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

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Do academics pay attention to the fan soapboxes? Probably not, but what many don't realize is that they won't pay attention to fan studies as well--i.e. the ones who'll read this stuff are, primarily, the ones who do it, and people who want to do it, and major critics of it. Most academics won't know it, won't read it: I cannot even keep up with reading the academic journals from the organizations I belong to, let alone any others. There are thousands of the darn things.

And we're all tiptoeing around not naming names in terms of scholars, but I would be interested (email me) in those you consider got it so wrong who are in fandom.

I am still flabbergasted by the attitude that sets up the idea of a right/wrong argument about fandom (academics, outsiders to fandom and insiders in specific areas of fandom), and says they'd rather have outsiders make it. (I'm not sure you've made that above, but it connects to people who've said that).

We have to limit/qualify our arguments--and the best scholarship does that.

What that argument starts to sound like to me is basically: we'd rather have the white straight men who have the most cultural capital keep making wrong arguments about fandom, but we'll go after and attack any white woman who dares to do so (I only know two academics of color who publish in fandom, both female, although I hope there are more). And there are some fairly nasty personal attacks starting to happen, including outing of people.

And that's depressing as hell.

Academics have made a whole range of arguments about parts of fandom: can any argument include all of fandom? And if the field of argument in academia is growing daily, one can only hope that the good as well as the bad will grow. And every academic argument is understood to be partial, incomplete, in process, subject to change over time, subject to challenge from everybody else--but apparently that view of academia is hidden (probably because most fans only read a couple of pieces and no more, and yeah, why should they, except that if they judge academia on that, it's like judging fandom on well, two pieces of fanfic).

And nobody would do that, would they?

[rez-lo.livejournal.com]

No firestarting intended on my end, either, and none assumed on yours. And I'd really, really like to avoid any inadvertent contribution to Wank In The House Of Fandom, so I'll take the topical part of this to email. *g* But I feel as though I should respond at least partially in this forum, since I think these are general issues. First:

I am still flabbergasted by the attitude that sets up the idea of a right/wrong argument about fandom (academics, outsiders to fandom and insiders in specific areas of fandom), and says they'd rather have outsiders make it. (I'm not sure you've made that above, but it connects to people who've said that).

I'm not very clear about what you mean here. I'm not intending to set up a right/wrong argument about fandom, only to say that the power to shape and affect discourses about fandom accrues more readily to fans whose fannishness is also a cause of affiliation with institutions that pronounce on culture.

There are people *in fandom* who affect the debates about fandom on a scale unavailable to most fans and most aca-fans: can we talk about all the press that Lexicon has gotten? About all the press that Rowling's famous debate with the mods of the HP site got?

But I'm not talking about individuals (and even my topical disagreements are not with individuals but with positions). I'm looking at the class of fans for whom fandom also has a direct bearing on their profession.

(none of us half as big as Henry's)

But Henry remembers your name, does he not? Pays you a modicum of professional courtesy, might even refer someone your way, or your name to someone else, if the chance came up and he happened to think of it? And since not even Henry, prodigious as he is, can field every request for expert testimony or an interview for publication or a quote for a news story or a chair on a panel... that's what I was trying to describe with the "cultural transponder" thing.

I'm not saying your point is valid, but it's more complicated than the "academics have all the power" and "fans have none."

I hope that isn't what actually comes across, because I don't think either of those things is true. The rhetorical construction of these issues to absolutes or binaries is very discouraging, I agree. I don't want to contribute to it, and I don't think I have.

What that argument starts to sound like to me is basically: we'd rather have the white straight men who have the most cultural capital keep making wrong arguments about fandom, but we'll go after and attack any white woman who dares to do so (I only know two academics of color who publish in fandom, both female, although I hope there are more). And there are some fairly nasty personal attacks starting to happen, including outing of people.

But I am not making this argument. And I'm not attacking anyone, personally or otherwise. It is in fact precisely the point that it's women scholars working from within fandom that makes this set of concerns so important to me, because I do most sincerely want you to represent me, include me, value my fannishness. Do I expect more of you than I do of the straight white man? Yes. And perhaps that's unfair. I don't know.

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

I'm tired but must continue because more copyediting is due tomorrow, and my brain is buzzing.

I'll cut from your post and try to respond directly since I admit that my past experiences may be affecting my reading abilities. I was driven out of fandom once by anti-academic battering in an APA I was in, and after I left, I stayed away for years. I came back only because of women, and I purposely hang out with mostly women. Some are academics, but many, if not most, are not.

I'm not very clear about what you mean here. I'm not intending to set up a right/wrong argument about fandom, only to say that the power to shape and affect discourses about fandom accrues more readily to fans whose fannishness is also a cause of affiliation with institutions that pronounce on culture.

I agree that in some places, academics have more power to shape some discourses. However, in many discourses, we have little or no power. An occasional academic gets called by the occasional journalist, but most of the time, media types sail right on into writing about fandom with no input from academics. And, yes, most of the time it's Henry Jenkins, but we can talk more about that later.

