morgan32: OTW - weighing in on the debate.

Morgan )O( aka eirian (

morgan32) wrote,
@ 2007-12-27 18:28:00

Current mood:

thoughtful

OTW - weighing in on the debate.
A few weeks ago, The Organisation for Transformative Works officially launched. I know some of my flist already know about them; if you're in fandom (any fandom) and you haven't run across them yet, you should check it out, either at their own website or in otw_news (on LJ, GJ, IJ and JF).

OTW got started this summer as the fanarchive project. Now it's something more.

In the past month or two, I've read an awful lot of paranoid nonsense about them, mainly in the comments of their own news posts and then in personal LJ posts by the same people rehashing the same stuff. I've also seens some very legitimate critique of OTW and their aims, some mud-slinging from people who seem to feel threatened by them in some way and, very occasionally wank that makes Harry Potter fandom look sane. A lot of it made metafandom.

*shrug* Just goes to show getting a good idea off the ground isn't easy.

In adding my own voice to the throng, I daresay I'm inviting yet more wank, but there are a few things which, maybe others have already said but if so, I haven't seen them said. So here goes.

First, and foremost, yes there are problems with the language OTW have chosen for their vision & values and mission statement. But I really, really, believe this is one time fen would do better to look behind the words to the intent, and just trust that these people are what they say they are. A lot of the worst criticism of OTW has come from fen who feel excluded by phrases like "transformative" or by OTW's recognition that media fandom is female dominated. They ignore the reassurances of the actual people involved in favour of nitpicking the language, and while I can see their points are valid, I don't belive that when it's time for OTW to show instead of tell, that they would actually exclude male fen or RPS fen or bandom fen. If they were likely to, I reckon they'd have said so already, and those people they didn't want around could go do their own thing and be happy. It would be far easier for them if they did exclude RPF, bandfic, songvids: they're far more likely to win some kind of legal recognition for written fanfic based on TV shows and movies (which actually is legitimate transformative use) than they are for real person slash (much of which which is legally libel, until proven otherwise). But they're bending over backwards to be as inclusive as possible. Of course they're not succeeding 100%: they're human. But they're doing a far better job than anyone has a right to expect.

I also think it's fantastic that they acknowledge the femaleness of fandom right from the beginning. Most of the argument against that is proving, to me at least, why that acknowledgment is so very necessary.

I have my own reservations. I love the archive of our own project, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with the academic emphasis they seem to have. I tried to follow fandebate over this summer and though I'm neither unintelligent nor inarticulate most of the entries seemed to me to be deliberately inaccessible. It read like the small print on a credit application. I don't think I made it through to the end of a single one. If that's representative of academic discourse on fandom, I can't help thinking it's doing fandom no favours at all.

OTW want to create a peer-reviewed academic journal to discuss fan works and fannish society. I have no problem with such a thing existing. No problem at all. Academia has always existed in it's own little ivory tower, generally harming no one and relevant to no one outside its own bubble. I was married to a sociologist; believe me I figured out real fast exactly how irrelevant it all is. My reservations stem from such a project being formed by, and apparently being the highest priority of, an organisation that purports to exist for the benefit of fandom.

I hope I'm wrong, but I strongly suspect that the interests of aca-fen and the interests of fandom as a whole will turn out to be mutually exclusive. It will be the regular wank about the ethics of critical reviews of fanfic dragged into the macrocosm. I know some people thrive on that kind of debate but meltdown is fun for no one. No matter what side of the argument you fall on, the fight stops being fun after the twentieth time your head hits the brick wall.

That said, it is my firm belief that fandom needs OTW. It has been needed for some time and I have nothing but respect for these women who have finally gone out there and made it happen.

I wonder if anyone remembers Fandom, Inc vs fandom? The fan history wiki appears to have no record of it, but that's no surprise as it happened about this time in 2000. The wiki is, shall we say, somewhat blind in that era.

But I remember it. I was there, if admittedly only as an interested observer at the time. I was too young, and too broke, and too not-American to participate in any meaningful way. Most of the earliest articles about the incident are gone from the net but I did find one, here on trektoday.com from "back in the day". Just, you know, to prove I'm not making this shit up.

What happened, roughly, was this. Carol, a fan I was vaguley acquainted with via the one mailing list we had in common came up with the cool idea of creating a multi-fandom website that would host news and fanfic and other cool stuff, and maybe a web-based email service for fans, too. She registered the domain fandom.tv, designed a logo and started work on her site. Not long afterwards, she received a C&D; letter from the ~~lying scumbags~~ lawyers representing Fandom, Inc, who informed her that "fandom" was a registered trademark of said company. They demanded that she hand over the domain she'd paid for (they made no offer of payment), quit work on her site, and agree to never, ever again register or own a domain that included the word "fandom". If she refused to kiss their asses, they were going to sue her into bankrupcy. Or, that's what the legalese amounted to.

