ActorFic: adore it, deplore it, or "what's that?"
Bast Black
You know it. The Net's ripe with it. Fans of TV shows are writing
their own taboo breaking episodes. So what does it mean when
fiction leaches out and borrows from reality placing real people
in fictional situations? Is it satire? Is it fantasy? Is it ethical?
Is it clever? Or is it just plain despicable?
Discuss among yourselves. ;)
<crickets chirping>
Okay then.... me first. <g>
My instinct is to say, "despicable," but David himself has made this
a difficult line to distinguish because Hollywood A.D. deliberately
blurs the lines.
Published authors can and *do* write about living people placed
fictional situations. So again, what is the line?
imho, if you would be embarrassed by the real person reading what
you wrote, you shouldn't do it. And inversely, if the real person
would be embarrassed by what you wrote, you shouldn't do it.
But what do I know, I'm Southern. *shrug* Airing folks' dirty
laundry ain't looked upon too kindly here. ;)
Back to ActorFic....
Novelists who do borrow from reality change the names
"to protect the innocent." So if an actorfic writer changed the
name of person they are "borrowing" does that make it okay, or
is it still wrong to do without said person's permission?
And....
If a person is a public figure is okay to publish jokes, fictions, lies,
stalkerazzi pictures, and exposes on their private life?
Is it a first amendment right to publish whatever you want, or is
there an unwritten law that says if you skimp on ethics, you'll be
top bunking with Kenneth Star in hell. ;p
Discuss among yourselves.
<crickets chirping> ;p
bB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duchovny In Orange: boy meets hue, sparks ensue
http://www.geocities.com/BastBlack/orange.html
Janet Caires Lesgold
Bast Black <bast...@aol.comSIRIUSLY> wrote:
>Fanfic...
>
>You know it. The Net's ripe with it. Fans of TV shows are writing
>their own taboo breaking episodes. So what does it mean when
>fiction leaches out and borrows from reality placing real people
>in fictional situations? Is it satire? Is it fantasy? Is it ethical?
>Is it clever? Or is it just plain despicable?
>
>Discuss among yourselves. ;)
I am the author of a story based upon the film "Being John Malkovich",
wherein Mulder comes back to the basement office telling Scully a
fantastical tale of meeting a man who was able to ship him directly into the
brain of (*gasp*) David Duchovny. Scully of course thinks that he's full of
beans...
The portrayal of the real people in my story is brief and (I hope) respectful,
and is meant as an affectionate parody of a wonderful satire of a film. If
you're interested in taking a look, it's on my webpage (see address below).
HOWEVER... Other than that, I cannot imagine actorfic being in the least
useful or a good idea, for that matter. In fact, it's a little scary.
Next!
--
Janet F. Caires-Lesgold jfc...@merle.it.northwestern.edu
Speaker-to-Toys http://www.enteract.com/~jfc/
"I brought marshmallows. Occasionally, I'm callous and strange."
-- Willow Rosenberg, Buffy the Vampire Slayer: "The Zeppo"
kittykittykitty13
fanfic (ER) and am currently working on the 9th chapter. I'd
like to take a crack at XF next.
I base my fic on the chartacters only and avoid the actor(s).
It is fun to "play" with the characters but I would never use
the life of a real person (like the actor-s). That is
disrespectful.
Kitty
(also a Southerner)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
LuluBean12
bast...@aol.comSIRIUSLY (Bast Black) writes:
>
>Fanfic...
>
>You know it. The Net's ripe with it. Fans of TV shows are writing
>their own taboo breaking episodes. So what does it mean when
>fiction leaches out and borrows from reality placing real people
>in fictional situations? Is it satire? Is it fantasy? Is it ethical?
>Is it clever? Or is it just plain despicable?
>
>Discuss among yourselves. ;)
>
Fanfic is not synonymous with actorfic. Just a major point.
Actorfic is fanfic's creepy little halfwit cousin.
I say keep all fantasies about the actors private. Don't make up things and
publish things that some will think MUST be true when quoted elsewhere on the
WWW.
Use your head.
Lulu/Jo-Ann (BTW who still considered you a provacateur since we'll soon be
inundated with actorfic crossposters and the sort of delusional people who are
DDGA shipers Bleeech!!)
Bast Black
>>Bast Blackwrites:
>>Fanfic...
>>
>>You know it. The Net's ripe with it. Fans of TV shows are writing
>>their own taboo breaking episodes. So what does it mean when
>>fiction leaches out and borrows from reality placing real people
>>in fictional situations? Is it satire? Is it fantasy? Is it ethical?
>>Is it clever? Or is it just plain despicable?
>>
>>Discuss among yourselves. ;)
>
>
>
>Fanfic is not synonymous with actorfic. Just a major point.
I'm aware of the difference, but if it weren't for the trailblazing
of fanfic, would actorfic have happened? One grew out of the
other and they same share many common elements. Sometimes,
the only visible difference may be only a name. (But I wouldn't
know because I've never read actorfic. *shrug*)
>Actorfic is fanfic's creepy little halfwit cousin.
LOL! ITA.
>I say keep all fantasies about the actors private.
See, here's the interesting part of this debate. Fanfic allows
"fantasies," but people overwhelmingly frown at actorfic.
See what I mean? Where is that line in people minds?
>Don't make up things and publish things that some will think
>MUST be true when quoted elsewhere on the WWW.
You must have something in mind on this one? I'm guessing it's
about "DD and GA sitting in tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g?" ;p
I dunno, it's far fetched for people NOT to know a fic is a fic,
but there those who are confused, are they not?
>Lulu/Jo-Ann (BTW who still considered you a provacateur since we'll
>soon be inundated with actorfic crossposters and the sort of delusional
>people who are DDGA shipers Bleeech!!)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's takes some gonads to speak up
about the actorfic dilemma, and I don't think AFDD has DDGA shippers
visiting it. Anyway, we shall soon see...
And about being a "provacateur." In this case, if you mean trying
to starve off boring and start an interesting conversation involving
a controversial subject that we haven't discussed a thousand times
already on this newsgroup, than I am guilty as charged. <g> You're
right, this time I am making an effort to get people talking, or at
least silently thinking to themselves. :)
giz...@ix.netcom.com
wellll....before I knew what "actor fic" was, I had commented to an
e-pal,
re:NC17 stuff "I wonder how these people feel, knowing we are reading this
stuff and picturing them humping and sweating and coming?"
Of course, the coment is always "but it's not THEM,it's characters" But
it's their faces we see--their voices we hear--THEM that drives the fantasy.
Ethically, I want to say "I don't like it", but it's kinda like the old
argument amongst dog people who "breed for the betterment of the breed,and
not for money"--but still charge $600 for a puppy. I don't LIKE the actor
fic, but it's DD and GA's faces I'm seeing when I read fanfic. It's pretty
damn close.
--
XXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXX
*******************************************
"It's better to be a pretend somebody
than a real nobody."
The Talented Mr Ripley
*******************************************
shanswo...@xemplary.com
real people. These are REAL people you're hurting. Fanfic is
about fictional characters. There is no blurring of lines in
any sane person's mind.
On 14 Jul 2000 22:55:09 GMT, bast...@aol.comSIRIUSLY (Bast
Black) wrote:
-------------------------------------
Laurie Haynes
Co-archivist Xemplary
http://www.xemplary.com
Xemplary Webhosting
Unlimited space at $14/month
www.xemplary.net/webhosting.html
See my ebay page
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/shannara1/
-----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the xfc fiction list, go to
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/xfc-atxc
To subscribe to the xfc feedback list, go to
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/xfc-fdbk
Medusa
adding my 2 cents worth.
Bast Black <bast...@aol.comSIRIUSLY> wrote in message
news:20000714022900...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> Fanfic...
>
> You know it. The Net's ripe with it. Fans of TV shows are writing
> their own taboo breaking episodes. So what does it mean when
> fiction leaches out and borrows from reality placing real people
> in fictional situations? Is it satire? Is it fantasy? Is it ethical?
> Is it clever? Or is it just plain despicable?
>
> Discuss among yourselves. ;)
>
> <crickets chirping>
>
> Okay then.... me first. <g>
> My instinct is to say, "despicable," but David himself has made this
> a difficult line to distinguish because Hollywood A.D. deliberately
> blurs the lines.
I agree with you here. Most actorfic *is* despicable, but I guess a lot
depends on the content and the intent of the piece. Parody and humour is one
thing, but some of the stuff that is out there is damn scary.
>
> Published authors can and *do* write about living people placed
> fictional situations. So again, what is the line?
>
> imho, if you would be embarrassed by the real person reading what
> you wrote, you shouldn't do it. And inversely, if the real person
> would be embarrassed by what you wrote, you shouldn't do it.
>
> But what do I know, I'm Southern. *shrug* Airing folks' dirty
> laundry ain't looked upon too kindly here. ;)
Can't get much more "Southern" than DownUnder <g> so I guess in that respect
we're honorary kinfolk. FWIW, again I agree. If reading it could make the
subject(s) of the story uncomfortable or concerned for their safety in any
way, you shouldn't do it.
> Back to ActorFic....
> Novelists who do borrow from reality change the names
> "to protect the innocent." So if an actorfic writer changed the
> name of person they are "borrowing" does that make it okay, or
> is it still wrong to do without said person's permission?
>
> And....
> If a person is a public figure is okay to publish jokes, fictions, lies,
> stalkerazzi pictures, and exposes on their private life?
> Is it a first amendment right to publish whatever you want, or is
> there an unwritten law that says if you skimp on ethics, you'll be
> top bunking with Kenneth Star in hell. ;p
>
>
> Discuss among yourselves.
Some of the stories are no better than the Stalkerazzi, in fact they are
worse since the written word can be manipulated far more than a picture can.
I know little about the US Constitution, but surely if there is a right to
publish there is conversely a right to privacy?
Medusa
LuluBean12
(LuluBean12) writes:
>
>Lulu/Jo-Ann (BTW who still considered you a provacateur since we'll soon be
>inundated with actorfic crossposters and the sort of delusional people who
>are
>DDGA shipers Bleeech!!)
>
and who BTW wants to apologize for being a tad too testy here to BBast in my
commentary (although almost not nasty enough about the DDGA shippers). Sorry.
Lulu/Jo-Ann
Bast Black
>and who BTW wants to apologize for being a tad too testy here to
>BBast in my commentary (although almost not nasty enough about
>the DDGA shippers). Sorry.
Wow. That's mighty big of you, Babe. =)
Don't worry about it. The subject of actorfic can be a "testy" issue.
Luckly, we're a class act at afdd.
bB,
who remembers the ugly never-ending actorfic thread on atxc
and it's header I will NOT mention here.
GBolt60636
but people overwhelmingly frown at actorfic. See what I mean? Where is that
line in people minds? >>
In my mind, it's the line between using fictional characters like Mulder and
Scully, and using real human beings like David and Gillian.
Actorfic dehumanizes the actors, turning them into paperdolls subject to the
whims of another's imagination. It's essentially rumor mongering hiding behind
the sham of fiction writing.
GB
SIRPAUL10
> wellll....before I knew what "actor fic" was, I had commented to an
>e-pal,
>re:NC17 stuff "I wonder how these people feel, knowing we are reading this
>stuff and picturing them humping and sweating and coming?"
>
And I have often wondered if the actors involved ever downloaded any of the
hotter fanfic based on their characters, and acted it out with their real
partners.
I know, I know, they probably haven't. They probably don't read it or search
it out...but if people were writing that stuff about my fictional character it
might be kind of fun to play with it on a slow Sunday night.
LuluBean12
bast...@aol.comSIRIUSLY (Bast Black) writes:
>
>>Lulu/Jo-Ann (BTW who still considered you a provacateur since we'll
>>soon be inundated with actorfic crossposters and the sort of delusional
>>people who are DDGA shipers Bleeech!!)
>
>I wouldn't be so sure about that. It's takes some gonads to speak up
>about the actorfic dilemma, and I don't think AFDD has DDGA shippers
>visiting it. Anyway, we shall soon see...
>
>And about being a "provacateur." In this case, if you mean trying
>to starve off boring and start an interesting conversation involving
>a controversial subject that we haven't discussed a thousand times
>already on this newsgroup, than I am guilty as charged. <g> You're
>right, this time I am making an effort to get people talking, or at
>least silently thinking to themselves. :)
>
>
>
>bB
>-------
Hmmm Too bad I didn't read this before I sent out my apology ;-D. <jk>
Lulu/Jo-Ann
Bast Black
>Hmmm Too bad I didn't read this before I sent out my apology ;-D. <jk>
LOL!
