I received a phone call from Diane Gies this evening. She was calling about a post that appeared on this list in the past couple of days saying that the reason Horizon had a ban on advertising Redemption was because of our policy on slash. Diane asked me if I would reply on the list to correct that. I have no desire to open up old wounds and arguments, especially just a day after getting back from what was one of the most exhausting but enjoyable weekends of my life. Until this point, I also regarded the discussions in the past year I have had with Diane over her policy on Redemption should not be aired on this list. However, as she has asked me to do so, I will give an outline of what was said:
The official reason that Diane gave to us for refusing to publicise Redemption through Horizon was because she regarded our policy on art as to be one that encouraged the use of adult art, which she said was offensive to Horizon's honorary members. She came to this conclusion because of a piece that appeared in the first progress report for Redemption 01 that said we were putting adult art into a separate category in the art show and that this would be displayed separately so as not to offend anyone. This was also our policy for Redemption 99, which was publicised in the Horizon newsletter and on the Horizon web site.
I explained both verbally and in writing to Diane that our policy was not to bar any legitimate form of fannish expression and that the very reason we split the categories was to protect those who found such art offensive and to ensure they weren't subjected to it by accident. Diane said she didn't accept this reason and the ban was enforced, with no links from the Horizon web site to Redemption (despite us having a link to Horizon) and no mention in the Horizon email bulletin. There was technically also a ban in the newsletter, but has that hasn't appeared for some time, that is largely academic. I understand the next issue is about to be published.
It is ironic that, as it happened, there were no entries to segregate. However, I have no regrets about our policy. The aim of Redemption is to encourage fannish expression in as many ways as possible, and I believe we were successful in that aim. I am proud of what we achieved last weekend and am looking forward, after a bit of a break, to creating a similar and, hopefully, even better weekend in two years time in what will be the 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 convention and the 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 convention.
I hope that Diane will rethink her policy and try to work with us to help make the event even better, but we are not in the business of excluding and barring fannish expression.
-- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption
I received a phone call from Diane Gies this evening. She was calling about a post that appeared on this list in the past couple of days saying that the reason Horizon had a ban on advertising Redemption was because of our policy on slash. Diane asked me if I would reply on the list to correct that.
Why doesn't Diane just come on the Lyst and say it herself? And if she's not on the Lyst, how did she know it was on there to begin with?
. Until this
point, I also regarded the discussions in the past year I have had with Diane over her policy on Redemption should not be aired on this list.
Well, since her policy affects us all and especially those of us who went to Redemption, I think perhaps you should have done.
However, as she has asked me to do so, I will give an outline of what was said: The official reason that Diane gave to us for refusing to publicise Redemption through Horizon was because she regarded our policy on art as to be one that encouraged the use of adult art, which she said was offensive to Horizon's honorary members.
But who agreed to this policy? The infamous leaked e-mail revealing Diane's policy on slash to the members of Lysator (For those of you who are interested, it's message #32125 in the archives-- sent 1999-10-08 11:54:28) was apparently a message to the committee asking for their support on this. Did they agree to it-- a bit unlikely, since it was apparently a committee member who leaked it in the first place? If not, what happened?
She came to this
conclusion because of a piece that appeared in the first progress report for Redemption 01 that said we were putting adult art into a separate category in the art show and that this would be displayed separately so as not to offend anyone. This was also our policy for Redemption 99, which was publicised in the Horizon newsletter and on the Horizon web site. I explained both verbally and in writing to Diane that our policy was not to bar any legitimate form of fannish expression and that the very reason we split the categories was to protect those who found such art offensive and to ensure they weren't subjected to it by accident. Diane said she didn't accept this
What reason did she give?
and the ban was enforced, with no links
from the Horizon web site to Redemption (despite us having a link to Horizon)
Why be so generous?
and no
mention in the Horizon email bulletin. There was technically also a ban in the newsletter, but has that hasn't appeared for some time, that is largely academic.
I thought the newsletter had folded?
I understand the next issue is about to be published.
Isn't she always saying this, though?
It is ironic that, as it happened, there were no entries to segregate. However, I have no regrets about our policy. The aim of Redemption is to encourage fannish expression in as many ways as possible, and I believe we were successful in that aim.
<snipped>
I hope that Diane will rethink her policy and try to work with us to help make the event even better, but we are not in the business of excluding and barring fannish expression.
On the evidence, that seems a lot to hope for.
