Shame on Me

When I was in a 19th Century British Novel class, I was told "Shame on you" for not being a feminist. I had never studied any feminist theory. I never had an interest. I felt that the instructor's shaming me was unfair. Just because I am a woman, does that mean I HAVE to study feminist theory? Since taking that class, I have studied a little bit more. Recently I read some Adrienne Rich, and still am not particularly interested in gender studies. Do I think there is a bias toward men? Of course. The bias is still toward the white, educated, hetero-normative, Christian male, for just about everything.

I have used queer theory for several papers, and am not a homosexual. I have used monster theory, and I don't think I am a monster. I am currently studying auteur theory as a marketing tool, and am certainly not an auteur (or even a filmmaker).

Bias in literature will always exist. And, there will always be new theories to tell me how to read or view something. But, in the end, I don't really care (is there a theory for that???).

Fan Performance, Is It Authoring?

In looking at Coppa's piece, I see a real disruption in the idea of fan fiction being authored.  I realize the distinction between writing and performing; however, if a fan performs, say within a message board, and that performance becomes a textual story, than how can that not be authored.  And, each performer/contributer should be counted as authoring the text.

An old friend of mine was a huge "L Word" fan.  She joined the website, well actually she joined two fan sites, one sanctioned by Showtime, the other not.  She participated in the message board.  She mostly posted and followed a string (room) called Betteville (named after the character played by Jennifer Beal).  She had a character name, she went to the gym, the coffee shop, the bar and met with many other citizens of Betteville in creating a story, a text, placed within the world of "L World" but with unique characters.  I found all of this fascinating and enjoyed reading the posts to see what they could create next.  My friend and her online friends created stories, narratives, with unique characters in a setting separate from "L Word" settings.  This was a created world, existing because of a copyrighted television show.  Is their collective story not authored?  I think it is.

Of course taste distinctions seem to take precedence in much of these discussions.  If several art students made a collage for display at the ODU Gallery, I am sure that would be called art.  Say it was of Shakespearean characters, even better.  I don't see the distinction.  I think both groups are equally authored.  One may appeal to people, while the other does not, but both are authored.  I think we all have our taste distinctions, I love opera and loathe ballet.  Both are thought of as high art (which is an antiquated bullshit term) by those who make those distinctions, but while opera moves me and is beautiful, ballet is full of snobby, uberskinny attention whores that seem to have no expressions.  That is a taste distinction within me.  However, I believe that both opera and ballet are authored by the musicians, producers, choreographers and even the participants.  No distinction.  Except that you would have to pay me to go to any ballet (except maybe nude and lewd) but I would gladly pay to see even the crappiest of operas.

90210 Slash

I'm not sure which is sadder, that I was (still am?) a HUGE fan of Beverly Hills 90210, or that there are enough like me to have many fan websites.  Also, sorry, but I suck at writing fiction.  This is about the best I can hope for.

Disclaimer:  I do not own Beverly Hills 90210 or any of its characters.

 

I have to write some slash fiction for an authorship class I am in, so this is the story of a camping trip.  Just Dylan and Brandon are in the mountains camping in a tent.

 

“I can’t believe what a beautiful night it is.  It is so peaceful, just the two of us,” Brandon said.

 

“I think it was a good idea not to bring the girls on this trip.  They have to pack so much.  It is easier with just us,” said Dylan.  “Hey, there’s something I’ve been wanting to talk to you about.”

 

“What’s that?”

 

“Well, we both dated Kelly and are both single now.”

 

“Yeah?”

 

“I guess I just wonder why we are attracted to the same women.”

 

“Well, I was never attracted to my sister!!”

 

“No, not her, but Kelly and Valerie and some others over the years.”

 

“Maybe, Dylan, we just have the same taste in women.”

 

“Brandon, I was thinking, maybe we have the same wants and desires in other aspects of our lives as well.”

 

“I wouldn’t mind your access to cash,” Brandon laughed.

 

“Nah, man.  Not that.  It’s just, well, you know guys aren’t supposed to share feelings, but I love you.”

 

“I love you back, man.  You are like the brother I wanted, but never had.”

 

“Brandon, its more than that brotherly love.  I mean, I’m not gay, or really sexually attracted to you, but there is something…a kind of draw to you.  I don’t really get it, except I think that’s why I was with Brenda.  Since she’s your twin it was like being with a part of you, too.”

 

“Ah, this is getting a little uncomfortable.  Are you sure you don’t want to have sex with me, because maybe we should head home.”