Well, I'm glad you did. We met halfway. ;)
Bast Black
The question is actorfic and fanfic; Where is the line?
The complication is the different forms of fanfic, actorfic,
and DD's own line blurring offering in Hollywood AD.
Here's some thoughts on the issue:
Medusa wrote
>I was going to leave this alone, but it's a serious topic and I
>feel like adding my 2 cents worth.
Let no one call you wuss in my presence. You go, with your
bad Aussie self! ;)
bB wrote:
>> My instinct is to say, "despicable," but David himself has
>>made this a difficult line to distinguish because Hollywood
>>A.D. deliberately blurs the lines.
Medusa wrote
>I agree with you here. Most actorfic *is* despicable, but I
>guess a lot depends on the content and the intent of the piece.
>Parody and humour is one thing, but some of the stuff that is
>out there is damn scary.
ITA. It does depend on the content, and there IS some damn
scary stuff out there. =o
bB wrote:
>>Published authors can and *do* write about living people placed
>>fictional situations. So again, what is the line?
>>
>>imho, if you would be embarrassed by the real person reading what
>>you wrote, you shouldn't do it. And inversely, if the real person
>>would be embarrassed by what you wrote, you shouldn't do it.
>>
>>But what do I know, I'm Southern. *shrug* Airing folks' dirty
>>laundry ain't looked upon too kindly here. ;)
Medusa wrote
>Can't get much more "Southern" than DownUnder <g>
>so I guess in that respect we're honorary kinfolk.
Heeh heeh.
You got that right. You're so Southern, you're upside down. ;)
Medusa wrote
>FWIW, again I agree. If reading it could make the subject(s) of
>the story uncomfortable or concerned for their safety in any way,
>you shouldn't do it.
In addition, if you think about writing things that would make
"The Object of Your Affection" concerned for their safety in any
way, you should seek professional help. ;)
>>Back to ActorFic....
>>Novelists who do borrow from reality change the names
>>"to protect the innocent." So if an actorfic writer changed the
>>name of person they are "borrowing" does that make it okay, or
>>is it still wrong to do without said person's permission?
>>
>>And....
>>If a person is a public figure is okay to publish jokes, fictions, lies,
>>stalkerazzi pictures, and exposes on their private life?
>>Is it a first amendment right to publish whatever you want, or is
>>there an unwritten law that says if you skimp on ethics, you'll be
>>top bunking with Kenneth Star in hell. ;p
Medusa wrote:
>Some of the stories are no better than the Stalkerazzi,
ITA!!!!
>...in fact they are worse since the written word can be manipulated
>far more than a picture can.
This brings up another whole other can o' worms I think a *great*
deal about; Where is boundary of image manipulation?
Unless the person who owns the "image" doesn't a problem with it,
if it's not hurtful or disrespectful to anyone, and if people know
it's an illusion, then it's okay by me.
For example, when CBS digitally altered the background of Times
Square to show the CBS Eye in the giant billboard in behind Dan
Rather, people rose a stink when they found out it was fake.
At first, I thought "what's the big deal? It's a piece of cake
animation over a live background and as long as no one bumps into
the dolly, it looks pretty damn convincing. Why should CBS let
some company on a billboard advertise for free on their air? I'm
surprised TV News hasn't done this sooner."
But after a while, the reality of it sunk in. I mean, sure it's just
a stupid Times Square's billboard, but in the future, who's to say
this kind of trickery couldn't be used for political means, -to con
the nation into believing something that doesn't exist? Scary!
Medusa wrote:
>I know little about the US Constitution, but surely if there is a
>right to publish there is conversely a right to privacy?
Good question. Actors petitioned Congress for a right to privacy
bill, Michael J. Fox among them, but since then I haven't heard
about it. Any Legal Eagles out there to add to this?
----------------
Janet wrote:
>I am the author of a story based upon the film "Being
>John Malkovich", wherein Mulder comes back to the
>basement office telling Scully a fantastical tale of
>meeting a man who was able to ship him directly into
>the brain of (*gasp*) David Duchovny. Scully of course
>thinks that he's full of beans...
I've often wondered if DD was inspired to blend reality
and fiction in Hollywood AD by "Being John Malkovich."
I know he loved that movie, and I know his intention
with HAD was to blur the line to make a comment about
fandom. Did we get the message?
Janet wrote:
>The portrayal of the real people in my story is brief and
>(I hope) respectful, and is meant as an affectionate parody
>of a wonderful satire of a film.
Hmm, it's not setting off any ethical alarms in my head, but I
haven't seen "Being John Malkovich," so I'll take your word
on your story being respectful. ;)
Hey, DD likes to satire himself, or should I say his *image*.
I would think he would get a chuckle out of what you
propose.
Janet wrote:
>HOWEVER... Other than that, I cannot imagine actorfic
>being in the least useful or a good idea, for that matter.
>In fact, it's a little scary. Next!
ITA. Parody and satire are just fine with me. I know a few
among us wouldn't laugh at DD parodies, but I do. The recent
"Duchovny Missing" a good example of satire ActorFic I posted
here to afdd. There was another one I chuckled about where
DD is replaced by computer graphics, and another where DD is
inserted into the infamous "Elian Gonzolaz captured" photo
as if Fox stormed his home to force him to do another season. ;p
Hey, late night talk shows to mini "actorfic satires" every night.
Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it goes way too far beyond
the limit of good taste. A good example is what caused the
all the up roar in Vancouver. Heck, I'm not Canadian and
I found the Conan skit cruel and disrespectful. *shrug*
----------------
Kitty, also a Southerner, wrote:
>I'm on the deplore side. I have only written one piece of
>fanfic (ER) and am currently working on the 9th chapter. I'd
>like to take a crack at XF next.
Hey, Kitty....
from one southern cat to another, *meow* ;)
>I base my fic on the chartacters only and avoid the actor(s).
>It is fun to "play" with the characters but I would never use
>the life of a real person (like the actor-s). That is
>disrespectful.
ITA. Fanfic at best is an extension of the story, at worse
it's disrespectful to the show, it's creators, the characters,
and the actors.
I read an article at the Salon I think, where they called Fanfic
the modern Folk Tale. Interesting.
Personally, I'm all for people creating their own entertainment,
be it a hobby, music, or writing. We don't have to *buy*
entertainment, we can *produce* it. Growing up in Florida,
this was a major Epiphany for me. ;p
Where I'm from, we all go to the movies, dinner, the video
store, the mall, or amusement parks to socialize with our buds.
Talk about capitalistic brainwashing... ;p
----------------
XXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
>wellll....before I knew what "actor fic" was, I had commented to an
>e-pal, re:NC17 stuff "I wonder how these people feel, knowing we
>are reading this stuff and picturing them humping and sweating and
>coming?"
>
>Of course, the coment is always "but it's not THEM, it's characters"
>But it's their faces we see--their voices we hear--THEM that drives
>the fantasy.
>
>Ethically, I want to say "I don't like it", but it's kinda like the old
>argument amongst dog people who "breed for the betterment of the
>breed,and not for money"--but still charge $600 for a puppy. I don't
>LIKE the actor fic, but it's DD and GA's faces I'm seeing when I read
>fanfic. It's pretty damn close.
Oh Giz, we must share a brain. You are so very very right.
Thank you for saying so well what I'm thinking. =)
Sometimes, I think smut writers saying "but it's not THEM, it's
the characters" is just a lame excuse to trick themselves into
having a clear conscious.
Here's a little hypothetical example:
DD is in Howard Stern's studio. HS wants to mess with DD and
brings out a fanfic writer for him to confront. Stern somehow
talks DD into looking at her tale. The story is sickingly perverse
and contains amoral sadistic tortures of Mulder.
Question: Would DD be humiliated even if it's not him *him*,
but a character he portrays on TV?
You betcha, and he would inch as far away from her as possible
without betraying his cool exterior. ;)
This is an extreme example, but I hope I made my point about,
"but it's not THEM, it's the characters"
Now let's discuss CC and 1013's commentary on fanfic, -Milagro.
Carter has said, joking or not, that he likes fanfic, especially
the really dirty ones. (Mulder is after all, CC's toy.) However,
if Mulder had CC's face, would he still feel the same way?
Milagro. I know the writers were very nervous about Milagro
because it exposes them. They were worried about Gillian's
reaction to sexual subtext of writer writing smut about his
object of desire. They also portrayed the writer as a stalker.
Is Philip Padgett a caricature of the smutfic writer, and is
Milagro about 1013's fear of the people who write fanfic?
Yes, I do think so, And I also think Scully's being intrigued
with Padgett is implausible. Most women would be reaching for
the mace and running way, not sitting quietly on his bed alone
with him. EEEK! =o
----------------
Cherie wrote about a link to a DDGA actorfic site:
>What utter bullshit.It amazes me that people actually are that
>idiotic to think that just because DD and GA have a great working
>chemistry, that it translates into an offscreen love affair. I am
>actually embarrassed that I took time to visit POGAD.
What were you thinking? ;)
Go visit some of these fine DD sites instead:
http://duchovny.net/links/index.shtm
----------------
bB wrote:
<< See, here's the interesting part of this debate. Fanfic allows
"fantasies," but people overwhelmingly frown at actorfic.
See what I mean? Where is that line in people minds? >>
GBolt wrote:
>In my mind, it's the line between using fictional characters
>like Mulder and Scully, and using real human beings like David
>and Gillian.
I agree.
But it's not that black and white to me. Satire doesn't bother
me, and on the other hand some Fanfic offends me greatly, and
I think it would offend the actors too. See above.
>Actorfic dehumanizes the actors, turning them into paperdolls
>subject to the whims of another's imagination.
Sort of like Hollywood producers, right? ;p
>It's essentially rumor mongering hiding behind the sham of
>fiction writing.
Are referring to a certain type of actorfic, like DDGA Shipper
nonsense? I just want to be clear.
One more point to ponder:
Would you define Hollywood AD as actorfic because it uses real
people in fictional situations? Does it dehumanize Tea Leoni or
Gary Shandling? Tea did seem cold-hearted to Mulder's
starstruck goofiness. Is this a disrespectable protrayal of her,
or is it joke? Is HAD *satire*? Is the difference between
HAD and fan-satire-actorfic that Tea and Gary consented to it
whereas in fan-satire-actorfic they are not?
Just want to clear. If we are discussing DDGA Shipper fic, let's
call it that. If we are talking NC-17 sadistic actorfic smut, let's
call it that. And if we are talking parody actorfic, let's
call it that and not use blanket terms when we are talking
specifics. --Less confusion that way. ;)
----------------
Laurie Haynes wrote:
>Actorfic is sick, sick, sick. You're making up stories about
>real people. These are REAL people you're hurting. Fanfic is
>about fictional characters. There is no blurring of lines in
>any sane person's mind.
You used a lot of "you" and "You're" in your reply to me.
I know you were responding to my second person "you" in the
original message, but I just wanted to point out for others
that I don't write actorfic, nor I do not support actorfic.
In fact, I don't support some fractions of fanfic either if
people haven't figured that out yet. ;)
I am not saying that all fic should be puritanical, but I would
hope everyone would adopt the "DD test" to their stories before
they release them. If a writer handled a sensitive issues with
care, it would pass the "DD test" with flying colors. But if not,
it would not.
Simple barometer of ethics, -my hypothetical DD. ;)
I hope you all have read my long post (bless you) and are at
least thinking about my points and the points other have
made here on this topic.
GBolt60636
>Actorfic dehumanizes the actors, turning them into paperdolls subject to the
whims of another's imagination. >>
To which bB answered:
<< Sort of like Hollywood producers, right? ;p >>
No. Mulder and Scully: fictional characters, i.e., not real people. David and
Gillian: real people. Whatever a Hollywood producer or director or writer does,
on screen it is the fictional character who's thoughts, motivations, feelings,
are being dealt with. Not the actor, not the real person behind the famous name
and face.
Satire and parody of real people has been with us since the very idea of public
life began, whenever that was. The Mother Goose rhymes many of us heard as
children began as anonymous English broadsides aimed at real people in the
public and political realm of the day, most often the Royals. "Mary, Mary,
quite contrary. How does your garden grow?" is certainly not about a
recalcitrant gardener.
We have such commentary now, still as satire and parody, in political cartoons,
television comedy skits, movie parodies, the routines of standup comics, etc.
