three! three! three! fandom kerfuffles at once!

[lolaraincoat]

So someone wrote a dumb article in the Guardian about Harry Potter fans and many internet hands have been wrung about it. My only thought on the matter was, hey, it's journalism. Getting it wrong -- and in particular, getting it wrong about people who the journalist does not perceive as part of her/his readership -- is what journalists do. Not that all journalists always get it wrong about everything (noblerot for example has never been wrong at all), and not that all of them have such a peculiarly narrow view of who their readers might be as the especially hapless author of this article does, and not that people who are very indignant about the article are wrong to be indignant, because they're not wrong exactly, it's just ... why are we surprised?

I think that ethnographic studies of fans and fandom, especially Jenkins but also the feminists who looked at romance readers, and many of the people who write about fans from the position of being fans as well as academics, have spoiled us: we expect everyone who writes about fandom to aim for the insider perspective rather than standing apart and mocking. But that's the difference between academic anthropology/cultural studies/history etc. and the press. Well, one of the differences.

**************

And in more news of fandom scandales, mon dieu!, we have the endlessly recurring Cassie Claire plagiarism turning up again like a, hey!, like a bad penny. I've been following this with interest -- actually with considerably more interest than I've had in Cassie Claire's fics, which never did much for me -- and have three points to make, which surely others have made before me but oh well.

First, someone who then called herself "Michelle Ecks" and later went by [name deleted at the request of the LJ Abuse team, sorry, the full name gets thrown around enough on journalfen that I didn't think ... my fault, very sorry, gah], or "halegirl," or more recently purplepopple, seems to be central to the whole story. Halegirl was on my f'list for a while -- she's the person who posted last year sometime boasting about helping to teach highschool students how to write smuttier smut -- and she's ... let's say that her worldview and my worldview are not closely congruent. Now, that does not mean that she was wrong on this particular matter. But it does make me feel cautious.

Second, some but not all of people's indignation seems to reside in a series of category confusions -- the discussions over at Bad Penny, at least, have tended to muddle copyright violation and plagiarism, crime (in the legal sense) and wrongdoing (in the moral sense), and archiving and publishing, among other things. Also some people debating this issue seem a bit confused about the distinction between "fanfic of the variety that I like to read/write" and "fanfic."

Third, Ms. Scribe surely provided us with a new model for how to write and think about events within fandom. The author of this new multi-part account of fandom malfeasance (not in the technical sense! I just like the word, okay?) explicitly is emulating her. But it doesn't work as well in this case because the documentation provided actually works against the intended point in some instances, making CC look less rather than more guilty. Ah, that technique of putting your account in chronological order and than backing up your account with first-hand evidence -- it's not quite as easy as it looks, is it?

*******************************

And finally, that crazy aadler_ guy whose homophobic and/or misogynist con report from WriterCon distracted so many good writers from writing fics -- um, is he a mina_de_malfois character, or is that just me?

Comments

[florahart]

See, I don'tknow really anyone in the whole bad penny Cassie Claire thing, so all I can do is take the side by side comparisons and reproduced emails at face value under the assumption if they were actually inaccurate, someone would be throwing a fit there.

It is true that some of the evidence doesn't support the case well, ironically--I'm thinking even the folks most annoyed by the plagiarism don't really understand the differences between public domain, allusion, use of classic archetypes, use of standard themes and elements, homage, plagiarism, citation, quotation, intellectual property, copyright, etc.

Actually, I sort of wonder if this could be a really interesting discussion in itself, let by someone who is a lot more organized than me, intending the same purpose as when we find ourselves doing intellectual property classes and workshops at our colleges as we try to teach students about using and knowing how to use sources and resources without actually using direct unique language.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

And this is why I go mum when people pop by to ask me about the whole "plagiarism and CC" issue. Because it would be huge, take gallons of my time, I won't pretend to know exactly what's in another person's head, I don't even know all the right words and it'd be a clumsy explanation, and I'd still never get those who are firmly entrenched in their camps to consider anything else. I have s**t to do, to quote Jon Stewart.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Your icon! Hee!

And yes, I see exactly why you would take the Jon Stewart position here.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

It would be a really interesting discussion, and yet ... Wow, I don't want to wade into it myself.

In my work as a teacher I find that students seem to get that direct quotation without marking the words in question as somebody else's with punctuation and citation is wrong. What they don't get is that it's not enough to just change the words around slightly -- that they still have to cite other people's work even if they don't have to use quotation marks. So avoiding direct unique language is the least of it from my point of view. And they don't get that academic rules are not legal ones, and they don't get -- wait, no, didn't I say that I didn't want to get into it? *g*

[noblerot.livejournal.com]

It's true; I am perfect.