Carol had guts. And brains. She did a little research of her own. She discovered that "fandom" was a registered trademark of absolutely no one but there was a lapsed trademark application in the name of the company now threatening her. So she hired an attourney, put in an application to trademark "fandom.tv" herself and told the ~~lying scumbags~~ lawyers of Fandom, Inc where they could shove their baseless threats. Around the same time, she let folks on the mailing list we had in common know what was going on. Fox, who I believe was her attourney through the whole thing (I could be wrong about that), was also a member of several fandom mailing lists.

Fandom kicked into gear. It emerged quickly that Fandom, Inc ran the website fandom.com which essentially paid fans to create websites ("fandomains") devoted to certain popular fandoms. Copyright issues abounded as none of the "fandomains" had any official sanction and most of them used official pictures and/or screencaps (not to mention trademarked logos) in the building of their sites. Fox organised a boycott of fandom.com and letter writing campaign. The boycott was laregly symbolic as most of us in fandom never used the site anyway, but the symbol was important. Two of the people who ran "fandomains" popped up to yell at fen about what they were doing: both of them were male. (I consider this significant, yes.)

A mailing list was created (and still exists) on Yahoo: fandomfightsback. The list archives used to be public; at one point they were made members-only, but it's well worth joining to have a read: the early posts in particular are highly educational. Fandomfightsback coordinated the campaign and donations to support Carol's fight and the original founders considered starting some kind of fandom legal defence fund in case of corporate bullies trying this again. After the Fandom, Inc incident was over. FFB continued on, with the aim of defending fans against similarly unreasonable lawsuits. There was, for example, some discussion onlist of an artist who had been C&D;'s by Anne McCaffrey's reps because her artwork featured dragons, though unconnected to Ms McCaffrey's works.

Back to Fandom, Inc. It's the nature of legal disputes that the full truth of the settlement will never be publicly known. Carol, I'm sure, is bound by a confidentiality agreement. But there are three things I do know of the outcome:

1. Carol won, because fandom.tv continued to operate for many years.

2. Fandom, Inc collapsed. Apparently that had been on the cards before they tried to sue fandom.

3. Fandom.com, the domain and associated assets, were bought up by Creation (yes, the con people) some time before the final resolution happened.

You know that saying about having done the impossible? Fandom did it, that year.

In the years that followed, I became aware of a number of other cases where fandom members were C&D;'d for fannish activity. The biggest was an archive of SW Angst fic which LucasFilm forced offline. I don't know if it ever came back; I'm not into Jedi-fic so I never really followed the story. Another I know of was a fan artist who was asked to take down some artwork based on WB toons for copyright reasons. She complied with the request immediately, but WB complained to her web host anyway (possibly at the same time they complained to her, but I don't know). The result was all her web sites went down, which included the major slash archive of a big fandom. Most of it was eventually restored.

What if we'd had OTW back then? What if fen had an option other than duck-and-cover when the corporate heavies pull out the big guns? What if we could fight for our right to our hobbies? Fandom proved we can win when we fought Fandom, Inc. Fandom can come together and be mighty, and we can win against the corporate nasties when we bloody well try. And what's more, we should, because just look at what might have happened if Fandom,Inc got away with bullying Carol. Who would have been next? Anyone with "fandom" or "fan" in their website domain name, that's who.

2007's events on Livejournal probably wouldn't have fallen directly under OTW's umbrella. But if fandom were a force to be reckoned with, if we had an organisation prepared to fight for us, then jerks like Six Apart might need to listen to us instead of caving in to neo-nazi fanatics screaming that we're a bunch of pedos.

OTW came about in response to fanlib dot com (I won't link to them, but they ain't hard to find), another bunch of corporate nasties who thought they could exploit fandom. They still think it. But I won't rehash that wank here: there are a gazillion or so posts on metafandom that'll explain it quite clearly. The short version: fanlib is an openly commercial website which invites us to post our fanfiction there so they can profit from it. There was a clever little clause in their original TOS which meant that if they got sued for profiting off our fanfic, the fans who wrote the fics in question could be forced to pay their legal fees and any damages awarded by the court. That clause may have been removed or changed, but they still say it's the unpaid fans who'll get sued, not them.

OTW came about in response to fanlib, but they are the natural successors of fandomfightsback and, I suspect, might involve some of the same people. I'm sure that at least one of those involved was active in the same part of fandom back when the Fandom, Inc thing went down.

The archive project which is the fanlib response is a great idea; it remains to be seen how well it will work. If they suceeed in combining the social networking features of LJ with the ease-of-archiving of somewhere like fanfiction.net, I think it'll be a great success. But that's a long way off and all we can do is wait and see.

Their academic journal I have serious reservations about. The fan history wiki idea...I don't know. I'm not much into wikis so I don't really have an opinion on that one.

