RPF, HPF, and Based On A True Story, or What if Hollywood ficced them First?

[elspethdixon]

I myself have never participated in any real RPS fandoms—I couldn’t tell N’Sync and the Backstreet Boys apart even back when they were all over MTV and the radio, which should give you some idea of the level of my interest in boybands, and when it comes to television and movies, I’m far more interested in the characters than the actual actors. I’d rather read about Jack Sparrow having sex with Will and Elizabeth Turner than about Johnny Depp, Keira Knightly, and Orlando Bloom performing the exact same sex acts, because Jack, Will, and Elizabeth are the ones I saw on screen and got all fangirly over. Mr. Depp, Ms. Knightly, and Mr. Bloom may be the talented and pretty people who helped create Jack, Will, and Elizabeth, but are they 18th century pirates?

Not that I’m totally against actorfic. When someone writes orgy fic featuring Shakespeare and the Lord Chamberlain’s men, then I’ll be all over actorfic like white on rice. Especially if they throw Marlowe into the mix as well. Mmmm… Marlowe.

And that begs the question: when exactly is RPS “RPS,” and when does it become something else? Sitting down at a computer and writing Depp/Bloom or Sean Bean/ Viggo Mortenson fic could theoretically get me sued for libel (though not for slander; to quote J. J. Jameson, “Slander is spoken. Libel is printed.”), but I could not only freely pen Marlowe slash, I could actually get it published. I submit as evidence Melissa Scott & Lisa A. Barnett’s Armor of Light. For that matter, I give you Shakespeare in Love, which might not be slash, but is certainly some degree of RPF. and totally stole the Oscar that should have gone to Saving Private Ryan

Granted, Mr. Mortenson et al are currently alive and well with their own agents and lawyers and press people to perform the aforementioned suing, and Christopher Marlowe has been dead for several hundred years, and moreover, left no descendants, but that’s the legal reasoning, not the moral argument. Why is Depp/Bloom squicky and wrong, and Shakespeare/Marlowe less so? Hell, I consider historical RPS less squicky than RPS with modern celebrities (as well as more interesting, since I’m a history geek), but I don’t know why.

And what about fic written for films and television series that are based on real people and events? To what extent is, say, a Doc/Wyatt slash fic based on Tombstone regular fanfic, and to what extent is it historical RPS? Wyatt Earp and John H. Holliday were, after all, real people. What about fic for a miniseries like Band of Brothers, which was based on a book that told the story of a real life army unit? What if I wrote fic for Good Night and Good Luck or Walk the Line or Capote?

Not only did Hollywood do the film equivalent of RPF in those movies, they used actual footage of Senator Joe McCarthy in Good Night and Good Luck, completely without his consent and permission, since he’s dead, and probably would have refused to give the film his blessing even were he alive to do so. His Hed Was Pastede On Yay! Granted, it was footage from a public broadcast, and therefore presumably up for grabs to anyone who cleared it with CBS first, but you see where I’m going with this, right?

If Hollywood or some published author has “done fic” about a celebrity or historical person first, does it absolve RPS writers who choose to write about those people of fic-writing sin, or does my Doc/Wyatt slash earn me a place in the Special Hell right next to the Timbertrick people?

Comments

[melusina]

Interestingly, if you make it clear that your RPF isn't true, there's pretty much no way you can successfully be sued for libel, which means that the legality of RPF is actually much clearer than the legality of FPF. To me, it's just another example in which fans tend to believe that fannish products are less legitimate and "naughtier" in some way than published-for-profit texts (even when the for-profit texts are strikingly similar to fannish products).

When someone writes orgy fic featuring Shakespeare and the Lord Chamberlain’s men, then I’ll be all over actorfic like white on rice. Especially if they throw Marlowe into the mix as well. Mmmm… Marlowe.

Someone *totally* needs to write that. . .