Who hasn't seen a parody of Rambo movies? But is a parody of Sly Stallone, the
man, the same as a parody of a fictional character like Rambo? At what point
does it move from a funny riff on a cultural icon to a pointless attack on a
person?
I wrote:
>It's essentially rumor mongering hiding behind the sham of fiction writing.<
To which bB replied:
<< Are referring to a certain type of actorfic, like DDGA Shipper nonsense? I
just want to be clear.
One more point to ponder:
Would you define Hollywood AD as actorfic because it uses real people in
fictional situations? Does it dehumanize Tea Leoni or Gary Shandling? Tea did
seem cold-hearted to Mulder's starstruck goofiness. Is this a disrespectable
protrayal of her, or is it joke? Is HAD *satire*? Is the difference between
HAD and fan-satire-actorfic that Tea and Gary consented to it whereas in
fan-satire-actorfic they are not? >>
Yes, the DD/GA romances were what I was referring to. And may I point out that
you were referring to actorfic in your original question. This was the topic I
was addressing my comments to.
The only thing that HAD has to do with fanfic or actor fic is as a parody of
the whole fan phenomenon worked into a much larger satire on the "real" world
of Hollywood as a whole, and the "truth" as filtered through this fantasy
machine. A process I might add that, in the case of HAD, is controlled by the
actors themselves, with their CONSENT. If an actor or other public figure
consents to some parody only then can we assume they do not find it offensive.
We can assume that BEING JOHN MALKOVICH was done with the consent of JM because
he was in the film himself, making the statement of the film into an
examination of the whole idea of individual perception. Not the stuff of most
actorfic, I imagine. Context does matter, but particulary so in satire.
bB wrote:
<< I am not saying that all fic should be puritanical, but I would hope
everyone would adopt the "DD test" to their stories before they release them.
If a writer handled a sensitive issues with care, it would pass the "DD test"
with flying colors. But if not,
it would not. >>
That implies one can actually know what an actor, or any other public figure,
feels about themselves and the use of same in fictional formats.
A better question for an aspiring actorfic writer to ask would be "would I like
something like this written about myself?" And even that won't eliminate those
who simply seek to do harm out of whatever confused mix of emotions dance about
in their brains. My ethical barometer says, don't screw around with real
people.
But more importantly, it seems to me that the social purpose of true satire is
to examine ourselves as a culture, to point out social weaknesses or hypocrisy
of an interest to us all, not to attack individuals a writer might personally
find laughable. Satirizing the peculiarities of Hollywood, or corporate
America, or politics is a far cry from writing pointless fantasies about
popular actors. I don't think the latter really qualifies as satire unless it
is placed in a greater fictional context, as done in HAD or BJM.
GB (harrumphing and climbing down off MY soapbox.)
SIRPAUL10
>One more point to ponder:
>Would you define Hollywood AD as actorfic because it uses real people in
>fictional situations? Does it dehumanize Tea Leoni or Gary Shandling? Tea
>did
>seem cold-hearted to Mulder's starstruck goofiness. Is this a disrespectable
>protrayal of her, or is it joke? Is HAD *satire*? Is the difference between
>
This "satire" was done with the permission of the people involved. That may be
the difference.
GBolt60636
>One more point to ponder:
>Would you define Hollywood AD as actorfic because it uses real people in
fictional situations? Does it dehumanize Tea Leoni or Gary Shandling? Tea
>did seem cold-hearted to Mulder's starstruck goofiness. Is this a
disrespectable protrayal of her, or is it joke? Is HAD *satire*? Is the
difference between...>
Actually, the above was from bB's original post, not me. But my answer was
pretty much along the same lines as sirpaul's below:
<<This "satire" was done with the permission of the people involved. That may
be
the difference.>>
And I might add, in HAD Téa and Garry were playing Téa and Garry playing
fictional characters portrayed by David and Gillian who were playing those very
same parts in the same scenes as Téa and Garry. A very complex play on what is
real and unreal when it comes out of Hollywood. But this bit was only a small
part of the greater story in HAD, about how history is viewed through
contemporary culture, and how it can be even misinterpreted and modified by
contemporary attitudes that I really don't see this episode as a good
comparison with actorfic per se.
GB
Circe
> I don't LIKE the actor fic, but it's DD and GA's faces I'm seeing when I
> read fanfic. It's pretty damn close.
>
You know, for some reason, when I'm reading fic, I see a very vague version of
DD or GA, or whoever I'm reading about at the time. It's sort of like I'm
looking at somebody with their face fuzzed out like on Cops. Maybe that's my way
of not squicking myself too much by picturing the actual actors going at it when
I should be thinking about the characters.
--
Circe XFW #32
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused.
Heidi
>Date: 7/16/00 4:22 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000716052211...@ng-fo1.aol.com>
<snip>
>>Of course, the coment is always "but it's not THEM, it's characters"
>>But it's their faces we see--their voices we hear--THEM that drives
>>the fantasy.
>>
>>Ethically, I want to say "I don't like it", but it's kinda like the old
>>argument amongst dog people who "breed for the betterment of the
>>breed,and not for money"--but still charge $600 for a puppy. I don't
>>LIKE the actor fic, but it's DD and GA's faces I'm seeing when I read
>>fanfic. It's pretty damn close.
>
>
>Oh Giz, we must share a brain. You are so very very right.
>Thank you for saying so well what I'm thinking. =)
>
>Sometimes, I think smut writers saying "but it's not THEM, it's
>the characters" is just a lame excuse to trick themselves into
>having a clear conscious.
I think you are missing a big point. David Duchovny is NOT Mulder. He plays a
character on a TV show. A TV show that is itself a fantasy. Mulder is an entity
and by saying that authors (or for that matter Chris Carter and 1013) are just
trying to excuse themselves, you are implying that there is no difference
between David and his character. So, basically what you are saying is that
(like I supposed in my review, actually) when CC wrote Fight Club and wired
Mulder's mouth shut, he was actually doing that to David. How disgusting. No
wonder I hated that ep. Conversely, you are also saying that Gillian is a
forensic pathologist and that David is an Oxford Educated psychologist. Now if
you are talking *strictly* about poorly written smut where the two leads have
the names Mulder and Scully, but none of the canon characteristics, I might be
tempted to agree with you. Otherwise, I think you are the one blurring the
lines. Whether Mulder has David's face or not, he's still MULDER....not David
Duchovny. If you (not in the specific sense here) aren't clear that David
Duchovny is an ACTOR and that Mulder is a fictional character acted out by him,
then you DO have a problem.
>Here's a little hypothetical example:
>DD is in Howard Stern's studio. HS wants to mess with DD and
>brings out a fanfic writer for him to confront. Stern somehow
>talks DD into looking at her tale. The story is sickingly perverse
>and contains amoral sadistic tortures of Mulder.
>
>Question: Would DD be humiliated even if it's not him *him*,
>but a character he portrays on TV?
>
>You betcha, and he would inch as far away from her as possible
>without betraying his cool exterior. ;)
While I might agree with you, I think you don't know what he'd do and you might
be wise to remember that.
>This is an extreme example, but I hope I made my point about,
>"but it's not THEM, it's the characters"
No, actually it didn't. It commented on the POSSIBLE reaction of an actor to
the interpretation of a charcter he plays on TV.
>Now let's discuss CC and 1013's commentary on fanfic, -Milagro.
>Carter has said, joking or not, that he likes fanfic, especially
>the really dirty ones. (Mulder is after all, CC's toy.) However,
>if Mulder had CC's face, would he still feel the same way?
I assume he knows the difference between Mulder and David (or himself).
>Milagro. I know the writers were very nervous about Milagro
>because it exposes them. They were worried about Gillian's
>reaction to sexual subtext of writer writing smut about his
>object of desire. They also portrayed the writer as a stalker.
>Is Philip Padgett a caricature of the smutfic writer, and is
>Milagro about 1013's fear of the people who write fanfic?
They were worried about exposing *themselves*.....not characters or actors. I
think you are reaching, big time, and making Mulder sized leaps. This guy was
an author who was an author before he got hot on Scully, and because a stalker,
not because he was a writer but because he had the hots for Scully and was off
his nut. He identified closely with his characters and they came to life and
took control. If anything, 1013 is afraid of their affection for their
characters and the way they have minds of their own.
>Yes, I do think so, And I also think Scully's being intrigued
>with Padgett is implausible. Most women would be reaching for
>the mace and running way, not sitting quietly on his bed alone
>with him. EEEK! =o
This I can agree with.
>One more point to ponder:
>Would you define Hollywood AD as actorfic because it uses real
>people in fictional situations? Does it dehumanize Tea Leoni or
>Gary Shandling? Tea did seem cold-hearted to Mulder's
>starstruck goofiness. Is this a disrespectable protrayal of her,
>or is it joke? Is HAD *satire*? Is the difference between
>HAD and fan-satire-actorfic that Tea and Gary consented to it
>whereas in fan-satire-actorfic they are not?
Could be that. It could also be that they were in it for a sum total of sixty
seconds and were NOT the point of the story.
>Just want to clear. If we are discussing DDGA Shipper fic, let's
>call it that. If we are talking NC-17 sadistic actorfic smut, let's
>call it that. And if we are talking parody actorfic, let's
>call it that and not use blanket terms when we are talking
>specifics. --Less confusion that way. ;)
Ummm......I thought you were the one doing that. <g> Not to mention that I
really don't care for the judgemental tone. It always ticks me off.
Heidi
::::::::with head in hands, rocking slowly::::::::::
"It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter."
<Mulder: He's not just lean.......he's cuisine.>
Heidi
>Date: 7/16/00 11:33 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000716123301...@ng-cp1.aol.com>
>
>
>But more importantly, it seems to me that the social purpose of true satire
>is
>to examine ourselves as a culture, to point out social weaknesses or
>hypocrisy
>of an interest to us all, not to attack individuals a writer might personally
>find laughable. Satirizing the peculiarities of Hollywood, or corporate
>America, or politics is a far cry from writing pointless fantasies about
>popular actors. I don't think the latter really qualifies as satire unless it
>is placed in a greater fictional context, as done in HAD or BJM.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Obviously. <g>
giz...@ix.netcom.com
Bast Black <> wrote
> The issue is respect.
> The question is actorfic and fanfic; Where is the line?
> The complication is the different forms of fanfic, actorfic,
> and DD's own line blurring offering in Hollywood AD.
> Here's some thoughts on the issue:
Wow. I mean, WOW. This is like a panel show, and bB is the moderator.
Too cool.
<snip gathered and artfuly presented pov's)
> I hope you all have read my long post (bless you) and are at
> least thinking about my points and the points other have
> made here on this topic.
This is interesting, and fun. And no one has called any one an asshole
(yet)
XXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXX
(who likes cool debates like this)
**************************************************************
"You're the one who's so commited to communication--
why don't you try to be more diplomatic?"
"We don't negotiate, we're terrorists."
***************************************************************
giz...@ix.netcom.com
GBolt60636 <> wrote
>The Mother Goose rhymes many of us heard as
> children began as anonymous English broadsides aimed at real people in the
> public and political realm of the day, most often the Royals. "Mary, Mary,
> quite contrary. How does your garden grow?" is certainly not about a
> recalcitrant gardener.
I took a non-credit comunity college class focusing on Mother Goose
and children's stories.
Let's just say I'll never play Ring Around the Rosie again without
squirming.
--
XXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXX
Circe
> This is interesting, and fun. And no one has called any one an asshole
> (yet)
>
Asshole. <g>
Bast Black
This bolt of lightning hit me while making an emergency run to store
for Robitussin DM and Vick's vaporizer formula.
Yep, I'm down for the count with the nasty summer bug, but I'll
try not to infect everyone. Just be careful of what glass drink
out of because right now I'm busy licking every last one them.
*Booowahahahahaaahack hack wheeze cough cough*
Damn it! Damn it all to hell!
Even the Evil Maniacal Laugh (TM) is broken! Damn virus! ;)
Okay here's the scoop...
What was tripping me up on actorfic is the *definition*
of actorfic. Here's the breakdown:
I was thinking:
Actorfic = fictional stories placing real people in fictional
situations.
With my line of thought, a whole host of fiction falls under
the blanket category title of "actorfic," including satires
and spoofs like Hollywood AD, SNL skits, late night talk show
jokes, political cartoons and so forth. Having a real person's
permission to spoof them has no bearing since the First
Amendment makes it legal to spoof anyone, including the
President, as long as his name isn't trademarked. Then you
could be sued. ;)
Now onto reading my crystal ball, I believe you all are thinking
the following:
Actorfic = fictional stories written about actors by their
fanatical followers.
