Also? Ulysses. Ulysses. Ulysses.

The Pedant Patrol thanks you all.

Michele, you funny. :-)

It's the one "L" thing again, come back to haunt me.

As far as I know, in RPF the RP is a central character, right? So I still have to argue that Joyce is doing something else.

I don't know if it needs to be a central or minor character. I used Joyce as an example of somebody who used real, living people in his fiction. That example was only one of many to establish that using RP in your fic cannot be the sole criteria of judgement. I didn't argue that Joyce wrote RPF. I asserted that there was a literary tradition of using real people to literary ends, that the issue was not solely a function of fanfic. People do not object to Ulysses on the basis of him using once-living humans as set-dressing.

Hec, if you want to argue that such fiction is a traditional genre, why not invoke a text that actually participates in RPF, such as Don DeLillo’s Libra? Is that not tony enough for you? And I can think of numerous films (although I can’t recall any titles) in which one or two of the main characters are historical figures. Joyce is a bad example, so why bring him up when numerous good examples abound?

DeLillo's tony enough for me. Let's put Joyce aside. I can put the whole discussion aside if you like - I don't know if I have any other points to make.

But I have to say y'all are conceding a lot of territory that makes it difficult to simply argue that RPF is morally wrong (if anybody wanted to make that case).

As one example, if Consuela thinks it's okay to write about dead people, then what of the instance of Ulysses (sorry Burrell)? They were alive when he wrote it. They're dead now. Now nobody cares about that issue. That doesn't make the point moot, it tends to support my argument that the value of the literature culturally is far greater than the infringement on the individual at the time.

Ultimately, the question for me is this: is there forbidden content? There are certainly things which will cause trouble if you write about them (the practical objections to RPF). There are legal questions of ownership (which fic-dom as a whole merrily tramples over every day in every way, sly disclaimers aside). But should any subject matter be forbidden to the artist? Nobody is compelled to read things they find reprehensible (or boring), but I don't think the line is drawn before the writer, but in front of the reader.

I don't think the line is drawn before the writer, but in front of the reader.

Which falls pretty much in line with most opinions here, right? With the understanding that the writers here are free to place their line wherever they want ...

I'd be surprised if you thought anything was okay "for art". I certainly don't. I just can't (and won't) do much about it.

I would say, legal action not yet forthcoming, and the average Joe's reaction to RPF-as-representative-of-fanfic as yet unmeasureable, the line is drawn before the writer only inasmuch as the writer knows in advance that many people disapprove.

So, you know, the RPF writer takes what she wants, and pays for it. In this case, the price of the RPF hobby is other people potentially bitching about your hobby, and possibly calling it immoral, in public.

I didn't argue that Joyce wrote RPF.

Okay, so it’s not RPF. Agreed.

then what of the instance of Ulysses (sorry Burrell)?

If it’s not RPF, then it’s not relevant to an argument on the ethical merits of RPF, is it?

That doesn't make the point moot, it tends to support my argument that the value of the literature culturally is far greater than the infringement on the individual at the time.

So your entire argument rests on the cultural value placed on the work of art? If so, then I think you need to consider the cultural value of the genre in question, not the cultural value of high modernist literature (which, if anything, is overvalued by certain sectors of the public). It seems only fair.

but I don't think the line is drawn before the writer, but in front of the reader.

meaning what? The reader is to be judged for his choice of reading matter, but the writer should never be judged for his choice of subject? I don’t see why we are free to judge the one but not the other. But I might be misunderstanding you. Do you just mean writers can write whatever they want, and the choice of whether or not to read is up to the reader? In that case, there is NO ethical line involved at all, neither for the reader or the writer, just a free choice.

Now nobody cares about that issue. That doesn't make the point moot, it tends to support my argument that the value of the literature culturally is far greater than the infringement on the individual at the time.

Not really. It means that the hopes and feelings of people 100 years dead are generally not of much interest to those 100 years later. Look, Frost was a lousy father, and we don't much mind because, hey, good poetry, and we're not the kids in question. That doesn't mean that being a lousy father is okay. It means the poetry is alive and the victims are dead.

I disapprove of putting real, living people into fiction, no matter how many great writers do it. And when I read the great writers who do it, it is because they are great writers, not because I therefore approve.

Jane Austen uses "ain't." Which happened to be correct usage in her day. Somebody who uses "ain't" in a novel today, in a non-dialect context, will be laughed at, no matter how many times s/he says "But Jane Austen did it!" "But Joyce did it!" is no defense to "Writing about real people is cruel and creepy."

And I'll be damned if Joyce wrote fiction in which Sarah Bernhardt was fellating Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, which is actually what we're talking about. It isn't just that real people are involved, it's that real people's sex lives are involved.

yes. ick.(Not that is very intelligent coming after quotes and citations,) But still, I think it crosses a moral line to disseminate things like that. If you must, keep it for yourself.) YMMv, of course.

500?

...first ever number sluttage.

runs away again

If it’s not RPF, then it’s not relevant to an argument on the ethical merits of RPF, is it?

It is if we're arguing that using real people in fiction is something Writers Shouldn't Do.

So your entire argument rests on the cultural value placed on the work of art?

No, I'm using works of established literary merit to show why you can't simply say that using real people in fiction is wrong.

And I'll be damned if Joyce wrote fiction in which Sarah Bernhardt was fellating Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree.

That's not the point, I don't think. Any real person could object to a whole slew of things short of blowjobs. The real person ita objects to any writer representing her in their work even if she's saving baby kittens from Republican cat-skinners.