks me why I won't read their story, I'm just going to point them here.

Thanks! I shall confess to a longing to someday write one of those thought-provoking posts that ends up all over LJ.

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

I can't applaud you enough for this - because my hands would be numb by the end and I am working on this mad deadline. But yes yes yes to all you said. RPS - and all RP-based fic to some extent - is an afront to their dignity (and no self-promotion doesn't mean they've signed away their right to that and no, just because perhaps they've not shown much dignity doesn't make it OK) and it's an invasion of privacy even if they aren't confronted with thre evidence. This is why unauthorized bios have to be vetted by so many eyes (legal and otherwise). What you write about real people MATTERS to them.

If someone stood outside my window and took photos of me in the shower - even if those pictures are for their personal use and not for financial gain - it is STILL an invasion of privacy. the RPS is simple a wordy version of the same.

This icon pic of Michael Madsen in bed. It is publicly available, released per a decision made by him and his people for the furtherance of his career. If I snuck into his bedroom to snap a similar picture - NOT THE SAME. And WRONG (a dream, but wrong).

Perhaps he's a good example as he writes as well. His x-rated scribbles - some involving himself - hey, that's his, he's published it - he's put it out there. His right to do so and my right to avail myself of it. For me to write RPS using him t dance to my tune - and further making it available for others in some form. NOT the same. Writing about Mr. Chapel, Mr. Blonde or Glen ths Disney Dad from Free Willy is NOT writing about Michael Madsen. It IS compywright infringement and I can live with that. I am not hurting Mr. Chapel, Mr. Blonde or Glen the Disney Dad. They aren't real. Michael Madsen IS and he - as a real person deserves to be treated as a real person.

Now, I'm pondering -- woud I write a piece using Sonny Black (from Donnie Brasco. Yes, he is portrayed in the movie by Madsen but Sonny was a real person. Or is. Good lord, I don't even know if Sonny is dead or alive.). I suppose I would - if there were such a thing as Donnie Brasco fic...Hmmm.

[ajinamoto.livejournal.com]

Oh my god, I was just explaining to someone why I object to RPS (specifically Paul Gross and Callum Keith Rennie), but you have hit the nail on the head in a precise, eloquent manner. I should check out that other thread, it might be related to what I was talking about.

May I please, please, link to this post?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

May I please, please, link to this post?

Certainly!

[lagilman]

See, this is why the whole "copyright" argument is such a slippery slope to some folk. "But if A is wrong but okay to do, than B is okay too, because they're out there performing for us..."


I've seen RPS about non-actors, too. *shudder* Bad enough I have to worry about my fiction being used to the detriment of my copyright -- the thought of someone writing about me is... well, I'd not hesitate to file a C&D, for starters.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

well, I'd not hesitate to file a C&D, for starters.

Personally, I'd start with the restraining order, then get the C&D...

I'm trying not to have my head explode over the idea of RPS about non-actors. How, could that possibly be explained away? You can't even say that they put themselves out there like actors do.

[zinelady.livejournal.com]

/How can you not see that as ethically creepy?/

I don't know why some people don't see it as creepy. It squicks the hell out of me. Almost as much as the thought of Harry/Snape slash fiction, but it's acceptable to a surprisingly large vocal fraction of fans. I can't get over the fact that Rickman is old enough to be Radcliff's grandfather.

/Particularly if they might be going somewhere, say, a convention, where you might attend and they were worried about their safety?/

It was hard enough for me to have written B7 slash fan fiction and then go see Paul Darrow in person. I had these irrational fears that he would know what I had been doing. I can't imagine writing it about the 'actors' themselves and then seeing them in person. I would worry myself sick, as my mom used to say.

I guess part of my squick about RPS goes back to my squick against slashing married characters together. For example Lethal Weapon slash. I could never write it because of Murtaugh is married. Or Alien Nation with George being married. Even though both fandom had two male buddies who were very close and would be easily slashed, (a drunken Murtaugh crying in Rigg's arms in the drunken scene on the boat in Lethal Weapon 3 comes to mind) the fact that two of the characters were married prevented me from doing it.

But even if the actor wasn't happily married, I'd still have a problem with writing porn about them whether it was slash or het. They are real people, not characters and deserve some privacy about their private lives.

