I need a new catch phrase
Jan. 15th, 2004 12:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
itsallovernowI used up all of my points yesterday. Fortunately, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rubberneck loaned me some extras.
I am worn out from my excesses, both the giddiness and the snark. I had too good a time with the writing, and frankly had too good a time being a flippant smart ass. Doesn't mean I don't stand behind what I said, though.
Is it wrong to be really, really fond of things you write? I know that "Snorkeling" had typos, that it was silly and fluffy, but I'm absurdly fond of it. I'm also absurdly fond of the section in Blue Eyes were they dispatch the dreadnought at Dam Ba Da. It's good writing, I think. Clear and focuses without my typical excess of "ands" overly wrought sentimentality.
I did post a comment to Kansas, which was polite and clear. I'm proud of myself. I was the epitome of restraint.
First, I'd like to say thanks to the mods of Kansas who do allow us to post fic, who maintain the board and balance the whims and wants of both readers and writers. It is appreciated.
Second, I think most people recognize using the disclaimers and ratings as a courtsey to readers. This is a community, rules are established and if people want to play in the pool, they follow the rules out of respect. I put disclaimers, flippant as they may be, on my stories. I label them NC-17, if they are, and generally, they are, and I follow the intro headings from Leviathan.
Crash has been very straightforward about the title headings, which I think is great. Put your extensive info in the authors notes. And folks, please then, read the author notes:)
All that being said, I'm uncomfortable spelling out more of the potential storyline in the warnings, so I like the idea of the warning withheld. I don't want to give away the content. I like ambiguity. I also don't think this is what the original post was requesting.
It leads me, however, to a larger issue. People need to take responsability for their choices. They need to heed the warnings of the notes and they need to seriously consider their role as reader.
In addition, while I'm happy to comply with the ratings system as a courtesy, I have to say that the ratings system does constitute censorship, or at least it was started as a venue for censorship - or actually to guaruntee a profit margin for the movie studios. Whether it be music, movies, TV or fic - yes fic - the rating system is a way to categorize and judge art. (I'm stretching when I include fic in this, and again, I think it is a courtesy to follow the system in this type of forum because we are polite people and we do this for our pleasure and the pleasure of others), but I find the ratings, especially in regards to music or movie ratings morally outrageous. It puts a negative label on an artist because they use words or phrases that offend some people. It pushes the boundaries of society's idea of good taste or morally upstanding work.
Well, too bad. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Art is supposed to push your buttons. It's supposed to make you giggle and make you think and piss you off and make you sweat and make you horny and sometimes make you turn away in disgust. And we, as a society, tend to try and do our best to protect people from that.
It's why Farscape held the draw for me that it did (and does), it embodies all of those things, and the fic, when it's done well, does the same thing. And we didn't get warnings, and we lived through the eye-gouging and the vomit and the sex and the blowing up of all and sundry.
That being said, again, I don't think the intent of this discussion was censorship, I think it was a request for people to follow the rules established by the forum. I don't take the discussion as such, except in a few cases. I would hate to see separate boards for "regular" fic, and "fic" with sex or violence because the mix is something that keeps Kansas interesting, but that's my opinion. I also have to say, sex is sex, and a pairing request is less unpalatable to me than a warning of slash.
Thanks for the patience with this long, and only sort of pointed weighing in, and for the outlet for fic and discussion.
The discussion of censorship pushes buttons that kill my restraint. I abhor rating labels on movies and TV and music. Especially music. And you when John Denver is in your corner on music labeling, you're playing for the right team. This isn't really meant to be a discussion of right and wrong, and honestly, this has nothing to do with the Kansas thread, it's just a topic that riles me up and pisses me off.
We, as a culture, are so afraid to risk our sensibilities in pursuit of something great. We'll risk untold things for material wealth, but not for a greater understanding of ourselves and each other.
Also, it's 80 degrees in Southern California. It's sunny and gorgeous and I'm inside ready to cry because everything's blooming and my allergies are going nuts and my jaw hurts enough for me to whimper like two year old with an earache.
rubberneck loaned me some extras.I am worn out from my excesses, both the giddiness and the snark. I had too good a time with the writing, and frankly had too good a time being a flippant smart ass. Doesn't mean I don't stand behind what I said, though.