But the thing that makes OTW unique and the thing that has me saying all fen should be supporting them is the notion that their archive will be tied directly into an organisation that won't cave to the first DMCA notice or C&D; they receive. They'll fight for us. And, you know what - fandom just might do the impossible...again.

(Post a new comment)

	wedes 2007-12-27 07:28 pm UTC (link)
	Nicely done. I admit I have reservations about being 'spoken for'. However, with Egypt now registering copyright to the Sphinx and the Pyramids, the time as never been more right for some form of fandom representation. Of course there will be dissent. That is the nature of fen. In all things. But I believe you're right. It's time to work together despite differences. (Reply to this)(Thread)

morgan32
2007-12-27 07:55 pm UTC (link)

I admit I have reservations about being 'spoken for'.

As do I, but that happens all the time. I suspect OTW, being members of fandom, will do a better job of representing fandom than random journalists and Henry Jenkins have done before now.

Egypt now registering copyright to the Sphinx and the Pyramids

LOL! I saw that. I can't see it working on an international scale. Copyright is the life of the creator plus 50 years (or longer in some states, but international is 50). Methinks the creators of the Pyramids have been dead a mite longer than that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

wedes
2007-12-27 08:32 pm UTC (link)

LOL...no question. It's not so much the actuality of the copyright so much as the attitude and the atmosphere in which it's happening that worries me. This concept of individual ownership vs humankind ownership is I think what's happening. I think it's happening now in fandom and machinima because we're playing near the outside of the herd and are more visible and vulnerable. I do agree that I'd rather have the women running OTW speak for me than Henry or any other non-fandom person.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	skywaterblue 2007-12-27 07:48 pm UTC (link)
	I found you via FriendsFriends -- Dee Dreslough's LJ is ddreslough. Anne McCaffery eventually gave in to the long standing battle against her fandom, but it decimated both in the process. She only repealed it, I suspect, because a different son runs the business management now and he seemed to be more aware of the value of an active fandom in marketing. (Reply to this)(Thread)

morgan32
2007-12-27 07:58 pm UTC (link)

Anne McCaffery eventually gave in to the long standing battle against her fandom, but it decimated both in the process.

That doesn't surprise me. I didn't really follow it after I left FFB because she never had a legal leg to stand on claiming copyright over all dragons. She's a nut...just a nut with a certain following, unfortunately.

Thanks for the update. It's good to know.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

here from metafandom

hector_rashbaum
2008-01-01 10:15 pm UTC (link)

They ignore the reassurances of the actual people involved in favour of nitpicking the language, and while I can see their points are valid, I don't belive that when it's time for OTW to show instead of tell, that they would actually exclude male fen or RPS fen or bandom fen. If they were likely to, I reckon they'd have said so already, and those people they didn't want around could go do their own thing and be happy.

I'm curious - what about the people who don't see those reassurances? Who come upon the website, see language that's historically been used to denote a space which doesn't cater to them, and leave? If OTW wants these people to feel welcome, their language should reflect that. If OTW doesn't want these people to feel welcome, their attitude should reflect that. What's happening right now is the equivalent of a company putting out a sign that reads "video watchers' club" when they're open to anyone who watches moving pictures through any medium - there are plenty of people who don't think of DVDs or reel-to-reels or betamax tapes as videos, and just because there's someone holding up the sign who will reassure dvd and reel-to-reel and betamax watchers they're welcome if they ask, that doesn't mean there's no problem with specifying "video".

I never, at any point in my nitpicking, assumed OTW's purpose was to exclude. I'm well aware they're aiming for as much inclusiveness as possible. Their intention to make the sign reflect that doesn't change the fact that their sign doesn't reflect that.

I should add, so far I'm happy with the way their sign has changed. I don't self-identify as a creator of transformative works, whether it technically applies or not, but I think their specifying in their values and mission statements helps greatly.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	also here from metafandom undomielregina 2008-01-02 03:18 am UTC (link)
	Your metaphor made me blink, because I use "video" inclusively. It's making me reevaluate the OTW language, although I'm still worried about the apparently common interpretation of "female dominated space" to mean "space welcoming only females", since no one questions that male dominated spaces contain and allow women. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: also here from metafandom

hector_rashbaum
2008-01-02 05:11 am UTC (link)

Heh, I used it specifically for that reason - I think there are a lot of people who'd see "video" and think "thing which contains moving pictures", same as there are a lot of people who'd see "video" and think "VHS".

And where my issue is isn't whether or not one position is more reasonable than the other - valid arguments can be made on both sides. The problem is, as a marketing thing, as a PR thing, it's generally A Bad Move to say to someone "if there's a problem with our language, we're going to assume it's just your problem."

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: here from metafandom

morgan32
2008-01-02 07:22 am UTC (link)

and just because there's someone holding up the sign who will reassure dvd and reel-to-reel and betamax watchers they're welcome if they ask, that doesn't mean there's no problem with specifying "video".

