huh wrote
First, who says we're talking about fans? I could have meant agents, or journalists, or interested third parties.
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that non-fans would be hanging out in fan conventions buying fanzines and fan artwork.
Excuse me. When a convention comes to town, particularly a large one, the local paper at least usually sends someone out to cover it. I'm sure we've all seen the articles: "Sci-Fi Maniacs Converge on Manchester," coupled with photograph of person in poorly-made Klingon costume. Also, these journalists usually like to make fans look as weird and pathetic as possible in order to sell papers. Don't you think they'd _love_ to know about slash art? As for other sorts of non-fans, the guests often bring their families-- their spouses and kids, who don't need to see their parent or partner held up as a sex object. Finally, supposing an actor found out about slash art and was angry enough to complain to his/her agent? That agent might very well refuse to let the actor have anything to do with fans at all.
My mistake. Or that journalists would be so naive as to assume everything they see on-line is in some way factual.
As I said, they don't need to. Journalists need to sell papers, and so regardless of whether or not the site does show anything factual, they'll write it up. If a journalist did find a fan site with slash art, chances are the headline would read NUDE PICTURES OF [ACTOR X] SHOCKER, and the fact that these were faked up or sketched will be buried somewhere in the fine print. This _did_ actually happen at least once, with Doctor Who and the Sun newspaper.
Any teeny tiny
minority of persons who might even conceivably believe this really must
be
too stupid to live.
Don't you think it's just a tiny bit fascist to say that someone is "too stupid to live"?
That better? I am talking issue with your statement that there could be confusion as to the actors being involved in fan adult art.
And what I'm saying is, there doesn't have to be confusion as to the actors being involved in fan art for a fan, a spouse or, worst of all, a journalist, to assume that the actors give their tacit approval to this sort of thing.
That's your feelings. You don't speak for everyone, in fandom or on the lyst. Anyway, it's because of the actors that you have the show in the
first
place-- doesn't that entitle them to a bit of courtesy?
Seems to me I said "my" and I meant my. I realized when I wrote it that others might feel differently. I don't see why other's preferences for
cons
should affect my or anyone else's enjoyment of zines,
But why should your enjoyment of zines have to ruin somebody else's enjoyment of cons? If because a small minority of fans like to look at dirty pictures, the actors decide not to have anything to do with _any_ fans, the majority aren't going to be happy.
As far as I can tell,
removing offending sales merchandise is courteous. Displaying adult merchandise discreetly is courteous. Not asking actors to sign any merchandise they don't wish to is courteous.
Not everybody does even so little, as I'm sure you know. We've all heard stories, I'm sure, about people who actually send slash art to actors to sign.
Treating the actual actor
present civilly and as a human being and not a sex object is courteous.
And when they're not present?
Oh, now really. Are actors not also human beings? Don't they have a
right
to
privacy?
Of course they are entitled to privacy. Anything which happens legally in the privacy of their own homes and grounds is sancrosant . No extended
super
lens cameras to catch them sunbathing in their own backyards, no spying on them when they are a scratching themselves on Sundays. While I
personally
would leave them alone were they to be shopping, eating in a restaurant or whatever, a prominent person cannot be surprised if others do. It happens to local prominent persons, for heaven's sake, not just actors. If you are prominent you are exposed to others even when you are on "private time".
And this is a good thing? Remember that this doesn't just affect the actors, but their friends and family with whom they spend their private time. But this is beside the point. We are not dealing with Hollywood stars, but with a group of jobbing actors who had some moderate success twenty years ago with a show that happened to turn cult. Since then they have been doing pantos, theatres, the odd bit of TV. Some are in their sixties now, and probably considering retirement. Most have second jobs which they work at when they aren't acting. Their kids go to state schools, they have mortgages and bills. To lump B7 actors in with the likes of Patrick Stewart is very, very naive, and you cannot treat them all in the same way.
Apparently you live in a different world. As far as I can see the world thrives on selfishness, selfcenterdness and an awful lot of treating
people
as objects.
And we should go on allowing this? Just because everybody else is selfish it doesn't mean _you_ should be selfish too.
as much as anyone else but from what I have seen they are very clearly
aware
that their objectification is for a character idea and they are not portraying the actor as an object.
Not so sure about that. Leaving aside the cases of slash art going out using actors' real names and not the characters', the separation between an actors' image and that of a character is a very slim one indeed. Actors tend to look like the characters they portray for some reason. This is why actors are recognised in the street. This is why you hear cases of actors who play villains in soaps getting attacked in pubs, or actors who play heartthrobs getting mobbed. If there was no visible connection between the character and the actor, this wouldn't happen. As it is, though, it's pretty easy to draw a visual link between the actor and the character, and to confuse the two.
Considering that the only ones who need the courtesy of not being exposed
to
this are the actors or those who do not wish to see adult art,
Not true. Actors' families, their friends, their co-workers, journalists, agents... also, in the Internet age, anti-slash fans who innocently type "[Actor X] pictures" into a search engine and click on the first site they see...
It may very well do but I find it really hard to believe that anyone
could
have worked as an actor for decades and not developed a fairly thick skin
in
this regard.
Oh yes? Didn't Iain have a few things to say a while ago as to acting and how an actor might feel if he came across a picture of himself performing [censored] with a colleague? It's one thing to go out and play a role which involves behaviour which you wouldn't ordinarily do. It's another to find out that someone has gone and mocked up a picture of this without your knowledge and consent.
Shane
"What shall I do with the other hand?" --Avon
Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015
-
Shane Little