Is it wrong to be really, really fond of things you write? I know that "Snorkeling" had typos, that it was silly and fluffy, but I'm absurdly fond of it. I'm also absurdly fond of the section in Blue Eyes were they dispatch the dreadnought at Dam Ba Da. It's good writing, I think. Clear and focuses without my typical excess of "ands" overly wrought sentimentality.
I did post a comment to Kansas, which was polite and clear. I'm proud of myself. I was the epitome of restraint.
First, I'd like to say thanks to the mods of Kansas who do allow us to post fic, who maintain the board and balance the whims and wants of both readers and writers. It is appreciated.
Second, I think most people recognize using the disclaimers and ratings as a courtsey to readers. This is a community, rules are established and if people want to play in the pool, they follow the rules out of respect. I put disclaimers, flippant as they may be, on my stories. I label them NC-17, if they are, and generally, they are, and I follow the intro headings from Leviathan.
Crash has been very straightforward about the title headings, which I think is great. Put your extensive info in the authors notes. And folks, please then, read the author notes:)
All that being said, I'm uncomfortable spelling out more of the potential storyline in the warnings, so I like the idea of the warning withheld. I don't want to give away the content. I like ambiguity. I also don't think this is what the original post was requesting.
It leads me, however, to a larger issue. People need to take responsability for their choices. They need to heed the warnings of the notes and they need to seriously consider their role as reader.
In addition, while I'm happy to comply with the ratings system as a courtesy, I have to say that the ratings system does constitute censorship, or at least it was started as a venue for censorship - or actually to guaruntee a profit margin for the movie studios. Whether it be music, movies, TV or fic - yes fic - the rating system is a way to categorize and judge art. (I'm stretching when I include fic in this, and again, I think it is a courtesy to follow the system in this type of forum because we are polite people and we do this for our pleasure and the pleasure of others), but I find the ratings, especially in regards to music or movie ratings morally outrageous. It puts a negative label on an artist because they use words or phrases that offend some people. It pushes the boundaries of society's idea of good taste or morally upstanding work.
Well, too bad. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Art is supposed to push your buttons. It's supposed to make you giggle and make you think and piss you off and make you sweat and make you horny and sometimes make you turn away in disgust. And we, as a society, tend to try and do our best to protect people from that.
It's why Farscape held the draw for me that it did (and does), it embodies all of those things, and the fic, when it's done well, does the same thing. And we didn't get warnings, and we lived through the eye-gouging and the vomit and the sex and the blowing up of all and sundry.
That being said, again, I don't think the intent of this discussion was censorship, I think it was a request for people to follow the rules established by the forum. I don't take the discussion as such, except in a few cases. I would hate to see separate boards for "regular" fic, and "fic" with sex or violence because the mix is something that keeps Kansas interesting, but that's my opinion. I also have to say, sex is sex, and a pairing request is less unpalatable to me than a warning of slash.
Thanks for the patience with this long, and only sort of pointed weighing in, and for the outlet for fic and discussion.
The discussion of censorship pushes buttons that kill my restraint. I abhor rating labels on movies and TV and music. Especially music. And you when John Denver is in your corner on music labeling, you're playing for the right team. This isn't really meant to be a discussion of right and wrong, and honestly, this has nothing to do with the Kansas thread, it's just a topic that riles me up and pisses me off.
We, as a culture, are so afraid to risk our sensibilities in pursuit of something great. We'll risk untold things for material wealth, but not for a greater understanding of ourselves and each other.
Also, it's 80 degrees in Southern California. It's sunny and gorgeous and I'm inside ready to cry because everything's blooming and my allergies are going nuts and my jaw hurts enough for me to whimper like two year old with an earache.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 12:45 pm (UTC)*petsThea*
You're so my girl, feel better.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 12:55 pm (UTC)I am sorry for the lot of you, but I have lived through that weather and am very, very glad to no longer be experiencing it:) That being said, I trade my allergies in for a good blizzard right at this moment:)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 01:05 pm (UTC):D
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 01:10 pm (UTC)(Sends you virtual nettle tea. If you can get the real stuff I promise it will alleviate some of the allergy symptoms).
