HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Mar 2003 to 4 Mar 2003 (#2003-34)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:00:02 -0500
There are 11 messages totalling 677 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. PW on Dead Zone
2. Slash? (10)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:02:28 -0500
From: TCBO2 <tcbo2@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: PW on Dead Zone
ZK wrote:
<<I had some deja-vu, though. <SNIP>
Methos said something like "Now why would I do that?"
When the pilot said that, I was still thinking that he was a bad
guy, so it seemed really chilling.>>
You and I caught that, ZK. I wonder how many others did?
The instant "Captain Kline" said: "Now, why would I do that?"
it was a perfect echo of Methos saying the exact same line
--with the same chilling, dangerous tone. I have to believe
that Peter might have suggested that line himself (as a secret
"inside" nod to all of the HL-verse) -- and the Director approved
the line. My thought at the moment he said that line was:
"Omigod! it's Death-on-a-Horse piloting the plane!!!" Then I
spent the next two hours trying to remember which HL episode
he said it in (the first time). :-D
TCBO2 <but IF only "1" -- then it's definitely gonna be METHOS!>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:28:27 -0500
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Slash?
Leah asks:
>Here's a conundrum I've been contemplating. If all fanfic for a show like
>QUEER AS FOLK automatically 'slash?' Or would that be if the main
>characters slept with a woman?
I'd have to think that "slash" in a gay universe would be "het" pairings. Pairing Duncan ( or Methos) with some random female character (or with an OFC) isn't slash - so I don't see why pairing a gay character with any other random gay character should be "slash". Although, didn't slash originally include any and all non-canonical relationships?
>And same would go for the upcoming network detective series coming up in
>the Fall, "Mr. & Mr. Jones," featuring two gay male leads who are in a
>permanent relationship (or so I hear). Semantics, anybody?
OT:
I wonder if the network will go ahead with this...and what kind of a mess they will make out of it if they do. It would be nice to see a "normal" gay couple on network TV (By "normal" I mean neither partner insists on wearing feather boas or black leather at all times. <EG>) . I shudder to think of the possibilities- a mincing, neatness obsessed little bookworm paired with a big brassy drag queen? Undoubtedly the relationship will be played for laughs with lots of decorator jokes and comments about cute butts. There will be no on-screen physical intimacy. Basically, I'm betting on an "Odd Couple" where every few episodes someone mentions that they are gay so the audience doesn't forget.
End OT
Do fans write m/f fanfic for gay characters? Who would that appeal to? If some (much) of the appeal of slash is allowing female writers to "Mary Sue" themselves into stories in the guise of a male character, writing m/f fanfic wouldn't satisfy the need.
Wendy(It's probably very un-PC to "straighten" out a gay character)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 04:28:26 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
Pat wrote:
>> Serious question; how do know the owner's wishes? I know of a few
authors who've publicly expressed opinions on the subject, and they've been
on both sides of the issue. The majority of authors & producers have
never publicly addressed this. So do you know the owner's wishes? <<
I think if you have read a story or watched a show or movie, then you
should have a fair understanding of the author's intent for the characters
- either that or the author has not done a very good job. The writer has
already laid down specifics for the character - ie they are good or they
are bad, they are grey, they are male or female, well you get the idea.
>> The major fanfic web sites are easily
found. Their silence on the issue speaks loudly. <<
Well to turn your own argument around on you - how do you know what their
silence means?
It could mean that they don't mind - it could mean that they are trying to
ignore it or it could mean that they don't even know it exists.
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:50:30 -0000
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Lawson" <plawson@webleyweb.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] Slash?
> Serious question; how do know the owner's wishes? I know of a few
authors
> who've publicly expressed opinions on the subject, and they've been on
both
> sides of the issue. The majority of authors & producers have never
> publicly addressed this. So do you know the owner's wishes?
It's a little dangerous to say that someone NOT saying something is specific
permission FOR an action, certainly more dangerous than assuming the
opposite. If someone says 'Go ahead' it's different from someone NOT saying
'Don't'). Again, you seem to be saying that if someone isn't harmed by
infringement they may not care about it enough to comment. That may be true
in specific situations, but is hardly a safe or legal remit for everyone.
Again - I see no real problem with a person going off and writing their own
versions of characters for their own amusement - it's a tried and tested
writing exercise for any person who likes putting letters together to make
words. However when that personal writing exercise (based on others work) is
shared (particularly across the Net on websites where your readership can go
from one to several potential million in a single keystroke) then any
logical person has to see the distinction. In putting up a story on a
website or dispersing it, you are essentially doing the 21st Century
equivalent to vanity publishing. Charge for your fanzine and that's clearly
and undeniably the case.
Personally I couldn't give two hoots about fanzines as I rarely read them,
but however talented the people behind them, those people should not assume
any morally righteous stance on their usage of other's characters. If they
haven't got *specific* permission, then they shouldn't assume they have. If
they are sure the copyright owner won't mind, get written permission. If
they don't seek that permission...why not? Otherwise stay well beneath the
radar and keep vewy vewy quiet. If you don't..don't complain if an
actor/creator/copyright owner clearly states opposition to your actions. As
originator of the material - they DO have the moral right, whether it be
perceived as petty or not.
> >Anyone disagrees with that,please send your web address so that I can
come
> >and hack it.
>
> Apples and oranges John. And it's not polite to make threats.
*sigh* Irony. I was commenting that anyone who doesn't care about using
other people's work, shouldn't really mind if I visited their material and
use it any way I want. Given the indignation about fanfic plagurism a few
months back, what's good for Highlander: The Source is good for the gander?
> Let me try a different analogy, FWIW. I live in a rural area in a "free
> range" state. Ranchers can allow cattle to graze freely. If you don't
> want them on your property you put up a fence. IOW, you must take
> affirmative action to exclude the cattle. Some folks who own acreage
> don't care either way, and some welcome the grazing. It's up to the
> individual property owner to decide and act accordingly.
But free-range TV programmes? Last I heard they were business ventures that
were licensed to networks/channels/distributors under a money/purchase deal
and which had a nifty little copyright notice at the end of each episode? I
don't really see the analogy here. Surely the analogy is more in someone
taking one of the cows and saying they're allowed to make a pie out of it
because the owner obviosuly doesn't care about the cow because it's grazing
outside its pasture (and still a bad analogy unless you can define the
nature of the pasture).
> Aren't those copyright owners who object to fanfic capable of letting that
> be known? DPP, Paramount, etc. are certainly capable of sending out
> "cease & desist" letters. The major fanfic web sites are easily
> found. Their silence on the issue speaks loudly.
Yes they are. Check out that pesky notice at the end of each episode. It
isn't there to fill screen space. I think you'll see their *official*
position on this. If they *unofficially* choose to ignore most fanfic it's
because they see it keeps the fanbase going. ie: they can choose to ignore
it as long as they aren't seen to eb officially ignoring it If, however, a
fanfic writer wants to spout how they have a God-given right to use those
characters and do so loudly enough to attract attention, the ramifications
could be serious. Given your perception of their silence as permission, I'm
also presuming from your argument that if the Powers That Be openly said NO
more fanfic, you would happily stop doing so without complaint?
John
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:13:58 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Slash?
John--
> >It's one thing to have some fun for your own personal amusement, but the
> >moment you step into someone else's sandbox and then turn that personal
> >enjoyment into a shared experience with others...then you have to bear in
> >mind the wishes of the sandbox's owner.
Yes.
Pat--
> Serious question; how do know the owner's wishes?
Well, I guess one could _assume_ that copyright holders don't mind being
stolen from. If one were totally daft. Maybe one should ask them, or when
that's not practical use common sense--& keep one's hands off what doesn't
belong to one.
Pat--
> And it's not polite to make threats.
But it's polite to take w/o asking? To grab when no one is looking? Hmmm.
Pat--
> Let me try a different analogy, FWIW. I live in a rural area in a "free
> range" state. Ranchers can allow cattle to graze freely.
Oh, I can tell this is not going to work; I don't eat meat.
> Aren't those copyright owners who object to fanfic capable of letting that
> be known?
Oh, I see--you want the lunatics to be in charge of the asylum. No thanks.
And--would you require ALL copyright owners to frantically, constantly,
fruitlessly, & in perpetuity police every communications venue on the
planet, in order to protect themselves against being ripped off in various
ways? Grisham, King, Rowlings, & their ilk, for instance? Or are the TV
folks ripe for fanfic somehow less deserving of legal protection than
novelists & other creative types?
> Their silence on the issue speaks loudly.
Well, that's not polite!
Back to John--
>>>In putting up a story on a
website or dispersing it, you are essentially doing the 21st Century
equivalent to vanity publishing. Charge for your fanzine and that's clearly
and undeniably the case.>>>
Just wanted to see that again. And say a big hello to Leah/Annie!
>>>I was commenting that anyone who doesn't care about using
other people's work, shouldn't really mind if I visited their material and
use it any way I want. Given the indignation about fanfic plagurism a few
months back>>>
It's always a hoot when that happens. Just no honor among thieves, I guess.
Which, happily, reminds me of a few conversations between Duncan &
Amanda....
>>>You know....sod the legalities. It's just a plain ethical issue as far as
I'm concerned.>>>
I have never understood how someone who MUST greatly admire the creators of
a given fictional universe can cheerfully violate their rights. Morally,
fanfic is stealing from friends.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:35:30 -0000
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
For the record, I have no militant feelings about fanfic and fanfic writers.
Not my sandbox.
I will of course, hunt down anyone who violates my copyrights!
My simple thinking is this: 'Fine. Fanfic away. Just don't shout about it
and don't try to profit from it.'
Here endeth the 2cs.
However, after my recent visit to Mutant Enemy (shameless plug for Impact's
upcoming features on the Buffy finale due soon) I guess I could start up a
whole new variation thread on *spoilers* and how TPTB feel about those!!!
John
(compact and bijou Brit already packing for Oz)
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@verizon.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] Slash?
> John--
> > >It's one thing to have some fun for your own personal amusement, but
the
> > >moment you step into someone else's sandbox and then turn that personal
> > >enjoyment into a shared experience with others...then you have to bear
in
> > >mind the wishes of the sandbox's owner.
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Pat--
> > Serious question; how do know the owner's wishes?
>
> Well, I guess one could _assume_ that copyright holders don't mind being
> stolen from. If one were totally daft. Maybe one should ask them, or
when
> that's not practical use common sense--& keep one's hands off what doesn't
> belong to one.
>
>
> Pat--
> > And it's not polite to make threats.
>
> But it's polite to take w/o asking? To grab when no one is looking?
Hmmm.
>
>
> Pat--
> > Let me try a different analogy, FWIW. I live in a rural area in a
"free
> > range" state. Ranchers can allow cattle to graze freely.
>
> Oh, I can tell this is not going to work; I don't eat meat.
>
>
> > Aren't those copyright owners who object to fanfic capable of letting
that
> > be known?
>
> Oh, I see--you want the lunatics to be in charge of the asylum. No
thanks.
>
> And--would you require ALL copyright owners to frantically, constantly,
> fruitlessly, & in perpetuity police every communications venue on the
> planet, in order to protect themselves against being ripped off in various
> ways? Grisham, King, Rowlings, & their ilk, for instance? Or are the TV
> folks ripe for fanfic somehow less deserving of legal protection than
> novelists & other creative types?
>
>
> > Their silence on the issue speaks loudly.
>
> Well, that's not polite!
>
>
> Back to John--
> >>>In putting up a story on a
> website or dispersing it, you are essentially doing the 21st Century
> equivalent to vanity publishing. Charge for your fanzine and that's
clearly
> and undeniably the case.>>>
>
> Just wanted to see that again. And say a big hello to Leah/Annie!
>
>
> >>>I was commenting that anyone who doesn't care about using
> other people's work, shouldn't really mind if I visited their material and
> use it any way I want. Given the indignation about fanfic plagurism a few
> months back>>>
>
> It's always a hoot when that happens. Just no honor among thieves, I
guess.
> Which, happily, reminds me of a few conversations between Duncan &
> Amanda....
>
>
> >>>You know....sod the legalities. It's just a plain ethical issue as far
as
> I'm concerned.>>>
>
> I have never understood how someone who MUST greatly admire the creators
of
> a given fictional universe can cheerfully violate their rights. Morally,
> fanfic is stealing from friends.
>
> Nina
> mac.westie@verizon.net
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:37:48 EST
From: Ashton7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Slash?
In a message dated 3/4/2003 8:33:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
> guess I could start up a
> whole new variation thread on *spoilers* and how TPTB feel about those!!!
>
Really? How do they feel about them? Although I suppose it would have to vary
by the particular TPTB in question. I'm guessing that the Buffy folks aren't
too happy about them since I seem to remember a few years back Joss Whedon
making a determined effort to stop them and to also put out false ones.
Annie
Welcome Home Daniel Jackson and Michael Shanks! Stargate Season 7: Seventh
Heaven! Thank you MGM, SciFi and Bridge Studios!
****************
Stargate Solutions: http://www.savedanieljackson.com
Our Stargate Discussion Forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/start
Ashton Press: http://ashtonpress.net/
Gateway, A Stargate Slash Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gateway/join
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:52:12 -0000
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
I won't quote David Fury directly word-for-word as I'm still typing up the
piece at the moment, but like him, all at Mutant Enemy are pretty annoyed
and sad that info from a potential script can be on Aint-It-Cool-News within
24hrs and before a single shot has been edited or sometimes even filmed.
They said - and I'd agree - that carefully plotted surprises are not much
fun if you know about them a couple of months in advance of even seeing the
epsiode. Teasers maybe...but whole chunks of dialogue/outcomes? They say
judge an episode on what you've seen, not expect to see.
Me? I HAVE to know info in advance to keep articles up to date and I only
manage to get that info by having proven myself again and again as being
trustworthy and not publishing quotes that give away endings/plot-points
when I'm in the position to.
On things like series finales/cliff-hangers, I'd really rather NOT know but
that's the penalty I pay (oh, the humanity)
John
----- Original Message -----
From: <Ashton7@aol.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] Slash?
> In a message dated 3/4/2003 8:33:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
>
>
> > guess I could start up a
> > whole new variation thread on *spoilers* and how TPTB feel about
those!!!
> >
>
> Really? How do they feel about them? Although I suppose it would have to
vary
> by the particular TPTB in question. I'm guessing that the Buffy folks
aren't
> too happy about them since I seem to remember a few years back Joss Whedon
> making a determined effort to stop them and to also put out false ones.
>
> Annie
>
> Welcome Home Daniel Jackson and Michael Shanks! Stargate Season 7: Seventh
> Heaven! Thank you MGM, SciFi and Bridge Studios!
> ****************
> Stargate Solutions: http://www.savedanieljackson.com
> Our Stargate Discussion Forum:
> http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/start
> Ashton Press: http://ashtonpress.net/
> Gateway, A Stargate Slash Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gateway/join
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:52:32 EST
From: Ashton7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Slash?
In a message dated 3/4/2003 8:49:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
> Teasers maybe...but whole chunks of dialogue/outcomes? They say
> judge an episode on what you've seen, not expect to see.
>
I agree. The chunks of dialogue... that annoys me, usually. I like spoilers.
I like teasers, though.
Then again, no one holds a gun to the heads of the fans to make them read
them. If the audience wants to read them... oh, well?
Annie
Welcome Home Daniel Jackson and Michael Shanks! Stargate Season 7: Seventh
Heaven! Thank you MGM, SciFi and Bridge Studios!
****************
Stargate Solutions: http://www.savedanieljackson.com
Our Stargate Discussion Forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/start
Ashton Press: http://ashtonpress.net/
Gateway, A Stargate Slash Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gateway/join
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:18:08 -0600
From: Kamil <kamil@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Slash?
> a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
> > guess I could start up a> > whole new variation thread on
*spoilers* and how TPTB feel about
> > those!!!
> >
<Annie>
> Really? How do they feel about them? Although I suppose it
> would have to vary by the particular TPTB in question. I'm
> guessing that the Buffy folks aren't too happy about them
> since I seem to remember a few years back Joss Whedon making
> a determined effort to stop them and to also put out false ones.
If ya do, could y'all please do me a favor and spoiler protect them?
Pretty please? <g> I've been doing my damnedest to stay spoiler free
for the finale (if that many of the writers are going to actually *beg*
the fans to stay spoiler free this year, I'm gonna trust them and do
what I'm told), to the point of not even watching the 'next week on
Buffy' bits. So, umm, thanks, it'd be greatly appreciated. <g>
--
Kamil ---> currently writing her fanfic in a fandom with not a bit of
intellectual property anywhere in sight, and where all of the principles
are all on the record as thinking it's either harmless, cool, funny,
"when did we do that again?" "you remember, night before last." "Oh
yeah, right..." "Would you like a picture?" "Umm...whaddya mean
exactly?" "This." *lick tongues in front of cameras* or somewhere in
between when it's been brought to their attention. I'm not behind the
attention-bringing behavior of these particular teenies, but
nevertheless -- God love these particular guys. <g>
"So we're barefoot, waist-high in water, walking on these little rocks
to get to the other side and I'm doing it because I'm an idiot and I'm
following his lead. Because he's an idiot. And because he's amazing,"
Bloom laughs. "I can't believe how much this is going to make me sound
like I'm in love with the guy."
Orlando Bloom, talking about Viggo Mortensen "Premiere Magazine"
Jan. 2003
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:43:26 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
Beyond the silly stuff there's actual content folks, honest. :-)
John wrote:
> > >Anyone disagrees with that,please send your web address so that I can
> >> come and hack it.
> >
> > Apples and oranges John. And it's not polite to make threats.
>
>*sigh* Irony. I was commenting that anyone who doesn't care about using
>other people's work, shouldn't really mind if I visited their material and
>use it any way I want.
I didn't see any irony. Hacking my web site means electronically picking
my locks, vandalizing and destroying my property, and perhaps stealing or
changing confidential information including bank and credit card
data. That's what web hacking is about. That's what you compare fanfic to?
>But free-range TV programmes? Last I heard they were business ventures that
>were licensed to networks/channels/distributors under a money/purchase deal
>and which had a nifty little copyright notice at the end of each episode? I
>don't really see the analogy here.
Ok, so it was a bad analogy. BTW, ranchers are also business ventures who
lease range areas. It's not so different. Judging by tv of lately, they
produce some of the same byproduct. ;-p
>Surely the analogy is more in someone
>taking one of the cows and saying they're allowed to make a pie out of it
>because the owner obviosuly doesn't care about the cow because it's grazing
>outside its pasture (and still a bad analogy unless you can define the
>nature of the pasture).
The cow isn't grazing outside it's pasture (see my previous post.) If you
kill the cow and make a pie out of it, you've abused good beef and the
rancher no longer has the cow. It's gone for good. If you write a Duncan
fanfic, DPP stills has all their movies, TV shows, and novels.
What say we leave both of our bad analogies behind, ok?
Remember, we're not talking about the legal issues now. Your premise was
that fanfic is unethical because it ignores the wishes of the owner.
The built in assumption is that all copyright owners don't want folks
writing fanfic. That's not a valid assumption. We know for a fact that
some copyright owners don't care, and some like people to write
fanfic. It's not unethical, or immoral, if the owner doesn't
care. That's all I'm saying.
>Check out that pesky notice at the end of each episode. It
>isn't there to fill screen space. I think you'll see their *official*
>position on this.
The copyright notice is a necessary legal notice asserting ownership. I'm
not talking about their legal rights as owners. I'm talking about
individual owner's attitudes toward fanfic.
Here's another example; fan web sites. TV & movie companies attitudes
toward fan web sites vary widely. A few have actively worked to shut them
down. Most ignore them. Some have actively encouraged them. Many of
those websites could be judged to be violation of copyright or trademark.
The point is that not all copyright owners feel the same way. Just as
they don't all feel the same way about fanfic. The copyright notice is
not an indication of their wishes in the matter.
> Given your perception of their silence as permission, I'm
>also presuming from your argument that if the Powers That Be openly said NO
>more fanfic, you would happily stop doing so without complaint?
:::sigh::: You're making assumptions again, and you're not alone on this
one. Frankly it's getting tiresome and insulting. The assumption is
that anyone who defends fanfic does so out of a self serving interest in
justifying their own habit. Where of course those who object are high
minded and principled. That's insulting b.s.
I DO NOT WRITE FANFIC. I DO NOT READ FANFIC. I don't give a rats ass
about fanfic. The question is one of principles and logic. That's what I
care about.
Pat
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Mar 2003 to 4 Mar 2003 (#2003-34)
************************************************************