maygra | Sometime reasonable wins...

I think my main quibble is the assertion that incest as a plotpoint of fiction marks fandom as being outside the mainstream, like there is no published fiction on this topic. I hate to always be the one in the audience screeching "Flowers in the Attic!" but seriously, this was well-travelled ground long before the Eppes brothers or the Winchesters hit our screens. (And then there's anime, which is a whole topic unto itself.)

I just... we didn't make this up, not to be "edgy" or for any other reason. The trope was already out there, some of us are just choosing to run with it within the scope of fanfic.

*sigh* Kneejerk reactionism off. It's a very good essay, laying out good information on difficult topics and, incidentally, put a name to something I didn't have a name for before. *wince*

I'm still stuck on the thoughts = action response (Which

heatherly did not assert.)

For her essay, I trip over the "responsible" part. I consider myself a responsible writer, in that I feel a responsibility to write in such a way as I satisfy my own moral standards. I'm less sanguine about being held responsible for or to the moral standards of other people, especially when Moral standards is so ambiguous as to practically be an oxymoron.

Yes, and it immediately sets up a dichotomy: if Action X is Responsible, then Action not!X is Irresponsible.

It's... rrar. Crazymaking. *sigh*

see I draw a line between fiction/public speech and pornography/erotica. The latter has its sole purpose to titillate - and therefore (as long as it is properly labeled/restricted to age appropriate venues) there need be no restrictions or concerns or discussions of writer's responsibility. Just as there need be no restrictions (as long as no harm is being done) on what goes on inside the head. Or inside the bedroom (between consenting adults).

Fiction - as people have pointed out -serves a different need -- for storytelling, reflecting, shaping and shifting the reader/society. There I'd want more thought put into the writing and I'd want the writer to be aware of what impact their writing can have.

The real issue we're debating is not writer's responsibility - but how visible do we want pornography/erotica to be, is there harm in reading/writing it and should it continue to be written as freely and openly as it has been in the past 30 years? Some feminists have been arguing for years that pornography denigrates women and needs to be stopped. Religious groups come at this same question from a different angle. There are also groups that feel that hate speech needs to be silenced because it creates an atmosphere of tolerance. Parents look at TV and movies and worry that over sexualization and mindless violence is shaping their children into something unrecognizable.

So we’re not the only ones struggling with these questions, and I think it is time to start looking at this from a broader view. The issue is not whether *fans* need to be cautious in what we write/read but what we as people are willing to allow into public for consumption and to what degree are we willing to tolerate other peoples definitions of ‘good for society/bad for society”. Blogging creates its own problems because it creates an illusion of private space – where in reality it is as public as any other website

*butts in*

I'm currently reading the 2002 hugo winner for literature. While it's new (the book) comparative to fandom/fanfic, I'm not really sure that makes a difference.

I think one of the big things that seems to throw people is that fanfiction doesn't need someone to approve of it before it can get published. Doesn't need anyone to say "this is worth reading" whatever that means to that person and thus publishable and thus there's this weird "well no one is doing it for you, and thus you must do it for yourself" which totally misses the point of most of what publishers do.

True, and as others have pointed out the flip side of the lack of a gatekeeper in fanfic is the lack of a warning structure on profic. :)

It makes me tired. Every time something brings an issue like this to the fore (or, in some fandoms, every time the seasons turn) someone brings up the same argument like it's Brand New, "See?? This is why you should change your ways." And in the end it's never new, there are people on one side asserting their expectations of behaviour of people on the other side.

ack! The book being about this very subject matter. Sorry!

The thing is I already feel like I post my fics responsibly because I add warnings, what more do people want???

I really do feel it's the parent's responsibility to take that keyboard and mouse with them when they leave for work so the kids can't play on the computer without them there to supervise.

most of the topics she mentioned I'd read stories that covered those issues from the school public library and the city public library. Fan Fiction isn't the first writing group to cover child abuse/incest/underage sex territory, I think it's just the first one that added warnings to the stories so people could pick and choose what they want to read.