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 01:27 pm (UTC)(heheheheheh -- nah, need to do some serious dust bunny eradication this weekend, or else I'm be sucking on my albuterol nebulizer WAY too much before the end of the month)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 01:44 pm (UTC)Thing is, it all comes down to the mods making their decision and everyone sticking with it. What I'd rather not see is that even after people post general warnings (which most do, anyway), readers continue to squawk about fic that hurts their feelings. And, like you, I feel that readers bear part of the responsibility for what they choose to read, but I don't get the sense that the Kansas residents either understand or agree.
So. ::shrugs:: Not my board, as I am generally reminded when I go over there. Which is fine, I have other playgrounds.
As Shrift has said in other contexts, "This is not my beautiful cake." Heh.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 02:03 pm (UTC)Alas, further buttons were pushed. And now, there are responses to be made.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 02:23 pm (UTC)Not to mention random acts of character death, muppet!sex, rape, bondage, dominance, torture, murder, emotional scarring and really bad hats.../snark
;]
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 02:30 pm (UTC)But then, like I said, my buttons get pushed and I can't shut up:)
And truthfully, the original request wasn't at all offensive, just kind of smileworthy. You nod and say point taken and then move on, but, people. Ah, what else needs to say but, people.
I just went off on how ratings are a form of censorship. Kill me now.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 03:19 pm (UTC)I'm really not going back there. No, really.
Gonna stop talking about this. Really.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 03:38 pm (UTC)I will happily support the dropping of the topic!! So how about them L.A. Kings. hee hee. Alright, so maybe sports talk isn't my forte:)
The issues in fandom are so closely tied to issues that do hit home that, for me, it's sometimes hard not to react. It's why I don't normally go to the boards. I can barely tolerate my own ignorance most days, let alone the buffoonery of others and am truthfully thankful to be involved in a fandom that is largely interesting, educated and polite.
The censorship/ratings thing being a prime example. One issue set that off in my head and now I'm all a flutter over that:)
Oooh, sorry. No more talking of this. How is the Liv fic coming along? See, i can play nice.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 03:39 pm (UTC)EXACTLY! And this is why it rears its ugly head every couple of weeks!
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 08:30 pm (UTC)I have to disagree with you on the ratings issue. I don't think ratings are a form of censorship so long as a) they are used primarily as a guide and b) everyone older than that has free access to the material. Where I get twitchy is when people start talking about ratings and then starts locking away that material. Basically, I only freak when people start making it the creator's responsibility to monitor who views their material rather than the consumer--in so far as that is reasonable to maintain a well-ordered society.
"Reasonable" being the key phrase.
Have I mentioned how much I love Pierre Elliot Trudeau? I do. Sincerely. A brilliant, brilliant man.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-16 11:01 am (UTC)However, I don't think that justification for ratings is true in many cases. They're used as a way for studios to guarantee a profit margin - cut this scene so we can get a PG-13 rating, cut this one or we won't distribute the work. That just offends me deeply. Especially when people are just stupid and bring their children to R rated movies that are clearly going to be violent.
And the explicit lyrics warning on CD's, I find an outright form of censorship, although, I don't think it's done much harm to the artists:) So I'm pretty much in a tizzy over concept and not actuality. It's the weighing of morality, the laying of judgement on art through ratings and warnings that I find offensive, and certainly in the U.S., the ratings are a way to do just that.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-16 12:31 pm (UTC)One argument people use in support of censorship and book-banning, anti-porn laws and the like is that children need to be protected from material that is innapropriate for their age & stage. The objection, that parents should be responsible for monitoring the media that their children are exposed to/consume, and not government or 'society' is entirely valid: art, music, film, tv, porn, novels, comic books, video games etc. produced by adults for an adult audience should not be censored and should be widely available to adults. I think warnings on video games, music, tv shows and movies—things you can't really sample before you purchase/view/play it—support this kind of freedom by saying, explicitly "you may find this offensive or inappropriate for your child."
If someone buys their kid an Eminem CD bearing a visisble "Parental Advisory, Explicit Lyrics" warning, that person has, IMO, no one to blame but themselves if they find the lyrics offensive and innapropriate listening for their 10 year-old.
I only wish they would put a "warning, this CD will introduce your pre-pubscent daughter to overtly sexualized, cynical marketing innapropriate for most nine year-olds" on Britney Spears.