I guess that as someone in an academic discipline which has very little impact on anybody these days (the culture wars during the 1980s went after literature departments first, for daring to teach Alice Walker and Toni Morrison which meant that Shakespeare was thrown into the gutter -- and I can give you name and titles of the people saying that: Lynne Cheney and George Will among them. Michael Berube has blogged about all the anti-multicultural lit and anti-gender stuff coming from the popular press and media), I have a hard time believing that the stuff I write really affects anyone because I've had very little external proof that anybody reads my stuff, beyond a fairly narrow circle of academics all in my own field(s). I write about feminism and science fiction, Tolkien's book and Jackson's novel, and fan studies (I've had one article published, and I'll be glad to send you a copy if you wish).

I've given a few papers, to a room with maybe 10-30 people, who spend four days listening to other papers. I've made some good connections with some of them. Print can always have effects beyond the immediate--but I don't see my discipline as having any major cultural capital and haven't for years (my theory is they wouldn't be graduating women as 60% of English PhDs if the discipline had any stature--and even then it's a rare department that has even 30% women tenured raculty). The cultural capital and power is in Computer Science and engineering, and I suppose Business, and medical and related disciplines.

So in effect: yes, aca-fen have that connection to outside cultural institutions that create and circulate discourses.

But so do fen who are journalists, bloggers, and those work in tech and computer science and internet related companies. Does anybody worry about those people's opinions shaping anything--and yet they must!

Fans jumped in with FanLib too. That's shaping discourse.

So why so much ire against *one* group?

And I know I keep shifting to individuals--but well, when people make arguments about a group/aca-fen, all I can see is that MY experience, my publications, my theories, my methods aren't being represented (hmmm, that does sound familiar!).

So a lot of the anti-academic arguments I was mocking in that one post set up what I considered a straw-aca-fan.

When I actually talked to a few fans who could tell how they'd been hurt by a publication, the actual examples were mostly students--that doesn't negate their hurt (publishing on the internet something that had been presented as for a class only), but again, that's not me, and yet, I'm being lumped in with that group beause I'm part of it.

By that argument, if one fan behaves badly, all fen are in the same boat, and nobody would accept that.

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

Henry? Well maybe he remembers my name.

In which case he remembers I posted about how one of my papers took on a generalization he made about women creating fanfiction because they were forced to watch all the masculine shows and brought romance in, and I was writing about women who loved sf (and never agreed it was for boy's only) and wrote dark stuff and porn and action stuff--a minority among fen, and stories, but still, contradicting him. The *only* post he made on the fandebate community was to "inform" me that he'd written a lot more since that piece was published, and it wasn't fair to only work from that perspective, and I had to read all his work.

And he'd probably also remember I showed up calling a lot of the men in that debate sexists and got them very mad at me, including some of his best buddies and ex-students. I esp. remember one of his ex students who got roundly corrected by a number of women for not knowing that the novel used to be dominated by women, back a century or two. An MA in media studies does not give you knowledge about the history of the novel, but he thought he could spout off and claim that it was always written by men.

And since that debate--well, did you notice the article about OTW that cited Henry only? He didn't give that writer any other names, although I gather he didn't realize he was the only person being referenced. But no, I don't think he will give my name to anybody (the journalist I mentioned I talked to the other day? Was referred by a woman scholar who was referred by a woman scholar.)

And let me be clear too: he's in a different discipline than I am--we don't publish in the same types of journals or attend the same conferences. I don't go to the media conferences, and don't care too, so it doesn't matter that I spouted off.

There are two men I know who'd probably refer people to me, in that situation, both academics, one queer, one a feminist, and neither does fan studies (in fact, they're such good friends they wrote me letters for my slashing proposal). They do science fiction--although one is sneaking over into fanzines as well as pulp zines, using archival material (the OLDer fan productions). The other does children's lit and the fantastic.

However, the vast majority of time networking is done, that I have benefitted from, it's from women.

I was the one saying why bother with the aca-fan debate, I don't care about bringing the boys in, or spending time educating them, I want to create networks among the women because my experience in academia is that 99% of the time, it's women who'll support other women, recommend them, etc.

Showing up and calling the men sexist does not get one referrals, but I really didn't give a damn. Actually, I got a nice invite to read a paper on slash because women who were lurking and reading at that debate liked how I kept calling the guys on their sexism (and tried to bring in the subject of racism).

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

It is in fact precisely the point that it's women scholars working from within fandom that makes this set of concerns so important to me, because I do most sincerely want you to represent me, include me, value my fannishness. Do I expect more of you than I do of the straight white man? Yes. And perhaps that's unfair. I don't know.

It might be unfair, but it's not at all unusual. Women faculty get evaluations all the time that "judge" them in ways white male faculty are not judged; we're used to it.

I wouldn't try to represent you or your fannishness--at least, that's not how I talk about and see my scholarship. Fans are myriad, all ages (I stay away from minors because of legal issues and also personal choice--I hated adolescents when I was one, and would never teach in high schools), all ethnicities, all genders, all nationalities, all areas of ability/disability, all the human condition.

By virtue of being one person writing from a related batch of theories/methodologies, I'm excluding most of fans/fannishness. I am interested in queerness and how it manifests itself within LOTR online LJ fandom. I am interested in racism imbroglios. I am interested in f/f slash--and I'm very interested in why little academic scholarship on fandom covers either race or f/f/ slash (more is coming! we have an essay for our anthology on f/f slash in ST). I'm also interested in why most academics ignore RPF--a good number of my works in progress (it can take me two years to write an essay, another two years to get it published, academic time being what it is) point out gaps in the scholarship, gaps that I've noticed because they connect mostly to what I see/value in fandom. I am not going to spend a lot of time writing about other fandoms (if I'm not in it, I'm not going to write about it); I'm not going to write about gen or het. At the moment, I am thinking that a new and interesting project would be fan scholarship and meta, because that's so often overlooked. So unless your fannishness fits in that very narrow area, I am excluding you -- because as far as I'm concerned, a more limited focus/argument is stronger. I am not saying Fan/fandom is X, I'm saying there's this thread/type of discourse among a million others in fandom.

I'm sorry if this sounds horribly elitist: but I have no desire to try to represent "all" kinds of fannishness. I cannot; it would be insane to even try. My goal would rather be to create opportunities for more work by more scholars covering all the cool stuff that's out there that's barely been touched upon. And I am working on a super sekrit plan for just that that you'll all be hearing about in a few months.

So being criticized for not representing X and Y--well. I have no defense. I don't, I haven't, and I won't.

I know that early movements in a new field have to paint with broader strokes--and that's what happened. But I'm not interested in broad strokes, universal or foundational theories, or major structural issues--and I'm not interested in psychology (I analyze texts). That's why I was criticizing Henry's claim: that fanfiction was created by women forced to watch male texts and they wrote romance in.

I don't like or read romance. I refuse to designate sf a male text, as did the feminist and women writers of sf I love. And nobody forced me to read anything (although I did have to sit through a helluva lot of country music shows growing up when anad were I did).

So I know I'm babbling, I know I'm over the text limit, but I guess--I've admired how you've written in the past, and I'm frustrated because there is no way that I can see that I can do what you would like me to do.

[rez-lo.livejournal.com]

I'm frustrated because there is no way that I can see that I can do what you would like me to do.

No, please don't be. I've overstated the point in my own frustration, wanting to get across the peculiar pain of the fan whose involvement in fandom and receptivity to the public discussion of it is completely down to its radical and female components, and who yet continually trips over deep disagreement with the most dedicated, active, feminist commentators therein. Whom I nevertheless feel very protective toward, and therefore really conflicted about arguing with. And maybe I could end a few more clauses with prepositions, you think?

Perhaps it comes down to this: you (singular you, ithiliana) are doing what I want. There just aren't enough of you (general you, fannishly connected cultural commentators on fandom who are not bourgeois white men) yet to cover the part of the waterfront I have in view (and that's really important to the radical and female components of fandom that keep me here).

I think it might help us all to remember that while fandom has long since reached critical mass in terms of cultural influence (even if we can't say exactly what that means), fannish scholarship is not even close to that point. And you're solving that, regardless of the specifics of your individual scholarly interests. For which I thank you.

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

*Whew* we can agree on the main thing, then! A lot of this is due to academic time--i.e. how long it takes to "create" new scholars and new programs and what is probably the inevitable "taming" of new types of theories/methods in an instituion that has, after all, survived since the Middle Ages, even down to how long it takes to get an article out. Nothing happens fast in academia.

And, I can agree with something you said in another thread about the changing discourses: I just realized, reading it, that I do not see myself as that active in OTW's attempt to change public discourses (though I support it), and was going back to the 'academic' focus (it must be all about me!) which I do not see as the same as OTWs space. Yes, there's an academic journal in the works, but it's only one small part of the projects.

And while academics of different disciplines (law, humanities, computer science) are part of the group project, they are not the entirety of it, nor are most of the discourses OTW is engaged in what I consider academic. It's good to keep in mind the different public discourses: as I was driving in today, I was thinking of how fans/fandom/furries have appeared on various primetime crime dramas, how Second Life was featured in a crime show (um, CSI?)--there's a whole range of public portrayals of fandom that is going to be seen and probably believed in by a lot more people than most academics (individually).

So, television, film, comics (meaning comics featuring fans, not superhero comics), all the geek fans in the comics are guys, seems to me, from Jason in Foxtrot to Comic Book Guy), newspapers (and more and more the focus is on our consumer status)--all out there.

I think the most radical potential for OTW lies in the legal area, myself.

The area that I am interested in, where I can affect things, is much more limited--but even there I see more and more people involved which is exciting, so there are changes, and the more diverse the scholarship and scholars, the better. I was kidding one of my male friends about all the entries relating to fandom that I've put into the women in sf encyclopedia and whether the old boys would freak out--he pointed out that they probably would not even look at it because of the focus on women which made it automatically unimportant!