Okay, yes. But what we're seeing now is only the skeleton of a future organisation. Looking at OTW as it stands and behaving as if that's all that's there is like looking at a dinosaur skeleton and assuming Paleolithic earth was populated by skeletons looking exactly like that, rather than a huge, diverse ecosystem.

The "sign" people will see in future won't be OTW. It'll be the archive of our own. It'll be the other things they do. It'll be the people who choose to join and take part. It'll be organic.

To use your own metaphor, if the club members are into DVDs and reel-to-reel and betamax and the club activities reflect that, and their friends who are not members know through word of mouth about this cool club, then who gives a damn that it's called the Video Club. The sign over the door just tells you where it is, not what it is.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: here from metafandom

hector_rashbaum
2008-01-02 08:10 am UTC (link)

I'm well aware that what's there now isn't all there is going to be. If I thought this was it, I would've taken a look, shrugged, and went elsewhere. Am I not allowed to give input because things aren't final?

The "sign" people will see in future won't be OTW. It'll be the archive of our own. It'll be the other things they do. It'll be the people who choose to join and take part. It'll be organic.

The projects they run and the people they serve will be their buildings and customer base, not their sign. The sign will still be the website, what they stick outside the door to denote who they are.

To use your own metaphor, if the club members are into DVDs and reel-to-reel and betamax and the club activities reflect that, and their friends who are not members know through word of mouth about this cool club, then who gives a damn that it's called the Video Club.

The problem lies at the beginning, though - how will they (and by they I mean the DVD/reel-to-reel/betamax folks who don't think to ask about the sign) know they're welcome if they understand "video" to mean "vhs"? Because not everyone will ask. And any marketing work done under the assumption it's okay to use langauge that part of your intended customer base has said is exclusive because people will ask is heavily, heavily flawed marketing work.

The people who are excluded are not the problem; the exclusive language is. From what I've seen, OTW gets that - they've changed things that people have raised problems with.

The sign over the door just tells you where it is, not what it is.

A few days ago, there was a post in

customers_suck, by an employee of a high-end camera store. The sign outside their store read "Kodak Camera Store". And the employee? Was upset because people kept coming in expecting them to sell Kodak cameras, when they don't.

Most commenters in that post called him on it - if the sign says "Kodak Camera Store", it's fair for people to assume it's a place to buy Kodak cameras.

Your reasoning seems to be that yeah, those would-be Kodak purchasers were in the wrong, because what's important is what the store does. Those would-be customers just should have known the store didn't carry Kodak cameras, that intention is more important than advertising.

I say "I'm looking for slash fics." I mean "I'm looking for any fic featuring a love storyline." Am I right to get annoyed when a month into my search all I've gotten is m/m fic, because people should know what I mean?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: here from metafandom

morgan32
2008-01-02 08:57 am UTC (link)

Those would-be customers just should have known the store didn't carry Kodak cameras, that intention is more important than advertising.

*shrug* Fox News isn't about foxes and Walmart doesn't, so far as I know, sell walls. And I would indeed be a bloody idiot to assume that they do. There's a store down the road from me called "The Famous Pine Company". They don't sell famous pines, they sell pine furniture.

Besides, you can't compare an actual bricks-and-mortar store to the world of the internet. They're not even apples and oranges, they're apples and screws. Or something.

Am I not allowed to give input because things aren't final?

I'm not the one who gets to say whether you can give input. I'm not OTW; I don't, at present, even volunteer for them. I'm just an observer.

But what I'm seeing - and I don't mean you, I mean in general - is fen looking at the legal structure of the organisation, which has to be a certain way because it's a legal structure, when, at this time they should be looking at the intent. I maintain that you're wrong when you say the OTW website will be the equivalent of a store sign. OTW is the umbrella organisation. It's what non-fen are supposed to see. OTW is the equivalent of a holding company. The holding companies of most real life store chains are invisible to the general public: what the public see, the *sign* is some way down the company structure. As far as OTW is concerned, most of that is yet to come.

You're judging the "pudding" by the shape of the pudding bowl and a quick glance at the recipe. Which isn't to say the shape isn't important, it is. But it's only the start, and I prefer to trust the cook until I see how it tastes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: here from metafandom

hector_rashbaum
2008-01-02 07:20 pm UTC (link)

*shrug* Fox News isn't about foxes and Walmart doesn't, so far as I know, sell walls. And I would indeed be a bloody idiot to assume that they do. There's a store down the road from me called "The Famous Pine Company". They don't sell famous pines, they sell pine furniture.

Thing is, you can easily find those things out about those other places through official avenues - websites, etc. One could very easily go to foxnews.com and see that it's not about foxes. Same with Wal-Mart. Their officially provided information clarifies their purpose. If we keep going with the clubhouse example, the Fox News and Wal-Mart clubhouses have their signs, but they also have explanations of who they are tacked to the door.

