Into the Fray.

[rsadelle]

Tricia is an idiot. I'm not going to dispute that. Whether she's telling the truth or lying to get attention, she's done a stupid thing. It's not stupid because she brought RPS to the attention of Ian McKellan, assuming that what she says is true. It's stupid because one of the strongest anti-RPS arguments is that RPS is just short of stalking. The counter to this argument is that it's just fantasy and we're not stalking anyone. Unfortunately, in lo-trips, this is not true. Lo-trips is an incredibly stalker-ish fandom. Sure, I've known a few stalker types in past fandoms who made me want to warn Kirk and Lani Hammett to watch out if the stalker types ever make it to the Bay Area, but I've never seen this kind of widespread obsession with meeting the subjects of the RPS in any other fandom.

As I've said, I don't dispute that Tricia is an idiot. However, I'm horrified by some of the people who are speaking out against her. Far too many people simply assume that because she's an idiot, her fic must be terrible. I admit, I nearly succumbed to the same kind of thinking, despite the fact that I know that neither is an author entirely defined by her writing nor is a body of work entirely defined by the author's personality. Tricia's author's notes nearly made me delete her fic on sight. However, I'm desperate enough for good lo-trips that I'll read at least the first few sentences of any Orlando/Viggo story. I found that, to my surprise, I actually liked Tricia's fic. Despite her idiocy, I still like Tricia's fic.

We, as fandom in general, need to remember that authors are not synonymous with their fics. Idiots can write good fic. Seemingly intelligent and perfectly nice people can write horrible stories. Criticism of a person's actions does not equal criticism of her fic. Criticism of a fic does not equal criticism of an author as a person. As Melle's shirt says, "I am not my stories."

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's not stupid because she brought RPS to the attention of Ian McKellan, assuming that what she says is true. It's stupid because one of the strongest anti-RPS arguments is that
RPS is just short of stalking.

I'm a little unclear on your point here. Are you saying there's nothing wrong with bringing RPS to the attention of its subjects as long as it's done in a 'non-stalkerish' fashion? Or that presenting RPS to celebrities is wrong, but only because it gives the anti-RPSers fuel? Or something else entirely?

[rsadelle]

I think what she did was wrong on several levels. I was assuming that my audience consists of people in slash fandom, so that's who my argument was geared towards. On the level of slash fandom, it's bad because it gives anti-RPS arguments more validity than they deserve. On the level of fandom in general, it's bad because people already think fans are crazy and stalkerish and we don't need to give the people who think that any more ammunition. And on the most general level, it's bad because it was stalker-ish, and not only do we not want certain groups of people to appear stalkerish, no one should even be stalkerish.

I don't care whether or not Ian McKellan knows about slash. I think that piece of it is irrelevant. If she had been at an LotR fan con and they were talking about fandom and she brought up slash and he seemed interested and then she gave him an address, that would not bother me the way this does. He was simply trying to have dinner with his boyfriend, and she went up to him and told him about her sexual fantasies about them and where he could find them. The issue here is not Ian knowing about slash. The issue is her behavior. There's a huge difference between writing something about someone, putting it out on the internet, and not caring if they find it and accosting someone who is simply trying to live his or her life and forcing the discussion onto them.

[(Anonymous)]

If she had been at an LotR fan con and they were talking about fandom and she brought up slash and he seemed interested and then she gave him an address, that would not bother me the way this does.

So (and again, correct me if I'm misreading you here) you're saying that you have no problem with fans telling actors or other public figures that they write and publish their sexual fantasies about them, and suggesting that they read it, as long as it's done in a fan setting and not a private setting?

[rsadelle]

Sort of. I'm not just talking about a fan setting. I can think of lots of fan settings where it would still be inappropriate and stalkerish. I'm talking about a whole context of discussion about fandom and fan fiction. People have brought slash to the attention of public figures before in the context of discussions about fandom and fan fiction, and that's a completely different type of thing than what Tricia's done.

The amazing thing about the whole debate is that all of this ought to be common sense. Unless you're in a singles bar trying to pick someone up, you don't go around telling complete strangers about your sexual fantasies about them. It's creepy. It makes people uncomfortable. It's not a good idea.

I'm kind of surprised that this is the point you've picked up on (and, if you don't mind my asking, who are you?). I assumed that, as I said, my audience consists of the type of people in slash fandom who already know all of this. My real objection to the debate was the automatic assumption that Tricia must be a bad writer because she's stupid. You can see that attitude in the discussion in Twi's journal as well as varying other places that people are talking about it.

[(Anonymous)]

I picked up that part of your entry because it was the point that stood out the most to me. I thought it a bit odd that anyone condemning Tricia's behavior would assert that telling celebrities about RPS (or character slash, for that matter) was a good idea in other circumstances.

I suppose I apply the same logic here that most pro-RPSers apply to the difference between character and real person slash: it's something that only applies in the minds of people in fandom. Bringing up one's sexual fantasies with an actor who is already discussing fandom may be less invasive than doing so when he's eating dinner, but I don't think it's significantly less so. They both strike me as stunningly inappropriate, and, as you say, something that ought to be governed by common sense.