Must now add "fandom malfeasance" to my list of Interests. As for the whole plagiarism thang... eh. Some call it sampling. Anyway, I've reached critical mass on Cassie wank. Leave her to God.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's not at all that I want to intervene in the debate wank. I'm fascinated by it, though, not because of anything to do with CC really as much as because the wank reveals how deeply we're confused about what fanfiction is, how it is or should be related to larger socio-economic structures (including the law), and in what ways it should and should not differ from other kinds of texts.

And yes you are perfect!

[pushdragon.livejournal.com]

*just loves you for your rational take on everything*

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

I love you too, of course, but make no claims to rationality. Because that's one short step away from claiming to be objective, and that way madness lies.

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

I'm relieved to read a rational post on the latest kerfuffles. After I was FWed, I decided to be extra-careful about what I say, but the insanity reigning in fandom scares me so much that I have at least to thank you for your lucidity.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Aw, glad you're reading. I don't think I'm all that rational, actually, but thank you anyway, and I'm glad you're here!

And yeah, I wasn't paying attention until way too late about your trial-by-FW, so didn't say anything at the time, but sheesh! sorry you went through all that, what a pointless mess.

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it looks like a sinister plan for silencing people and prevent any possibility of open, intelligent discussion. And they say they defend the freedom of speech.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about this...and I wonder why the Cassie Claire scandal is coming up AGAIN. Why now? This was all hashed out years ago, there's a huge disclaimer on her fics, and unlike the whole Msscribe thing, there seems to be a real lack of malice on the part of the central figure.

One thing that some don't seem to realize: someone posted links to the Bad Penny posts on CC's publisher's message boards. There seems to be no reason to do this except possibly to have her publisher drop her and/or negatively impact her eventual sales, and I'm not at all pleased by that. A fandom wank is one thing, but deliberately trying to sabotage someone's living is not good.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

I think in part the CC scandal is coming up now because whats-her-face who wrote the whole thing up is emulating Ms Scribe, and she must have started working on this just as Ms. Scribe was getting finished. But it doesn't work as that kind of scandal because it's not a surprise, besides everything else you said.

Without actually going to look at any of this -- because life is short -- I'm not in any position to comment on what's being said at the publisher's message boards, but I can't imagaine that the publisher would care, since they're not publishing her fanfic.

Print the Legend

[executrix.livejournal.com]

lolaraincoat said:
I think that ethnographic studies of fans and fandom,[...] have spoiled us: we expect everyone who writes about fandom to aim for the insider perspective rather than standing apart and mocking.

I hope that it's possible for an observer--even a journo!--to stand apart without mocking. *Another* popular debate that's making the rounds again is "Why aren't people like me represented?/Why are you objectifying people like me?" to which my answer is that it's possible to learn about people who are different, and to view other groups with understanding and/or respect and/or admiration. And that should be true for mundanes writing about fandom as well as people writing about other cultures or women writing about men.

Re: Print the Legend

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think it's possible to write from an outsider perspective without disrespect for the objects of study -- in theory that's what journalists are supposed to do, no? -- but on the whole I think that ethnographers no longer take objectivity or neutrality as goals, and that's fine with me.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Oh, the CC thing is probably resurfacing now because she has just finished the last chapter of the Draco Trilogy and the books are completed.

It's true that even out there in the Real World people, grown-up people, have a hard time distinguishing between plagiarism in the legal sense (which is to say: actual copyright infringement, which has very specificd efinitions) and plagiarism in the "best practices" ethical sense, which is to say, "If it ain't yours, then give it proper credit when you use it."

I'm shocked, shocked to discover that even among academics the latter *sometimes* occurs. Even among very senior academics--the ones who are supposedly teaching students not to plagiarize. Go figure.

Even more common in academia is the nassty little habit of accusing others of plagiarism--to wit: "I had an idea once that was quite similar to the idea in So-and-so's article; therefore I will write a nasssty letter to the editor, demanding that I be given due credit and/or if possible smirch the reputaton of So-and-so."

This revolting little habit--which no one seems to think is in any way ethically dubious--has perhaps influenced the fandom, eh?

Something similar seems to be happening now with CC, who will soon publish an original novel with a major publisher. Someone is trying to damage that, for reasons that someday a deep psychologist of fandom may be able to fathom; I sure can't.

So since the old kerfuffle is back, maybe it's worth recalling that at the time when the event occurred, many eons ago in the timeframe of the development of fanfic,

a) Fanfic had no rules (it now has many); large-scale sampling was common enough--in fact, one of the most interesting kinds is the fic that takes the whole original and just modifies the minimum details to slightly reshape it. (That occurs often in the history of the visual arts, and is a fascinating art practice -- Raphael is one of many creators who did it);

b) Fanfic itself was -- and still is -- a medium that necessarily looks at the concept of plagiarism through a faceted and refractive lens;

c) Sampling, however dubious in some ways, is a deeply ingrained aspect of creation, one that merits more analysis and less righteous indignation.

I think you're spot-on about the desire of the fandom to speak from the position of insider--it's the source of much of the heat and fury directed at CC: the obsession with who is "legitimately" a Big Name Fan, for example, or with what "counts" as legitimacy in fandom. Which in turn has its source in longing and yearning and desire: to be a part of the original thing one loves; to be included, to be owned by and owner of the work of art. It's the original impulse behind fandom and fanfic in the first place.

[idlerat.livejournal.com]

I'd amend this slightly, but I agree strongly. It's not true that *fandom* had no rules in 2000, but it was closer to being true of *HP fandom*. More importantly, Cassie wasn't capital-C Cassie when she started writing the DT. I mean, I've done the same thing, writing as Dumbledore on the Dungeons- stolen/sampled without attribution, knowing some would recognize what I was doing and some wouldn't. Of course, if someone said, wow, so clever, I'd say "hey, got it off *whoever*" But no one fucking *cares*.

The list of obvious reasons why this is back (I didn't even know it was- just got back from out of town) include closing in on release of City of Bones; MsScribe (and let's recall Cassie and her pals were Dionne's targets- what do you call it in a con?); behind-the-scenes stuff involving LH and also, I'm quite sure, various people with various reactions post-Charlotte Lennox; and the closing of DT, with attending horn-honking on all sides.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Welcome back!

Yes, sampling is definitely a long-standing fanfic practice. Or we could call it, erm, intertextuality, is that the word? Another example: my endless drabble series (which you named for me! was I plagiarizing you?) which actually has footnotes, but only because I think footnotes are funny.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

Cassie and her pals were Dionne's targets- what do you call it in a con?

The mark. But in this case, I think the word "victim" is apt. I suppose the real mark was the whole of the fandom that fell for the con. Why CC is being held responsible for that is beyond my understanding.

I still don't understand why the HP fandom is so particularly prone to this kind of hysteria. The evol ghosts of unquiet Salem witches coming back to haunt their heirs? As witch-hunting goes, it's got a McCarthy-ish streak in it--rigid, intolerant, self-righteous, holier-than-thou--that turns my stomach. Does your anthology discuss this angle?

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Yes, absolutely, to all of this, except that I have reservations about saying that there are rules for fanfic now, depending on what we mean by rules.

And you are so right to place our whole idea of "originality" in historical brackets. The broadest context, I think, is this: Right now, globally, people interested in the arts are expressing huge disagreement about originality, copying, authenticity, legitimacy, authority and value (including but not limited to monetary value) and that makes sampling, parody, and fanfic exceptionally interesting. So the CC argument is compelling to me because it picks up those threads in an complicated way.

[violetisblue.livejournal.com]

My only opinion of CC is that her original series sounds like a Buffy ripoff. ("Ripoff" used here purely in the colloquial sense, not the violating-Joss-Whedon's-copyrights sense.)

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Huh. Yeah, could be. Maybe it's a homage?

On another, more important question ... Hey, was that you who was wrestling with a thistle problem this spring?

[fourth_rose]

Thank you for being the voice of reason! ♥

I honestly don't care about the DT plagiarism issue one way or the other, but I skimmed the bad_penny posts because everyone kept mentioning them, and it makes me deeply uncomfortable that some people now seem to be on a crusade that's intended to hurt CC's RL writing career. Fandom wank is one thing, but this, to me, is overstepping a line that shouldn't be crossed for the sake of the whole fandom.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

Jeeze, voice of reason? I'm mostly just trying to be the voice of me! *g*

Yes, one of the most fascinating aspects of this is that we seem collectively to be renegotiating the relationships between our lives as fans and the rest of our lives. Or maybe between fandom and the rest of the world, is a better way to say it.

I don't mean to make this sound bloodless, because real people are really vulnerable here. I'm not too concerned about CC, because whyever would her publisher care? But apparently one of the women whose full name appeared in that Guardian article lost her job because of it.

[miriam-heddy.livejournal.com]

Fabulous entry, to which I composed a long-winded reply, which I then couldn't edit down this late in the day and still make any sense (presuming it makes sense in its current form).

It's here. Comments welcome, naturally. I'm still thinking about all this.