Ah-ha! If that were a snake, it would have bit me!
"Actorfic" is a pun on the title, "fanfic," replacing "fan" with
"actor." I get that now.
That's why everyone had such a strong reaction against "actorfic"
because it included a very specific negative connotation about *type*
of people who write it, their motivation for writing it, and what their
stories are most likely about.
Until I started this thread, I didn't even know DDGA Shipper
fic even existed. So I'm at a loss at what type of stories are
being written under guise of "actorfic." (Still am, but don't
bother to enlighten me because there are somethings I just
want to know.)
So satire is *NOT* actorfic, -it belongs in category all of it's
own which is generally referred to, interestingly enough, as "Satire." ;p
Bah-bah-bah-bing!
So all is right in world now that the genres are clearly defined, yes?
Well...
not if used to define fanfic as merely "fictional stories about
established fictional characters."
*sigh*
Bast Black
> I took a non-credit community college class focusing on Mother Goose
>and children's stories.
>
> Let's just say I'll never play Ring Around the Rosie again without
>squirming.
Ain't that the truth. YIKES! =o
But I didn't have to do community college to learn that one.
I got it forwarded to my email box. ;)
Here's one off the list I remember:
"Don't let the bed bugs bite"
In the Middle Ages, roofs were made of leaves and twigs.
Often bugs would fall down on the sleepers below.
Eeeeoooow. :P
Tinka
> Thanks for all the input and thoughtful replies. I have seen the light.
> This bolt of lightning hit me while making an emergency run to store
> for Robitussin DM and Vick's vaporizer formula.
*giggles*.. just to confuse matters further.. then I'd suggest that
metafiction could be another genre. I've read a couple of stories where the
characters step outside and start discussing with the actors (and sometimes
CC) before stepping into character again and continuing the story with some
snappy remark. I do not consider this actorfic, since the plot does not
revolve around DD or GA (or whoever) as the actors could be just about
anybody. The story is merely making a smug self-referential statement.
Anybody wanting to hit me on the head with something big and heavy (say, a
dead moose?)????
--
Tinka
-------
not so much swimming
as being swept along
--tim finn; 'currents' - say it is so, 2000
Bast Black
>Bast Black <> wrote
>> The issue is respect.
>> The question is actorfic and fanfic; Where is the line?
>> The complication is the different forms of fanfic, actorfic,
>> and DD's own line blurring offering in Hollywood AD.
>> Here's some thoughts on the issue:
> Wow. I mean, WOW. This is like a panel show, and bB is the
>moderator. Too cool.
I dunno. I think Bobby Betasta's job is safe.
I won't be doing "Talk Back Live" anytime soon. ;)
> <snip gathered and artfuly presented pov's)
>> I hope you all have read my long post (bless you) and are at
>> least thinking about my points and the points other have
>> made here on this topic.
>
> This is interesting, and fun. And no one has called any one an
>asshole (yet)
No, way. We don't use unimaginative swear words here.
Besides, if one really wanted to really offend an AFDDer,
call them a GA fan. ;p
>XXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXX
> (who likes cool debates like this)
bB,
who also likes cool debates like these. And despite a few trolls
and a few habitual slanderers, I still think AFDD is overall
open minded and well behaved, -thanks to our hero who
inspired this ethic.
Bast Black
>You know, for some reason, when I'm reading fic, I see a very vague
>version of DD or GA, or whoever I'm reading about at the time. It's
>sort of like I'm looking at somebody with their face fuzzed out like
>on Cops. Maybe that's my way of not squicking myself too much by
>picturing the actual actors going at it when I should be thinking
>about the characters.
Hmmmmm.
Getting away from smutfic, and talking about reading fiction and
fanfic in general, that's a very interesting point. A very true point
too, unless one is in the hands of gifted writer with knack for
seamless description.
Now that I think about it, only one person I have read (mind you,
I read very little fanfic) has been able to literally "paint" the
look and feel of XF in my mind, and that person is Punk M.
When I read Punk's stories, I see Mulder and Scully as clearly
as I were watching them on TV.
But let me throw out a curve into this discussion.
What do writers see in their minds when they are creating
these stories? Anyone?
Me, when I write for Mulder, in my mind I never see David Duchovny
playing Mulder. I wish did, because David is damn nice to look at. <g>
Maybe it's a hang-up of mine. It's like DD has labels all
over him reading "look, don't touch," "Not for sale," and
"Abuse me, feel my wrath."
I guess it's about ownership. No matter what character
David plays or how he alters himself to fit a role, he will
always own himself and his image. He is the "pimp" to his
"whore" in the "Skin Trade." Therefore, I can't conceive of doing
something loathsome to his "image" even if it is "just
a character," and not the man behind the character. Justify
it however you want, but I'm still going see that price tag,
and it's still going to tell me I can't afford to fuck with DD. <g>
On the opposite side of that...
I can't get motivated creatively unless I have some kind
creative ownership. Something *must* belong to me
or I get bored playing with other people's toys.
Does that make sense?
So my mental Mulder wants to be who he wants to be
and I suspect that it's my Animus leaking into the character.
Whatever. As long the ideas keep coming, I'm not going to
question the creative process too much. <g>
bB,
slave to the creative process. ;)
p.s. The mental recasting is true for all characters, not just
Mulder. However, strangely enough, the voices never change.
Odd, huh? I guess that has to do with having a feel for dialog.
*shrug*
Tinka
> But let me throw out a curve into this discussion.
> What do writers see in their minds when they are creating
> these stories? Anyone?
I see a landscape or a place .. the buildings.. the colours .. the sound ..
even the smell is something I notice .. then I have to throw in some
characters, as nobody is willing to read 7 pages of description *g*
Funnily enough, I never really *see* the characters I'm portraying. I hear
them instead. The only clear mental picture I've had of a character in one
of my fics was one of Marita. I guess, I never consider the actors behind
the characters. I mean, I know who the actors are, but they're persons
seperate from the character. I guess I focus more on a character's given
state of mind and personality than their appearance. Perhaps that is why I
consider DD to be a seperate person from FWM *g* .. I've never had problems
seperating them.
And I never "see" DD before me when I read smut (not that I read such stuff,
natch) but FWM .. they may have some shared physical similarities, but as I
said .. I tend to focus on personality rather than looks. I have a hard time
remembering names, but I can easily remember the different personalities ..
GBolt60636
<< Thanks for all the input and thoughtful replies. I have seen the light. This
bolt of lightning hit me while making an emergency run to store for Robitussin
DM and Vick's vaporizer formula. >>
:) Oh, sure, blame it on the drugs.
<< So satire is *NOT* actorfic, -it belongs in category all of it's own which
is generally referred to, interestingly enough, as "Satire." ;p
Bah-bah-bah-bing!
So all is right in world now that the genres are clearly defined, yes?>>
<nodding> I was indeed understanding "actorfic" to be the relatively new
phenomenon of the online fan community and an intrusion on the celebs involved
in the fiction.
GB
Janet Caires Lesgold
Bast Black <bast...@aol.comSIRIUSLY> wrote:
>Circe wrote:
>>You know, for some reason, when I'm reading fic, I see a very vague
>>version of DD or GA, or whoever I'm reading about at the time. It's
>>sort of like I'm looking at somebody with their face fuzzed out like
>>on Cops. Maybe that's my way of not squicking myself too much by
>>picturing the actual actors going at it when I should be thinking
>>about the characters.
(snip)
>But let me throw out a curve into this discussion.
>What do writers see in their minds when they are creating
>these stories? Anyone?
>
>Me, when I write for Mulder, in my mind I never see David Duchovny
>playing Mulder. I wish did, because David is damn nice to look at. <g>
>
>Maybe it's a hang-up of mine. It's like DD has labels all
>over him reading "look, don't touch," "Not for sale," and
>"Abuse me, feel my wrath."
>
>I guess it's about ownership. No matter what character
>David plays or how he alters himself to fit a role, he will
>always own himself and his image. He is the "pimp" to his
>"whore" in the "Skin Trade." Therefore, I can't conceive of doing
>something loathsome to his "image" even if it is "just
>a character," and not the man behind the character. Justify
>it however you want, but I'm still going see that price tag,
>and it's still going to tell me I can't afford to fuck with DD. <g>
>
>On the opposite side of that...
>I can't get motivated creatively unless I have some kind
>creative ownership. Something *must* belong to me
>or I get bored playing with other people's toys.
>
>Does that make sense?
>
>So my mental Mulder wants to be who he wants to be
>and I suspect that it's my Animus leaking into the character.
>Whatever. As long the ideas keep coming, I'm not going to
>question the creative process too much. <g>
>
>p.s. The mental recasting is true for all characters, not just
>Mulder. However, strangely enough, the voices never change.
>Odd, huh? I guess that has to do with having a feel for dialog.
>*shrug*
I don't get this line of thinking at ALL. When I write fanfic, I picture it
like a movie, wherein the actors I know play the characters I'm writing (in
fact, there are some tiny real-life touches in my stories, such as
references to Mulder having done a triathlon, and Krycek once having sung in
a band). When I write OR I read (clean fic OR smut), the only reason I have
to deal with it at all is *in order to* picture these actors playing these
parts. I don't read crossovers with shows I've never seen, because I have
no idea who those other people are, and can't see them in my head as I read.
This is probably also why I usually hate three-dimensional original
characters in fic: "bit players" are fine, but unless I really get a sense
of some actor playing the part of an original character, it drives me nuts.
(I almost never read commercially-published fiction anymore, and when I do,
I sometimes make up a cast list so I can keep the characters straight!)
Fact: I used to want to write, but never really could. Fact: Once I
discovered that fanfic could be about stuff I *liked* (not just those scary
Kirk-Spock things), I could suddenly write again. I don't write Buffyfic
anymore, for the record--I *do* get to see just about everything I want to
see in that series, so don't feel a need to give the characters an inner
life. The X-Files, with their minimal character sketches, give me a huge
playground in which I can imagine the cast in all kinds of interpersonal
combinations, even in alternate universes.
Yes, most of the stories I read and write are about Mulder, but Mulder is
*played* by David Duchovny--otherwise I'm sure I wouldn't give a rat's ass.
--
Janet F. Caires-Lesgold jfc...@merle.it.northwestern.edu
Speaker-to-Toys http://www.enteract.com/~jfc/
"I brought marshmallows. Occasionally, I'm callous and strange."
-- Willow Rosenberg, Buffy the Vampire Slayer: "The Zeppo"
Janet Caires Lesgold
Tinka <mul...@NOSPAMscandis-kol.dk> wrote:
>
>Funnily enough, I never really *see* the characters I'm portraying. I hear
>them instead. The only clear mental picture I've had of a character in one
>of my fics was one of Marita. I guess, I never consider the actors behind
>the characters. I mean, I know who the actors are, but they're persons
>seperate from the character. I guess I focus more on a character's given
>state of mind and personality than their appearance. Perhaps that is why I
>consider DD to be a seperate person from FWM *g* .. I've never had problems
>seperating them.
>
>And I never "see" DD before me when I read smut (not that I read such stuff,
>natch) but FWM .. they may have some shared physical similarities, but as I
>said .. I tend to focus on personality rather than looks. I have a hard time
>remembering names, but I can easily remember the different personalities ..
You and I live in two different worlds, that's for sure! (See my other
posting in this thread...)
Tinka
> You and I live in two different worlds, that's for sure! (See my other
> posting in this thread...)
Oh! Absolutely!!! That's funny!
LuluBean12
bast...@aol.comSIRIUSLY (Bast Black) writes:
>
>who also likes cool debates like these. And despite a few trolls
>and a few habitual slanderers, I still think AFDD is overall
>open minded and well behaved, -thanks to our hero who
>inspired this ethic.
>
>
I frankly don't think that the person who instigates a discussion can be the
moderator. And as for slanderers on the group let me know who you mean. Stating
your opinion or objecting to another's propensity to stir up debate just to
keep from being bored doesn't constitute slander really.
And as for DD being our hero, my hero was my Dad, a guy who was never
judgemental. Sadly I take a bit more after Ma, who was quick to enter a fray
;-D.
Lulu/Jo-Ann
giz...@ix.netcom.com
Bast Black <> wrote
> "Don't let the bed bugs bite"
> In the Middle Ages, roofs were made of leaves and twigs.
> Often bugs would fall down on the sleepers below.