[tv-elf.livejournal.com]

Amen. Granted, I used Charo in a fic recently... But not as a major character; as a preformer at the Montecito (tv Las Vegas). And I felt creepy even doing that.

Plus, while the odds of a single person finding a single fic might be low, what about the widening pool of people associating with that person? Their spouse, their children, their friends, their parents - is it really safe to assume that none of these people will trip over the story?

You know, above all of my squick and ethical reasons comes that. As a star, how do you explain that to your children when they find a story where you are having sex with someone other than mommy?

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Granted, I used Charo in a fic recently... But not as a major character; as a preformer at the Montecito (tv Las Vegas). And I felt creepy even doing that.

Plus, while the odds of a single person finding a single fic might be low, what about the widening pool of people associating with that person? Their spouse, their children, their friends, their parents - is it really safe to assume that none of these people will trip over the story?

You know, above all of my squick and ethical reasons comes that. As a star, how do you explain that to your children when they find a story where you are having sex with someone other than mommy?


I once stumbled over a piece that featured one of the LOTR actors as a rapist and murderer---and used his real-life relatives as fodder.

[lizbetann]

You know, I'd like to hear one person explain why it is okay. Because I know there are two sides to every story but... I do not understand how anyone could ever think that this was appropriate.

My exposure to the "debate" was sparked when Yahtzee published an Angel fic called Hoop Dreams, where the LA Lakers were turned into demons and the Angel Investigations team had to put them down. Funny, funny fic. But it raised the question of using real people in fanfic. On the BetterBuffyFics list, it became a raging argument between the people who were squicked at the idea of read fic (particularly sex) about real people and those who were appalled that anyone would limit what they chose to read and recommend.

The final decision (not from the mods, but from a poll of the members) was the real people were okay in fic as long as you weren't putting them in sexual situations (ref: LA Lakers as demons: okay. Charo performing in Las Vegas: okay. David Boreanaz getting it on with Charisma Carpenter: not okay).

For weeks thereafter, one person on the BBF list (who had been the most vocal about, "Don't you dare limit what I want!" had a quote in her sig from a fic about Faith and Britney Spears f*cking. I mean, really. Faith has SOOOOO much more taste.

My long-held opinion is that RPF/RPS is the new slash. By that I mean the people who were into slash because it was "out there" and "edgy" and wanted to see themselves as shocking... were kind of left in the lurch now that slash is a no big deal. So they had to find something else to do that would alarm people and cause consternation. So they could feel persecuted and abused, because if they aren't being kicked, then what are they?

And I consider that attitude very analogous to many right-wing Christian (and let me emphasize the "right-wing" over the "Christian" in that, because 95% of the Christians I know and hear of are NOT like these people, and I personally don't think that these people even remotely approximate following the teachings of Jesus, so "Christian" is a misnomer) groups in the United States today, who, despite being at the top of the cultural pecking order, insist on acting like they are downtrodden martyrs. But that's an argument for another day.

[lagilman]

the real people were okay in fic as long as you weren't putting them in sexual situations

Which is somewhat similar to what's currently allowed in published fiction -- you can use a Public Figure just so far, and no further, and even then be very very careful because if they choose to sue, they will probably win. Even if you were presenting them in a positive light.

[diannelamerc.livejournal.com]

Word!

Just... *Word*!

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

I guess I have to take an opposing view to (all of) yours, in that where I do not personally like RPS, or even RPF, because it's goofy and (depending on the subject and people involved) sometimes it squicks me, still I think it is not the Instrument of Evil that you describe.

And here's how it's different from miniskirt-wearing woman "asking" to be raped: the writers of RPS are fantasizing, fictionalizing the lives of people. A rapist is physically raping and hurting the woman. If I like to think of Callum Keith Rennie and Paul Gross fucking each other in a trailer, that's not real. If I follow Callum and Paul and force them at gunpoint to have sex, or I stalk them, or I threaten Paul's wife, or even if I publish Callum's home telephone number, that's real, and that can cause real damage.

What exists in my mind and even on my computer is just a collection of words or fantasies -- possibly delusional, demented or even twisted ideas about these real people. But they're just fiction. I actually think that it's far, far worse to post someone's home address than to write an imaginary scene where they're giving blow jobs to each other, because that sort of information can do real harm. All the rest of it can do is make people wonder, or laugh, or turn away in disgust. As for starting rumors or putting ideas into others' heads about the real lives of these people, well, that happens to any public figure, and where I recognize that they do not ask for such trouble, it does, in fact, come with the territory, no matter if someone's writing RPS about them or not.

