[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Charmian's JournalFen:
| Thursday, November 20th, 2008 | |
| 7:09 am | my thoughts on twilight wank: The Twilight fans are frequently insane, but most of them uninterestingly. How many times can you behave innappropriately and say psycho things before it gets old hat? However, there has been some good wank in there somewhere, and a lot of people seem to enjoy the Twilight wankage. So maybe what is needed is a Cornfield, and people can then post only the most spectacular stuff to the main comms. (Or heck, for the oh-so-ironic Twlight fans, why not an actual Twilight comm?) |
| Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 | |
| 10:07 am | http://wemyss.livejournal.com/149288.ht Eh, while academics=/=literary theorists, also intellectuals=/=academics. However, the whole wide-ranging discussion in fandom has always been hampered by a lack of concrete examples of "the problem." Thinking back on debates of the past, I recalled an occasion that might be an example of that, which I made a locked post about, after I read an entry by an acafan, which is still locked, but was not locked at the time, and which I quoted from. Unfortunately it is now locked. In any event, from what I can reconstruct, a group of acafans (although, of course, I do not claim that all acafans or fan-academics or academics who are also fans would have agreed with their positions on the issue at hand, or on their conclusions about the discussion itself) were frustrated that people (disclosure: including myself and one of my friends) did not agree with them. One of them said something to the effect of they just wished that they could get others to agree with their idead without getting them to accept the theories behind them. Which as I said at the time, struck me as a really weird way of thinking, because obviously people would accept or reject the ideas based on the thinking behind them! Quoting myself: "it seems rather arrogant to say your theoretical foundation is so true that people should just be convinced of its conclusions, without being bothered to argue the foundational assumptions. :P " Unfortunately, as I said, I can't really eh go into greater details as the post is all locked. But it was a real moment, I think, where there was a clash between a group of academic lit theory inclined fans, and a group which did not have such a background. I guess there are two groups of "acafans" who might clash with non-acafandom. One is the field of acafans who study fandom itself, the other is when academically influenced interpretations and assumptions collide with non-academic ones. Obviously everyone believes their interpretations are correct, really, but with academia, there's often an investment in believing that this is the Version 3.0 and those other ideas are old fashioned, bourgeois, etc. I suppose to play devil's advocate, it is entirely out of line for a scholar to believe that their thoughts on literature and writing are more valid than a non-scholar who has not been through that training? And if someone denies the foundation of one's profession, is that not galling? So in some senses one can't blame the acafans for their dislike. |
| Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 | |
| 8:08 am | So what is unfunnybusiness actually for? Is it a rant comm or a discussion comm? I wanted to post some links to articles on obscenity trials on fandom_lounge just to get the information out there. It's definitely not wank and not funny, also, and there are no people shouting at each other, just information and a link to a court decision. |
| Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 | |
| 12:05 am | all you ever wanted to know about Breaking Dawn but were afraid to ask (found on wank_report) Stephenie Meyer, in her infinite wisdom, has posted a Breaking Dawn FAQ to her website. "I'm not the kind of person who writes a Hamlet ending. If the fight had happened, it would have ended with 90% of the combatants, Cullen and Volturi alike, destroyed. There was simply no other outcome once the fight got started, given the abilities and numbers of the opposing sides. Because I would never finish Bella's story on such a downer—Everybody dies!—I knew that the real battle would be mental." Oh noes! There could have been ROCKS FALL, 90% die! "Well, I couldn't call her Jennifer or Ashley. What do you name the most unique baby in the world? I looked through a lot of baby name websites. Eventually I realized that there was no human name that was going to work for me, so I surrendered to necessity and made up my own. I don't approve of such shenanigans in real life, I don't even believe in getting creative with spellings for real kids! But this was fantasy, and no human name fit, so I did the best I could. " No human name is speshul enough for the speshul magical baby! Actually, snark aside, this reveals some interesting things about her writing process. Is that how most writers do it? IMHO she shouldn't have addressed anything about vampire procreation. That just pissed everyone off. |
| Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 | |