 

“It’s not sex, Bran, its this other level of something…I just don’t get it.”

 

“As long as you don’t get it in my pants, bro.”

**I signed up for the fanfic sight, but there is a waiting period before I can post.  I read some of the other slash fiction, all of it was pretty lame like mine.  I don't fee so strange about this (as I did last week with Wikipedia) because anyone who thinks I am an expert on this needs some counseling.  This is kind of fun.  I doubt the actors who played the characters or the writers/creators of the show would like this, but hey, that is what this class is all about.  Pushing those boundaries of the definitions of authorship.  I suppose I am now an author for 90210 stories.  Hmmm.  Sad!

Expert or Fraud-The Wikipedia Writer

I felt quite uncomfortable posting on Wikipedia.  I don’t think of myself as an expert, or even an amateur, on authorship.  I’m not sure I would feel comfortable posting anything on Wikipedia.  I lack the creative power to contribute to a working definition of author.  When looking over the history and realizing the last few posts were by classmates, I realized that I am guilty of wanting experts in the field to give me the information.  I think my classmates’ posts were good, better than mine, however, I feel a sense of distrust for Wikipedia in general.  It is difficult to let go of that past sense of academia, where experts are the only experts.  I will come around to this change as well. 

 

I do feel comfortable with fan sites and fan fiction.  An idea of collaboration in fiction is intriguing.  The collective intelligence of imagined worlds and characters adds to the fun and community feeling of being a fan.  Adding to any kind of enyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, feels fraudulent.  I realize the ideas from old style research and knowledge will continue to change and be influenced by non-scholarly experts and I accept those changes.  I don’t feel comfortable participating. 

Superman

Interesting piece regarding corporate authorship and copyright.

Superman Article

James Bond meets The Lone Ranger

This week's readings are of particular interest to me as I am working on a thesis dealing with the re-formulation of the James Bond films, starting with "Casino Royale."  I even have the Bennett and Woollacott book at home from the library.  In thinking about trans-media storytelling, it is easy to look to the history of James Bond as an example.  The novels tell stories of the cold war, the post-cold war Bond films use the stories, but using contemporary global issues of terror.  The adaption by the Bond films to contemporary global politics shows effective use of collaborative authorship, the new directors and writers use the original character or characters and inject contemporary issues for a new Bond story.  

The question of whether this is different from past trans-mediated stories, no.  In researching The Lone Ranger and the mediation of stories between radio, television and comics, it is true that the stories overlap between the medias.  The creator of The Lone Ranger used considerable control in making sure that the Lone Ranger character kept true to the original conception.  The values of the Lone Ranger, the voice of the Lone Ranger and the stories that surround him were kept in line with each other.  In the case of the Lone Ranger, continuity was extremely important and unchanging.  The stories were still mediated, but not changing.

The difference between the Lone Ranger and James Bond is that of adaptation to contemporary times and issues.  The Lone Ranger did not change from the late 1930's to the mid-1950's.  George Trendle would not allow any deviation from his vision.  James Bond has changed many times, in character, in villains and in global issues of terrorism.  Bond had to stay contemporary to stick around.  Bond is currently in his 5th decade on film.  That could not have happened if Bond had followed Trendle's model.  

The questions of authorship exist in both cases.  While Trendle was the creator and in charge, he had a lot of help.  The television show "The Lone Ranger" had multiple writers with assistance from the radio writer and Trendle himself.  The collaborative nature of authorship existed, though most gave credit to Trendle alone.  The Bond series has had many, many film writers and directors to give unique story and vision to each film.  There is no question of collaborative authorship with Bond.  While change is inevitable, when dealing with television or film, some form of collaborative authorship will occur.

Author-less

The question of what should be considered without an author is complicated. In class we have discussed the possibility that everything or nothing could be considered authored. We have all agreed that there is much gray area in that continuum. So back to the question, what should be authored. We read in Mcleod's article that hip-hop samples other musicians music constantly. They sometimes settle out of court, but there is no precedent to judge future DJ's works. But, if the hip-hop song was later used and/or taken out of context, the DJ could sue for infringement. While I am not answering the question, I find more and more tensions in the attempt to answer the questions. Even more difficulties arise when discussing verbal communications. Sermons are rarely written down in an accessible way. The recent controversy with one of Obama's supporters whose sermon happened to be videotaped. Do the news channels who keep showing the clip over and over again give authorsip to the minister, the videographer or CNN?