My problem with OTW was - I say was because I still have some problems with their language but they have made changes, changes I like - that they called themselves Video Watchers' Club, used VHS-specific language in their explanation-tacked-to-the-door, and then acted confused when the DVD watchers thought that meant they weren't included.

Besides, you can't compare an actual bricks-and-mortar store to the world of the internet. They're not even apples and oranges, they're apples and screws. Or something.

Not always, but there are parallels here. The face of an organization and the language it uses to present itself are fair means by which to judge that organization, whether it's situated in the real world or the internet.

You're judging the "pudding" by the shape of the pudding bowl and a quick glance at the recipe. Which isn't to say the shape isn't important, it is. But it's only the start, and I prefer to trust the cook until I see how it tastes.

They're handing me the pudding bowl and asking what I think of it. They've launched, they've opened themselves up to scrutiny, and by providing places to give input they're asking for it.

And it's more like...having watched them mix up the clay and construct the bowl themselves, I have concerns about things they did during that mixing that mixing the pudding requires them to do again. The pudding bowl's a little lumpy and misshapen, and I'm pointing out that I think the problem is they didn't stir thoroughly enough because if they're not stirring right, they're gonna mess up the pudding, too. And maybe the problem isn't the stirring, it's the mix itself, but there's nothing wrong with someone asking you to double-check how thoroughly you stir.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

laura_holt_pi
2008-01-02 09:10 am UTC (link)

It rang alarm bells for me that OTW were bringing gender into it as if gender were more important than fandom. As a female fan, I don't want to be associated with an organisation that seems to have something against male fans, because they might assume I feel the same way.

In the same way, I would not join a club that stated proudly that its members were "predominantly white" or that it valued its status as a "predominantly white space", because although I am white, I don't share their view that this in some way makes me better than people who aren't.

Now, if I, as a member of the favoured group, feel this way, how must male fans feel? I know some female fans say, "Who cares? They deserve it!" but I disagree. Any group that begins by dismissing an entire gender is not going to be good at acting as an umbrella organisation for all fandoms.

The gender references were unnecessary. Since they have stuck to them, I assume that anyone who gets involved is likely to become a pawn in their gender politics. I object to that.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

morgan32
2008-01-02 09:53 am UTC (link)

I have to admit, as a feminist I don't really give a damn about the poor menz feeling left out. But let me try to answer your point.

In the same way, I would not join a club that stated proudly that its members were "predominantly white" or that it valued its status as a "predominantly white space", because although I am white, I don't share their view that this in some way makes me better than people who aren't.

But that's the wrong example because white people are a privileged group. If a club declares itself "predominantly white" it's reasonable to consider that a racist statement. Women are not the privileged group. Men are. A "men only" club I would assume to be sexist. A "women only" club might be about creating a safe space so members can be free of harrassment. So let's turn your example around.

Let's say that you, as a white person, are a member of a club whose membership is predominantly non-white. You've always known you were the minority in the club, but it doesn't matter because you've got loads of friends there, and you love the activity that the club is all about. If that club chose to state, proudly and accurately that its members were "predominantly people of colour", would you feel unwelcome or excluded? Would that statement somehow devalue your own membership? If so, why, when it's just a statement of a fact you've always known?

(As a white person myself, I'd be proud as hell to join that club.)

The reason I believe the gender reference is so important is because, historically, activities associated with femaleness are always associated with having lesser value. Domestic work isn't "work", it's "women's work". A man who chooses to be a house-husband while his female partner has a full time job is assumed to be less than "a real man".

This is true of fan activities also: (male) fan-created star wars movies are lauded by LucasFilm yet the same organisation waged a war against fanfic. (Male) DJs use other artists' records in their remixes and become famous; (female) makers of fanvids get DMCAs. Like it or not, gender is a factor in all this. That there are a small number of male creators of fanfic and vids doesn't change anything.

I like that OTW is willing to acknowlege that fact. They're not saying "Fandom is only for women! Death to the Men!" They're saying, "Most of us are women. Deal with it." It's a fact, and I'm cool with that. And I'm cool with any male fan who is also cool with that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

laura_holt_pi
2008-01-03 09:49 pm UTC (link)

Women are undoubtedly a privileged group. Sorry, I have never swallowed all that "poor ickle women" stuff that tries to make out we're all victims.

I'm afraid I find it hard to believe that anyone is foolish enough to believe that male and female fans are treated differently. Apart from the fact that non-fans tend to be more mocking towards male fans (suggesting they are fans because they don't have girlfriends, for example) I have seen no such difference. It's about money, not gender.

In my experience, rather a lot of fanfic writers are male. Sadly, they tend to get overlooked by the kind of women who would be furious if someone overlooked them because of their gender.

