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

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

So...what are you suggesting? In order to spare all feelings and avoid all problems, we should not only not write RPS, but all fanfiction? Because that's the only way the occasional stick in the mud actor of the Paul Darrow stripe would have been happy.

And, know what? Too bad, Paul Darrow. The fanfic isn't written for him, it's written to be enjoyed by us. The fact is, we can't know what each and every actor will like, dislike or tolerate. We can't presume to guess. But if we worry about that, no fiction of any kind can be written, for fear of one actor disliking one type of story. Fandom as we know it won't exist.

How are 30 copies of a zine different from an internet archive? That's not a silly question. They're different only in scope. Both were made public. Both were meant to be shared. If Paul Darrow could react to fiction NOT ON THE INTERNET, then the entire argument about the "public" nature of the internet is spurious. It's all public. It's the diffence between a hand-painted sign and a neon one. Both are visible by the public, though one is more easily seen. Both were designed to do the same thing.

Fannish activities can have ugly consequences, true. Personally I don't know any "aluminum-foil-hatted" crazy fans, or stalkers, or people who fume and leave fandoms over whether or not Character (or Actor) A would sleep with Character (or Actor) B. I missed Due South's Ray wars, thank goodness, but find stories about it laughable. The Season 3 B&B debacle? Stupidity. My fannish friends, many but not all of them slashers, some of them RPS writers, some RPS dislikers, are a level-headed bunch, and they understand they are writing fiction, much of it tongue-in-cheek, that is so obviously not real, though it may be about real people, that only a crazy person could see it as threatening.

Clearly, as you yourself have shown, problems will happen whether RPS is written or not, and whether or not it's posted to the net. The only alternative is a lack of fannish activities, and nobody's going to agree to that. Will you? I certainly won't, and Paul Darrow be damned.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

How are 30 copies of a zine different from an internet archive?

Control. When there were 30 printed copies, you knew that there were maybe (considering a xerox or two) only 30 - 35 people reading that story. An internet archive can be read by 300 or 3000, and unlike zines - which in those days you had to know where to get - can be read by anyone.

Also, once a zine is destroyed, the story was gone. Once something's up on the net, someone has got a copy or a mirror or a download or a google archive. It will be up and obtainable forever, even if you try to take it down.

Putting aside the ethical argument for the one specifically addressed above, I'm saying that "we know that fandom has real-world consequences. Therefore it is in the best interest of the entire fandom to make sure that The Powers That Be not see anything that would upset them. Certain types of fic - particularly sexually explicit ones and RPFs - are hot buttons in and out of fandom. Let us make sure that these things are locked down tight and not out in public where they can come back to bite us."

It's sheer self preservation.

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

But the powers that be forced fans to destroy all those copies. So again, it's just a matter of scope. Pissed off PTP have always existed. And frankly, from what you've told me, it was not to prevent law suits, but to keep Paul Darrow available to fans, through Starlog magazine, that these things were destroyed anyway. People panicked and reacted.

I think if a story is withdrawn by a fan, in response to an angy actor, that's a lovely thing. But do you really think there's no copy of that zine, illegally copied, sitting around somewhere? Because fans being who we are, the originals may have been returned, but somebody along the way copied it. It's beyond naivete to assume otherwise.

But now your objection to RPS has morphed from a moral stance to one of pragmatism: Save the fandom!

Which is it that really bugs you?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

But now your objection to RPS has morphed from a moral stance to one of pragmatism: Save the fandom! Which is it that really bugs you?

Both - I do go into the impact on the fandom (mostly in suddenly gunshy stars and convention security problems) in the original rant. If you want to know which bugs me more, it's the ethical issue. But since the argument is made that this fanfic or any fanfic isn't going to have any impact on the greater fandom, then I'm going to rebut that argument with the examples I have.

There are copies of that zine hiding out there. I have one. :> But... one.

What's happening on my original post is actually a pretty good example of the difference between print and internet. The original post was pretty much for me and my f-list. It got linked three times, which brought in 3 more f-lists. And now apparently it's been linked somewhere else by someone I don't know, and while my friends have moved on, there are still people popping up and throwing in their $.02.

It's the perfect illustration of how these things wander around the internet. A fire or flood could destroy my one copy of that zine and it's gone forever, but even if I f-locked the post, or brought it down, probably 98% of it could be stitched back together by other people from their notice emails.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Let me rephrase, now that I realize where this was posted. "Most of my friends have moved on, but..."

[shayheyred.livejournal.com]

That seems to imply you would prefer that things be kept quiet and private, including discussions such as these. Yet evidently you chose to share your original observations, for which I am most pleased. If this were a story, RPS or otherwise, you'd reach a great number of like-minded people, as you did. But you also reached a great number of dissenting voices. That's part of the deal of the internet. You benefit from it, and you deal with repercussions.

Likewise a story on the internet is not jealously guarded by a few people, but is willingly shared - unless in a friends-locked post, and it is put there primarily so that it may be shared. And when you share it, you put up with people who don't like it, who may write to tell you so.

Thats fandom for you. And that's what RPS is, too. It's out there. And you can choose not to read it because you find it morally objectionable. You can choose instead to rant about abortion foes and possibly draw the ire of a rabid right to lifer. That right to lifer thinks you are morally impaired.

Or you can choose only to discuss non-controversial subjects: quilting, resolutions, diets. Or if you want to talk about abortion, you can write that in a letter and send it to 30 friends. You can ask for that letter back, all 30 copies. I suppose that's safe.

You can choose, you choose, you choose. I get to choose, too, and so to the others, pro and anti abortion, pro or anti RPS. You may choose not to read RPS, but do not tell me I am immoral. True, you may find it, or me, morally objectionable. But just as the opionion of the Right-To-Lifer has no meaning for you, so the anti-RPS stance is unimportant to those who like it. Who is morally correct? I don't know. . .can you say for certain? I wouldn't presume to.

If you believe abortion is not the murder of an innocent (and I believe that, too), then you really must consider that a tongue-in-cheek story about two male actors having sex -- which may or may not ever be read by anyone other than like-minded fans -- is perhaps a wee bit less of a potentially immoral choice.