[azarias.livejournal.com]

My general rule is that if they've been dead long enough that no one now living knew them, they're completely fair game for fiction. Price of leading a noteworthy life.

Before that cut-off, it gets more complicated. I don't have a hard and fast rule, but it seems to be mostly "Is it good?". Lawrence of Arabia, the Peter O'toole version, is not only RPF but RPS (if that is not a nonsexual romance, my subtextometer is broken). It's also the greatest film I've ever seen, and I completely fail to care if anyone who knew T.E. Lawrence et al may be uncomfortable from the portrayal. On the other hand, I tried to read ... ugh, I've blocked out the title. Some slashy historical novel about the same characters that was terribly written, and it not only offended my sense of aesthetics but made me supremely uncomfortable in a human sense.

The Alexander/Hephaistion relationship in Alexander made me uncomfortable, too, because it was so badly done -- despite a couple thousand years' cushion, and despite much of it being taken word-for-word (and uncredited) from Mary Renault's novels, which I love. If you're going to make historical figures your puppets, all right, but do it well.

Fic about living celebrities simply squicks me, particularly if it's sexually-oriented. I imagine it's a combination of several factors. First, I think it's poor taste to air masturbatory fantasies where the object of said fantasies could conceivably come across them. Second, so much of it's terribly done -- though that's most fic, pro- or fan-. And, honestly, I think a lot of it is because I could care less about the living celebrities that get written about. I don't care about popular music. I don't care about most of Hollywood. I liked Lord of the Rings like most geeks who didn't hate it, but the actors are not the Fellowship and thus are not one tenth as cool. Sean Bean is very, very nice to oggle, but I simply don't give a damn about his personal life, including who he has sex with, and I wouldn't like to meet him in real life, both because I probably wouldn't like him and because I'm shy and don't want to meet the vast majority of humanity.

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

When writing/reading historical fiction I generally go by how long the participants have been dead. I tend to feel better about it if they and their immediate family are all deceased. Of course, as I've noticed once or twice, there are still people out there capable of taking deep and personal offense at a non-vanilla portrayal of a long-dead historical figure (aka the infamous "Okita wasn't gay, he murdered people!" debacle) but let's face it, those people need lives!

You raise a very interesting point, though, regarding RPF writing about characters who have been more "officially" RPF'd before. Especially when it is, as it were, second-hand. Take the Musketeer fandom, for example - I feel guiltless when writing about d'Artagnan even though he was a historical figure, because the person I'm slashing with Athos ficcing is filtered, in a manner of speaking, through Dumas and Courtilz before him and probably has very little resemblance to the actual Charles Castelmore d'Artagnan.

This argument becomes uncomfortable, though, because it can be argued that the outward persona of an actor doesn't necessarily bear much resemblance to that actor's real self either... which means actor-fic could be justified. And what about, say, those Japanese boy-bands who flirt and carry on with each other on stage as part of their show, more or less?

Which is what bothers me, because in practice I'm uncomfortable with actor-fic to the point where I find it hard to write anything but the blandest sort of genfic for any movie or TV series. Thank god for anime (and text).

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I think a lot of it is because I could care less about the living celebrities that get written about... I liked Lord of the Rings like most geeks who didn't hate it, but the actors are not the Fellowship and thus are not one tenth as cool.

That's pretty close to my opinions on the subject, as is your comment about people being fair game for fiction so long as they've been dead long enough that nobody who knew them personally is around to get offended on their behalf. I feel... creepy.. when I ponder writing about current or near current people (which is why that Walk the Line plotbunny never got written). Even reading autobiographies of still-living people creeps me out a bit, since, while I'm reading, I project myself into the POV character. Hawkeye can bang BJ and Trapper seven ways from Sunday while I read along gleefully, but reading Alan Alda's autobiography for my mom's book club felt... wierd. And it didn't even have any sex in it ^_^.

"Lawrence of Arabia," the Peter O'toole version, is not only RPF but RPS (if that is not a nonsexual romance, my subtextometer is broken).