Trust me, when I first read Flowers in the Attic at 15 I had no clue there was going to be incest/rape. When I read Stephen King's It at age 11 I also had no clue there would be a sex scene with 11 year olds in it and the list can easily go on.

hmmm maybe I should have posted this in my LJ.

I didn't really understand what the point of the post was. Maybe because it was so cautiously phrased. I mean, the post said that she had no problem with erotic fantasies, but then it gave the impression as if the only "responsible" way to write certain topics was the "take them serious as RL issues and do research" approach, it seemed?

I'm not into incest fic, so I'm unsure about fictional tropes there, but the same kind of argument exists with research for rapefic. Which, sure, is a good idea if anyone wants to write fanfic about rape as trauma realistically, but not so much if the point is to write a rape fantasy played out by characters. I mean, for example, I like rapefic of the kind where essentially the rape is fetishized, as porn, but the other kind of rapefic where the rape functions mainly as trauma and is dealt more or less realistically doesn't work as porn for me even if the descriptions are explicit. If it is heavy on the hurt it can work for me for my character hurt/torture kink, but that isn't really a "porn kink" but a "plot kink" for me. Along the same lines most porn slavefic wouldn't really be improved by researching human trafficking and its psychological impact on the victims, and I really don't see why anyone should do research into that to write write their "they get kidnapped, enslaved and humiliated by the bad guys" epic, or risk to be accused to make lightof human slavery.

It's a plot kink - exactly. When you start "taking issues seriously and doing research", you still can't forget how YOUR characters are going to react to this situation. Not how they should react or how mental health professionals think they should react, but how they - as characters in your head - will react in ways internally consistent to your already-created characterisation of them. Otherwise it might as well be an essay on a survivor website where "the names have been changed" to protect the innocent, because it's not actually exploring *that* issue in terms of *these* characters, is it?

Robert Heinlein wrote incest in at least one of his novels (brother/sister). As others have said, fandom isn't the first place these ... uncomfortable ... themes have been used. And it won't be the last.

As far as "responsible" writing goes, I'm not sure it's up to the writer to warn or research or include the impact on victims. I know Heinlein's book didn't have an incest warning on the back cover.

In a way, this is just another version of the "condoms, yes or no, are we being responsible?" discussion. All the choices we make in writing our stories have the potential for both positive or negative impact on a reader, and there comes a point where it's up to the reader to be responsible for their own choices.

Yes, exactly. And yes, also, fandom (especially a specific fandom where incest is the prime pairing) is it's own echo chamber *and* circular firing squad. So, if one fan represents a hundred thousand non-fans (or more), and on fan who treats incest as a lark or however it is objected to represents a hundred other fans that treat the topic in the manner which is acceptable, I think our actual impact on the world at large is pretty damn negligent.

::nods:: In the greater scheme of things, much less fanfiction is read than, say, gay porn/erotica/sexual writing. And in the gay porn/etc. community of professional writers, even they can't agree on what's "responsible" writing, and I'd wager they have more influence on a wider range of readers than we do with fanfiction. Or maybe it's not so much influence as entertainment. It's not like we or they are writing philosophical essays or non-fiction tomes. We're writing to entertain and titillate, and that can include responsible themes or it can push the envelope, and neither one is "right" or "wrong".

What's interesting to me is actually something that stems from her post, which cautions fanfic writers to keep in mind the difference between fantasy and reality. When I entered SPN fandom, I was wary of incest fic, and then when I did start reading it, I couldn't read fluff or schmoop or established relationship or anything but angst, really. And since I'm not a huge fan of the angst genre, I did slowly branch out (within the Sam/Dean pairing). And now all it takes is a little suspension of disbelief and a well-written story and I'll read most anything. So when I go back and look at my reading material with an observer's eye, it might seem...off. And while that wasn't what

heatherly was warning against directly, it seems like part of it.

I actually approached the incest with the same kind of wariness and the first few stories I actually wrote were all about me working my way around and through it, because yes, I had to consciously set aside my inculture biases and prejudices about it...which in retrospect should not have been as difficult as it was especially when we're talking about two brothers who hunt ghosts, werewolves, demons, and other entirely fictional inventions as a matter of course.

And even on reading and enjoying it (angst or fluff/schmoop) has not changed my impressions or assessment of the damage potential of real-life incest.