And here's a truly unpopular idea: if someone wants to fantasize about raping said miniskirted woman, I might think, "Ew, what a sick puppy, he needs help," but if he's not actually raping her, or threatening her, in this world, morally challenged though it may be, that is still legal, and one is entitled to have one's own thoughts.

You, and everyone else, are not obligated to read, think about or enjoy RPS. But a writer who postulates scenarios about Real People is just a writer, and fiction, be it about real or fictional people, is still just a fantasy.

[lagilman]

"where I recognize that they do not ask for such trouble, it does, in fact, come with the territory, no matter if someone's writing RPS about them or not."


Not according to recent changes in the law. Public Figures have protections as well. Even the established dodge of changing name and gender doesn't protect the name-brand novelist any more, much less the person writing unauthorized squickfic.

[estrella30.livejournal.com]

Is it really all worth it just to be able to write a story about a real person? A person you don't know anyway? Trust me, no matter how friendly they are, how many interviews they give, you don't actually know them.

See, I think this is the most important thing here. The only problem is though, I'm not actually agreeing with you *g*

We don't know these people. Interviews and photo shoots and clip shows give us the very, barest, slimmest view of the *person* that's being interviewed available. We're actually only getting what that actor wants us to see, or chooses for us to see, or makes up for us to see.

If I were to write Paul Gross RPS, do I really think I'm writing 100% PG as a person fic? No. I do not. I'm writing fic based on the persona that he's let everyone who has cable TV see, which is, imo, a character of a type as well.

(I'd also think twice before I compare any sort of internet writing as akin to RAPE. Someone who's ever been in that situation might not take too kindly to being compared to an actor getting willing fucked in the back of his trailer.)

[nycdeb.livejournal.com]

so the fact that he has a public persona makes it OK?

[elasg.livejournal.com]

Word, Nea... absolutely, WORD!

The line IS posting it in a public forum. What I can't understand is why people who supposedly like or admire these actors would do something that could potentially insult or upset them? These RPS authors may say it's only writing, but how would they really feel if they were put in the shoes of those they are exploiting?

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

One of the things that keeps coming up is, "How do you know they'd mind even if they found out?" I think maybe I can answer that question.

I used to hang out in a newsgroup where "persona posting" -- choosing a character to represent oneself, and then writing about that character in third person -- was common. The single strongest taboo in that group was to write someone else's character inappropriately (for example, saying that they were doing something the person writing the character would never have them do). It would happen now and then out of ignorance, and usually the offender, after having the taboo explained to them, would apologize and that would be the end of it. But I remember a couple of people who insisted on their right to write anyone else's persona doing anything they liked, because "it's just fiction, after all" -- and they got flamed out of the group, without exception.

It should probably be noted that the people who did that were also, without exception, TOTAL ASSHOLES and were usually writing other people's personas maliciously after getting into arguments with said people. But the point being made is that those personas represented real people and were considered Off Limits to the equivalent of RPF. The people whose avatars they were did mind, even when it was done in ignorance.

I am semi-convinced that part of the Great Divide between the protesters and defenders of RPS is the ability to think of actors on a screen as Real People at all. The presence or absence of empathy for people you don't know personally, as it were.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

And here's a truly unpopular idea: if someone wants to fantasize about raping said miniskirted woman, I might think, "Ew, what a sick puppy, he needs help," but if he's not actually raping her, or threatening her, in this world, morally challenged though it may be, that is still legal, and one is entitled to have one's own thoughts.

Well, what happens when the fantasy stops being enough and he starts publishing it?

I'd also like to address the person above who asked about historical figures. They're....historical. They're long-dead, and they participated in historical events. Comparing Elizabeth I with some TV actor who'll be forgotten as soon as his show is off the air...

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I'd also like to address the person above who asked about historical figures. They're....historical. They're long-dead, and they participated in historical events. Comparing Elizabeth I with some TV actor who'll be forgotten as soon as his show is off the air...

[raises hand] That was me. Yes, but at what point does a person become fair game for historical fiction? That's why I asked if it would be OK to write RPF about John F. Kennedy. He's been dead for 42 years, and was a very public figure, but is daughter is still living. Do you think that a JFK/Elvis story would be taboo RPS, or would it be historical fiction?