And pets were bedded on those same roofs. It "rained cats and dogs"
when the roof got so slick with rain, the animals fell off.
giz...@ix.netcom.com
Tinka <> wrote
> Funnily enough, I never really *see* the characters I'm portraying. I hear
> them instead.
At the risk of sounding really ethereal, I **feel** them.
I've written almost all my fic in the first person, from several pov's,
and I never pictured the actors, I felt the characters.
shanswo...@xemplary.com
you were wealthy enough to have down mattresses), which
tended to harbor insects.
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:46:25 -0400, <giz...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
>Bast Black <> wrote
>> "Don't let the bed bugs bite"
>> In the Middle Ages, roofs were made of leaves and twigs.
>> Often bugs would fall down on the sleepers below.
>
> And pets were bedded on those same roofs. It "rained cats and dogs"
>when the roof got so slick with rain, the animals fell off.
>
> XXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXX
>**************************************************************
>"You're the one who's so commited to communication--
>why don't you try to be more diplomatic?"
>
>"We don't negotiate, we're terrorists."
>***************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------
Laurie Haynes
Co-archivist Xemplary
http://www.xemplary.com
Xemplary Webhosting
Unlimited space at $14/month
www.xemplary.net/webhosting.html
See my ebay page
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/shannara1/
-----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the xfc fiction list, go to
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/xfc-atxc
To subscribe to the xfc feedback list, go to
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/xfc-fdbk
Heidi
>Date: 7/18/00 4:40 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000718174031...@nso-cr.aol.com>
>
>In article <20000718042915...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
>bast...@aol.comSIRIUSLY (Bast Black) writes:
>
>>
>>who also likes cool debates like these. And despite a few trolls
>>and a few habitual slanderers, I still think AFDD is overall
>>open minded and well behaved, -thanks to our hero who
>>inspired this ethic.
>I frankly don't think that the person who instigates a discussion can be the
>moderator.
There is no moderator here, obviously. <g>
>And as for slanderers on the group let me know who you mean.
>Stating
>your opinion or objecting to another's propensity to stir up debate just to
>keep from being bored doesn't constitute slander really.
It does, however, mean calling a spade a spade. Oy, the truth.
>And as for DD being our hero, my hero was my Dad, a guy who was never
>judgemental. Sadly I take a bit more after Ma, who was quick to enter a fray
>;-D.
And there's nothing wrong with that....don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
SIRPAUL10
>And I never "see" DD before me when I read smut (not that I read such stuff,
>natch) but FWM .. they may have some shared physical similarities, but as I
>said .. I tend to focus on personality rather than looks. I have a hard time
>remembering names, but I can easily remember the different personalities ..
>
>--
>Tinka
>
I always see Mulder when I read fanfic. And the harder the smut, the more Foxy
he becomes. And all of the Scully's look like me.
Tinka
> I always see Mulder when I read fanfic. And the harder the smut, the more Foxy
> he becomes. And all of the Scully's look like me.
*collapses on floor laughing* .. that's a good one .. I'll have to try that one!
Janet Caires Lesgold
Tinka <mul...@NOSPAMscandis-kol.dk> wrote:
>SIRPAUL10 wrote:
>
>> I always see Mulder when I read fanfic. And the harder the smut, the more
>> Foxy he becomes. And all of the Scully's look like me.
>
>*collapses on floor laughing* .. that's a good one .. I'll have to try that
>one!
Try writing first-person slash once in awhile. It's really weird to
discover that Krycek talks just like I do!
Bast Black
>The problem with any of this analysis and discussion of
>remedies for his "faults" is that it doesn't change a thing.
>All it does is lead to fights amongst the posters.
Your last sentence a very good one, oh Prophetic One. ;)
I should have "listened" your post sooner, but I was too
busy at the time wondering why on Earth you thought
people were "analysing and discussing remedies for DD's
faults and wanting to change him" because, imho, we
weren't discussing "faults" and wanting to change him,
but discussing things that make DD who he is.
I like DD for who he is, warts and all. I want him to succeed.
I listen to DD talking sincerely, openly about his flaws and I
hear him making wishes about changing himself, I feel that.
And so I think about it because he does, and in my own
misguided way, I think that's helpful somehow. It's like
DD's has this chant that's forever lurking in his voice,
"Understand me. Understand me." And so I try to do that.
Stupid, huh?
Last night I was rereading some recent interviews,
that raised a few eyebrows and I really want to talk about
it, but I don't think I should because....
I am hearing your point, Lulu, LOUD AND CLEAR:
One should choose one's confidants with care.
(By that I mean, being able to talk freely without fear )
I think I'll tattoo that advice on my ass. ;p
I considered adff and all you guys my confidants because
I trusted you and deferred to your opinions 98% of time, but
I see now that a few of you really really want to censor me
and so I will submit. :~(
And since I can't change the fact that my inner "psychologist"
is ALWAYS turned on and chattering away, I'll find a different
outlet for "debate and analysis" of my favorite subject, DD.
I love thinking about the man, what makes him who he is,
what makes him tick, and why he does what he does. I
could even write a big ol' essay on his inner mechanics, so
if you or anyone is interested, drop me a line privately
and I'll keep "analysis and discussion" of DD off this forum.
Hell, if enough people are interested, maybe I'll start
an X-Phile Armchair Psychologist mailing list. ;)
I love digging into Mulder, Scully, Ratboy, CSM too.
I'm even into the man behind the characters, and Darin
Morgan. Oh yes, Darin Morgan. I've even taken a crack
Gillian. Nobody's safe. I'm an equal opportunity Headshrinker. ;p
But I got to warn you now, some things I will NOT
discuss concerning real people because I feel it is an
invasion of privacy.
Some "truths" are not meant for us to discuss.
Now onto your current post........
Lulu wrote:
>I frankly don't think that the person who instigates a
>discussion can be the moderator.
You bring up a valid point, however the real problem is
AFTER proposing a topic for discussion the would-be
moderator should bow-out, let everyone have their say,
and only step back into the debate to chide those who don't
play fairly. Once all sides have presented their arguments,
the jury voted, the moderator steps back in with a
summary of argument, and presents cohesive statement
pulling it all together in a final verdict.
Oh..., uh I guess I should qualify the "civil court of law" metaphor. ;)
The Defense = status quo
The Prosecution = the issue (or "instigator?")
Jury = commentary and vote casting
The Media = lurkers and spectators
Judge = moderator and verdict
Where was I?
Oh yeah....
Sure, I failed at the first attempt. I should have stayed off
battlefield. But I wanted to get the ball rolling. I know
where the debate went wrong and where it went right. I have
some new ideas for next topic. FYI, if someone wants
to propose an issue, or play moderator, Go for it!
---------------------------------------------------------
NEXT ISSUE FOR DEBATE:
What is a fan, the duty of fan, the ethics of a fan, and what kind
of fan would you describe yourself as?
(The following words come from fan and fanatic synonyms and
their related words, but some have negative connotations.
-American Heritage and Merriam-Webster)
Addict, admirer, aficionado, bigot, buff, bug, devotee, enthusiast,
extremist, fan, fanatic, fancier, fiend, follower, freak, habitue,
hound, lover, loyalist, maniac, nut, rabid, radical, revolutionist,
ultraist, votary, and zealot.
---------------------------------------------------------
So what do you think? Should we try it? I think there are many
differing opinions or maybe no opinion at all on this topic.
Could be interesting to think about, and we may learn a few
things about ourselves. =)
Okay... back the your email:
>And as for slanderers on the group let me know who you
mean.
Respectfully, no.
That would be slander.
You want me to single out someone from the group?
How's this; For being articulate, fair, thoughtful, thought
provoking, clear headed, and proactive instead of reactive,
and kicking my butt intellectually all over the place, <g>
I consider GBOLT the best regular debater on afdd and
standard to which everyone, myself included, should
aspire to. Gbolt = "Star Defendant" ;)
Okay, now back to your question....
>Stating your opinion or objecting to another's propensity
>to stir up debate just to keep from being bored doesn't
>constitute slander really.
ITA. But boy what that a loaded statement. ;)
No, I was not referring to you when I said
"...other than a few habitual slanderers..."
Slanderer:
A person uttering or spreading FALSE charges,
MALICIOUS statements or misrepresentations
which defame and damage another's reputation.
Consider the slime trail:
We've had WBD slanders, GA slanders, uncast-Scully's-new
partner slanders, CC slanders, journalist slanders, Rosie
O'Donell slanders, 1013 slanders, Fox Inc. slanders, Sandy
Grishem slanders, GA/DS fan slanders, ATXF slanders,
Scully slanders, the bearer-of-bad-news slanders, even
newbies have been mercilessly slandered, and not just
regular posters to this forum. It's freakin' slander-free-
for-all, and I really wish it would stop.
A person once said something like this:
"You all claim to hate ATXF's hostile atmosphere and
yet you are
recreating here."
Of course that person was also slandered for daring to
say something that's true. ;p
You wrote:
>Stating your opinion
Is desired and preferred, yes
>...or objecting to another's propensity to stir up debate
>just to keep from being bored doesn't constitute slander
>really.
Hey, if it's okay for me call people on bad manners, you
have every right call me on what you consider to be bad
manners.
>And as for DD being our hero, my hero was my Dad, a guy
>who was never judgmental.
Am I being judgmental, or are you?
I think it's safe to say we both are to some degree, don't you?
I don't know my father. I don't want to know him. All I
need to know is he's an alcoholic wife beating, child-beating
asshole. Some of us, (like me) don't have fathers, and I think
it's just fine to look up at DD as a "hero." My childhood hero
was Carl Sagan and I cried like a baby the day he died. I would
eat liver, spinach, and seafood for that man. ;)
>Sadly I take a bit more after Ma, who was quick to enter
>a fray ;-D.
Indeed. ;)
So you think it's bad to debate, or to start up a debate?
I'm trying to understand, but I just don't get it.
Why I am horrible as person to start up a conversation
by posing a question? Is it because I am bored that
people aren't talking that's me evil? Honestly, I'm
confused. I don't know what you expect fron me. This
is newgroup and if people don't talk, what's the point?
The news can be read on website, in fact it's better
covered there.
Yes, I think it's bad to argue, to fight, and to call people
names, but I *do* enjoy an exchange of ideas and I love
stepping outside of myself to see things from a different
person's point of view to reaching that higher "truth."
Understanding is my driving motivation. For me, that
is essence of debate. It's not who wins, or who loses,
it's what have we learned?
I consider that a very very very good thing. =)
I feel my most annoying habit is my the need to entertain.
I should be doing something more productive right now,
like getting the house painted. ;p
bB,
p.s. Lulu: My email address is: Bast...@aol.com
I would prefer to take any further possible "clashing"
of a personal nature off the forum out of respect to
you, me, and the other members of the newsgroup.
Please reply to me there. Thank you. I hope all is
right in the world between us.
GBolt60636
<< Sure, I failed at the first attempt. I should have stayed off battlefield.
But I wanted to get the ball rolling. I know where the debate went wrong and
where it went right. I have some new ideas for next topic. FYI, if someone
wants to propose an issue, or play moderator, Go for it! >>
Yes, bb, you did fail. Not by trying to get a discussion going on this or any
other topic, but by answering replies to your original question with such an
air of great condescension, chiding people on THEIR definitions when you had to
later admit that you yourself had misunderstood the very terminology you were
using for the discussion. I do give you credit for admitting that though. Been
there, done that myself.
My advice (<g> whether you want it or not): don't pose topics for "discussion"
if all you want to do is set other posters up just to shoot them down. Because
that's definitely the feeling I got from this last debate. You got honest
answers to your question but then proceeded to dismiss or insult people for
failings of debate form that you were equally guilty of. Or of you insist on
doing this, don't grumble if people get ticked off at you.
<< I consider GBOLT the best regular debater on afdd and standard to which
everyone, myself included, should aspire to. Gbolt = "Star Defendant" ;)>>
Well, thanks, bB, but I think this comes only because I can match you verbiage
for verbiage. <g> Your not the only long winded runner on the track. But I
question why you need to set everyone up on opposite sides, like a trial. This
is supposed to be a forum for casual discussion, not a formal debating society.
Just what is it I need to defend here?
<< Of course that person was also slandered for daring to say something that's
true. ;p>>
The thing is, bB, some here declare they are "saying something that is true"
when in fact they're only expressing their subjective opinion, not a provable
objective truth. It's very simple, at least to my mind:
Objective truth:
David Duchovny is an actor
Subjective Opinion: David Duchovny is an arrogant actor.
well, I'm staring to have a disquieting since of déjà vu over this whole
"objective/subjective" thing so I'll stop now before I run out on any longer.
