(no subject)
Apr. 26th, 2006 04:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI'm mousing around, following links, and I found one to a Famous Published Author that has rules about what fanfic can be written. Which sounds cool for a start, for they are cool with fanfic being written. But the way I read it, it kind of boils down to, 'write whatever you like, as long as it isn't queer'. I'm not quite sure, for the phrasing is odd/ambiguous, so I won't link, while I await clarification.
But I'm also reading a discussion where people come up with the point of view that the originator of a 'verse *should* have control over what is written in it.
Which... seems reasonable, right up until it meets politics.
Writing is political. Its a great big message. Its about making meanings out of stuff. If the official work shuts out particular meanings, 'should' that be allowed?
When I read fans getting all blah about slash, it don't bother me any, that's their personal taste, they can have that opinion. If anyone says slash shouldn't be written, then slashers just go play somewhere else, their own mailing lists or whatever. The opinion bothers me, but it isn't particularly relevant to me.
If the people who hold the rights to a 'verse are all slash=bad?
My first impulse is to start a ficathon.
Even though possible consequences would include legal letters.
Sure, it can be said that slashers could go play in a different sandbox. Write about a different 'verse. But why *should* they? The only reason that comes out is that someone, somewhere, is making the value judgement that queer is wrong. And bugger that.
*waves a little flag* (which is pretty colors anyways)
... yeah, I realise this particular discussion is a merry go round and has spun many times before. But this is my today thought.
Stories change people. Change their opinions. Some opinions I've got a particular interest in changing, but preaching won't do it, so, stories.
But I'm also reading a discussion where people come up with the point of view that the originator of a 'verse *should* have control over what is written in it.
Which... seems reasonable, right up until it meets politics.
Writing is political. Its a great big message. Its about making meanings out of stuff. If the official work shuts out particular meanings, 'should' that be allowed?
When I read fans getting all blah about slash, it don't bother me any, that's their personal taste, they can have that opinion. If anyone says slash shouldn't be written, then slashers just go play somewhere else, their own mailing lists or whatever. The opinion bothers me, but it isn't particularly relevant to me.
If the people who hold the rights to a 'verse are all slash=bad?
My first impulse is to start a ficathon.
Even though possible consequences would include legal letters.
Sure, it can be said that slashers could go play in a different sandbox. Write about a different 'verse. But why *should* they? The only reason that comes out is that someone, somewhere, is making the value judgement that queer is wrong. And bugger that.
*waves a little flag* (which is pretty colors anyways)
... yeah, I realise this particular discussion is a merry go round and has spun many times before. But this is my today thought.
Stories change people. Change their opinions. Some opinions I've got a particular interest in changing, but preaching won't do it, so, stories.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 04:36 am (UTC)*waves pretty little flag with you*
Here via
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 05:38 am (UTC)*shakes head*
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-28 04:55 am (UTC)can't wait til Ender's Game movie comes out and the slash starts...hehe