[isabeau.livejournal.com]

One of the arguments I've seen (which isn't quite covered in your two arguments) is that RPF/RPS is not really about the person, per se, as about the public persona, which is in some ways just as fictional as a fictional character. That is, movieverse-LotR fic is about, say, Legolas and Aragorn rompin' in the bushes, and deals with two fictional characters; RPS-LotR fic is about, say, Orlando and Viggo rompin' in the bushes, and deals with two fictional characters (i.e. their public personas).

...mind you, despite saying this, I am completely on your side re RPS/RPF. While I have read some decently-written RPS based on very strong recommendation, the only way I can tolerate it is by considering it to be fiction that involves original characters that *happen* to have the same names, appearances, and jobs as the people in question, but are not those people, which is a kind of fine line for me to walk.

RPS itself, without that sort of evasion, makes me uncomfortable.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

considering it to be fiction that involves original characters that *happen* to have the same names, appearances, and jobs as the people in question, but are not those people

And THAT is exactly what we're talking about. RPS and RPF is not the actors or celebrities, but the IDEA of that person. Uber-Paul Gross, or Dream-Callum, if you will. And that's why it's fiction.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

I have very little to add; that's very much like my issue with using real people as characters in intimate situations. Plain and simple, it's an unethical way to treat another person, because it intrudes on very personal places without their consent. If someone says to you personally or to his fandom "Go knock yourselves out, I think it's funny as hell," there's consent, and fair enough.

To say that being marketed is an intrusion on their privacy and dignity, so it's okay, well, it's an intrusion public figures explicitly agree to every time. They may be told it's the only way to work in that town again, but they can and do exercise the authority to sign over bits of their public image or not. (They may then be unhappy with the results anyway, but that's no reason to skip the explicit agreement stage.)

On a sort of tangential note, I also take issue with the point of view that it's all right because they'll never know. Quite aside from that not being the same as victimless (when you're relying on the ignorance of the target, it's a sure sign that there's a legal or ethical issue in the situation), I simply don't think it's as hidden an activity as it must appear to ficcers. Most actors of an age to be familiar with the internet know perfectly well what's going on in fandom. (And even some who you wouldn't expect; IIRC, Ian McKellan is perfectly well aware of what goes on in LOTR fandom online.) You don't even need to be an actor to do ego-surfing, it's so common that Wired stopped writing about it in 1996. But they have an added incentive; they rise or fall based on public reaction to their work. Any actor reasonably in touch with their own fans knows very well their characters are being slashed. If they personally are being slashed in any real amount of stories, you can bet they know. You don't even need to be online to know; any actor at a con, personally in touch with, say, a hundred fans, will meet five who don't have any inhibitions about showing them extremely explicit content involving their characters or themselves. An actor making a public moral objection to common, garden-variety slash at a con tore apart Blake's 7 fandom back in the '80s, before this stuff was easy to find on the internet. The actors know. They may only have glancing familiarity, or may not be very interested in talking about it, but they'd have to be blind not to know.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

An actor making a public moral objection to common, garden-variety slash at a con tore apart Blake's 7 fandom back in the '80s

I've been waiting for someone to bring this up. And Darrow wasn't even upset about RPS, he was upset about slashing his character. An upset that ripped apart friendships and a fandom, and which cramped several careers.

Fandom's fantasies have a real-world impact, on the actors and on the fandom itself. Does anyone's "right to write" take precedence over the responsibility to a fandom? To the dignity of the people we supposedly like? I have yet to be convinced that the answer isn't "No."

[doll-revolution.livejournal.com]

ok, i get that you believe that RPS/RPF is ethically and morally wrong, and invasive and violating and just plain Not Nice.

i would like to point out, though, that just because you believe something to be so doesn't actually make it so. i can guarantee that there are just as many people who believe the complete opposite as you; and that they think you are just as wrong as you think they are.

regardless: you are NOT responsible for the rest of the world's actions; you are responsible for your own. if you find RPS/RPF reprehensible and evil, then (one) don't write it, (two) don't read it and (three) defriend/don't talk to those who DO write it.

what doesn't help, what never helps, is to assume your viewpoint is the only valid one, and to label all those who disagree with you as 'immoral' and 'unethical'.