Thanks again for the nod, bB.
GB
Bast Black
It's like "Secerts of the Fanfic Writer." ;)
Janet wrote:
>When I write fanfic, I picture it like a movie, ...
Ohhhhh!!! That's cool when that happens! I do get movie
moments every now and then. I get the composition planned
out, costumes, lighting, camera moves, cuts and
transitions, sound effects, acting direction, etc. But
those moments are pretty rare.
Hmmmm....
Maybe it is like lucid dreaming with your eyes open?
Man, I love talking about the creative process. =)
I could go on and on..... ;p
>...wherein the actors I know play the characters I'm writing (in
>fact, there are some tiny real-life touches in my stories, such as
>references to Mulder having done a triathlon, and Krycek once
>having sung in a band).
Mulder did a triathlon? Krycek sung in a band?
Damn, where was I? Was that the Limerick episode? ;)
No seriously, it's hard not to be self-referencial to the series,
characters, crew, CC, DD, GA or whatever. It's not like the
audience won't get the jokes. So if a joke hits me, it's not
too close to DD, and it's really funny, I use it.
I love in-jokes. <g>
>I don't read crossovers with shows I've never seen, because I have
>no idea who those other people are, and can't see them in my head
>as I read.
I haven't really ventured outside Philedom, but I did check out a
male written "smutfic" once because I was curious how guys
would write "smut." I was disappointed. No insights into the
male psyche there. ;)
>This is probably also why I usually hate three-dimensional
>original characters in fic: "bit players" are fine, but unless I really
>get a sense of some actor playing the part of an original character,
>it drives me nuts. (I almost never read commercially-published
>fiction anymore, and when I do, I sometimes make up a cast list
>so I can keep the characters straight!)
Hmmm... This is interesting. It's like being a child of the
Information Age. Unless it's animated with bright lights and
special effects, it fails to hold interest. People would rather
watch a movie based on the novel, than read the novel.
Hmmm.... or maybe it like some kind laziness, like we let
someone else do all the work, and don't exercise our
imaginations?
I think about things like that when I stroll when through the
aisles of Toys R Us. It's Toy Hallmark in there, they're a
prepackaged toy for every occasion. It's like the Peter Panism
of the older generation who are the one making these toys are
robbing of kids their chance to be imaginative. Why bother
to make your own toys when you can buy them? I wonder if
any of this will have an impact, or will kids always invent
their toys and games and it doesn't matter how much CEOs
want to capitalize on them. That giant freebee cardboard box
will always be a kid favorite. <g>
Anyway, interesting to think about.
>Fact: I used to want to write, but never really could.
Is that because of "Red Ink Syndrome?"
One my teacher friends looses her mind when she sees
other teachers doing "Red Ink." I thought that was bizarre,
until she explained it to me. I don't remember what she
said about the proper way to grade papers, I'd have to call
her up about that.
>Fact: Once I discovered that fanfic could be about stuff
>I *liked* (not just those scary Kirk-Spock things), I could
>suddenly write again.
YES! That's it! (not about those Kirk-Spock things thought)
For me it's like "onmygod, they're all these people out there
who are into the weird stuff I'm into. I must write to them."
So I got over "Red Ink" or whatever you want to call it,
and began to branch out doing essays. Once you get over
that fear to write, it's inevitable that you will want
to try to "paint with words."
>for the record--I *do* get to see just about everything I
>want to see in that series, so don't feel a need to give
>the characters an inner life.
Yep. I'm there. I don't care about Scully going on and on
about whether she should sleep with Mulder or not. I'd
rather see them interact, with that sexual
tension simmering between them. I guess it's "show
don't tell." Let the reader fill in the gaps. Make them
wonder, and come back for more. I want adventure!
I want social commentary! I want something that'll
make my hair stand up on end! Or.... I want something
funny! ;)
>The X-Files, with their minimal character sketches,
>give me a huge playground in which I can imagine the
>cast in all kinds of interpersonal combinations, even
>in alternate universes.
Whoa... Interpersonal combinations.
I think my hair just stood up on end. ;)
Mulder and CSM? ;)
>Yes, most of the stories I read and write are about
>Mulder, but Mulder is *played* by David Duchovny--
>otherwise I'm sure I wouldn't give a rat's ass.
Hmm. I think you're not alone in at.
After all, how much Forhike fic is there?
Maybe I'm the only one who see him a 6'2" dark haired
stud. ;)
XXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
>At the risk of sounding really ethereal, I **feel** them.
>I've written almost all my fic in the first person, from several
>pov's, and I never pictured the actors, I felt the characters.
Yeah yeah yeah.....
When I first started, I heard or pictured characters, but
as time went on, I discovered writing *is* acting. It was
tough to break that barrier within myself to go from
a behind the scenes kind of person, to center stage.
To make matters worse, I made the really big mistake
doing first person in my first attempt. Talk about
stage fright, but I'm over it now.
I'll step into the characters heads, and see the world
from each of their points of view. I take their pain
into myself, but I think it sucks because Mulder's anxieties
wormed their way into my subconscious and gave me 2
horrific nightmares.
Do you have any idea how messed up that is to have these
foreign, fictional person's fears invade your sleep?
But I didn't feel so freaky about it now after reading
an interview about the guy who played the villain
in American Psycho and Jesus in the CBS mini series.
He said, playing a homicidial maniac didn't bother him.
He slept like baby. But Jesus? Jesus gave him terrible
nightmares.
I read that and thought, "Yeah. Mulder's like that, his pain.
I wonder if walking a mile in Mulder's shoes gives anyone
else nightmares?"
Tinka wrote:
>Funnily enough, I never really *see* the characters I'm portraying. I hear
>them instead. The only clear mental picture I've had of a character in one
>of my fics was one of Marita.
Whoa, that's biazrre, huh? You must be thinking, "Why?
Why couldn't have been Krycek? ;)
>I guess, I never consider the actors behind
>the characters. I mean, I know who the actors are, but they're persons
>seperate from the character. I guess I focus more on a character's given
>state of mind and personality than their appearance.
Sounds good to me. =)
Here's where my bizarre quirks come into play:
Have you seen the Beatles movie, "I want to hold your
hand?" Remember the story about the girl who
broke into Brad Pitt's home and they found her wearing
his clothes?
Now think about a writer who "wears" characters
to animate them.
I keep picturing that girl from the Beatles movie who
sneaks into lad's hotel room, rolls all over the bed,
licks Paul's guitar up and down, and when she finds
some hair in a hairbrush, she steals it.
Things get stranger here.....
The only few examples of "Mulder" are: Gary Shandling,
the guy from Dreamland, and maybe Darin Morgan. Also
each 1013 writer pens a different sort "Mulder." David
has the most input, talks about his ideas on Mulder, and I
happen to love his and Daran Morgan's "Mulder" the best.
So as a writer who wants to be faithful to another person's
vision of the character I didn't create, I must climb into
Mulder's head and wear "Mulder" like David would wear
"Mulder." So DD's ideas about the character, and his style
of acting came into play. I built off that foundation.
I would ask myself things like, "Mulder must be ____ from
____ of ____ and ____ . How would he react to learning
____ ? How would I externalize his inner emotions?
How would David protray this?"
Bringing that up to the date, I now have developed my
own version of Mulder based on my tastes and "Mulder's
Greatest Hits." He writes himself. I just drop
him in a situation and he takes off like a wind-up
toy. <g> (Scully too)
Sometimes I wear him, sometimes I watch him.
It is like dreaming. Dreaming with your hands on a keyboard.
I jump all over the place. One minute I'm this person, the next
minute I'm looking at person I was a moment ago. Then I'll
become a plant sitting on the counter, or person reading my
story for the first time. Once in a blue moon DD looks over
my shoulder and tells me my one liner wasn't funny, I should
try ____ ____ ____ instead. And when excitement dies down,
I step back to review the sum of my work and I see the image
of that girl writhing on the bed cooing "paulpaulpaul." And I
get depressed and think for all this effort, I should be
writing with original characters.
>I tend to focus on personality rather than looks.
yeah yeah yeah... that's better way. =)
When I do descriptions for new characters, I go with personalty.
Why bother a describing someone's appearence when one
can paint them clearer with something like this (m pov):
She was a cute uninhibited teenager who, judging by her
fashion sense, had seen too many Gothic movies.
Or let dialog alone "paint" a picture of the characters:
"What are you fellas doing out here in the dark?"
"Weez watchin' ya, Fed. Placin' bets."
"Oh? Betting on me, are you?"
"Old Bernie here thinks ya's a smart boy, dat ya figures
things out. I thinks different."
"Figure out what?"
"Now, I ain't fixin' ta tell ya, or I'd lose dis here bet."
>I have a hard time
>remembering names, but I can easily remember the different personalities ..
Oh God, I'm terrible with names too. Most people who live
or work around me I've made up nicknames for and call
then by that instead.
When I read some fics, the names don't connect with me,
or too many names will wash over. But if it's funny name
I'll remember it. <g> So I let Mulder, 1st person pov,
assign unflattering names to bit characters he doesn't
like: "Dog Boy," "Beer Guzzling Man" "Imbecile With A
Badge" and of course, "Old Smokey."
It's like people he likes have real names,
people he doesn't don't. ;)
bB
Janet Caires Lesgold
Bast Black <bast...@aol.comSIRIUSLY> wrote:
>Ohmygod, this is so cool to talk about!
>It's like "Secerts of the Fanfic Writer." ;)
Oh good. <Peter Cook voice off>
>Janet wrote:
>>When I write fanfic, I picture it like a movie, ...
>
>Ohhhhh!!! That's cool when that happens! I do get movie
>moments every now and then. I get the composition planned
>out, costumes, lighting, camera moves, cuts and
>transitions, sound effects, acting direction, etc. But
>those moments are pretty rare.
Then how in the world do you write anything if you can't see it?
>>...wherein the actors I know play the characters I'm writing (in
>>fact, there are some tiny real-life touches in my stories, such as
>>references to Mulder having done a triathlon, and Krycek once
>>having sung in a band).
>
>Mulder did a triathlon? Krycek sung in a band?
>Damn, where was I? Was that the Limerick episode? ;)
NO. *David* did a triathlon. *Nick* sang in a band. Or are you having
trouble with the term "real-life"? I just put these facts in my stories
about the characters they play.
>>This is probably also why I usually hate three-dimensional
>>original characters in fic: "bit players" are fine, but unless I really
>>get a sense of some actor playing the part of an original character,
>>it drives me nuts. (I almost never read commercially-published
>>fiction anymore, and when I do, I sometimes make up a cast list
>>so I can keep the characters straight!)
>
>Hmmm... This is interesting. It's like being a child of the
>Information Age. Unless it's animated with bright lights and
>special effects, it fails to hold interest. People would rather
>watch a movie based on the novel, than read the novel.
No--on the whole, I'd rather watch it on TV... ;)
>Hmmm.... or maybe it like some kind laziness, like we let
>someone else do all the work, and don't exercise our
>imaginations?
Ours is a visual culture. What's wrong with casting a book with familiar
faces so you can *see* the action while you're reading it? Isn't *that*
using your imagination, as well?
>I think about things like that when I stroll when through the
>aisles of Toys R Us. It's Toy Hallmark in there, they're a
>prepackaged toy for every occasion. It's like the Peter Panism
>of the older generation who are the one making these toys are
>robbing of kids their chance to be imaginative. Why bother
>to make your own toys when you can buy them? I wonder if
>any of this will have an impact, or will kids always invent
>their toys and games and it doesn't matter how much CEOs
>want to capitalize on them. That giant freebee cardboard box
>will always be a kid favorite. <g>
Watch what you say about toys. The thing that amuses *me* is how every new
doll or action figure has to come with its own story attached,
pre-fabricated by the factory, so the kid doesn't feel compelled to make up
his *own* stories. A hundred years ago when I was a kid, my Barbie was a
housewife, a student, a secretary, Maria von Trapp (after I saw "The Sound
of Music"), etc., etc., etc. Nobody sells nameless dolls anymore. Heck,
even the American Girl dolls, full of their history lessons and fine
craftsmanship, already have books telling you how to play with them. What's
wrong with making up your *own* stories, names, adventures?
>>Fact: I used to want to write, but never really could.
>
>Is that because of "Red Ink Syndrome?"