I agree with much of what has been posted about the 'warnings' issue on Kansas, particularly with respect to the anti-gay implications of mandatory slash warnings. I also agree that "offending people" by challenging an audience, pushing people beyond their comfort zones, is an important part of art's role as both a reflection of society and a force for change within a society.
But freedom of expression cannot be absolute. Of necessity, the extent of all personal freedoms within a society/community must be limited, by the idea one person's freedom ends where the next person's begins, if nothing else. For example, most liberal societies (in the philosophical sense, not necessarily the political), nevertheless agree that hate speech such as Nazi propaganda is not a legitimate form of free expression. And although the concept of 'hate speech' in the legal sense is a modern phenomenon, the tradition that expression cannot be allowed to unjustly damage a person's economic interests behind modern slander and libel statutes are hundreds of years old.
But by acknowledging that some forms of expression are harmful, we open the door to limits on all forms of expression, which is the strongest argument against putting any limits on free expression at all. However, I believe that it is more reasonable to accept certain limitations on expression that prohibit things like hate speech, in exchange for the widest, possible latitude in apply these limits. I think ratings on explicit material generally and freely available to the public is reasonable. It is reasonable to provide a system that allows concerned parents or sheltered adults, your Aunt Fanny, whoever make an informed decision about the kind of material that they choose for themselves or on behalf of their children.
It is reasonable because choice, IMO, makes people accountable for their decisions. The information, general and parochial though it may be, that ratings provide, protect my right to see an R or an NC-17 or an XXX rated film by putting the onus on parents (and exhibitors, although that's not actually germane in this context) to recognize that the material involved is not considered appropriate for children and adolescents.
I agree that the combination of ratings and profit-motive do not promote artistic integrity or vision but that does not, IMO, mean that the philosophy behind ratings or the function that ratings systems play in promoting free expression by promoting informed choice are inherently invalid.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-16 12:40 pm (UTC)It is reasonable to provide a system that allows concerned parents or sheltered adults, your Aunt Fanny, whoever make an informed decision about the kind of material that they choose for themselves or on behalf of their children.
It is reasonable because choice, IMO, makes people accountable for their decisions.
I agree. It is reasonable, It should make people accoutable by helping them make informed decisions, but it still grates at me, as do the free speech issues. I should be willing to uphold free speech no matter how much I abhor the things that are being said, and then I get caught. And truthfully, I do support those rights.
I only wish they would put a "warning, this CD will introduce your pre-pubscent daughter to overtly sexualized, cynical marketing innapropriate for most nine year-olds" on Britney Spears. And OMG how I wish there was a warning label for this.
I guess what I hate is the profit motive, the need to protect us from risk, the overwhelming lack of faith in individuals to do the work to figure things out for themselves. I just hate the lack of individual responsability that American society at least falls into. You didn't tell me that hamburgers would make me obese, so I'll sue. You didn't tell me cigarettes are bad for me, so I'll sue.
I know these issues don't exactly match up, but it's all the same trigger in my brain:)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 10:41 pm (UTC)However, I feel I must deduct 50 points for lack of use of the terms monkeysex and dumbass.
Oh and btw...if I do say so myself...nice icon. ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-16 10:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-16 02:00 pm (UTC)I'm still waffling about adding my 2 cents worth to the fray cause I figure it'll do about as much good as my vote for Al Gore in the last Presidential election.
Warning: More preaching to the choir coming up...
What irks me the most about the whole "discussion" is that all consideration is being given to the readers,readers,readers, and none to the writers. There would be no Kansas without the writers but that seems to have vanished from the equation.
It irks me on the same level that the McDonald's drive-through diclaimer irks me. "Warning: Coffee is HOT!" I shake my head everytime I see it and recite the following: Warning: Coffee is HOT! And served in a flimsy cup with a loose lid. So don't put it between your legs and try to drive, you fucking moron!
no subject
Date: 2004-01-16 02:28 pm (UTC)Hee hee!! You've made my day!! That's exactly the image I had in my head during this debate, and just in regards to people in general:)
I'm not going to add anything more to the discussion on Kansas because I've said my piece and am now just liable to go off on unrelated tangents, which I'd much rather do in my LJ:)