And now I find myself wanting a happily ever after for them, no matter how improbable it would be in real life because in the fictional realm, any kind of happy for either of them seems so impossibly far away.

Curiously, when a thoughtful SPN author writes an incest pairing with John, much more of the fallout is addressed, and SPN fandom in general tends to react much more negatively to unrealistic incest fics with John. Because I've seen John/Dean, etc., done very well, but never healthily (there are lots of bad fics out there where John and Dean live happily ever after, but that's not what I'm talking about). Not everyone's cup of tea, obviously, and not very much mine either, but it's a thought to throw out there.

Well, I think in that case it's the power (implicit or otherwise) imbalance that sets people off. Dean and Sam are seen in the balance of all things as more equal whereas the entire issue with John/Dean (or John/Sam) implies a great many things about John that people aren't as willing to accept or by into. The whole premise of "suspension of disbelief" is predicated by "willing".

i.e. it's easier for me to buy into the idea that Dean (being the co-dependent, approval junkie that he is) might actually respond to overtures from John or even initiate something if he thought his father had need of it than it is for me to believe that John would take advantage of Dean that way or otherwise surrender to even a hidden weakness unless he was possessed -- in which case it isn't really John and the coercion is explicit.

True, very true. I've also seen that issue addressed in Sam/Dean fics, especially when they're a certain age and Dean has a bigger maturity gap.

Thanks so much for pointing this out.

An interesting essay.

What I got out of it is that part of the problem as it were is that a certain portion of writers don't seem to feel that topics such as incest/underage/non-con are problimatic topics and that we can't just say "it's fanfic, SFW?" that doesn't let you off the hook. The topic/theme is still problimatic/thorny and you as the writer need to be cognizant of the fact and own up to it ... in some fashion.

And I say this as somebody whose current primary fandom is all about teenagers getting it on, and where the 17 year old kid sleeping with the 30 MILF next door is canon. (And holy shit were there some HOT fics written about that. Ones that totally got into why she gave in ... even though she knew it was wrong.)

I've been sort of hesitant to post, but I think part of the problem with the reception of this essay is that there's some 'talking across fandoms', which can really confuse things.

Let me try and explain this, although I already feel like it's going to come out wrong. I see her essay as aimed at a certain subset of fandom that really doesn't think of these things- and unfortunately I think a lot of people to whom she ISN'T speaking are thinking that she's talking about them- and sort of freaking out about being called on the carpet for something that they believe they're already doing.

I also got the impression that she's talking about Harry Potter fandom more than she's discussing Supernatural- although I freely admit I could be wrong. As much as I think there are issues that cut across all of fandom, I think the way those issues ferment (maybe?) is different depending on the source material. Incest fics in SPN are much more likely to be stories about consenting adults- where maybe that isn't the case in Harry Potter (although again, I can't say for sure, and I'm hesitant to put words in her mouth).

I appreciated her essay, because it's something I've been struggling with since this whole strikethrough thing started. On one hand, part of me thinks there is, or should be, a line somewhere about what is acceptable and what isn't in fanfic. But how do you come to a decision about that? Who enforces it? How the hell could we even agree? I'm sure not comfortable telling someone that their chan story is essentially kiddie porn- how can I ask others to? How do you not cross the line into censorship- where the hell is that line, anyway?

Let me put it this way- if Law and Order does a serious episode about kiddie porn and the FCC decides it can't be aired- that's censorship. But if "General Hospital" does a storyline where a 14 year old girl is in a relationship with a 40 year old man- and it's portrayed as healthy and happy- should that be shown? It wouldn't even get to the FCC, because it would never be thought of- it's considered (by our mainstream society) to be completely unacceptable.

Should that kind of thing be considered acceptable in fandom? I think that was more the point of her essay than anything else- I don't think (although I could be wrong) she was talking about the kind of adult incestuous relationships that are seen in fandoms like SPN or Numb3rs.

Please feel free to disagree with me- and I'm sorry for hijacking your journal. I've been really, really struggling with this issue since the whole strikethrough thing happened.