>One my teacher friends loses her mind when she sees
>other teachers doing "Red Ink." I thought that was bizarre,
>until she explained it to me. I don't remember what she
>said about the proper way to grade papers, I'd have to call
>her up about that.
No. In fact, I did very well in school. I don't know if I had a fear of
failure, or a fear of success. However, I didn't find a damned thing worth
writing about until I discovered fanfic, that's for sure!
>>Fact: Once I discovered that fanfic could be about stuff
>>I *liked* (not just those scary Kirk-Spock things), I could
>>suddenly write again.
>
>YES! That's it! (not about those Kirk-Spock things thought)
>For me it's like "onmygod, they're all these people out there
>who are into the weird stuff I'm into. I must write to them."
That's not it at all. Suddenly I discovered characters who interested me
intensely, but whose lives were incomplete. I honestly don't write because
I suddenly find I have an audience. I suddenly have an audience because
I write (which I do entirely to please myself, and to flesh out these
characters' empty lives).
>>for the record--I *do* get to see just about everything I
>>want to see in that series, so don't feel a need to give
>>the characters an inner life.
>
>Yep. I'm there. I don't care about Scully going on and on
>about whether she should sleep with Mulder or not. I'd
>rather see them interact, with that sexual
>tension simmering between them. I guess it's "show
>don't tell." Let the reader fill in the gaps. Make them
>wonder, and come back for more. I want adventure!
>I want social commentary! I want something that'll
>make my hair stand up on end! Or.... I want something
>funny! ;)
No, I don't really get into those massively-introspective monologues either.
I mostly do action stories (well, a certain *kind* of action, anyway!). ;)
>>The X-Files, with their minimal character sketches,
>>give me a huge playground in which I can imagine the
>>cast in all kinds of interpersonal combinations, even
>>in alternate universes.
>
>Whoa... Interpersonal combinations.
>I think my hair just stood up on end. ;)
>
>Mulder and CSM? ;)
Well, no. But I do have a Scully/Byers that worked, even though it was very
sad. And I used to write MSRs and M/Ks in equal proportions, but I seem to
have slopped over into the slash-heavy camp recently.
>>Yes, most of the stories I read and write are about
>>Mulder, but Mulder is *played* by David Duchovny--
>>otherwise I'm sure I wouldn't give a rat's ass.
>
>Hmm. I think you're not alone in that.
>After all, how much Frohike fic is there?
A lot more than you'd expect, actually...
My original point was that the only reason I write/read fic is to SEE these
actors doing something they don't get to do on TV, as opposed to those "feel
or hear them in my head, but don't see them" folks. Capiche?
(snip)
>To make matters worse, I made the really big mistake
>doing first person in my first attempt. Talk about
>stage fright, but I'm over it now.
Some stories are better told in first person. It's all a matter of what
works for the story you have to tell.
>I'll step into the characters heads, and see the world
>from each of their points of view. I take their pain
>into myself, but I think it sucks because Mulder's anxieties
>wormed their way into my subconscious and gave me 2
>horrific nightmares.
I'm sure glad everybody has their own interpretation of the characters! I
find the inside of Mulder's head rather comfy!
>I wonder if walking a mile in Mulder's shoes gives anyone
>else nightmares?"
To reiterate, not me.
>Tinka wrote:
>>I guess, I never consider the actors behind
>>the characters. I mean, I know who the actors are, but they're persons
>>seperate from the character. I guess I focus more on a character's given
>>state of mind and personality than their appearance.
Except that it all fits together for me. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother!
I've never been able to write fic at all centered around anyone I found in
the least unattractive! They show up in my stories, but not for long!
(Perhaps I should shut up now, happily imagining all the group members
racing over to her page to pore over her stories, figuring out who makes the
briefest appearances therein! Write me, and I'll score your results!) ;)
Tinka
> >Tinka wrote:
> >>I guess, I never consider the actors behind
> >>the characters. I mean, I know who the actors are, but they're persons
> >>seperate from the character. I guess I focus more on a character's given
> >>state of mind and personality than their appearance.
>
> Except that it all fits together for me. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother!
> I've never been able to write fic at all centered around anyone I found in
> the least unattractive! They show up in my stories, but not for long!
I wasn't talking about attractive/unatractive ;-) I just tend to forget what the
characters look like (so no gushing about Scully's titian hair) when I write.
Of course I do not venture into "Scully ruffled Mulder's blonde hair" territory,
but I tend to focus on their way of thinking. I wish was less internally-focus
and more externally-focused. It's extremely hard to write an action scene as it
is now.
Tinka
> Ohmygod, this is so cool to talk about!
> It's like "Secerts of the Fanfic Writer." ;)
Yup, good topic!!
>
> Janet wrote:
> >When I write fanfic, I picture it like a movie, ...
I wish I could do that .. and that I had the language skills to portray that.
I'm not a native speakers so sometimes I do struggle ;-)
> Man, I love talking about the creative process. =)
> I could go on and on..... ;p
I actually collect quotations on the creative process *g*
> No seriously, it's hard not to be self-referencial to the series,
> characters, crew, CC, DD, GA or whatever. It's not like the
> audience won't get the jokes. So if a joke hits me, it's not
> too close to DD, and it's really funny, I use it.
> I love in-jokes. <g>
Sometimes it does go a bit overboard. I mean, I'm a sucker for all those
metafictive self-referential belly-button-poking stories, but sometimes the
in-jokes take over the story. I would like to think my stories accessible for
both newbies and then old seasoned readers..
> >I don't read crossovers with shows I've never seen, because I have
> >no idea who those other people are, and can't see them in my head
> >as I read.
>
> I haven't really ventured outside Philedom,
I was pressured to read this XF/Highlander xover by a friend. I've never watched
Highlander, but -- damn -- the story was good. It's "The Rapture" by Wombat. I
like it because it delievers such a fresh take on the Mulder/Scully interaction
as well as fresh takes of the individual personae. Sometimes fanfic does tend to
swallow its own tail.. the charaterizations become overused (Scully's enigmatic
smile, Mulder's lop-sided grin) .. and the whole business of reading fanfic
becomes ... well.. tepid. It's often difficult to find new takes on various core
personae. I really liked this Highlander-xover because it was obvious that the
person who had written knew a lot about XF, but wasn't too aware of the fanfic
canonical characterizations. It was refreshing.
> but I did check out a
> male written "smutfic" once because I was curious how guys
> would write "smut." I was disappointed. No insights into the
> male psyche there. ;)
XF smutfic?
> >This is probably also why I usually hate three-dimensional
> >original characters in fic: "bit players" are fine, but unless I really
> >get a sense of some actor playing the part of an original character,
> >it drives me nuts. (I almost never read commercially-published
> >fiction anymore, and when I do, I sometimes make up a cast list
> >so I can keep the characters straight!)
>
> Hmmm... This is interesting. It's like being a child of the
> Information Age. Unless it's animated with bright lights and
> special effects, it fails to hold interest. People would rather
> watch a movie based on the novel, than read the novel.
I read. I read a lot. It's my job more or less. I read so much fiction as part
of my professional life that I tend to stay away from commercially published
fiction in my sparetime and either seek out fanfic, poetry or hardcore
non-fiction. I'm on holiday at the moment though, so I'm working my way through
a massive pile of fiction. It's lovely being able to relax and not be
professionally critical every time I open a book. I'm currently reading
Nabokov's "Pale Fire".
I watch movies and TV when I'm really beat. I do not watch as much TV as I used
to. I only watch the news, XF and sometimes a few British sitcoms.
Oh, and I'm one of those people who walk into the cinema saying.. "I hope
this'll be as good as the book" or "At it'll be better than the book".
> Hmmm.... or maybe it like some kind laziness, like we let
> someone else do all the work, and don't exercise our
> imaginations?
I do not subscribe to the idea of laziness. I think it's primarily a case of
what you are used to.
> It's like the Peter Panism
> of the older generation who are the one making these toys are
> robbing of kids their chance to be imaginative. Why bother
> to make your own toys when you can buy them? I wonder if
> any of this will have an impact, or will kids always invent
> their toys and games and it doesn't matter how much CEOs
> want to capitalize on them. That giant freebee cardboard box
> will always be a kid favorite. <g>
I'd like to think that kids will always be creative. I see it in my friend's 4
y.o. girl who has a pile of toys .. all pre-fabricated .. but who prefers to
build her own small doll sofas out of cardboard boxes.. I always feel hopeful
when I see her.
> >Fact: I used to want to write, but never really could.
Me too. I like to think of myself as a failed writer. I desperately want to
write, but find it difficult. Most of my stories are still on my HD .. all half
unfinished or I'm dissatisfied with them. At least I have begun writing again
after a long hiatus. Blame it on XF.
> For me it's like "onmygod, they're all these people out there
> who are into the weird stuff I'm into. I must write to them."
*lol* .. for me, it's more a matter of stories still needing to be told in the
XF universe. It's wonderfully complex. I love words and I could play around all
day (and if I do, I get kicked by my beta who insists that not every word needs
to be carefully chosen) -- so playing around with language is important for me
too. I know my style of writing may not be everyone's taste but I feel happy
being able to experiment with my writing once more.
> Once you get over
> that fear to write, it's inevitable that you will want
> to try to "paint with words."
Whoooops. I've never been afraid of the Red Ink, but I haven't had any stories
to share.
> I'd rather see them interact, with that sexual
> tension simmering between them. I guess it's "show
> don't tell." Let the reader fill in the gaps. Make them
> wonder, and come back for more. I want adventure!
> I want social commentary! I want something that'll
> make my hair stand up on end! Or.... I want something
> funny! ;)
I like stories that make them talk -- because they do not do that on the show.
*looks around before whispering..* .. and I'm also a bit of a Romantic (shhhh)
so I like stories that pull at my heartstrings.
> But I didn't feel so freaky about it now after reading
> an interview about the guy who played the villain
> in American Psycho and Jesus in the CBS mini series.
>
> He said, playing a homicidial maniac didn't bother him.
> He slept like baby. But Jesus? Jesus gave him terrible
> nightmares.
>
> I read that and thought, "Yeah. Mulder's like that, his pain.
> I wonder if walking a mile in Mulder's shoes gives anyone
> else nightmares?"
Is that Christian Bale? Hmmm.. I like seeing the weight of the world on Mulder's
shoulder. I think that is why I like him. He is a tragic hero. Mmmmm...
> Tinka wrote:
> >Funnily enough, I never really *see* the characters I'm portraying. I hear
> >them instead. The only clear mental picture I've had of a character in one
> >of my fics was one of Marita.
>
> Whoa, that's biazrre, huh? You must be thinking, "Why?
> Why couldn't have been Krycek? ;)
*g* .. I let Krycek sneak in after a while! No, I was sitting in the bus
suddenly having this crystal clear image of a thin Marita all dressed in white
smoke a long white cigarette with the smoke curling up towards the ceiling. In
the shadows.. who else but Krycek could be watching this? I went home, put on
some jazz and started writing.
> So as a writer who wants to be faithful to another person's
> vision of the character I didn't create, I must climb into
> Mulder's head and wear "Mulder" like David would wear
> "Mulder." So DD's ideas about the character, and his style
> of acting came into play. I built off that foundation.
That is excellent advice.
> Bringing that up to the date, I now have developed my
> own version of Mulder based on my tastes and "Mulder's
> Greatest Hits." He writes himself. I just drop
> him in a situation and he takes off like a wind-up
> toy. <g> (Scully too)
Hmmm.. I must try this. I'm working on my first long plot-orientated fic right
now .. and I've been thinking long and hard about the M&S interaction .. povs..
I should give your method a whirl.
Janet Caires Lesgold
In article <3977230B...@NOSPAMscandis-kol.dk>,
Tinka <mul...@NOSPAMscandis-kol.dk> wrote:
>
>XF smutfic?
You're kidding, right?
Smut is definitely all I write (well, *nearly* all), and almost all I read.
In fact, if it weren't for smut, I wouldn't be in this racket at all!
>I read. I read a lot. It's my job more or less. I read so much fiction as part
>of my professional life that I tend to stay away from commercially published
>fiction in my sparetime and either seek out fanfic, poetry or hardcore
>non-fiction. I'm on holiday at the moment though, so I'm working my way through
>a massive pile of fiction. It's lovely being able to relax and not be
>professionally critical every time I open a book. I'm currently reading
>Nabokov's "Pale Fire".
I had to read that in grad school--I remember liking it a lot, but not much
else about it...
Bast Black
<Proactive Mode on>
....and most importantly of all, (you can thank me later),
<Wind Bag Filter on> ;)
Seriously when you talk, I try my best to listen. I think I hear
what you are saying GB, so let's compare notes. I'll repeat
what advice I think I heard from your post in distilled version,
sans emotional content:
Keep the status quo. Giving the wrong impression leaves one easy prey
to misunderstandings. Very little discussed on this forum is objective
in nature, so proper "in my humble opinion" protocol and a respectful
posture can go a long way. Be clear and brief on what you ask and what
you say.
Here's what I think heard in distilled emotional content,
(be it right or wrong):
You're angry at me and wish I would shut up. And you're not
likely to simmer down, or sincerely forgive me anytime soon.
If all of this correct, then I heard you.
And so I wonder, did you hear me?
You wrote:
>Thanks again for the nod, bB.
*nodding back*
Hey, giving credit where credit is due.
bB,
The ego filter and proactive mode I'll try to leave on, but I'm not
making promises about the windbag filter. A girl can only do so much. ;)
pam
> Janet Caires Lesgold wrote:
> > >XF smutfic?
> >
> > You're kidding, right?
>
> suspect even the A-team smut! (although I'm yet to check out *those* fandoms). I had
> to specify the variety of smut! Smut is not just smut, y'know!!
I need some good Garak/Krycek smut!!!
AFAIK, I've never read any (unless there may have been a
brief rendezvous during one of the XF/DEEP SPACE 9/DUE SOUTH/
FOREVER KNIGHT/etc. etc. etc. multiple-crossover orgy
scenes in Brenda Antrim's "Party at Vachon's" series ;-),
but the possibilities posed by such a pairing seem *most*
promising. 8-) Does anyone know where some can be found?
<looks around shiftily> Ummmmm, nooooo, it's not for me, nope!
<ahem> I know very well that Krycek's heart belongs to Mulder!
(Uhhhh, except for those nights when his body belongs to Skinner
because he's handcuffed to the Surly Pectoral God's balcony. ;-D
I'm asking for that person over there ------------------------->
<innocent expression>
<sidles away>
Tinka
> I'm baa-aaaack!
I'm baaaaaack too. And I have a life despite multiple postings today!
> Tinka wrote:
> >XF smutfic?
>
> You're kidding, right?
Well, there are other kinds of smut out there! Baywatch smut, The Nanny smut -- I
suspect even the A-team smut! (although I'm yet to check out *those* fandoms). I had
to specify the variety of smut! Smut is not just smut, y'know!!
> Smut is definitely all I write (well, *nearly* all), and almost all I read.
> In fact, if it weren't for smut, I wouldn't be in this racket at all!
*decidedly dirty grin* .. it's fun, I agree. And all I was doing was specifying the
smuttiness of the smut, Janet!
GBolt60636
<< I'll repeat
what advice I think I heard from your post in distilled version, sans emotional
content:
Keep the status quo. Giving the wrong impression leaves one easy prey to
misunderstandings. Very little discussed on this forum is objective in nature,
so proper "in my humble opinion" protocol and a respectful posture can go a
long way. Be clear and brief on what you ask and what you say.>>
bB, I'm not sure what you mean by "status quo" but as to the rest, sticking to
the topic you have introduced rather than indulging in an exchange of sniping
remarks would go a long way to improve the level of discussion. We probably all
could follow that bit of advice at times. But everyone has their own style in
posting, so I guess if it feels comfortable, do what feels right for you.
<<Here's what I think heard in distilled emotional content, (be it right or
wrong):
You're angry at me and wish I would shut up. And you're not likely to simmer
down, or sincerely forgive me anytime soon.
If all of this correct, then I heard you.
And so I wonder, did you hear me?>>
bB, >>
:::sighing::: I never said anything about you "shutting up." In fact, I thought
I made it clear that any mistake I felt you may have made was not in suggesting
new topics for conversation or argung with people but in how you responded to
the honestly tendered opinions of other posters. You haven't been engaging in
hypothetical situations again, have you? <g> You haven't been imagining me
chasing you around with a stick or something have you?
I WAS angry when I read your response criticizing MY use of terms in my short
post on the actorfic topic, terminology that you later admitted you had been
confused about yourself. But reading my first draft, I disliked the angry tone
and did my best to edit out personal references, trying to stick to the topic
of actorfic, satire, etc. But truthfully, I felt you could have easily said you
did not understand my post without being quite so condescending.
I think it was your perception of bad treatment or a lack of welcome in this
group that finally got me, if not angry, than simply frustrated. bB, if you've
chosen the role of an agent provocateur of some kind, trying to stir people up
to get a good discussion going, that's fine. It's your group too. But
provocation can have all sorts of results, including anger, so just be prepared
to deal with them, or maybe ignore them.
No, I am not angry. And there's nothing to forgive. Nothing here on these
boards warrants holding on to any kind of anger. It's a discussion about a TV
show, not an amendment to the Constitution. It's not that important. If I
haven't responded to any of your other topics it's because I haven't been
interested in them for one reason or another.
And don't worry about the "windbag" thing...I suffer from the same complaint.
<g> And at 49, I'm pretty sure there's no cure. Like I said, do what is
comfortable for you. This is suppossed to be fun.
GB
SIRPAUL10
>Tinka wrote:
>> Janet Caires Lesgold wrote:
>> > Tinka wrote:
>> > >XF smutfic?
>> >
>> > You're kidding, right?
>>
>> Well, there are other kinds of smut out there! Baywatch smut, The Nanny
>smut -- I
>> suspect even the A-team smut! (although I'm yet to check out *those*
>fandoms). I had
>> to specify the variety of smut! Smut is not just smut, y'know!!
>
>I need some good Garak/Krycek smut!!!
This is a site that has X-file crossovers with everyone from "The Kids in the
Hall" to "The Nanny"
If you want some wierd and different smut, download NC-17 material from other
fandoms (or porno sites). Then use Wordpad to change the main characters names
to Mulder and Scully. You get all kinds of strange situations and pairings.
SIRPAUL10
Bast Black
you wrote:
>bB, I'm not sure what you mean by "status quo"
Sorry, I made a leap with your words. Let me explain.
>This is supposed to be a forum for casual discussion,
>not a formal debating society. Just what is it I need
>to defend here?
My answer is "The status quo." I'm getting the feeling there
is a lot pressure to conform on this group. If this wasn't
coming from you, than I apologize for projecting that.
<doing a soapbox thingy>
Other than the occasional troll, we are 495 DD lovers here
and we love him in our own different ways. We each have
own ideas about him, about how to support him, XF, and the
stuff of the world in general. I love hearing what other
people think. If I didn't I wouldn't religiously read every
single post to this ng, and would instead talk to myself in
a closed room or perhaps have deep meaningful conversation
with a dog. </undoing a soapbox thingy>
FYI, My original idea of posing a question was sort of a
"Talk Back Live." I know it's a break in tradition.
It was an experiment, if you will. Not an attempt to change
the format of the forum. It's just me being me, finding
different ways to say things that's all.
The court of law metaphor was merely an illustration of
an idea I had after things went wacky (my fault).
Courtroom debates get ugly too... oh boy do they get ugly, but
at least they are respectable format unlike say....
The Jerry Springer Show.
That's why I went with a court of law metaphor instead. ;)
<snip>
>:::sighing::: I never said anything about you "shutting up." In fact,
>I thought I made it clear that any mistake I felt you may have made
>was not in suggesting new topics for conversation or argung with
>people but in how you responded to the honestly tendered opinions
>of other posters. You haven't been engaging in hypothetical situations
>again, have you? <g>
LOL! But I love hypothetical situations, what do you mean?
...hypothetically speaking of course. ;p j/k
No seriously, logic and emotion don't often agree.
When I first started to reply to you, I realized it was my emotions
that were talking. So I edited out the emotional subtext of your
post so that I could better focus without letting my feelings knee
jerk react. I'm happy to say this was successful experiment.
I'll do it in future. My feeling were "shouting" in my head and
getting in the way of "hearing." After I wrote a reasoned
response, I was ready to send it back. But then I thought, should
I ignore my feelings like they don't exist? I decided perception
of feelings is important. So blushing a bit, I honestly added them.
It was embarrassing, but I'm glad I did. <g>
I don't regret showing my vulnerabilities to you because you were
so very tender with them. And I thank you for that.
Perhaps emotion is the basis of many conservation break downs?
What we hear and what we *think* we hear are 2 different things?
Like "Men Are Mars, Women Are From Venus"?
Even worse, in solely text based communication format like
a newsgroup, it's even more dangerous. People like me add annoying
things like " ;) " and " =) " to messages for a damn good reason.
I have gotten into trouble in the past (and today) for cracking a joke
that was misunderstood. Most the time adding a smiley face lets
people know my intentions, but it doesn't always work.
It's like how DD is misunderstood when his jokes don't translate
in printed interviews. If people get see him saying it, they get
it's a joke, but in print it doesn't work.
>You haven't been imagining me chasing you around with a stick
>or something have you?
LOL! No. I have no images at all in mind. The ones that are
there are normally involve daydreams about Egypt. Ahhhhh ;)
>I WAS angry when I read your response criticizing MY use of terms
>in my short post on the actorfic topic, terminology that you later
>admitted you had been confused about yourself.
And rightfully so. I came on too strong.
But what's strange to me is I didn't think I was criticizing of your
terms, I was frustrated that people were not hearing what I was
saying and so I said it "louder". I'm sorry for that. It was only after
I read your post and seriously pondered your message that I realized
my mistake. My idea of what actorfic was different than what others
thought it was. But whatever. It's history now. The point is, there
is never a need to "shout" or be rude. This may sound bizarre, I'm
glad I got spanked, it keeps a person humble. ;)
>But reading my first draft, I disliked the angry tone and did my best
>to edit out personal references, trying to stick to the topic of
>actorfic, satire, etc.
If there's a disadvantage to newsgroups in that we can't see the
other person's body language, there's an advantage in self-editing
and delayed reactions. I know it's saved my butt many times. ;)
I'm glad you toned it down and took off making personal
references.
I read a book on parenting, and one piece of advice they gave
made a deep impression on me: Attack the behavior, not the child.
It's like, there's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater
for spilling milk. For all my mistakes, I this one rule I never
break (as far as I know). I don't dislike anyone, I dislike bad
behavior. And forgiveness is wonderful virtue I nurture in
myself.
I can count only two people I have had dealings with in
the entire course of my life that I got so angry with I
hated. And even then, I think I don't really hated them,
because I cared enough to never have wished death on them.
Death is my keel. No matter how big I think my problems
are, death makes ants of it all. Gloomy I know, but it works
for me. I learned that one hard way at a very very young age.
<snip>
>I think it was your perception of bad treatment or a lack of welcome
>in this group that finally got me, if not angry, than simply frustrated.
Oops. You may still be frustrated then. Don't be.
>bB, if you've chosen the role of an agent provocateur of some kind,
>trying to stir people up to get a good discussion going, that's fine.
Not "stir things up" to cause problems, but to get people to think about
things and get the conversation ball rolling. Hey, there's some damn
interesting conversations going on in this group and they're not all
dependent on breaking news. <g>
I think having an atmosphere where people feel comfortable to freely
discuss and share things is worth ensuring even if means a spanking
to me for breaking that rule, or promoting it. <g>
>It's your group too.
I have an opposite view on that.
imho, newsgroups belong to no one.
I have no ownershiper,
but I do feel protective sometimes of people.
<snip>
>No, I am not angry. And there's nothing to forgive. Nothing here on
>these boards warrants holding on to any kind of anger.
I am so with you about that!
Passion can go both ways. One can passionately love something,
but that passion can easily turn to hate. I think about Buddhist
ideas. They believe that eliminating passion is to reach a higher
level of being, because desire is the root of all suffering. If one
stops desiring, there will be no pain.
Of course, I say if there is no desire and no pain, life isn't
worth living. But I try to keep in mind to temper my tempest
of passions. ;p
<snip>
>And don't worry about the "windbag" thing... I suffer from the same
>complaint. <g>
LOL! Hey! I like your windbag ways. ;)
>And at 49, I'm pretty sure there's no cure. Like I said, do what is
>comfortable for you. This is supposed to be fun.
I will. Thanks for a nice reply. :)
I think you're really cool!
bB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duchovny In Orange: boy meets hue, sparks ensue
http://www.geocities.com/BastBlack/orange.html