FAQ series: first set

[femmequixotic]

Last week, ciderpress wrote:

There has been a great deal of discussion during and after our "Why OTW?" week, not only about OTW, but also about what it is to identify as a fan, what fandom means to different people and how individual fans and groups shape their own fannish experiences.

It's evident from what we've read that there have been some misconceptions about what our org is and what we hope to do. We apologise if we have been unclear about some of the concepts and policies, and we hope you will understand that we are still in the process of setting up policies and honing language. We don't have all the final, polished answers yet and we need time, hard work and your help to do that. In fact, our content policy will be up for discussion and feedback in a fandom-wide setting before we set our policies in stone.

In the hopes of not overwhelming you, we've decided to post the FAQ in bundles of five or six questions and answers, one bundle every other day or so. Ultimately, they'll all be added to the OTW website's FAQ.

What you'll read here in otw_news is a bit more informal than what will appear on the website; that's because the website is for fans and non-fans alike. But here, in otw_news, we're fans talking to fans. SRSLY.

Keep a look out for more bundles of FAQs as well as interviews with a few of the OTW's board members in the next few weeks!

1. Fandom got along just fine without OTW for forty years.

This is true and we hope will continue to be true for another 40 and 400 years--fandom will definitely continue to do fine without us and after us and forever and ever amen. But, on the other hand, fandom has not had the internet for 40 years. With the advent of the internet, and especially Web 2.0, fandom's connection with the so-called Real World has increased, and its relationship with copyright holders has increasingly come under focus. OTW is attempting to add a voice to the conversation about copyright, one that is articulate, informed, organized, and on the side of fandom.

2. Why do you care about Fanlib? Fanlib isn't forcing anyone to archive there, just ignore them!

FanLib set a dangerous precedent that fandom is available for the profitable plucking and exploitation by people who are not part of the culture of fandom; OTW does not, never has, and never will, profit from fandom, and objects on principle to FanLib's attempt to do so.

OTW's concern is that for-profit companies like Fanlib might become the public face of fanfiction, especially since fanfiction writers have a history of lying low. With more companies than ever keenly interested in how they can profit from "user-generated content", OTW doesn't want fannish newbies and other interested parties thinking this for-profit ideology represents fandom or for fans to be taken advantage of by such companies.

3. OTW's corporate structure is suspect. Fandom should be subversive.

OTW believes that its mission is best served by an organization that is transparent and accountable.

4. Why does OTW want to make fanworks legitimate? We don't need society's legitimization!

The kind of legitimization the OTW is focused on is that of fans being able to post their stories and art and vids without worrying they will be hit with a lawsuit. That's all. Sadly, we're pretty sure society as a whole will never quite understand the \o/ of something like, say, a really good wingfic. Which is a shame.

5. Edited at 9:59 a.m. 2/1/08 to remove this question. The specific concerns will be addressed in later FAQs. Our sincere apologies for this misstep; no dismissiveness of the concerns raised within it was intended in any form. We very much appreciate the discussion regarding the way it was perceived.

Edited at 9:50 p.m. 2/1/08. When we realized that our flip answer to question 5 was inappropriate for this forum, we deleted it. However, for archival purposes and in the hope of achieving some measure of transparency, here it is again:

5. The OTW is trying to take over all of fandom, and they didn't talk to me first, and they started in LJ, and they're going to cause all of fandom to be destroyed, and the worst of all is that they're a bunch of academics! They're trying to reinvent fandom when we have all the archives we already need thank you very much, and we don't need another one, and they're going to (1) legitimitise or (2) commercialize fandom and ruin it for all by dragging some terribly bad case of fanfiction into court. They use big words, and they're taking too long to set things up and they're not answering emails fast enough. (A tongue-in-cheek crticism from ithiliana's post: http://ithiliana.livejournal.com/804036.html)

Yes, there are some academics involved with the org. There are also some students, some lawyers, some unemployed folks, some young people, some old people, some fannish newbies, some folks who've been in fandom for decades, some blondes, some brunettes, and some redheads. :-)

And we're really not trying to reinvent fandom. We're building a fabulous, scaleable pan-fandom archive chock-full of interesting features which we hope fans will choose to use, but even if you'd rather not use it, you can still take advantage of the archive code and use it to build something else.

Commercializing fandom is exactly what we don't plan to do. We're here to try to prevent that from happening. Folks like FanLib and even copyright holders and user-generated content sites that make money from ad-revenues want to commercialize and monetize fandom, to make money off of the things we produce out of sheer love; we're here to offer an alternative to for-profit fansites, with the intent of preserving and protecting the fannish world we know and love.





-- femmequixotic, bethbethbeth, ciderpress, mirabile_dictu, shrift, svmadelyn.
Community Relations Committee

Edited 7:39 p.m. 1/31/08 to remove phrase regarding hair colors per comments below.
Edited at 9:59 a.m. 2/1/08 to remove question 5 per comments below.
Edited at 9:50 p.m. 2/1/08 to re-add question 5, struckthrough, for archival and transparency purposes.

Comments

[riverbella.livejournal.com]

I think this "bundle" does a good job of stating the goals of OTW in simple and straightforward terms. What I find most appealing about the mission of OTW is the fact that its goals are, in fact, not in the least grandiose. I especially like the answers to #3 and #4. Clean and to the point. Overall, I think the less apologetics the better. Defensiveness does make for a strong position. I make no apology for my involvement in fandom. In fact, I'm proud of it. But neither have I ever thought of it as subversive. I'm not trying to subvert anything. I'm just enjoying being a member of a like-minded community and exercising my creative leanings in a warm and supportive environment. I have no objections at all to having a benevolent, unobtrusive umbrella over my head to give me a little protection from acid rain.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

I think you should eliminate the emoticons and multiple punctuation marks from this FAQ (pardon; mistaken keystroke) before posting it elsewhere because they clash with the relatively formal and articulate language of the rest of the post. In my view, they could be read as condescending, especially since the multiple exclamation marks are in a question and thus attributed to the OTW's opponents.

[femmequixotic]

The FAQ that goes up on the website will have more formal language, of course. Here, however, we'd like to keep things a bit more relaxed since we're fans speaking with fans. :)

But yes, you have a point about the multiple exclamation marks; no condescension was intended. I'll edit those.

[ladybrighid3333.livejournal.com]

I think you've done a good job with this FAQ as well, but I agree with cimness. Even in a layman's-termed FAQ with clear-cut policies it's more professional and appropriate to use single punctuation and no emoticons. Even though the emoticon-thing is a really hard habit for a fandom member to break.

[scribblesinink]

First, thank you for these. I have to say I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of work you guys at OTW have done and how far you've come. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the FAQs.

One small comment: I'd like to see answer #3 a bit more expanded upon. I think I read somewhere (probably in one of the Why OTW-posts) an explanation as to how a non-profit org would be the best way to go, and how that required a structure that might seem alien to fandom. Also, I'm thinking of the arguments about the archive's continuance not being dependent upon one (or a few) single people. Both helped me a lot to understand what was going on and why things were being done the way they were.

Then again, both could very well come up later in the FAQs...

Shutting up now. ;)

[ciderpress.livejournal.com]

Heh. That is most definitely a question that we plan to deal with in the following FAQ posts. :)

[coaldustcanary.livejournal.com]

especially Web 2.0

You might want to clarify this for people, since Web 2.0 is basically shorthand for a lot of things fans "know" and love about the Internets, but I've only really heard that term used in academic and tech circles.

Then again, I might be underestimating fandom...

[franzeska]

I've seen plenty of comments of both the "stop talking down to us!" and the "stop using such big words!" varieties, so no doubt you're both over- and underestimating fandom. :-)

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

There are also some students, some lawyers, some unemployed folks, some young people, some old people, some fannish newbies, some folks who've been in fandom for decades, some blondes

You've got blondes but no blonds? There's a kerfuffle just waiting to happen...
;-)

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

*cries*

"...yellow haired people..."

[rez-lo.livejournal.com]

Re (1): Not sure referring to Web 2.0 is actually that informative here, and in any case it will date the FAQ pretty decisively (if the reference is meant to signify "recently," as I read it). We're already talking about Web 3.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3).

(5) Seems to suggest that the concern about fans with a professional self-interest in OTW (which includes academics but not, so far as I'm aware, students, lawyers -- though perhaps I'm wrong here -- the unemployed, or any of the demographic cohorts mentioned) is silly and misplaced. Again, not sure it's an informative answer to the "appearance of a conflict of interest" concern that's been raised, if poorly articulated, by some folks.

Also re (5); the demographic catalogue of representation omits mention of fans of color, for one thing. If it's not meant to address substantively any question about representation, maybe rethink including it?

(reposted to fix code)

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

Re Web 2.0: you're probably right, but since this Q&A was only ever meant to be part of a very transient set of posts (on journaling sites and via email and twitter), by the time Web 3.0 supplants 2.0, this will all be little more than a memory (i.e., the website's FAQ will have less potentially dated language).

As for 5, hmm...we'll have to discuss that. The actual acafen criticisms haven't, to the best of my knowledge, been raised as a concern about conflict of interest, but rather as a suggestion that the members of OTW who are academics are therefore not "real" fans, not real members of fandom. Our point, of course, was meant to say that, yes, there are academics involved in the org, just like there are non-academics.

The FoC issue, though: what might you suggest to make that sound more inclusive? Just to note, we didn't mention gender or sexual orientation or race, but, hmm, does the mention of hair colors read as "whites only" to you? Because if that's how it's reading, we'll definitely have to make a change.

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

Heh. Thanks. I'll pass this note on to everybody so we can edit accordingly. :)

[harriet-spy.livejournal.com]

#5, while funny, is unnecessarily dismissive if it is meant to actually respond to and reassure people who have the concern it parodies.

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

Are you saying our response is dismissive? Or do you mean the criticism itself is dismissive? Because the criticism (admittedly written as a bit of a parody, although by somebody who isn't affiliated with OTW) is an echo of a set of criticisms we've seen in a number of corners of fandom, and so the responses we offered were honest ones, not meant to be read as dismissive at all.

[bell]

I've been wanting to ask this for a while, and I guess here and now is as good a time as any?

I've been wondering-- and hoping!-- if OTW is going to allow a rec-list feature ala del.icio.us. While I love del.icio.us, it has certain limitations, and one of my hopes for OTW is that I could have an easier time compiling rec lists of all the fandom things I love. :)

[bethbethbeth.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's interesting! I think...let me check on that, but I think there may very well be some way to bookmark favorites - maybe structured like a recs list - once the archive's up and running.

(You do mean the archive, right? Because OTW is the general umbrella organization, but it's not the same thing as the archive or the academic journal or the wiki)

[transcendancing.livejournal.com]

Thank you for doing this - I think that it is a massive and amazing undertaking. I appreciate all the opportunities for community input and the 'checking in' that happens. I think that more than anything demonstrates the never-for-profit basis, and something that is for fans, but without any conquering desire.

[slashpine.livejournal.com]

I must agree with the concern of several other commenters that the strong contrast in tone between questions and answers can create the perception that the questioners are being mocked through parody, while the OTW takes advantage of being the writer to be sound all the more serious and grownup. The difference is striking, and loads the dice in OTW's favor. Since they're the writer, that's a further suggestion of disparity and an effort to control perceptions.

Not to go all public-comment-y here, but as a sometime worker on public participation for some very contentious issues with two very contentious agencies (including Dept. of Energy, our leading nuclear waste & toxic pollution folks o_O), I find it's morally as well as pragmatically wiser to take questions seriously and thereby show respect for those who pose them. I'd suggest recasting the Q's to show their merits, set aside any suggestion of ridicule or indifference to their content (or those making them), and not incidentally, avoid providing fodder for FWankery or such. It's so not fandom to not have fun... but humor is so easily misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted, it's safer to simply be straightforward.

But I personally like the emoticons on the OTW side. I like having the \o/ of fandom present, especially when this kind of thing gets to being so bureaucratic and un-fandomish.

[slashpine.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify ... there's only two choices in responding to public comments: quote verbatim (with link to source) or paraphrase. I've gone both ways, depending on client and comment style. Quoting them verbatim, or having direct links to the original (online, in an appendix or footnote, etc.) is the only way to establish one is neither (a) ducking or ignoring a question, or (b) rewording them in a way that slights their meaning.

But then you have the same problem as the letters to the editor page: do you keep any errors or infelicities in the wording, grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc., and seem to be mocking it? Or do you edit it and no longer be faithful to the author? Even if comments are grammatically correct, repeating them verbatim can still seem to hold them up for mockery if they contrast strongly with the responses in tone, or if the comments as a whole are strikingly different from each other, while the responses have a single seamless flow.

Most teams I've worked on have tried where possible to do both: cast the comments to which we respond in the same style as our responses, making sure that we've captured the broadest possible range of original comments, and wherever those comments were made publicly, maintaining the link to them (or footnote, appendix, etc.) so anyone can verify the original phrasing and see that all were responded to.

Where the originating comments don't need to be repeated, or where doing so keeps the discussion so focused around them that it can't move forward to focus on solutions, one way to still show a commitment to full responsiveness is to do like IT and corporate FAQ's -- have a clear procedure for anyone who feels their question wasn't answered (or not completely, or not in the right sense) to re/submit it.

It's all the "principle of charity" as they say in philosophy: take extra effort to avoid misrepresenting the other person's POV, and express a willingness (and show a way) to be corrected if a misunderstanding has crept in.

Truthfully, even where I've been on teams that have been able to insist on doing all those things, our client or agency still might end up not addressing points that are later seen to be critical. After all, one can only answer the questions that are asked. Unless, of course, an organization (or its representatives) engage in overt self-reflection, asking the hard questions only an "insider" knows to ask.

Periodic (or even ongoing) public self-reflection can be a good idea, also, when there are enormous issues in play like public trust, organizational responsibility, newness, or risk. Reflexivity goes beyond simply reacting to comments or critique; it's proactive, and shows the relexive organization or individuals taking the extra step of questioning themselves, openly. People in positions of great trust or power, like ministers or executives (including of non-profits) write those periodic letters to the flock or whomever for exactly this reason, when required reports alone don't do it.

Given the writing and thinking skills of OTW folks, and some fen's irascible skepticism so far, that might be another good bit of communication to consider.... especially if you could burden the Board, etc., even more (!) so folks could hear directly from them. I would never compare fen to 6A's Barak, but remember how much more effective it was last June for fans to hear from him, rather than abe or some mid-level (or less).

NOT that I don't imagine y'all have (A) thought about all of this, and (B) are volunteering insane amounts of time and talent already!! They're just my top-of-the-head thoughts -- take them for what you think they're worth.

[krytella.livejournal.com]

One concern I've seen around a lot from fans who aren't into fanfic/fanart/vidding is that a lot of the statements by OTW use "fan" and "fanfic writer" interchangeably. Thus making other fans feel like you're defining fandom as fanfic, and denying that there are all sorts of fans outside of areas the OTW is concerned with. I think this would be a good thing to address somewhere, since the OTW has gotten publicity in wider fan circles.

Related to this is the idea that OTW is discounting other creative fanwork that's nonfictional in nature (discussion and theorizing). To me it's obvious that this is just outside of the concerns of the organization, since it's perfectly legal for anyone to discuss and even publish nonfiction about a piece of source material. But there are people being pissed off by this so it would be good to explicitly address it.

[ciderpress.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your comment. It's tricky when we all use words to mean different things -- you're right, what "fan" means to one person means something completely different to someone else and finding terminology we all agree on, without us prescribing the meaning and trying to enforce it when we don't have a right to do that, is extremely difficult.

We actually have the "what is transformative works" question coming up in the following FAQs, I'll definitely make a note of how we can address your comments in them or in a future post. Thanks!

[kheha.livejournal.com]

Since no one else seems to have mentioned it -- it might be good to be consistent with the capitalization of FanLib....

Thanks for posting these responses!

[mirabile-dictu.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[bravecows.livejournal.com]

I support OTW and mostly don't share the doubts about it, but I have to say I'm disappointed by this FAQ -- the tone strikes me as unnecessarily dismissive. #5 was not a great way to address the genuine issues raised in the objections summarised by ithiliana.

[ciderpress.livejournal.com]

Hi, thank you for your feedback.

We are trying to strike a tone between the "too officious, too dry, too humourles" and "too fannish" feedback comments we've received and obviously, just by the comments to this post, we haven't managed to hit it yet!

We are trying to find the balance -- please bear with us and please do give us your thoughts as we refine our language in a way that feels inclusive, welcoming and fan-friendly.

[slashpine.livejournal.com]

I absolutely appreciate that y'all are doing this, especially that you're doing it "in public" to this extent -- working out the answers, and the questions too. It's a process that takes time, entails risk, requires honesty and humility, and is a bit of a first, at least for fandom on this scale.

Hmm... (thinks about it from a Comm Studies perspective). Yup, there may be some Lessons Learned here. Like this:

Should OTW conceptualize and/or present itself as a typical npo or charity? Never mind the 501(c)3 thing; that's an IRS classification of how "charities" do their financial reporting. Rather, how are "charities" seen as carrying out their mission and process?

Hoo boy. Just that word, "charity," makes some folks bridle. Who wants to be served by a charity? A "victim" ... one who needs "experts" to speak for them? Or to them?

Historically, some very authoritarian, imperious and non-participatory practices are built into the non-profit charity concept. Non-profit charities often make headlines only for their abuses of "trust."

How many people have donated to a campaign (like United Way, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Shriners, Habitat for Humanity) that then makes headlines for its misspending, vicious infighting, overriding members, empire-building, leaders living the high life or hobnobbing with the rich and famous? For failing to focus on the mission it raises money for?

*raises hand*

How many have volunteered for a local non-profit (arts, literacy, health, homeless, voter drives, public radio/TV, museum, library, parks & rec, kids clubs, environment) and been disillusioned by the org's lack of effectiveness, or the way it's run by (even for) "insiders"?

*raises hand again* ... 20 hands

NOT saying OTW is doing this!

But please think about the use of those terms: "charity" especially, but also "npo." Too many of them, too often, are divorced from reality. They can be perceived as semi-private clubs led by secretive 'inner circles,' or cults that worship the founder/s, don't welcome outsiders, don't report all their goings-on, hold the public at arm's length, serve multiple goals and hidden agendas. Many have a "do-gooder" attitude toward the group they "serve" -- that is, they have constructed separate identities for themselves (the "experts" or professionals) and their "patients." The helpless victim, animals, etc., become the "object" of their campaign.

And nobody likes being objectified, being treated as a passive object of someone else's decision-making. Like *cough*fandom...

I'm NOT saying OTW is doing this. But uncritically casting OTW as a typical "npo/charity" without thinking about what impression the label conveys, how the public generally perceives those groups -- how *fandom* perceives them -- is to take on much baggage.

Unpacking the baggage of "501(c)3 charity," I see a fandom that is home to many who are genuinely marginalized by the same capitalist, hegemonic, white-elite (and yes, academic or at least conspicuously college-educated) society that constructs labels like 501(c)3 and proceeds to dictate to, or exclude, the voices of the very entities they claim to speak for.

Again, not saying I personally believe OTW has set out to do this. But is it the perception of some? Mmm ... some of the discourse suggests so.

Try this: If OTW were a well-known long-time charity, which one would it be? Which would non-supporters see it as?

I don't think "business as usual", 501(c)3 style, is good enough for fandom. I believe the deeply radical nature of fandom requires that any group "speaking for" fandom be different. (Different from, say, 6A's "advisory board" o_O) Different in structure *and* process. I'm not sure I see this.

.. just thinking out loud here. Hope y'all don't mind this bit of analysis. Is OTW looking for public participation/ public deliberation, or simply an expert group graciously issuing public communication? Those are two different relationships to a public: a collective-communal representative one, and a separated, self-selected one. It's not clear to me which one OTW wants to be. Personally, I find that ambiguity unsettling. Analytically, it's a live case study of P2/public comm in the wired era.

Blegh - that posted in wrong thread

[slashpine.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that was supposed to reply to this thar reply above (http://community.livejournal.com/otw_news/25020.html?thread=716220#t716220) but it decided to jump down here instead. *frowns*

Regarding Dismissive/Offensive Use of Language

[lennoxmacbeth.livejournal.com]

I had some thoughts on point #5 before it was deleted, but since most of them have already been addressed by previous posters and the question is now apparently being reworked, I won't get into those specifically.

However, a question I have in relation to that discussion arose while reading responses here. I understand that OTW is trying to find a balance in language between that of the aca-fan and the average fan, so that the FAQ can be easily understood and recognized as valid by both fan and non-fan alike. To that extent, is OTW planning to take a direction - as representatives of fandom - that would help to remove dismissive or offensive language from fen vocabulary in general? A term that comes specifically to mind is "feral fandom." I have seen it used in OTW-related discussions before, and it has been met with a mixture of reactions.

I, personally, don't have any more problem with people who label me feral (as I fit the description for "feral fandom") than I do with people who label me a queer, a cunt, a heathen, or any other term which has a certain degree of accuracy while remaining offensive to a broad swath of the population. However, I am not all of fandom - and some of the reactions I've seen suggest that being considered "feral" is just as offensive as the other terms I mentioned to many people. Is this a problem that OTW plans to tackle as they build their FAQ and reach out further into fandom?

Re: Regarding Dismissive/Offensive Use of Language

[mirabile-dictu.livejournal.com]

We have had some discussion that I (as a member of the Community Relations committee) am aware of about terminology, and my guess is that other committees are also grappling with the issue. As you point it, it's one of sensitivity and accuracy. (I haven't heard the term "feral" discussed, though it may have been by others in the organization.)

So yes, this is a problem the OTW has been considering, and must continue to do so. Thank you for your timely reminder.

While I'm here...

[partly-bouncy.livejournal.com]

... is your position still that fandom good will can be sold down the river for free legal help? How does that resonate with your whole "No, we're inclusive! Really!" when you're willing to sacrifice people's involvement and good will in order to get free legal help?

Profit

[partly-bouncy.livejournal.com]

OTW does not, never has, and never will, profit from fandom, and objects on principle to FanLib's attempt to do so.

What is the definition of profit? From the looks of it, people involved with the project will clearly PROFIT, not from money but from other things, as a result of OTW. Naomi Novik will get more book sales. Kristina Busse will help her academic standing. People involved with the project will profit by increasing their standing in fandom, through increased skill sets and professionally. Profit isn't just money.

And I think it is incredibly dishonest to focus only on FanLib. FanFiction.Net, Quizilla, CBS, TokyoPop, LiveJournal, Viacom, Wizards of the Coast, Blizzard, Creation, TV.Com, Wikia, ESPN, Yahoo, Tripod were all "profiting" off fandom and fan activities before FanLib came along. If you were up with the history of fandom, you'd realize that. By continually referencing FanLib, you just feed into the perception that this is about the old guard on LiveJournal looking like their power was being diminished because they saw this new kid on the block that threatened them and are reacting purely to that. Your FAQ just reaffirms that.

Re: Profit

[fairestcat]

I'm sorry, this is a straw argument, plain and simple.

If you want to take the most general meaning of the term profit, than every single fan who does more than simply lurk and read has profited from fandom in some way.

I profit from my involvement with metafandom, in terms of fannish cred (both negative and positive), name recognition and the like. Last spring I ran a small Fic-a-Thon in SGA fandom. It can be argued that I profited from it's success in that within a small niche I'm now known as someone who put together a successful fannish project that inspired several other similarly themed exchanges.

I'll stop profiting from these projects (and my involvement in OTW), when you stop profiting from Fan History Wiki and the other fannish projects you're involved with. Except that the only way for either of us to stop profiting from fandom would be to stop participating entirely, and I really don't see that as likely.

There's a rather large difference between profiting in skills and connections and cred and profiting in direct earnings off of the fannish works of others and to suggest that they are the same is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

[anarchicq.livejournal.com]

society as a whole will never quite understand the \o/ of something like, say, a really good wingfic.
"\o/"? Seriously? No.

[ignazwisdom.livejournal.com]

You guys are amazing. If I wasn't already wholly on board with the project, the grace, composure, and professionalism with which you've been handling your jobs, even the missteps, would have won me over. Thank you for being awesome. :)

For historical record keeping...

[partly-bouncy.livejournal.com]

For anyone who is interested in the original version, http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php/Organization_for_Transformative_Works/FAQ_post and http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php/Image:OTW_FAQ_unedited.jpg .

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Every day last week was a ten hour plus day between editing and grading, so am late to this: but I'd like to say I'm glad you crossed out my summary.

I stand by that snarky summary because, in the context of my whole post on bad-faith arguments, it means one thing, but excerpted here, it reads entirely differently (as we all know, context is all).

There are real concerns about OTW that need to be addressed; the knee-jerk anti-academic and anti-intellectualism (anybody who says meta is not fandom needs to go study the history of fandom when, back in the day, like the 1920s, most fanzines were meta, and NOT fanfiction), not to mention the personal attacks on individual members of OTW that I was mocking are not ones that can ever be addressed in an FAq and probably should not even be acknowledged to the extent that my post did.

But dang, it felt good at the time and kept me from going and wanking in some people's journals.

I am also glad you put it back, struck through, for archival purposes!

[rez-lo.livejournal.com]

I am glad you're not sorry about the OP. It was obviously not intended for the same set of uses as the FAQ, as you say. And I see from the posts above why it might be easier in this case than in some others to suspect bad faith on the part of anyone whose arguments sound even remotely like those. I apologize for playing into the scenario inadvertently. (I'm sheltered; I see that now.)

About this: anybody who says meta is not fandom needs to go study the history of fandom when, back in the day, like the 1920s, most fanzines were meta, and NOT fanfiction

You once made a related point, or the obverse point, maybe, to the effect that fans who think that fannish commentary (as opposed to fic) isn't fanwriting are kidding themselves. I think it was in the course of a discussion on concrit. I really loved that, and look forward to OTW's handling of it -- even outside the formalities of the journal -- because it would be absolutely prodigious to have an archive that included it as well as the more standard forms of art.

Shorter: Damn right I want my meta included with the fanwork I archive at OTW.