I find the phrase "People of colour" racist and patronising, so I would leave the club simply because I don't want to associate with people who label fellow human beings as "people of colour" as if they are defined solely by their colour. And yes, if a group I was in made statements that suggested I was, by reason of my skin colour, inferior, I would feel excluded.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	morgan32 2008-01-05 08:26 am UTC (link)
	Women are undoubtedly a privileged group. Bullshit. You clearly have no idea what the word means. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Here via metafandom with just a short comment skuf 2008-01-02 12:56 pm UTC (link)
	fen would do better to look behind the words to the intent Either I can't tell what the intent is for the words actually there, or I still disagree with it… (Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Here via metafandom with just a short comment

morgan32
2008-01-03 10:14 am UTC (link)

Either I can't tell what the intent is for the words actually there, or I still disagree with it…

*grin* Which is fine. Not everyone's going to agree with their aims.

What I mean is if you read through the posts and comments in

otw_news I think the intent and motives are pretty clear.

The necessarily formal language used on their website doesn't fully reflect that, and I'm not sure it should: that website is for folks outside of fandom to see. Those of us on the inside should be looking at a bigger picture (which includes the site).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

frogspace
2008-01-02 01:57 pm UTC (link)

I wonder if anyone remembers Fandom, Inc vs fandom?

I do. That was scary as hell. The Salon.com article Who owns fandom? is still accessible without wayback. That's one of the reasons I'm very glad the OTW exists because in this regard it's like insurance to me. You need to have it but you hope that you never have to need it. That is to say I appreciate it like WOW, but it's not my main focus. I'm most enthusiastic about the archive and the wiki and I can't wait to see how they'll turn out. :)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	morgan32 2008-01-03 10:15 am UTC (link)
	Say, thanks for the Salon link. I hadn't found that one. (Reply to this)(Parent)

screwthedaisies
2008-01-02 02:26 pm UTC (link)

First, and foremost, yes there are problems with the language OTW have chosen for their vision & values and mission statement. But I really, really, believe this is one time fen would do better to look behind the words to the intent, and just trust that these people are what they say they are.

I operate under the assumption that if OTW puts out language that people have problems with, they do it not because they want to exclude some people but because they don't realize that it comes across as exclusive to some people. If we follow your suggestion, OTW never knows that their language is not coming across the way they intended--ergo, they never know why some people get as far as their website home page and never come back. If we don't follow your suggestion, OTW benefits from the opportunity to refine its language. I don't see how OTW's getting the language wrong early in the game and having it continue to be wrong as the game continues is beneficial to anyone, so I will respectfully ignore your suggestion.

(Reply to this)

here from metafandom

starlady38
2008-01-02 03:33 pm UTC (link)

As an academic who thinks more and more that fandom is bound up with a lot of really interesting gender and other issues that are way past due for being examined, I'll just say that I don't think that an academic journal about fandom will be quite as useless as you believe. Academic recognition of fandom as a legitimate sphere of activity can only help defend it against the sort of legal crap going down that you outlined above--similar things are happening with manga and manga studies right now. Although, I can't disagree that all academics do take place in something of an ivory tower.

But I agree with you that the OTW crew deserve more credit than many people seem to be willing to give them, and that fandom needs OTW. Thanks for saying all this!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: here from metafandom

morgan32
2008-01-03 10:00 am UTC (link)

I don't think that an academic journal about fandom will be quite as useless as you believe.

I'm sure it will be extremely useful. For academics.

But I stand by my belief that ultimately the interests of academics and the interests of any subculture they choose to study, are at best in conflict, at worst mutually exclusive.

Academic recognition of fandom as a legitimate sphere of activity can only help defend it against the sort of legal crap going down that you outlined above

I don't see how it can help. In the specific example I outlined above, some academic "recognising" fandom would have made zero difference. Nor do I see how the kind of inaccessible discourse we were treated to this summer could be relevant to the fan artists who were publicly being labelled child pornographers while Henry Jenkins hosted his little ivory tower debate.

Academic recognition of fandom benefits only academics who want to study it. Which is fine and dandy; you're entitled to it and I'll never say otherwise. It's certainly more worthwhile than most sociology.

