A quorum of the Senate
May. 12th, 2006 02:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandrootI'm always fascinated by thoughtful posts that ask whether we should put limits on what we create, in fandom. It's like some kind of reflex--the resonance of hostility to some particular story/trend/moment reaches critical and a recoil of skepticism is triggered.
The thoughtful posts generally seem to ask whether it's a good idea, artistically speaking, to censor creativity. They may well point out that whatever instance is currently targeted bears a remarkable resemblance to some other major category of fic/art that is widely accepted.
The latest round of this made me think about the mechanics of limits.
Practically speaking, limits are only ever possible in a small area. This archive won't post het; that archive won't post slash; this community will post translations but not scanlations. Only the small scale is controllable and, sure as the sun rises, the archive or comm next door is accepting whatever the first archive or comm denies, and vice versa.
Those are the limits that are written down, though. They're the obvious ones. They are not, I think, the strongest ones.
To take the current example, FFN should not remove/ban things like the HP-Holocaust-love-story fic; tackiness is not covered by their user agreement. That does not mean the story is being "allowed"; the author is, instead, inundated with comments to the effect that she is a sick, perverted, disgusting hack, and an historical ignoramus to boot.
Just because the rules aren't written down in a user agreement doesn't mean they don't exist. Nor that they aren't enforced. What it does mean is that the rules are being constantly re-made, by the very process of arguing over them. They are, you might say, the live rules.
I'm always amazed at how many people overlook this particular, and particularly vital, stage of rule-making.
.
The thoughtful posts generally seem to ask whether it's a good idea, artistically speaking, to censor creativity. They may well point out that whatever instance is currently targeted bears a remarkable resemblance to some other major category of fic/art that is widely accepted.
The latest round of this made me think about the mechanics of limits.
Practically speaking, limits are only ever possible in a small area. This archive won't post het; that archive won't post slash; this community will post translations but not scanlations. Only the small scale is controllable and, sure as the sun rises, the archive or comm next door is accepting whatever the first archive or comm denies, and vice versa.
Those are the limits that are written down, though. They're the obvious ones. They are not, I think, the strongest ones.
To take the current example, FFN should not remove/ban things like the HP-Holocaust-love-story fic; tackiness is not covered by their user agreement. That does not mean the story is being "allowed"; the author is, instead, inundated with comments to the effect that she is a sick, perverted, disgusting hack, and an historical ignoramus to boot.
Just because the rules aren't written down in a user agreement doesn't mean they don't exist. Nor that they aren't enforced. What it does mean is that the rules are being constantly re-made, by the very process of arguing over them. They are, you might say, the live rules.
I'm always amazed at how many people overlook this particular, and particularly vital, stage of rule-making.
.