[kelliem.livejournal.com]

Not a fan of public RPS myself, but this: i would like to point out, though, that just because you believe something to be so doesn't actually make it so. i can guarantee that there are just as many people who believe the complete opposite as you; and that they think you are just as wrong as you think they are. is Spot On.

As an analogy: a lot of people believe that homosexual marriage is evil, immoral and will lead to the downfall of Western Civilization. That does not make it true.

[shawan-7.livejournal.com]

If someone posts like this in their Live Journal, it's their statement.

They're opening a discussion -- not laying down rules, not demanding anyone else follow them, not telling other people what to think.

Anyone who thinks that any hard-and-fast rules are coming out of this is loopy. Most fans can't agree on the brand of soda pop at a dinner party; the thought of restricting someone else's behavior (especially on the Net) is ridiculous.

Personally, I agree with Nea's take on RPS/RPfic. Find it repugnant -- I'd click it away if it crossed my path. I suspect a lot of actors might feel themselves violated if they ran across it without some understanding of "what it is."

[peggin.livejournal.com]

I saw a couple of comments above that were along the lines of "just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean you're right; lots of people don't think there's anything wrong with it and we're entitled to our opinion, too." Um... isn't that the same argument the members of NAMBLA use?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

See my comment to doll_revolution. It absolutely fascinates me that more people have come and argued about my opinion of RPS than have ever reacted to all my pro-choice posts combined.

[lovelypoet.livejournal.com]

People have been writing real people "fiction" for as long as the world has been around. It hasn't always been about celebrities though, so you might not even realize you've read it. Is it unethical and immoral for me to fictionalize my life and the people I know in ways that they might find unflattering? To create relationships that didn't really exist? If I write a story that anyone who knows me clearly recognizes as semi-autobiographical but I market it as fiction, do I have permission to make up lies about people I actually do care about for the sake of a better story as long as I change their names so I can pretend it isn't actually about them?

What if I write something and claim it's memoir but exaggerate details in ways that could hurt people? Is this unethical or is it just good story telling? Where does the line come? Is it better or worse to use and warp the real and private details of someone's life that you became privy to through trust and intimate acquaintence for profit or to use the information given to the general public through interviews meant for public consumption for the entertainment of a group of friends who share your interest?

Honestly, I'd much prefer any of the people whose interviews I've used as the basis for RPF to find those stories than for my family/friends to find some of the fiction and memoir I've written using our intertwined lives. The chances of personal offense and the belief that there has been an abuse of trust is much more likely in the latter.

[ginmar.livejournal.com]

Well, that's the thing. RPF uses a real person's name and characteristics, and often uses them in intimate situations.

I've seen a lot of people arguing not that it's good, but that they can get away with it, or why it's really not that bad. No one seems to want to actually defend it and say it's great and so forth. Why? Because there's that essential lack of consent on the part of the person in the story. Fiction at least makes the effort to protect people who've been fictionalized. RPF takes exactly the opposite approach.

Legally speaking the use of long-dead historical characters is an accepted practice. One can't write about the Civil War and leave out Robert E. Lee. You'll notice that it's extremely rare of Lee's biographers to write porn about him, or to put him in fictionalized stories which portray him doing things he didn't in fact do. There's a certain respect there. That basic respect is what's lacking in RPF.


It should also be noted that parody and satire are specifically excluded from libel/slander laws, which is something else RPFers like to try and argue. Not saying you said that, but it's something else that could be headed off at the pass.

It's fiction. Doesn't matter if somebody fictionalized a real person---by concealing certain features---like their name, for God's sake----they're still trying to protect that person. The writer is making the effort. The RPFer is not.

[twistedchick]

I wrote very much the same thing that you did, though perhaps less politely a year or two ago, and posted it (on request) to Cereta's Fanfiction Symposium. The flying bits of matter that passed through a large male bovine did not stop for weeks. (But that was before LJ; undoubtedly they flew slower then.) However, the arguments for it don't seem to have changed much. I would've hoped (in a philosophical way) that they might have developed some, but no.