| 4:51 am | Ah, the return of Chancery Stone. I wonder if she actually does have some kind of psychological issue? Is she that delusional? Or does she realize on some level that she's hugely uh... having the exact opposite of massive success? As much as one can make fun of self-important authors like Anne Rice or egregiously mediocre ones like Stephenie Meyer, they succeeded at the hard task of getting published and appealing to numerous readers. This reminds me of that post where people were all wondering Does Sociability Aid in Marketing In (Fanfic) Fandom? And my mental response was 'in what field, all things being equal, does it NOT help?' Seriously, it's called networking, and in both amateur and pro publishing, where attention is a commodity in short supply, the effects are especially potent. That's why in the publishing world... it is kind of important to not be an ass, even if you aren't Ms. Congeniality. |
| Wednesday, August 27th, 2008 | |
| 8:04 am | Awesome, thanks, ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} white_serpent, for creating the deathwatch comm. Not that I don't care about the dead, but normally this is the fifth time I've so and so just died! by the time it hits JF. Also, BTW, did they ever resolve the HP Lexicon lawsuit? |
| Friday, August 1st, 2008 | |
| 10:08 am | Joined the ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} atouchofbadness group. I've often wondered about what makes popular "bad" fiction so compelling and read, while more well-written works languish in obscurity. So, what do you think are the fictional elements (or non-fiction? If discussing popular bad non-fiction is allowable) that will save a book from utter badness? Or which elements can be superlative, but are not enough to make a book a page-turner? I think in general, characterization (in terms of creating memorable characters) is normally the strong point of books famous for their badness. Perhaps it's also what gets books a *fandom* as well. Many fandoms focus on the characters, but it is possible to have very well written characters who don't create fan devotion. But in writing classes, IIRC people focus on having characters who are well-rounded or complex, and who, above all, develop, which I'm not sure is the key to creating a memorable or popular characters. I remember the post in which someone complained that the series had developed the characters and their relationships, and changed them from how they were before. She would have been happy to have them as they had been at the beginning. Plot is also another way that a book can keep people reading, despite its obvious flaws. That's how serial cliffhangers work, really. You've got to keep the reader wondering what will happen next. Coherency and avoiding howlers is not that important. Elements that people DON'T care so much about tend to be prose, and intellectual themes. (Maybe I should cross-post this to the comm?) |
| 12:37 am | There is not enough LOLOLOLOL in the world for the Twilight ending. However, while I totally don't think that Meyer really reads Tanith Lee, the part about ( spoilers er... more for the Scarabae books than Twilight ) |
| Thursday, July 31st, 2008 | |
| 11:07 pm | http://www.livejournal.com/poll/?id=122 http://community.livejournal.com/ljunit Huh, seems that a few people are... dissatisfied with the elected LJ board member. But as someone said elsewhere, it's not as if this is out of character. I wonder what her motivations for not speaking are. NDA or just lack of interest with dealing with the users? |
| Thursday, July 24th, 2008 | |
| 11:34 pm | http://jacquez.livejournal.com/616333.h The parts about Tritorella/Logosphile/etc seem to illustrate that it's not.... really a good idea to go for the full on SHUN THE SKINSACK EVERYONE effect if you don't have your facts straight. It is kind of well, rather libelous to say that someone made death threats when they didn't. Also, uh, if you're rather vague over whether someone did something egregious and admit that you weren't really paying attention at the time, why even bother bringing it up? [It's kind of unclear whether Tritorella/Logosphile was even a puppeteer, given that other people don't seem to believe she is, even those who aren't her friends. If so, the charges against her are "flamemonger," and "told OP not to contact her under pain of charges of harassment." So it's possible that Tritorella is as evil as she is said to be, but there sure doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence. ) |
| Sunday, July 20th, 2008 | |
| 4:40 pm | http://ithiliana.livejournal.com/91 "Apparently in the wake of Rebecca Tushnet's (reportedly) awesome interview on NPR, there are fans concerned that someone is outing fandom which, in their minds, apparently has been a big secret until the Awful Girlz of OTW ™ got together and decided to Speak For All Fandom! And btw those awful girlz should identify who they are in both online and offline forums because well they just should because they are speaking for all fandom." I realize that some people don't agree with the issues some people have with Rebecca Tushnet's interview, but is it too much to ask that they not all be lumped together? It's pretty OBVIOUS that Ethrosdemon does not agree with Michela's opinions regarding fandom outing of individual fans, so to conflate the two is just dirty pool. :P (Michela isn't even discussing Ethrosdemon's arguments anyway.) Ethrosdemon also knows and respects some of the people involved in OTW, so it is completely unfair to characterize her as someone who believes the members of OTW are bad people. I'm not saying this because I agree with every single one of Ethrosdemon's opinions, but I think she deserves better than this. This is WHY some people are saying that OTW doesn't have respect for those who criticize it! (Is it fair to judge the OTW by what Ithiliana said? I think it is. She's a member who is speaking out in support of it. If higher ups in the OTW repudiate what she has said, I'll change my mind. In general, I think it is fair to judge an organization by what members do in relation to it. If the organization didn't agree, they would talk to the members. The people who criticize OTW, however, are doing so as individuals, not as members of an organization. ) People have explained the difference between, to them, an organization and individual fans speaking. Now, people may not agree with that difference, but it's bad faith not to link to what people have said and instead simply lump together all parties. The main argument that Ethrosdemon and those who agree with her is actually NOT that copyright holders don't know about fandom, it's that they don't agree with an organization that publicly asserts that fanworks are not copyright infringement, and also, that they do not like that OTW has become the public face of fandom, especially when OTW is taking up positions that they do not support, and see the advocacy of which as potentially harmful to fandom. Both of these positions, I think, deserve more than just simple mockery, even if you are foolish and disagree with them, and the people who have put them forth do not deserve to be characterized as holding positions they have never publicly supported. Furthermore, supporting outing is NOT the same as having reservations with people not revealing their identities when taking up public spokesperson roles. |
| Saturday, July 19th, 2008 | |
| 10:55 am | Is it sockpuppetry? Is it sockpuppetry if you have two separate identities in a social group and the linkage is secret? Assume that no trolling is being done, and neither identity is in itself a lie or a serious misrepresentation. Having two identities on the internet isn't a problem, but I think it starts being a problem when the two identities hang around the same spaces and the same groups. The situation gets further complicated when we are dealing with privacy issues, when one identity is a person's legal identity, and the other identity is the "fan identity." I don't support outing fans who are not doing anything destructive or trollish; however, I think people do need to realize that there are potential social problems in this approach. Essentially, stable identity is important in a community because of reputation. People IMHO generally feel that they should have the opportunity to judge people by their prior public acts in the community. That is why it is considered a negative thing to create an LJ account to get friended by people without explaining who you are in the group and revealing your other LJ account. People won't be offended, perhaps, by another main LJ account which doesn't interact in the general social group where the sock/secondary account is getting friends. I think the degree to which people are bothered by this depends on the degree to which the two accounts interact in the community. If one account never makes comments, never makes posts, people will feel less offended than if both accounts participate with gusto, because that increases the possibility that people will form ties with the sock. I wonder how one would deal with someone wanting to befriend the sock when the potential friend doesn't like the RL identity. It strikes me as bad form, also, to comment on someone's post using two accounts without informing them of this fact. Not saying this has been done recently, but it's a situation which could potentially occur as a result of people participating in fandom simultaneously under their RL and fan identities. |
| Friday, July 18th, 2008 | |
| 10:19 pm | http://ethrosdemon.livejournal.com/4236 It's good to see someone talking about concerns about the OTW who is within Western media fandom, and focusing on core issues, rather than the side ones. As much as some OTW supporters say that the archive is the center, that doesn't really matter because no one objects to the idea of an archive, it's the legal issues people question. I personally don't experience her issue with the OTW that people will see it as representing her, because I'm an anime fan and fair use doesn't exist in Japan, and also I don't write fanfiction, and go whole months without reading any. But I can understand that issue, that people will believe that all fanfic fans share the ideology of the OTW. I don't know if anything can be done about it. This will hold especially true if the OTW ever does anything controversial to the general public or creative groups outside fandom. She also goes into the legal aspects. Personally, I think her viewpoint is more... realistic? than that of a lot of people who feel that fanfic is already fair use in the US. (A legal article recently concluded that it is probably not "fair dealing" in Canada, and someone on my flist, a legal student, is in the process of writing an article about how it is probably not "fair dealing" in Australia either. IANAL but I suspect the same applies to Britain. No one has even mentioned France and Germany, or the rest of the EU. ) |
| Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 | |
| 5:30 am | http://www.journalfen.net/users/white_s LOL. I hate it when people post to fandom comms asking for help either on their homework, or for help with their research. I don't believe it's inappropriate, and feel that it's a kind of spam. It sets a bad precedent. I think it can be okay to for people to ask questions, but just as any old sort of fan, not as a 'I'm looking for viewpoints on blah blah blah, give them to me.' Just start a discussion, then ask people afterwards if they give permission to be cited, if that is an issue. |
| Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 | |
| 7:20 pm | Huh, all of a sudden, I don't seem to be receiving JF comment notifications. |
| 3:39 am | I'm kind of fascinated by the ongoing Boingboing contretemps, even though I don't read Boingboing. Like I was saying LJ, I remember everyone saying during the various LJ crises 'zomg, what morons, why don't they just say something already?' but then it seems like web 2.0 veterans don't do any better w/ quick turnaround times? No matter what Violet Blue has done to offend the BoingBoing folk so much though, I think maybe one thing is that a public action demands a public explanation, PR wise. Otherwise you get this kind of reputation freefall, especially when you have a reputation for demanding transparency/anti-censorship. That's why LJ has such a bad reputation, even when they look like saints compared to Myspace and Facebook, and why even though Wordpress.com has similar policies regarding content issues, why they've managed to avoid user wrath. Also this is showing that whether you are Jane Fangirl or a big name SF person, speaking up for your friends rather than just waiting for them to say something doesn't work well. Eventually John Scalzi stopped his sniping/pissing match with languagehat, but man, that did lower my opinion of him. He should have just confined himself to stating that there was no evidence that Doctorow or Theresa Nielsen Hayden were personally involved in the actions, because by ignoring the reasonable criticisms, even though that was why he was ignoring them (because they were reasonable), he comes off as refusing to acknowledge them. TNH is not exactly covering herself with glory either. Essentially if you can't say anything, then don't say anything, and if you don't know the story, don't talk about the story as an insider. |
| Monday, June 30th, 2008 | |
| 6:27 am | http://community.livejournal.com/metaqu LOL, I like the backpedaling here. If you aren't going to write about female characters even when you admit that they aren't weak, however you define it, don't say it's just because of canon. |
| Saturday, June 28th, 2008 | |
| 2:18 pm | Hey, we'll make a book of fanfic and send it to the creators! In SPN fandom, Tahirire has created a comm called spn_legacy to organize her attempt to create a compilation of fanfic... to present to the actors and other creators. When she makes a post giving people the option to opt out, people finally begin to take interest in the project. There's just not much real wank yet, otherwise I would post it to the comm (maybe when Tahirire replies?) but I just kind of boggle at her for being plugged into the fanfic scene yet not knowing of the controversality of her project, to say the least. Speaking of SPN, I wonder what the story is behind this suggestion? (entirely unrelated, but same fandom) |
| Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 | |
| 5:16 am | http://carlanime.livejournal.com/46 In general, I think nothing is wrong with anyone creating a wiki on past fandom events, but I've heard so many negative things about the owner moderating with too tight of a hand, and complaints about neutrality. On the other hand, I don't think it's wrong that they used a script to import ff.net information, as long as the content of the bios was not copied. However, there are also, as discussed in the comments, legitimate privacy concerns. The problem, I think, is that different fandoms have vastly different standards of privacy, and there is no legal recourse to being 'outed,' whereas there are legal standards to prevent other types of information from being shared, or at least site policies. |
| Sunday, June 22nd, 2008 | |
| 4:28 pm | http://lasultrix.livejournal.com/31 For "fandom" in this entry, read "slash fandom," and for "men" in this entry, read "gay and/or bisexual men." It's kind of an annoying shortcut, and totally obscures her point, because you then go "huh? WTF? There are tons of male fans, and in fact, in many fandoms they're the majority, especially if the work is directed at men in the first place." However, I kind of think her question is sort of bizarrely naive, in a way. Haven't there been TONS of wanks about this issue? I just don't see why one would be surprised. |