I need to head out the door to work so this will be shorter than I like -- but I think for me the issue is that the kind of responsibility we're talking about here can't be enforced from the outside -- not within fandom anyway (i.e. yes, outside agencies or LJ could certainly see to the removal of what they see objectionable *here*, but within the framework of fandom, people are either behaving responsibly by their own standards or they aren't. If they aren't no one outside is likely to be able to force them to short of outright harrassment or intimidation -- behaviors that are no better than the behaviors other people would like to see stopped.

and if they are behaving responsibly then no one within fandom really has a solid argument that their level of responsbility is better or more "right" than anyone else's. There are no fannish police.

It's like any other controversial issue -- people either believe other people are capable of making moral distinctions or they don't -- but agian, morality to me is the standards to which I hold myself, not the standards I universally hold others to.

You are absolutely right in terms of not enforcing that responsibility from the outside- it can't be done, and I don't think I would want it to be done. But we do self police about certain issues- why not others? Why is the incest/chan/pedophilia story different than a story about racism? Or one that insinuates women are less than men?

I think I'm seeing the issue differently than a lot of people- and I understand that. As a community, fandom is very quick to jump on stories that appear to have gender, racial, or homophobic bias. There was a huge kerfuffle in SGA fandom over non-intentional racial bias in a particular story. I'm pretty sure that if I wrote a story where Sam and Dean (to use SPN) called Gordon the n word, or insinuated that he wasn't as good as them because of his race, I'm pretty sure I'd be shunned and defriended- and what's more- because this is the root of the issue for me- I'm sure that if I got TOSsed for a story that was overtly racist or sexist, there'd be few people wanting to leave Livejournal because of it, or go to the media to protest the injustice.

I sort of see it as 2 sides of the same coin. People I respect, like yourself, are saying that we can't impose a moral standard on the community- but I think in some ways we kind of already do.

Please don't get me wrong- I know it probably sounds that way, but I'm not trying to hold others to a moral standard. And I realize that it's a very slippery slope, to a degree. I'm sure that there are others who would use my argument against any slash fic, or or RPS, or fic that deals with adult incest stories, or anything they don't like. And I am perfectly content (and have been) to live and let live- I can't claim that I don't silently judge people, because that would be a big lie- but I have never ever said to someone's face "your kink is not okay". I leave them alone, I hit the back button and go somewhere else.

What really bothered me about fandom's response to strikethrough was the way it was expected that since I was also a member of fandom that I should be outraged and be prepared to take action- that not only was I expected to condone stuff that I was personally really squicked by- but I should also defend it. And that really bothered me, because I do feel that some of the stuff that was being so vigorously defended is right up against the line.

I'm sorry- I've gotten really verbose here, and I'm probably still not explaining myself well. I just want people to understand where I (and maybe a few others) are coming from. I don't think we're trying to be censors, or tell people what they can and cannot do. (Although maybe I'm being naive about that, and we are.) Thank you for the space.

RE: The SGA Race discussion (which I admittedly, only caught the edge of) plays differently for one reason and one reason only: it didn't come from outside.

The thing is, I'm not saying people don't have the right to form moral judgments on people because of what they write. I think a good many of those judgments are either specious or outright stupid, but people can certainly make them. Those disagreements came down to "hey this is behavior I think might be construed as being racists and maybe you should look at what you're doing" and yes, people got angry and said some pretty vicious things on both sides, lines were drawn, flists were realigned, pros and cons were hashed and rehashed.

And true, you might, if you wrote a racist story, find the reaction so uncomfortable that you left. But this I'm sure that if I got TOSsed for a story that was overtly racist or sexist, there'd be few people wanting to leave Livejournal because of it, or go to the media to protest the injustice. is, iMO, a strawman argument, because as far as I know, no one threatened anyone with an abuse complaint for racism, no one tried or even threated to have journals shut down for promoting racism via fictional works. There is a a big difference, to me at least, between telling someone they might be showing an unconscious racial bias in a work or even concluding that a particular fan is a racist and accusing someone of actively promoting pedophilia in a fictional work or accusing someone of being a pedophiliac and threatening to report them to LJ or other "authorative" agencies if they don't stop writing what they are writing.