[ajinamoto.livejournal.com]

That's an excellent essay on the fanfiction symposium, very clear and to the point. I'm sure you got a lot of "that'll never happen" comments.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

You cite extreme, obsessed or mercenary people. Are your friends like that? Mine aren't. We just want to write and be read, without profit. Just as there are bad apples in the NYC Fire Department, where the overwhelming majority of firefighters are law-abiding, honest, brave people, so there are crazy fen who take advantage of every situation, among a vast majority of fun loving fen who aren't sickos. And there is the occasional tight-assed actor like Paul Darrow, alongside the easy-going Paul Gross. ::shrug:: I can find an example of everything. That's immaterial, frankly, because what we're talking about is the tongue-in-cheek writing of RPS.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I will overlook that pun, I will overlook that pun, I will overlook that pun...

The main point, to me, is that we don't know where the actors fall on the "Paul scale" until we ask. Okay, Paul Gross doesn't mind. Paul Darrow does. The fact that Gross doesn't care doesn't mean that Darrow has given permission. How can we all assume that all actors are on the Gross side of the Paul scale?

And then there's the real world fallout. Paul Darrow wasn't stalked, he wasn't even RPSed. But he threw a hissy that ruined a fandom and got people fired from their real life jobs. Other fans didn't start it, the actor did *over fanfiction* - and the whole fandom suffered. And when a war like that starts, it doesn't really matter what one's personal friends are like, because your only choices are to leave the fandom or get sucked into the maelstrom.

Even the lightest, most innocent of fanfics can have repercussions in the real world. I know a story that was meant to be a tribute - and the creator of a character used only tangentially sued - and won - demanding that all copies of the zine be recalled and destroyed, that the publisher give her the names and addresses of everyone who bought one so that the creator could track and destroy THOSE copies, and that the publisher and the author had to post a specific ad in consecutive issues of Publisher's Weekly apologizing. That light, innocent fic that was supposed to just be between a few people ended up costing the author and publisher several hundred dollars, and could have (the publisher refused to turn over records) dragged in everyone who even bought a copy.

The reason why I care about things like this, the reason why I get worked up about them, is that fandom has never been the protected cradle we like to think it is. Fannish activites can have ugly consequences well outside of fandom and well beyond Cease and Desist letters when The Powers That Be get their panties in a bunch.

And with the advent of the Internet, that cozy cocoon has become even less cozy and even less of a cocoon. And having seen the scorched-earth results of fanfics published back when you knew that there were only 30 copies in existance, it's not hard to extrapolate what could happen when hundreds of people can find the fic.

just a few words...

[the-liz666.livejournal.com]

You don't know me... Found your name on ginmars wall... But given the hell you have been/are going through with this one, I figured I'd at least pipe up to say, I agree with you.

I haven't read the other comments, I don't intend to, but I imagine they're objecting on the grounds that it is 'fiction'. Well, if it's 'fiction' then there's really no reason to use that person's real name. If you want to write about fucking Brad Pitt in a Jacuzzi somewhere, why not just write about 'Mr. Smith' (Mr. & Mrs. Smith) or perhaps his slightly more shifty character in Oceans 11? There's no need to put HIS NAME on there.

Names are personal property. In some cultures, names are sacred. In a past history it was believed to know someone's name was to have power over them, to be in possession of a part of their soul. They are not public property.

Regardless of how many movie posters, novels, TV shows, or magazines a persons name appears in, it doesn't make it any less private property. Improper use of a persons name in print is known simply for one word: libel. Especially if it is implicating that person in an unflattering light.

And for my final point: Would you like it if someone did it to you? To your mother? To your husband? Or to your child? How well would it sit with YOU to know some woman was graphically fantasizing and salivating over YOUR husband, or someone you love? Yes, maybe some people don't give a damn if you do it to them, it still doesn't make it right. People need to really THINK before they decide what they're doing is okay.

Well, that's my say. Thank You for hearing me out. *tips hat in respect, and slips out the way I came in*

[shirerain.livejournal.com]

Everything's been said already, so I'll just say that you have made my day with this (quite possibly my week).

[dragonscholar.livejournal.com]

I've wanted to start an RPS/RPF fic discussion on fanthropology, would you consider reposting this - or letting me link to it?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

You have my permission to link to this, although I'd like it if you also link to the following post as well, the one about "six posts on abortion and nobody comments, but one post about RPS and ka-BOOM!"

Note that the thread from my journal started on Sprat's and also spawned threads in shayheyred and menikoff's LJs; to get the complete set, as it were, you probably need to link them all.