Which is why I think it's important that people who think some group of fandom might be misrepresented don't just give up.
What it really comes down to is I don't have the time or energy to pay that level of attention to something that even if all the problems get fixed I doubt I'll use, to deal with the most rabid supporters who take any dissent as the highest insult, to distance myself from the dissenters working out of gross misunderstanding or personal grudges. Wank is draining anyway; at that level for God knows how long, it's that much worse.
I do, even though I've said I'm done with OTWanking, keep an eye on the discussions, and if the mood strikes I'm happy to politely correct a misunderstanding or outline my arguments for people I think have presented their side in a way that doesn't have me backing away from the brewing wanksplosion :) Because I do, in the end, still think my arguments are reasonable and are big problems for OTW, and if I can get people thinking about them without it getting wanky, yay!
Plus, I thought I read something about Naomi Novik saying that they do intend to include RPF. But that might just be my imagination.
Mmhm, they've said from the beginning they're a-ok with RPF. Which, funnily enough, is why I have issues with their language - if they'd said "sorry, no RPF", I would've shrugged and moved on.
But what they're doing (and they HAVE made some awesome changes in this area) is saying "we welcome and support RPF" but not backing that up with their language.
I used this analogy once before - say you started a club for people who liked movies, but instead of saying "movies" you say "videos".
Now, "video" can be read as "movie", and there are people who will read it like that. But it can also be read as "VHS", and if you don't make it clear you mean "video" as "movie" rather than "VHS", all those people whose movie-loving is DVD-based are going to pass your club right by.
And your options, when someone says "hey I like DVDs, why can't I be in your club?" are really: a) explain to them video=movie b) change your promotional materials to define video in a couple places c) change "video" to "movie" wherever it appears
A is pretty good, except you're gonna have to do that every single time someone asks. B isn't bad, it's wordier than it needs to be and it might bug people who are really adamant in their belief that video=VHS. C, to me, is the best - you avoid that confusion in the first place, and don't have to deal with the "but DAMMIT, video is VHS and it's ALWAYS been like that and how dare you redefine words I use" crew.
It's an "actions speak louder than words" idea for me, really. They can say they support RPF all they want, and with the amount of people in fandom who think RPF is icky and creepy and wrong I'm glad they're at least saying it, but until their actions show at least a desire to understand RPF it's just talk.
And when the OTW says that they wish to legitimize fandom, I think they will try to include all parts of it, even those they don't like and those they are not familiar with. It's a matter of principle, in my eyes.
Oh, certainly. I think even if they don't WANT to legitimize everything, they'd be stupid to tell any chunk of fandom "sorry, you're too nuts, buh-bye". But I wonder how much you can work towards legitimizing something you yourself don't understand, and even if you can I'm not sure how good an idea it would be, because if you convince someone to be okay with x based on a trait it turns out x doesn't HAVE, you probably haven't really done any good.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
carisma_sensei
no subject
Date: 2008-01-15 06:39 pm (UTC)What it really comes down to is I don't have the time or energy to pay that level of attention to something that even if all the problems get fixed I doubt I'll use, to deal with the most rabid supporters who take any dissent as the highest insult, to distance myself from the dissenters working out of gross misunderstanding or personal grudges. Wank is draining anyway; at that level for God knows how long, it's that much worse.
I do, even though I've said I'm done with OTWanking, keep an eye on the discussions, and if the mood strikes I'm happy to politely correct a misunderstanding or outline my arguments for people I think have presented their side in a way that doesn't have me backing away from the brewing wanksplosion :) Because I do, in the end, still think my arguments are reasonable and are big problems for OTW, and if I can get people thinking about them without it getting wanky, yay!
Plus, I thought I read something about Naomi Novik saying that they do intend to include RPF. But that might just be my imagination.
Mmhm, they've said from the beginning they're a-ok with RPF. Which, funnily enough, is why I have issues with their language - if they'd said "sorry, no RPF", I would've shrugged and moved on.
But what they're doing (and they HAVE made some awesome changes in this area) is saying "we welcome and support RPF" but not backing that up with their language.
I used this analogy once before - say you started a club for people who liked movies, but instead of saying "movies" you say "videos".
Now, "video" can be read as "movie", and there are people who will read it like that. But it can also be read as "VHS", and if you don't make it clear you mean "video" as "movie" rather than "VHS", all those people whose movie-loving is DVD-based are going to pass your club right by.
And your options, when someone says "hey I like DVDs, why can't I be in your club?" are really:
a) explain to them video=movie
b) change your promotional materials to define video in a couple places
c) change "video" to "movie" wherever it appears
A is pretty good, except you're gonna have to do that every single time someone asks. B isn't bad, it's wordier than it needs to be and it might bug people who are really adamant in their belief that video=VHS. C, to me, is the best - you avoid that confusion in the first place, and don't have to deal with the "but DAMMIT, video is VHS and it's ALWAYS been like that and how dare you redefine words I use" crew.
It's an "actions speak louder than words" idea for me, really. They can say they support RPF all they want, and with the amount of people in fandom who think RPF is icky and creepy and wrong I'm glad they're at least saying it, but until their actions show at least a desire to understand RPF it's just talk.
And when the OTW says that they wish to legitimize fandom, I think they will try to include all parts of it, even those they don't like and those they are not familiar with. It's a matter of principle, in my eyes.
Oh, certainly. I think even if they don't WANT to legitimize everything, they'd be stupid to tell any chunk of fandom "sorry, you're too nuts, buh-bye". But I wonder how much you can work towards legitimizing something you yourself don't understand, and even if you can I'm not sure how good an idea it would be, because if you convince someone to be okay with x based on a trait it turns out x doesn't HAVE, you probably haven't really done any good.