I think people are having a hard time separating content from context. I don't think any one asked or would expect you to defend specific fans or stories that have content you might dislike or find absolutely abhorrent. What people were asking (and yes expecting) no matter how badly phrased was the idea that merely writing something -- no matter how horrible or offensive to you or any other individual -- does not automatically make the writer a horrible person. It does not, in fact, convey any authorative weight at all about that person's actual moral or ethical stance on the existence or real life repercussions of child abuse or pedophilia.

(continued next post)

Real life pedophilia and child abuse causes actual, quantifiable harm to identifiable (and arguably vulnerable) members of our society -- children. Discussions and stories written about it may cause actual, quantifiable distress in some people, but distress is not in an of itself harmful. It is uncomfortable, it is something most people can and will avoid at all costs. The line is not, "pedophilia is defensible" because I think most people would seriously agree that it's not.

The line is that thoughts and words do not equate to actions. I don't think the writers of movies like "Ocean's 11" 12 & 13, are promoting either theft con games as healthy societal values. What they are fascinated with is the personalities that are drawn to and commit such crimes. I don't think JK Rowling is promoting witchcraft in her Harry Potter Novels -- I do think she is fascinated by the scope and breath of magic and what would draw people to it, and what kind of people actually want to learn and practice it (Regardless of whether she believes it exists in any form in Real Life or not). I don't think the people who wrote "OZ" think prison rape is a good thing -- but I do think they are fascinated by the whole concept of a closed society within a society and how that changes people.

I don't think an writers who write about incest, or child abuse, or rape, are promoting those as good things in and of themselves. I don't deny that some people get off on it -- I think writing in general is the *best* place in the world to explore and examine and even *change* the way we look at things, be they what we fear or what we desire.

And I don't think, in any but a very few isolated incidents, that such writing have an impact on the larger world *Except* as a spring broad for we as a society discussing them and yes, drawing ad redrawing lines. The magic in Harry Potter did not suddenly increase or make possible magic in the real world. Incest written by fans in SPN or Numb3rs did not suddenly make it okay for fans to make sexual overtures to the siblings, or suddenly increase the likelihood that they would.

I personally, don't think moral standards should be hoisted on anyone but ourselves. My moral standards dictate that I treat certain subjects in a certain way. Your moral standards may differ greatly from mine. Saying, "You shouldn't write about that and I'm going to stop you" is no different than saying, "You should write about that and I'm going to make you."

The difference here is persuasion, through discussion which is mostly what's happening and coercion by threats which is happening in fewer places but has, in many ways, (as do all threats) more impact.

In my mind the actual "harm" alluded to in fictional accounts of fictional characters is far less than the actual "harm" done in the name of Moral Standards when it really has more to do with people being averse to being uncomfortable.

I think you should put these two comments up in their own post, the section on Ocean's [inser number], Rowling and Oz in particular just hit me exactly right.

Discussions and stories written about it may cause actual, quantifiable distress in some people, but distress is not in and of itself harmful. It is uncomfortable, it is something most people can and will avoid at all costs.

(emphasis my own)

The bolded part is the only thing in your extremely well articulated response to

drlense's comment.

Survivors of child abuse and rape (and other traumas) may have PTSD as a result and discussions and stories about abuse and/or rape may be triggers for them, resulting varying real harm and real problems for them, not merely distress.

This does not mean the stories or discussion shouldn't occur but it is why warnings are important, on stories and possibly on some discussions that may occur where a survivor isn't expecting to encounter it, give them a chance to bail before being hit by a trigger for their PTSD. Warnings are the flip side of yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there isn't a fire - this is more like not yelling fire when there is one.

Excellent comments otherwise, particularly the last line - I went looking for a quote about something else and found this which seems fitting:

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine

I get your point and I have long been an advocate of warnings and disclaimers on fan fiction -- more so than on pro fiction (Which comes with either none or must be inferred form dust jacket covers)mostly because I think fan writers enjoy an extraordinary freedom of examination and ability to go into detail that most pro-writers find constrained by their publishing houses.