I'm just very uncomfortable with the interests of aca-fen apparently being the top priority of an organisation which wants to benefit fandom.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

boogieshoes
2008-01-02 03:57 pm UTC (link)

i happen to have problems with the gender insertion, too. i value fanfic because it's fanfic, and fandom because of the socialisation factor - but neither of those issues are gender-related to me, despite having a large female component in both spaces, the gender of the people i'm interracting/ reading is irrelevant. just like i value paleontology for the fact of it's existence, and don't care that it's a male-dominated space (or engineering, or sports, or...).

but i'm more worried about the fan wiki project. wiki's are notoriously unsound sources of history in the broad sense - i can only think it'd be worse on this specific sense. i commented to ithilian in her lj that i really wanted to see a space where 'hard data' - stuff that's been sourced, referenced, has material evidence to back it up, and isn't interpretive in nature - is listed as a dry recitation of facts. this would be *in addition to* any interpretive aspects of the history laid down, anecdotes, and the fan-wiki. the dry facts are boring, but important - i'm more afraid of that getting lost than just about anything else.

ymmv, of course, and it probably does. ::shrugs::

-bs

(Reply to this)(Thread)

morgan32
2008-01-03 10:08 am UTC (link)

i value fanfic because it's fanfic, and fandom because of the socialisation factor - but neither of those issues are gender-related to me

We don't always recognise the gender issues when things are going well. It's okay that you find it irrelevant. But I don't think it's a coincidence that Fanlib is run by men, or that Fandom,inc was run by men.

What's wrong with recognising the simple fact that media fandom is a female-dominated space? It's not like recognising that fact excludes male fen. Just the opposite.

As for the wiki...I agree with you, but I think it would be extremely difficult to source hard data on what is essentially an oral history. By its nature, any comprehensive history of fandom will be interpretive because the only people who can record that history are the participants.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

PART 1, cause it got kinda long...

boogieshoes
2008-01-03 04:13 pm UTC (link)

going backwards, because the history issues are more important to me:

By its nature, any comprehensive history of fandom will be interpretive because the only people who can record that history are the participants.

i agree with this. it's difficult to explain exactly what i mean all the time, so i'll use the analogy that i used in ithiliana's journal. basically, i understand that history is an interpretive narrative that will change over time, based on different schools of thought on behavior and modes of interaction, causes and effects, etc. but i also tend to think of history as 'building on' the foundation of dry archeological facts, those facts of which can be considered the 'hard data' of which i speak. so to me, it's improtant to find the data which doesn't change, which all the narratives build on, so that they all start from the same place.

right now, yes, a lot of what we have is an oral history - but a lot of the facts can be verified - who was at which con, hardcopy pics which show two or more people together, files which can be dated based on formatting, etc. unfortunately, that stuff can be lost. i think it behooves us, as a group, to preserve as much of the hard sourcing as possible, because even though it's the boring part, it's such an important resource for the future.

besides, as witnesses, humans are pretty awful - our brain acts in strange ways, and the way memories are stored allows for a lot of decay. i have no problem with the social nature of our history, or the fact that telling stories of our history is as much a part of our social fabric as telling stories of 'our' characters. what i have a problem with is that if we choose to 'document' our history, we'll be laughed right out of the room if none of it is *verifiable*. we need those sourced facts to support our view of history as much as new history students will need them in the future to re-interpret our actions. basically, no context = no history. and no verifiable facts = no context.

on to part two...

(Reply to this)(Parent)

PART 2...

boogieshoes
2008-01-03 04:16 pm UTC (link)

on two the female-dominated space thing:

What's wrong with recognising the simple fact that media fandom is a female-dominated space? It's not like recognising that fact excludes male fen. Just the opposite.

that actually misses my point, and i believe the point hector rashbaum and some others are trying to make. my point is, i value creative fandom activity for the fact of it's creativeness. it's like saying i value art for art's sake. whether or not the fan-created piece is good, bad, ugly, indifferent, skilled or unskilled, produced by male or female, all of that is irrelevent. what's important is 1) it's an expression of creativity, a conversation with and comment on the world and the source and 2) it's a hobby which someone is having fun with, which relieves their stress and therefore makes them happier and less inclined to go postal. not killing people is generally a good thing. :-D

there's nothing wrong with recognizing that fandom is a female-dominated space, but i think that should/ will come through in the extant history, not as a goal of an organization purporting to support all fanworks. and in a way, it's sort of like recognizing that engineering is a male-dominated space. in the end, it doesn't really matter. what matters is that each engineer is ethical in the practice of their craft, and tries to always improve themselves in that practice.

in the same way, it doesn't matter that fandom is female-dominated. in the end, it matters that each fan understands where the line is between corporate needs and individual rights, and maintains respect for both. does the gender bias inform certain interactions in how fandom (or engineering) is organized and communicates internally with itself and externally with others? yes. but it doesn't matter. seriously. *it doesn't matter*. it provides an excellent source for human behavior studies, but it doesn't matter, when all is said and done, what the majority of fandom's gender is.

what *matters* is that people like to engage in the text this way and with each other over the text this way. and *that like* is genderless. it's an on/off switch independent of gender. if i didn't like to engage this way, i wouldn't be involved, and it would have nothing to do with the gendered nature of the community, and everything to do with *not liking to engage in this manner*. but i do like it, so i engage.

same as engineering - if i didn't want to be an engineer, if i didn't love numbers as much as i did, nothing could make me do this job, and it would have nothing to do with the field being male-dominated. but i do like it, so i am an engineer, and since engineering is almost a vocation (similar to writing, in a way) as much as a job, nothing can make me back off, gender bias of the community or not.

-bs, who hopes she didn't actually come across too strong there...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: PART 2... lennoxmacbeth 2008-01-03 05:00 pm UTC (link)
	FTW. Here's an Internets for you. :D (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: PART 2...

morgan32
2008-01-05 08:23 am UTC (link)

there's nothing wrong with recognizing that fandom is a female-dominated space, but i think that should/ will come through in the extant history, not as a goal of an organization purporting to support all fanworks.

Hm. First, it's not a "goal" of OTW. It's stated as something they value. Second, I don't think they're actually looking to support all fanworks. There are a lot of fan activities that won't fit within their aims...and a lot of them are the things male fen tend to gravitate toward.

That said, I think it would be wonderful if it didn't matter that media fandom is a predominantly female space. But it does matter because the default assumption about any space is that it's male-dominated. Every field you've mentioned: art, engineering - we don't bother to state that these are historically male dominated sphere's because it's a given. Which is why it's all the more important to recognise that fandom is historically a female sphere.

It doesn't mean males are unwelcome. It doesn't even mean we want fandom to continue to be female-dominated. But it's essential to acknowledge and value that this is how it began.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	laura_holt_pi 2008-01-03 09:53 pm UTC (link)
	Then why are so many male fans so upset? When I hear someone say that they feel they are being told they have no right to be in the fandom they have been in for twenty years, I find it hard to cover my ears, close my eyes and convince myself that men are not feeling excluded. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	morgan32 2008-01-05 08:15 am UTC (link)
	Because that's how men always react when they're told the mighty penis doesn't rule here. "You're not in charge" is always heard as "you can't play". But no one's saying males can't play. They just feel threatened because someone has pointed out a truth they've always known: that this is a girls' game. And it's why that gendered language is so important, in my opinion. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Here via, er, metafandom ms_treesap 2008-01-02 05:08 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you for writing this; as a n00b, I know little of fandom's previous problems and was unaware of this. Have you considered writing it up for the Fan Wiki?(Edit: either one.) Edited at 2008-01-02 05:11 pm UTC (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Here via, er, metafandom morgan32 2008-01-03 10:10 am UTC (link)
	Have you considered writing it up for the Fan Wiki?(Edit: either one.) No, I haven't. The current wiki is pretty much useless IMHO. Perhaps the one OTW plans will be better. (Reply to this)(Parent)

dr_jekyl
2008-01-05 04:24 am UTC (link)

God, I'd forgotten all about the fandom.com thing until you brought it up - and I was the person who wrote the article you refer to and did the interviews (which you can still read if you input the url into the wayback machine). You’ve got me on a huge nostalgia kick now – I hope you’re happy (Sev trek!). But really, it's part of the reason why I wholeheartedly support the legal aspect of OTW's mission. We fen have been fighting TPTB without support for decades, and that was before we were started slowly being dragged into the public eye. If you know where to look and who to talk to, you can unearth hundreds of instances of fans being scared into submission. I mean, for a while there Paramount was very lawsuit happy, as was Fox broadcasting and a few others.

As I've said before, I have issues with the gendered language. The problem is that they are defining value by gender and only by gender. They are saying that fandom is valuable purely because it is dominated by women. The implication, therefore, is that men devalue fandom. If men devalue fandom, they are not welcome. This, in turn, writes off, not just male fans, but entire fandoms as less than worthless.

There are ways to word this so that we pay homage to the fact that it's rare and excellent and special that fandom is primarily female, without, at the same time, saying that men are icky.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

morgan32
2008-01-05 08:10 am UTC (link)

There are ways to word this so that we pay homage to the fact that it's rare and excellent and special that fandom is primarily female, without, at the same time, saying that men are icky.

Yes, there are. And frankly, I believe that the wording on OTW's website right now does precisely that.

Honestly, anyone interpreting "We value our identity as a predominantly female community with a rich history of creativity and commentary." as "men are icky" has a serious problem understanding the English language.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

dr_jekyl
2008-01-05 09:28 am UTC (link)

I disagree because, as I said, they seem to be saying that they hinge the value of fandom identity on a single trait - that there are more women than men. It says that we would value our identity as fans differently - likely less - if the ratio of men to women changed to be more in favour of the men.

In fandom women are, by and large, the privileged group. Not in greater society, no, but in fandom we dominate. We are the majority. We make the rules, we drive the market. We appoint the Queens and designate pariahs and we decide what is cool and what is not. When we, as the privileged group here, say that "we value our identity as a predominantly female community" is very akin to saying, for example that "we physicists our identity as a predominantly male community" or "we value our identity as a predominantly white community". We should be setting a good example of how to act in a privileged position, not re-enforcing exclusionary practices.

Edited at 2008-01-05 09:31 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…