Now, I think you're all aware of my views on slash/adult etc. :-), but I think you're also all aware of my views on censorship. When Message #32125 appeared, it looks, to judge by the responses in the archive, like it was roundly condemned by 90% of the Lyst. However, this doesn't appear to have stopped Diane implementing this Draconian policy and starting her crusade. Although it's true that Horizon is no longer as powerful as once it was, B7 is a small cult-- you get a convention every couple of years, and even that's linked with Babylon-5. Whatever Diane's feelings on these issues, these are her own, and they do not justify preventing people who might enjoy Redemption from finding out that it exists (not everyone's on the Internet, you know. Many people's only link to B7 fandom is through Horizon. Why should they be prevented from having a fun time?).
After all, if Gareth Thomas doesn't have a problem with going to a convention with adult artwork, why should anyone else worry?
Shane
"Not very imaginative, but then neither's a kick in the teeth, and we don't need either." --Tarrant
Shane:
After all, if Gareth Thomas doesn't have a
problem with going to a
convention with adult artwork, why should
anyone else worry? Well, they shouldn't, but they _may_, because opinions differ. Don't fall into the same trap, from the opposite direction.
Good point, Steve. I'll take that to heart.
Shane
"I am your death, Blake"--Travis
In message 4386325.983324798982.JavaMail.root@crowe.unimessage.net, littles@lycos.co.uk writes
After all, if Gareth Thomas doesn't have a problem with going to a convention with adult artwork, why should anyone else worry?
Having hauled Gareth along to the realism in slash panel when this subject came up so that he had an opportunity to explain how he felt about slash, I presume you *weren't* at that panel. To say that Gareth is comfortable with adult art would be stretching things somewhat.
He stated that he had no problem with slash fanfic, but that nude art was a more complicated matter. If someone from outside fandom sees such art, it is likely to be seen as nude art of Gareth Thomas, actor, rather than Blake, fictional character - with all that implies for people's opinion of him, and possibly his career.
This is not paranoia on Gareth's part. As an editor of adult zines, I changed my policy on explicit art after I met an example of the fan who either cannot, or can but doesn't want to, distinguish between actor and character. This person's stage door behaviour worried the other fans present, and clearly worried Paul Darrow.
Julia wrote:
<Having hauled Gareth along to the realism in slash panel when this subject came up so that he had an opportunity to explain how he felt about slash, I presume you *weren't* at that panel>
No, I wasn't; thanks for telling me what happened. Hearing that, though, does give me a lot of respect for Gareth's ability to take a neutral stance on such a controversial issue.
<I met an example of the fan who either cannot, or can but doesn't want to, distinguish between actor and character>
I've met a few of those too, and I think the issue's extremely worrying. It's clear from Diane's memo (archive post #32125) that her anti-slash stance is purely cynical, and stems from her jealousy and dislike of Judith Proctor. However, it can't be denied that some of the extreme elements of the genre do give people like her ammunition to use against the rest.
Shane
"Soolin, I can fulfil your every desire." "Orac, you wouldn't know where to start."
From: littles@lycos.co.uk << I've met a few of those too, and I think the issue's extremely worrying. It's clear from Diane's memo (archive post #32125) that her anti-slash stance is purely cynical, and stems from her jealousy and dislike of Judith Proctor. However, it can't be denied that some of the extreme elements of the genre do give people like her ammunition to use against the rest.>>
Not so. Diane's anti-slash policy is not, as far as I can tell, merely cynical, more properly not really cynical at all. Having met Diane, and talked to Diane, albeit not for some years now, and heard odd comments from her on this subject, I would say her concern for the feelings of the actors is quite genuine, though she does seem to use this to bolster her own personal antipathy to nude art and slash.
Hetfic seems to be okay with her, since I believe Horizon launched their Ultra hetzine at Deliverance 98.
But whatever her antipathies, they've got nothing to do with Judith as far as I'm aware, and go back way before Judith arrived on the scene. There is a rift between Diane and Judith, as there is between Diane and quite a lot of other people (me included), but that is their affair. Since you seem to be familiar with the archives then you'll know what was posted last March on the subject of Diane and Horizon. It achieved nothing then, and trying to stir it up afresh will achieve nothing now.
Neil
"I'll pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on knees and pray"
-
Julia Jones -
littles＠lycos.co.uk -
Neil Faulkner -
Steve Kilbane -
Steve Rogerson