And that said, I find it a little tough to take that as a fan writer I am expected to be more aware/considerate/empathic/understanding/cautious in my dealing with total strangers (because PTSD or even rape survival or abuse survival is not something I can infer from a user name) than pretty much anyone else. My default setting is that I think with in fandom, and because of the dense concentration of women that my likelihood of running into someone who is a survivor (with or without PTSD) is somewhat higher than the general population -- i.e. probably closer to 1 in 3 than 1 in 6.

I'll stand by my words to the extent that I find deathfic to be extremely distressing, among other things, and that even as I lobby for people to label stories for it, I don't assume that everyone does and so my default setting there is that I tend to skim to the end of things I think may potentially contain death, even to the point of spoiling myself irretrievably for a particular story, movie or book. I find it that distressing.

I think there's just a point (for me) where I have to acknowledge that I can only go so far in protecting other people and at some point, people have to be willing to do what they need to do to protect themselves. Because even if I do warn to excess, I'm implying that I have some kind of special insight into at what level of discussion or exposure might trigger a bad reaction -- which I don't actually have any way to measure or quantify.

One story of mine may hit rape/abuse survivor "A" very differently than rape/abuse survivor "B". It's rather like not realizing you are yelling at a deaf person because you think they are ignoring you. At some point you have to get a clue that they are deaf...merely looking at them won't tell you that.

Or closer to my own experience: I have a mild case of asthma which in day to day life bothers me not at all. Most things that trigger major asthma attacks in other people do not bother me -- not density of pollution or dust, pollens, or smoke.

Certain aerosal freshening sprays however, are something I have to be cautious around because some compounds do indeed trigger attacks that are far more severe than anything else in my day to day life. The introduction of non-aerosol fresheners like Febreeze, are to me, the greatest invention since paper napkins. But you know, when I go to a home of someone I've never been to before, I've learned to ask. It's awkward and a little embarrassing but not nearly as embarrassing as having to have my potential host call 911 because I can't breathe.

I think fan writers enjoy an extraordinary freedom of examination and ability to go into detail that most pro-writers find constrained by their publishing houses.

And that said, I find it a little tough to take that as a fan writer I am expected to be more aware/considerate/empathic/understanding/cautious in my dealing with total strangers (because PTSD or even rape survival or abuse survival is not something I can infer from a user name) than pretty much anyone else.

For me, your first sentence is the reason for - not so much an expectation but an understanding and discussion about why we should exercise more care. The freedom that we have in fandom and fanfic is also a responsibility, the venue to write so much more, to write outside the mainstream, to explore issues that cannot always be explored in pro writing, whether books or TV or movies, comes with that responsibility to warn about fires.

Does that mean I think warnings should be mandated on all fanfic, that fandom should make it a requirement? Hell no. Each writer does have the freedom to make that decision on their own, some may give it great deal of thought and care about whether and when to warn and some will be dashing off a story and posting it without ever considering warnings at all. The discussion is the point, that we talk about whether or when or why to warn so each writer can make their own decision.

when I go to a home of someone I've never been to before, I've learned to ask. It's awkward and a little embarrassing but not nearly as embarrassing as having to have my potential host call 911 because I can't breathe.

The difference with fanfic is that there's not always someone there to ask - it can be on a website or an archive with an email address long terminated and the website or archive may not require warnings or even ratings (and I'm *not* advocating that archives require either). So it's more like you were going to someone's house and they're not home and you had no opportunity to speak to them before your visit. You get to stand at the door and survey the surroundings and try to determine what might be inside that poses a risk for you.

*headdesk*

...resulting varying real harm and real problems for them...

I have no idea what happened there, let's try this instead:

...resulting in real harm and real problems for them...

HEE! I knew what you meant. And varying I think is actually important to the conversation (even if out of order int he sentence *g*) because Survivors and people with PTSD are not clones of one another.

Yes absolutely, and while I've been involved in discussions about warnings, PTSD and survivors wasn't something I'd even thought about until recently when someone with PTSD was reminded by someone else that her discussions about it could be triggers for others.

And thanks for reading my mind - I need one of those parental locks on my computer that will keep me off it till I've had a cup of coffee! No coffee = no brain. ;)

Sometime reasonable wins...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject