HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Jul 2003 to 4 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-133)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Fri, 4 Jul 2003 18:50:24 -0400
There are 14 messages totalling 803 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Highlander in the news (8)
2. Immortal finances
3. Disability (3)
4. Trip planning - yep, it's Scotland
5. Immortal morality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:49:50 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
me before--
> >When you are talking
> >to Joss Whedon in those many interviews you mentioned, & when you talk to
> >Bill Panzer & various other powers that be, you are speaking to them as a
> >journalist, not as a fan. Correct? So, doesn't that mean you shouldn't
be
> >content w/ half truths? That you should be asking, on the record, the
hard
> >questions & getting complete answers to print? Why don't you ask Panzer,
> >Whedon, etc. how they really feel about fanfic?
Pat--
> There is limited print space and more pressing
> questions I want answered. We're talking entertainment mags, not
> investigative journalism.
I first read that as "entertainment rags" & think you underestimate them. I
read some of them, too, & think John could reach for the stars once in a
while, w/o having to go to Woodward & Bernstein lengths. Basic journalistic
standards still apply, right? I recall one story in particular trying to
get to the truth about who was responsible for the mess HL:EG turned out to
be. I doubt any of the parties was thrilled about THAT article; they all
would have preferred as little said as possible about the fiasco. So, John,
what's the difference?
And maybe you don't care, Pat, but a LOT of fans would be vitally interested
in knowing exactly what TPTB would sue them over, don't you think? Fanfic
is a mag-selling topic, going by the number & intensity of discussions here.
Throw in slash, w/ a suitably tacky photo montage on the cover, & it's a
guaranteed sold-out issue. Trust me.
Nina (even Madonna & Michael Jackson have to face the music
occasionally--who's Joss Whedon to quibble?)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:02:43 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal finances
Recap:
There are really two points of contention.
1) That people's situations are fixed from birth and advancement is difficult or impossible, and
2) Living a long time does not mean one will get rich.
beccaelizabeth:
>I try rephrasing the problem again- if it is only stupidity
Not *only* stupidity
> keeps
>people, given much much time, from no longer being subsistence farmers,
>then how come any family stays subsistence farmers? They have as much
>time. They have almost as many opportunities- the ability to up and
>leave is not unique to Immortals. Individuals die and other individuals
>come back so taken as a whole the family could be seen as immortal (and I could
>be stretching the point for comparison purposes, yes). So, is it just
>stupidity that keeps a mortal family over many generations keeping on being
>subsistence farmers? Or is it factors that do not apply to Immortals, like health
>worries and non productive mouths to feed?
Lots of factors keep mortal families at subsistence levels. While the family may be "immortal", individuals are not. The death of a crucial member at any given time might cause a huge set back in finances or situation. If the mother dies, money may have to be spent caring for the children or the children may die because their mother is dead. If the strongest worker dies, the fields may not get planted or harvested on time. Death taxes may be due. Doctors may have to be paid. Funeral costs may be incurred. While a family might be able to move on, they will have to find a new place to live - harder than finding a place for one person. They will have to buy another farm..or move to a city and try to live there. With no skills, they may be unable to find jobs or housing or education for their children. They may sicken and die in new surroundings. They may end up deeply in debt. With no education, the children may be unable to do any better than the parents did. In 30 or 40 year!
s, they are "old" with sickly uneducated children of their own. The government may have policies that discourage advancement. It isn't stupidity that keeps them down, it is a whole series of elements.
Immortals have many fewer elements to deal with. They have no children to worry about. They can't sicken and die (at least not permanently) Moving on is a fact of life, not an earth-shattering experience.They have the chance of outliving oppressive systems of government and culture. They have the advantage of retaining the knowledge gained in earlier "lifetimes" as first hand knowledge - they don't spend the first 15-20 years of their lives absorbing the assumptions, the failures and disappointments of the last generation. They can afford to fail because they have time to recoup.
>Subsistence = just getting by = not having spare to save up even over
>the very long term. Because the spare gets spent on things that are
>also necessary.
The fact is that many many very very poor people *do* save money. In the depths of the Depression, people saved up pennies and dimes for the future. I mean literally pennies. People living in unbelievable squalor and poverty manage to save a few dollars (local currency <g>) to use as a dowry, to send one child out of the family to school, to buy an old bicycle to start a delivery business, to buy a tiny present at Christmas etc. If a woman living in a cardboard shack in India with no husband, 6 children to feed, and a life expectancy of 45 can find a way to borrow enough money to start a tiny sewing business to pay for school for her children - then no Immortal with no children to feed and a life expectancy of 1000 should be unable to save a few dollars a year.
I would never say that all old Immortals are rich. I'd say that if I have to choose who is more likely to be rich - a 75 year old mortal or a 400 year old Immortal - the odds favor the Immortal.
Wendy(And the 400 year old Immortal is probably prettier too <eg>)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 05:04:24 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Disability
MacWestie wrote:
>
> > That entirely depends on the disability. I mean Byron was disabled (I
> think he
> > was the one with the odd foot) and he managed okay.
>
> Not in the end.
which was more about addiction that the physical disability I was thinking on.
> > People breaking rules bugs me.
>
> So, how do you feel about people who widely distribute fanfic?
*rolls eyes*
and people say *I'm* obsessive
not every conversation is about fanfic!
And since you ask- the rule against fanfic is made up by money people and not
backed up by law. It has no moral weight that I can figure. Fanfic is okay by
me.
People profiting by it or claiming ideas for their own credit when they did not
make them is not okay.
Sharing stories is okay.
this is an example of competing rules, and I did have to have a long think about
which rules applied, but I went back to first principles and couldnt see any bad
in properly credited not for profit storytelling.
But then owning things and money are among the things that I dont entirely
understand. Physical items theres only one of I can see only one person can
use, but items that you can make as much of as you want with no problem, like
stories, I dont understand how anyone can own them or claim they're the only
ones to use them because theres just as many as we want to go around and no need
to ration them at all. so owning in that context confuses me.
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:45:29 -0700
From: "R. Shelton" <rshelton2@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
At 02:26 PM -1000 7/3/03, MacWestie wrote:
>What do TPTB _really_ think? Get the truth, & print it. I really think
>there's a story there. Inquiring minds want to know....
Okay - I'm seriously not trying to throw flames or anything, but I'm
very curious; why do you dislike fanfic so much, Nina?
You act like it should be banned or something. *Is* that what you
think? That all fanfic writers should be prosecuted? (kind of
difficult to enforce) Do you/have you ever read any fanfic stories?
Rachel (donning asbestos undies just in case) :)
--
Rachel Shelton *
rshelton2@earthlink.net
@}->->->-
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:42:40 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Firstly " is a quotation mark. ' Indicates a phrase or claim of phrase. I
was careful to use the latter.
Secondly, answering late last night (and after my laptop crash) I was indeed
paraphrasing from memory. I indicated that in the post so as not confuse
Thirdly, as explained, Joss was clearly under the impression it was
fanfic/specualtion at the time of quote. It was shortly later the origin
came out. Didn't really make any difference to Joss as he simply knew it
wasn't 'real'. His quote could be taken a number of ways if you lookd at it
alone. In the context of his previous comments and stance over the last
seven years, I can't see it being a battlcry against fan-fic writers. - but
hey, why don't you post the *question* he was asked as well as his answer
and we can all check for context?
Fourthly, while I think my stance on fanfic is well-known (mostly harmless,
mostly ignored but shouldn't be considered a God-given right - especially by
those who make a noise about it) I haven't changed my stance on this
particular case.. When relevant I mentioned that in this case it wasn't
actually fanfic anyway. Hardly changing my story, simply putting in context
and relevance.
Fifthly
"So, doesn't that mean you shouldn't be content w/ half truths? That you
should be asking, on the record, the hard questions & getting complete
answers to print? Why don't you ask Panzer, Whedon, etc. how they really
feel about fanfic? Get specific..."
Pick up copies of Impact concenring Endgame - heck, pick up any copy of
Impact - and tell me I don't ask the hard questions of the very people you
mention. Half-truths? Hardly. It benefits both TPTB and fan-fic writers to
remain quiet on the subject simply because it *does* benefit both. Should
TPTB get heavy-handed (as the law would perfcectly let them) they risk
losing fan support. Should fanfic writers get bolshy about exercising rights
they never had in the first place, they risk action which would hurt their
hobby. Personally I don't see the need to ask that question - in fact I see
a reason NOT to ask that question because the only mind that I see enquiring
about it here with any passion is you. It's a topic worthy of discussion,
yes...but I see few clamouring for a definitive line froim TPTB. You have
every right to ask any question you want, but I'll restrict mine to those I
think interest me and those who read my work. There's a thin line between
being objecive and subjective, but I don't think that...say....interviewing
a US film star and NOT asking him for his stance on the Iraq war is
automatically me NOT doing my job. Know your subject, know your questions,
decide what is relevent and interesting. Until the day I do an artiucle on
fanfic specifically - could happen, though I'm not rushing - then it's a
subject I'll leave to others.Why? Because this isn't like asking someone to
clealy state their opinion on child-abuse, fox-hunting or weapons of mass
destruction. It's fanfic... and unlike big issues of the day, very few
people seem to share your burning need for a definitive stance.
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:47:00 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Now...paid distribution is another matter entirely. This does clearly
infringe copyright/trademark/profit boundaries and the only question is
whether it's worth the time of TPTB to pursue it (not whether they have the
right to).
But is your opinion that fanfic is wrong/silly/shouldn't be done, or simply
that those who profit from it should not be quite as blatant in their
opinion they have the right to do so without recourse?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@verizon.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] Highlander in the news
> Leah--
>
> > During a Q&A at the HL Celebration con, Jennifer Roberson pointed out
that
> > she, Gillian Horvath and Donna Letto all got their start in writing with
> fanfic.
>
> So? I'm sure a lot of real writers practiced w/ fanfic early on. The
point
> is what they did w/ it, distribution-wise.
>
> I wonder if any of the above ladies way back then violated the Highlander
> copyright by widely distributing it on a website or in a for-profit
fanzine?
>
> Nina (It would be an odd way to curry favor w/ potential employers....)
> mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:49:43 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
> Can't speak for John of course. Speaking only as a fan who buys the
> magazines John writes for. There is limited print space and more pressing
> questions I want answered. We're talking entertainment mags, not
> investigative journalism.
>
> Pat
I've done my fair share of investigative journlaism and continue to do so
where applicable. But as you say, I have to use space accordingly. One day
I'm sure I'll write: 'It was Bill Panzer with the fanfic in the
conservatory' but until then I'll let articles such as the Endgame coverage
speak for themselves.
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:30:35 -0500
From: Ginny <RED57@aol.com>
Subject: Trip planning - yep, it's Scotland
Hello, everyone and all the ferrets at sea,<br>
<br>
I'm planning a fall trip to Great Britain and am at the point where I'm
poring over maps and checking train schedules. Naturally, we're going
to Scotland for part of the time... it just tickles me to see
references to the Highlander movie(s) in the Scottish Tourist Board's
brochures. One of them even has pictures of Ramirez and Connor. And
also there's more than one guesthouse out near Eilean Donan that point
out they have great views of the castle - very convenient for fans on
pilgrimage. The more I looked, the more I realized that a lot of
tourism marketing for Scotland was based on TV and film locations. And
a fair bit of if was obviously slanted at the Highlander/Braveheart/Rob
Roy fan base. <br>
<br>
The kicker was when I was looking at the website for the Isle of Skye
and found a feature article for a fellow that makes swords and custom
knives. He apparently has a shop there... do you think that this trip
just got a lot more expensive? Yes, I think you're right, it did. <br>
<br>
Sadly, we won't be headed in the right direction to visit a location
for my current TV obsession, "The Amazing Race." There was one episode
last year set at Stonehaven on the east coast of Scotland, but we're
headed west. Darn. <br>
<br>
<br>
<span>--<br>
Ginny<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RED57@aol.com">RED57@aol.com</a><br>
Fresh out of .sig lines</span>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:31:19 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Immortal morality
About possible economic and social disasters, I said:
>>And all of those things could temporarily affect an Immortal's cash
>> flow. Or- they could offer opportunities.
beccaelizabeth answers:
>sort of unfun list of possibilities. Making money in the middle of
>misery? Surely more moral to use what you have to improve the fortunes
>of those around you, instead of taking advantage.
So now Immortals must be saints? They can't profit from situations they didn't even create? Not only can they not profit, they must spend whatever resources they have to better the lot of those around them? No wonder they don't get rich in your scenarios. <EG>
>> I'm not suggesting striping
>>the corpse while the dead man's mortal widow cries nearby. I'm
>>saying...there would be cases where the dead Immortal leaves behind no
>>family and no friends and a few good pieces worth taking. Waste not,
>>want not.
>But it would either be taking things as do not belong to you- theft- or
>assuming that because you killed them they do belong to you. Might
>makes right. Which many people do ascribe to, but nowadays we call them
>muggers.
A hypothetical - Duncan kills another Immortal in the middle of the Gobi Desert. There isn't another person, mortal or Immortal, around for miles and miles. There is no evidence that this Immortal has family or friends - certainly none in the area. The Immortal carries no identification so there is no way for Duncan to trace any heirs - if such people even exist.. He did carry a small knapsack which Duncan discovers is filled with jewels. The jewels carry no identifying marks.
Duncan can:
1) Take the jewels.
2) Take the jewels and turn them in at the nearest police station 300 miles away where the police will have zero chance of finding the "real" owners.
3) Take the jewels and use them for "good works"
4) Leave the jewels in the middle of the desert where sandstorms will soon cover the remains forever.
What does Duncan do under your definition of morality?
>>A lone Immortal person (and especially a lone Immortal man)
>>can be very mobile, regardless of what society dictates.
>>Every situation is temporary, especially if you are willing to
>>"die" to escape it.
>okay, yes, if they were good with languages and very stubborn they could
>end up pretty much anywhere. but would that put them on the way to saving money?
>which was the point here. They could wander around the world being poor
>but not technically a slave, I'll grant you that, but would the wandering lead to
>having money? I say not necessarily.
You seem to be arguing two points:
1) People's situations are "fixed" at birth, and
2) making money (enough to save) is very very hard
The above paragraph addresses # 1. Immortals are not "stuck" in the same way that many mortals are (or were). They are not limited to the opportunities present in a 10 miles radius of their birthplace. If they were fostered to poor farmers, they at least have the chance of moving on and perhaps moving up. Born a slave in Rome, an Immortal will (with luck) outlive the Roman empire and no longer be a slave.
>The possibilities are endless but the thing I said to start with this
>was about was how people seem to perceive old=rich as an inevitability.
>Which is the part I think is wrong. It isnt inevitable, just possible.
>old can = lost everything in the great war, or something similar.
This is # 2. Old & rich isn't inevitable with Immortals - no one said it was. What has been argued is that old & rich is much more likely with Immortals than mortals. Even is an Immortal loses everything in the great war, they have another 100 or 200 or 1000 years to recoup those loses.
>>But, the more they move around, the longer the years go on, the
>>more likely that they will fall into some other line of work
>>eventually.
>
>the more opportunities for. don't know if it gets more likely if they're
>happy with what they're doing.
Times change. Jobs change. Sometimes people change. If an Immortal was really happy as a pig farmer in 1345 maybe he would still be a pig farmer in 2003.But being a pig farmer in 2003 isn't the same as being a pig farmer in 1345. To still be raising pigs as one did in 1345, the Immortal would have to actively search out some corner of the Earth where farming hadn't changed in 700 years. The act of searching for this place would put the Immortal in contact with other people and other places and other situations, all of which might well distract him from his original intent of returning to 1345 pig farming.
>> Didn't say it would be easy to be rich cheese maker<g>
>>It would take ingenuity. It would take hard work.
>>It might take 200 years of effort.
>I think I failed to convey the point of the story
>People like to think that getting rich is about effort and ability and
>merit.
>But you can have all of those things (and ingenuity, time, loyal
>clients, good customer relations, write ups in the local paper, the
>works) AND Still not be rich because that business just doesn't work that
>way.
No, you conveyed the story very well. Numerous people who do something well never manage to make any money at that thing. There are great artists who never sold a painting. Designers who never sold a dress. Cheese makers who never sold more than a few pound to the neighbors.
>> I'm sorry but if you are going to insist that no Immortal do anything
>> morally dubious to get by, they aren't going to get by.
>
>So it is impossible to live morally?
>Interesting and depressing worldview there.
I'm saying that you are defining "morality" in a terribly narrow and "mortal-centric" fashion. I'm saying that being Immortal in and of itself is morally dubious. I'm saying that asking Immortals to live 100% by the moral Rules of society (whatever society is at any given moment) defies logic.
> I also like to imagine what people from different eras and philosophical backgrounds
>would think about these moral conundrums. I mean there will be people who wont
>change their name or fake IDs because they find it immoral, or religiously wrong,
>or something. Because Immortals are all kinds of people so all opinions they
>could have someone will have.
I agree that different Immortals from different times and upbringings will have different opinions on what is right and wrong. We see that repeatedly on the Series. My belief is, however, that there are certain areas where almost all Immortals will have to agree if they are to move through the ages more or less undetected. I doubt there are very many Immortals who never change their their names on the grounds that it is immoral (I'm still trying to figure out why changing your name is, per se, immoral) Duncan doesn't seem to change his but I always believed that was more a convention of the writers to keep confusion to a minimum when writing flashbacks and such.
>What you seem to be saying is that some moral
>positions are inherently impossible for an Immortal to survive. Maybe. Maybe not.
>And how much is Immortality the issue, or Immortality interacting with local
>custom and law and records? These the fun things to talk about for me.
As they are fun for me. I simply disagree with the position you have stated. Can't have much of a discussion if we all agree, eh?
>>Having spent centuries learning more about medicine than most doctors
>>will learn in a lifetime, should she spend 20 years out of every 60
>>requalifying?
>Would an ancient Immortal trained in chinese medicine, with
>centuries of healing experience, be qualified to call themselves a
>doctor in America?
They might be able to call themselves a doctor, they would also probably face some difficulties the first time a patient asked for a common Western remedy and the doctor prescribed herbs <g>
>Okay, so it seems silly to make Grace resit her kindergarten exams, but
>try this thought- what if your GP had changed their name, printed out
>fake certificates for all the levels you mention, and used them to gain
>the position he holds, where he wields power of life and death over your
>local community. Including you.
>Would that be something you would want to know?
In the real world with a real doctor, sure. I'd want to know why the doctor needed a fake name. There are only a few good reasons why a mortal doctor would need to create a new identity. Is the doctor on the run from a horrible medical disaster somewhere - or is he in the Witness Protection program? Mortals very seldom change identities so completely for fun- it is almost always for a very serious ( often illegal) reason.
In the Immortal world there is one very good reason why an Immortal doctor needs to periodically create a new identity - they outlive their credentials. There is no need to suspect malpractice just because an Immortal doctor reissues his own diploma with a newer date..
>Or if changing his name is ok in your book, when exactly *does* it get
>morally dubious?
>Even if he did legitimately hold all those qualifications, what if he
>printed certificates for different schools, to cover his tracks? If
>they were American schools instead of, say, Indian? Or if they were
>better schools than he went to? What if he tweaked his grades a bit?
Yes, in the real world if there were Immortal doctors running about, I would worry about them keeping their skills up to date. Since there are no real Immortals doctors that I know of, I worry less. No, Immortal doctors shouldn't advertise themselves as being able to perform procedures that they are not, in fact, qualified to perform. Yes, Immortal doctors should keep learning new things as the times change and a reputable Immortal doctor would. A disreputable Immortal doctor wouldn't. The immortality comes from claiming to be able to do something you can't- not from changing the name on the diploma.
>If things arent right for mortals to do, why are they right for
>Immortals? They arent, they're just what they do anyways. Doesnt make
>it any more moral just because they have a Really Good Reason. Does it?
Immortal chop heads off. The Rules of the Game do not specify that one has to have reason to do so. Some Immortals chose (note: it is a choice) not to headhunt but even Duncan acknowledges that headhunters are merely playing the Game. He chooses not play unless forced. If the whole basis of Immortal "culture" is based on the premeditated decapitation of other Immortals, can we seriously hold them to mortal morality? They have already been set outside that morality in a huge way.
>>But it seems to me that in most cases the style of life Immortals
>>have is based on choice, not necessity.I simply see no excuse -
>>beyond choice - for living hundreds of years and being
>>poor all the time.
>See this is the bit of logic I cant follow. I mean people don't
>generally get up in the morning and think 'hey, I want to be poor! Isnt
>poverty great?' although there's always exceptions. So given that a
>whole lot of people want to be rich, choose what they think will make
>them rich, and still aren't rich, leads to the conclusion that it takes a
>lot more than just choosing to be rich. And I think being stupid isn't what
>stops a lot of people. And you don't seem to agree with me, so I trying to
>explain. Not seeming to work though.
I don't agree with you<g> But it isn't because I don't understand you. I simply disagree. I think you place way too many *mortal* restrictions on Immortal circumstances. If we agree that no one gets up and decides they *want* to be poor. ..then we have to agree that 99.9% of poor people would try to be less poor if they could think of some way to not be. We can probably agree that 95% of all poor people are actively trying to make enough money or change their circumstances enough to stop being poor. I'll even grant you that 95% of the time these attempts to escape poverty fail because of bad luck. poor execution, bad timing, governmental interference, ignorance, social pressure, inertia, disease, economic down turn, ill-will of friends, family, neighbors, community, war, etc . What you need to grant me <g> is that if *anyone* can overcome all the various roadblocks to financial success, it would be a being with the ability to live forever, come back from the dead, and ret!
ain a near perfect memory of all his past lives. An Immortal.
Wendy(A seriously decaying equine anyone?)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:51:10 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
John--
> Firstly " is a quotation mark. ' Indicates a phrase or claim of phrase.
No, it doesn't. Single quotation marks are usually used to indicate a
quotation w/in a quotation. Like--Beth stated, "He always said, 'The sky is
orange,' but no one cared." Single quote marks still indicate an _exact_
quotation, rather than a paraphrasing. I hope your mags get it right.
> I can't see it being a battlcry against fan-fic writers. - but
> hey, why don't you post the *question* he was asked as well as his answer
> and we can all check for context?
Well, it's fairly extensive, & I _know_ how you feel about people
duplicating copyrighted work in posts, etc. It is, of course, wrong. Also,
since both you & I have said the question pertained to the Spike rumor, what
would be the point of repeating the question? If anyone wants to read the
whole thing, they should go to the site & plow through the article for all
10 pages of context--
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/425/425492p10.html?fromint=1&submit.x=46&submit.y=17
me before--
> "So, doesn't that mean you shouldn't be content w/ half truths? That you
> should be asking, on the record, the hard questions & getting complete
> answers to print? Why don't you ask Panzer, Whedon, etc. how they really
> feel about fanfic? Get specific..."
> Pick up copies of Impact concenring Endgame - heck, pick up any copy of
> Impact - and tell me I don't ask the hard questions of the very people you
> mention.
So, why is this different?
> It benefits both TPTB and fan-fic writers to
> remain quiet on the subject simply because it *does* benefit both. Should
> TPTB get heavy-handed (as the law would perfcectly let them) they risk
> losing fan support. Should fanfic writers get bolshy about exercising
rights
> they never had in the first place, they risk action which would hurt their
> hobby.
See--that's a story.
>There's a thin line between
> being objecive and subjective, but I don't think
that...say....interviewing
> a US film star and NOT asking him for his stance on the Iraq war is
> automatically me NOT doing my job.
Not the same thing at all, since TPTB & distributed fanfic ARE related.
TPTB DO have opinions on it. Fans ARE affected by official decisions to act
or not act on fanfic.
> It's fanfic... and unlike big issues of the day, very few
> people seem to share your burning need for a definitive stance.
No burning desire--just no need for a cover-up. I'm just not afraid of the
results.
>I'm sure I'll write: 'It was Bill Panzer with the fanfic in the
>conservatory' but until then I'll let articles such as the Endgame coverage
>speak for themselves.
I read that article w/ interest. But, tell me, who WAS really responsible
for HL:EG's failure?
And, John--Happy 4th of July!
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:54:26 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Rachel--
>>>Okay - I'm seriously not trying to throw flames or anything, but I'm
very curious; why do you dislike fanfic so much, Nina?
You act like it should be banned or something. *Is* that what you
think? That all fanfic writers should be prosecuted? >>>
No. I think people who distribute printed material violating others' legal
rights should be deterred. Don't you?
John--
> Now...paid distribution is another matter entirely. This does clearly
> infringe copyright/trademark/profit boundaries
See, Rachel, John understands.
John--
> and the only question is
> whether it's worth the time of TPTB to pursue it (not whether they have
the
> right to).
And it is a very good question. But, oddly, you don't seem to want to ASK
that question of TPTB in your mags. Why IS that?
John--
> But is your opinion that fanfic is wrong/silly/shouldn't be done, or
simply
> that those who profit from it should not be quite as blatant in their
> opinion they have the right to do so without recourse?
My opinion is that distributed fanfic is, legally, theft &, morally,
stealing from friends. It should be discouraged, not glorified as oddball
folk art of these Internet times. It shouldn't be encouraged by bored &
silly fans, & TPTB shouldn't be cowed into submission OR silence about it.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:12:28 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Disability
me before--
> > So, how do you feel about people who widely distribute fanfic?
beccaelizabeth--
> *rolls eyes*
> and people say *I'm* obsessive
That must be very annoying for you.
be--
> And since you ask- the rule against fanfic is made up by money people and
not
> backed up by law. It has no moral weight that I can figure. Fanfic is
okay by
> me.
Why am I not surprised? [John--Really, you see no story here? What Fans
REALLY Think About Fanfic. You could do a poll. (Be sure to have a poll
entry for "It's fun. And I like it. So, there!") It's so very funny, if
nothing else. I'm tired of mag articles on all the boring genre remakes &
sequels--spice up your mag w/ something different. Don't forget the hot
slash angle & the sexy cover pix. Trust me.]
be--
> But then owning things and money are among the things that I dont entirely
> understand.
Yes, I read some of your exchanges w/ Wendy. Never mind.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:38:47 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
> John--
> > and the only question is
> > whether it's worth the time of TPTB to pursue it (not whether they have
> the
> > right to).
>
> And it is a very good question. But, oddly, you don't seem to want to ASK
> that question of TPTB in your mags. Why IS that?
Okay. MY position...
Because, quite simply I don't believe the boat particularly need rocking.
The current situation usually suits TPTB and fanfic writers alike. Unless
some fanfic writer with delusions of grandeur starts shouting about their
misconceived rights to what they want or a studio has a Intenet offensive
shutting down sites hand over fist, then both sides seem quite happy to
quietly tolerate the others' position and no real damage is done - in fact
they both benefit. Legally, if your wish was granted and they HAD to state a
definitve position they'd HAVE to protect their property and issue a
blanket-ban. This would then set a precedent, restrict fan activity and
possibly curtail a cult following from forming. TPTB know that and unless
someone forces the issue to the extent you'd like to see happen, they are
quite happy to live and let live as long as huge chunks of profit are not
lost. I just don't see what would be gained by that.
Do I think fanfic writers who write for their own pleasure do any harm? No.
In fact I'd encourage it as a writing exercise. Do I think that showing a
few friends and exchanging stories does any harm? No - though I guess doing
so would technically be publishing if printed out or displayed in a certain
way (ie: the difference between a letter and a newspaper format). Do I think
that publishing your own fanfic work and selling it does any harm? I'd still
say the harm is very limited, but - yes - technically that's the line when
there is clearly an infringement occuring and legal action would be fairly
easy to enforce *should TPTB wish to*. Many don't react to fanzines because
they see them as having positive effects within fandom. It's not being
'cowed'. far from it...it's a strategic choice. There isn't so much
*approval* as no real active disaproval. That's borne out by the fact that
there isn't a lawsuit each week and that you see so many at conventions.
However (and it's a big however) that doesn't mean fanfic writers should be
complacent about the lack of enforcement. It doesn't give the writers any
new rights. The minute that someone shouts too loudly, the house of cards
will fall in and the result wouldn't be pretty or useful. Perhaps you'd
sleep more soundly and content, but I doubt anyone else would feel the
advantage.
As to my Endgame coverage. It's my personal belief that fans were cheated by
questionable marketing methods and that few of TPTB stood up and justified
their postions that well. For the record, several key interviewees put the
editing decision at Davis/Panzer's feet (they denied it) and the marketing
at Miramax (they declined to answer). Can't say how accurate that is, just
what was said.
> My opinion is that distributed fanfic is, legally, theft &, morally,
> stealing from friends. It should be discouraged, not glorified as oddball
> folk art of these Internet times. It shouldn't be encouraged by bored &
> silly fans, & TPTB shouldn't be cowed into submission OR silence about it.
Legal stuff aside.....I don't see why fanfic makes a fan 'silly' or 'bored'
or even 'oddball'. Good writing can inspire or touch the heart and I don't
see how using established characters rather than new ones would
automatically make people boring or silly while new characters would make
them a worthy author. Maybe less original, but that's it. And with respect,
your continued outspoken and frequent contributions on this list hardly
suggests you are devoting any *less* social time to the fictional Highlander
world than any fanfic writer currently lurking here.
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:50:15 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Disability
> Why am I not surprised? [John--Really, you see no story here? What Fans
> REALLY Think About Fanfic. You could do a poll. (Be sure to have a poll
> entry for "It's fun. And I like it. So, there!") It's so very funny, if
> nothing else. I'm tired of mag articles on all the boring genre remakes &
> sequels--spice up your mag w/ something different. Don't forget the hot
> slash angle & the sexy cover pix. Trust me.]
Yup. because SOOOOOOOOOO many Impact readers are women, SOOOOOOO many
readers would want us to lose an interview with an actor/director so we
could fit in an article about a 'genre/hobby' that many non on-line fans are
barely aware exists and SOOOOOOOOO many action movie fans like nothing
better than some imaginary hot tongue action between James Marsters, Michael
Shanks and Adrian Paul
Uh-huh.
Virtual marketing is fine. But when you're in the real world it costs money,
time and an understanding of the marketplace and knowing the difference
between what might be a *hot* topic for a small minority on a Net List and a
*hot* topic for a majority of readers who still don't know what a modem is.
I doubt 5% of our regulars have ever read fanfic and couldn't care less.
John
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Jul 2003 to 4 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-133)
*****************************************************************************