You're right, I'm not a part of your normal audience; I've been hopping around to different livejournals from friends lists since this whole incident because I'm very curious what people, especially in the RPS world, have to say about it. I was surprised to find someone condemning Tricia's behavior but saying that presenting an actor with RPS was not the problem, and wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding you.

Clearly, I wasn't, which is pretty much all I wanted to know. I do find myself curious if your assertion that your general audience 'already knows all this' means what it sounds like: that your friends have such exactly the same ideas about fan behavior that not only would they never disagree, they would also never become confused by any vague statement you might make on the subject. But as you and I are so obviously of different minds on what constitutes appropriate fan behavior, further discussion is probably pointless.

[rsadelle]

Don't be so offended. I don't think further discussion is pointless. I said what I did about my assumptions as an explanation as to why I was vague about it. I'm fascinated by the way other people pick up on what I think are minor points and want to talk about those points instead of the ones I tend to think are more major. I suppose I should stop being surprised because it happens so often, but it still catches me off guard. Don't be offended, either, by my asking who you are. I resisted precisely because I thought it might scare you away, but my curiousity got the better of me.

I think that there are very few circumstances in which it would not be horribly inappropriate to bring up slash with a public figure. However, there are some. This is an example in which it sounds like she didn't act inappropriately.

[(Anonymous)]

I wasn't remotely offended. I simply found it rather amusing that you would assume everyone who reads your livejournal ipso facto agrees with you on where the line between appropriate and invasive fannish behavior lies.

My saying that further discussion was pointless had nothing to do with that comment. Your answers to my questions simply made it clear that there's a wide gulf between our definitions of appropriate fan behavior. The chances of you convincing me that it's a good idea to share one's sexual fantasies with an actor when said fantasies are about the actor himself or a character he plays are quite low. The chances of my convincing you of the reverse are equally low. Hence... further discussion is pointless.

As to who I am. Livejournal gives you no choice but to post anonymously if you don't have a livejournal yourself, which I don't. I didn't include a name because it's been so long since I've been active anywhere but on private lists that I'd be very surprised if you had any idea who I am. However, if it's important:

My name is Rae. My email address is raechiclet@yahoo.com. I'm 26, I live in Chicago, I write professionally, though not about particularly interesting topics, and I'm rather addicted to the local music scene. I could go on, but I'm hoping what I have is a specific enough identification.

[rsadelle]

Ah, well, you may be right that we've come to an impasse. In most discussions in my LJ, when people say that "discussion is pointless," they really mean, "I'm offended, you're a bitch, I'm not going to talk to you anymore." I'm not used to having discussions where we really do get to a point where we both understand what the other person is saying, but we still disagree.

Quite frankly, I would probably not tell anyone I wrote slash about them, even in a fan situation. I might tell them about slash, but if they asked for specific URLs, I'd probably tell them good keywords to plug into Google or direct them to some sort of directory, and not my personal work in particular.

I do know your name, unless there are a lot of Raes floating about, and it's driving me crazy that I can't put a fandom with it. What lists/fandoms might I know you from?

[arkane156.livejournal.com]

I do find myself curious if your assertion that your general audience 'already knows all this' means what it sounds like: that your friends have such exactly the same ideas about fan behavior that not only would they never disagree, they would also never become confused by any vague statement you might make on the subject.

No, Ruth is not the voice of some fannish hive-mind. Not everyone on her friends list shares all of her opinions. However, at least she has the (metaphorical) balls to sign her name to them.

[arkane156.livejournal.com]

And sorry, Ruth, if I'm stepping on your toes with my bitching, here. I just thought I was getting a whiff of holier-than-thou anti-RPSer from that last post, and it bugged me. Or rather, it irritates me when people take issue with others' opinions and yet don't have the courage of their own convictions to put their name on them.

[rsadelle]

Hey, I don't mind. You can bitch at whomever you wish here.

[rsadelle]

Ovaries, Dara. I have the ovaries to do so.

[arkane156.livejournal.com]

Eh, it just doesn't have the same ring to it. How about "nads"? Catchy *and* unisex.

Well, I understand what you're getting at, anyway

[coneyislandbaby]

I do think it's a knee-jerk reaction that Tricia must be an awful writer because she showed such an obvious lack of common sense (at the very least) when speaking to Ian (if the story is at all true), and as someone said, it often is the people who write really awful stuff who do things like this. But I don't agree that people should say it without at least reading Tricia's fic, though it's always possible that they have and didn't like it for whatever reason anyway, I suppose.

But I do still feel that a lot of people are judging the author on her behaviour and not her stories. If they want to be offended or annoyed by her behaviour personally, I think that's a valid response, but it's not a valid response to automatically assume her fic is terrible because of what she's done.

Re: Well, I understand what you're getting at, anyway

[rsadelle]

I'm confused. Are you agreeing with me or not?

Re: Well, I understand what you're getting at, anyway

[coneyislandbaby]

Yes. Remind me never to post at whatever time it was when I'm just done reading people going on about LOTR not getting awards. Which means the next two Oscar nights most likely.

But yes, I'm agreeing with you, which is the important part.

I'm sort of ambivalent on the whole thing, which is the other reason I think I got confusing.