Scarily, I know people who've watched this film and not seen any subtext between Lawrence and Ali. Or realised that there was a sexual component to the torture scene (and that part is canon, as is, I suspect, Lawrence/Ali, given that Ali's initials are S.A., which makes me think he's intended to be the one Lawrence dedicates Seven Pillars of Wisdom to). Truly, there are people out skilled enough at ignoring any and all non-het subtext that they could compete with the collective population of Sunnydale in the Denial Olympics.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

the infamous "Okita wasn't gay, he murdered people!" debacle

Bwuh? What exactly does one half of that statement have to do with the other half?

I'll buy arguments like "X couldn't have been gay; look, he had a wife and kids," but one's level of badass-ness has nothing to do with one's sexuality. Of course, that doesn't mean I haven't seen "Ick. Alexander the Great couldn't have slept with Hephaestion and kissed his slave boy in public; he was a great general! Why do you have to make him gay!" before.

You raise a very interesting point, though, regarding RPF writing about characters who have been more "officially" RPF'd before. Especially when it is, as it were, second-hand. Take the Musketeer fandom, for example - I feel guiltless when writing about d'Artagnan even though he was a historical figure, because the person I'm slashing with Athos ficcing is filtered, in a manner of speaking, through Dumas and Courtilz before him and probably has very little resemblance to the actual Charles Castelmore d'Artagnan.

Just as Dumas' Richelieu is really a "fanon" version of the real Richelieu, and ditto for his Louis XIII, Anne of Austria, and George Villiers. They're as much fictional characters as they are historical figures, and Dumas certainly felt no guilt about attributing to them motives and desires they may not actually have possessed. Hey, he gave Louis XIV an imaginary twin brother!

Historical fiction is a lot like fanfiction, in a way: you have a certain set of facts to work with (canon), a bunch of common assumptions and myths that haven't really been proven (fanon), and then you have your ship wars ("Jefferson slept with Sally Hemmings!" "OMG, no he didn't!" "Yes he did; we can prove it!"). And the farther back you go, the less canon and more fanon there is.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

if you make it clear that your RPF isn't true, there's pretty much no way you can successfully be sued for libel, which means that the legality of RPF is actually much clearer than the legality of FPF

That actually makes sense (which is a sad comment on the current state of copyright law). It would be nicely ironic if RPS turned out to be more legal than regular fic, since so many fans consider it more morally questionable than copyright violation. It doesn't seem to stop anti-RPS people from telling RPS writers that they're committing libel/slander/invasion of privacy/sins against the Gods of fandom/whathaveyou, though. On the other hand, I'm not sure I buy the "celebrities make themselves fair game for pr0n by becoming public figures" argument, either.

To me, it's just another example in which fans tend to believe that fannish products are less legitimate and "naughtier" in some way than published-for-profit texts (even when the for-profit texts are strikingly similar to fannish products).

I've never really understood why things like Wicked are considered clever and literary, while Harry Potter or Staw Wars fic is considered derivative, less "creative," and a sign of having no life. Or why people see any major difference between the zillion and one Star Trek tie-in novels and Kirk/Spock slash zines.

Fan fiction is a proud literary tradition, going back (at least) to when Virgil decided to write his own unauthorized sequel to Homer's Odyssy ^_^. The fact that Virgil wrote in Latin doesn't magically erase the fact that Aeneas was somebody else's character first. Except that if you try to claim to most people that the Aeneid was fanficton, they'll indignantly insist that it's literature, and in no way similar to Harry/Hermione pr0n.

[azarias.livejournal.com]

Truly, there are people out skilled enough at ignoring any and all non-het subtext that they could compete with the collective population of Sunnydale in the Denial Olympics.

Funniest example I've yet encountered: My pet comics fandom, The Authority. As anyone who's been exposed to this fandom for two paragraphs knows, the comic is, in part, about the big gay superheroic love of Apollo and Midnighter. Years before my time in the fandom, the canon relationship was ... I guess you could call it "subtextual." I mean, sure, in their very first scene in canon, the two of them are hanging out in an abandoned building, naked, clothes strewn about and hair mussed, killing time while waiting for the bad guys to show up, but neither of them is wearing a large neon sign flashing "WE JUST HAD SEX AND IT WAS GREAT HOMOSEXUAL" with voice-over for the blind, so, yes, I suppose it's subtextual. As opposed to the adopted child and the wedding later in canon, at least.

I'm very sad that I was not in this fandom way back when, because evidently the snark between the slashers and omgnogayincomics!!!1! was epic. And hte slashers won. (And the writer, bastard demigod that he is, spent a couple of years gloating over the entertaining wank he had wrought before calmly addressing the issue on a message board with, I quote, "Yeah. So what?".)

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

My general rule is that if they've been dead long enough that no one now living knew them, they're completely fair game for fiction. Price of leading a noteworthy life.

Pretty much my feeling too. I have no qualms about having characters in my original fiction claiming descent from Edward Kelly and stepping outside
historical fact about him and other long-dead figures at times. I was a little uneasy on the other hand as to how to deal with some of the minor characters, where there was obviously a real person holding the post I mentioned, but it would have been cumbersome to stress that I wasn't referring to them in the story. The Warden of Keble College, Oxford is one that springs to mind; my hero is in the same room as the Warden at various points, but as they never speak 'on screen' I left things as vague as possible.

My one exception to the second rule was Margaret Thatcher -- it seemed perfectly in character for one of my characters to speculate about her in a slanderous manner, so I put a throw-away comment in there. Then again the chances of her showing up in person in any story are pretty unlikely -- I wouldn't be *that* mean to my characters.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

One of my friends has been making serious attempts to pimp me into that series (she's sending me some issues right now), and she's suceeded in getting me to read the wikipedia rundown and squee in anticipation. There are cyborgs! There are people with glowing red eyes! There's canon Manly!Love! (with Interesting Scars and a guy whose superpowers seem to involve glowing with heroic golden light). There's a naked girl who appears to be made entirely of silver metal! There's a truly excessive amount of violence! It's as if the entire thing was written with my subconscious in mind. There also appears to be more crack than you can shake a giant spaceship at, and occasional political commentary, but I'm good at ignoring political commentary.

[azarias.livejournal.com]

Victory!

There are woobies. Woobies who get things done! And extremely imperfect heroes, and crazy old British bitches who accidentally gave Hitler some important career advice, and women who have conversations with each other about topics that aren't men, and drunken superheroics and PR stunts and bad decisions coming around to bite people in the ass in organic ways!

It really is my favorite comic, and I'll always love it dearly, despite the quality being a dodgy crapshoot depending on who's writing (as with anything).

*cough*theauthority iswearwedon'tsuck*cough*

[azarias.livejournal.com]

it seemed perfectly in character for one of my characters to speculate about her in a slanderous manner, so I put a throw-away comment in there

Having fictional characters comment on real people doesn't even come close to tripping my squick triggers. I like it, in fact, as it feels like it's integrating the characters into reality without getting inconvenient fluids all over reality.

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

the infamous "Okita wasn't gay, he murdered people!" debacle

Bwuh? What exactly does one half of that statement have to do with the other half?

Apparently a great deal, in the eyes of a certain Shinsengumi fanboy who for reasons of homophobia wanted to insist that a) despite the many texts and poems and so forth from the era which praise "manly love", samurai were actually almost never gay, and when they were they were duly socially censured as gays have ever been and ever must be for the sake of humanity's future... well you get it, and b) men who pursue Very Manly Occupations like killing other people for pay/idealism are for some reason immune from other Very Manly Occupations like gay sex. Something like that.

Historical fiction is a lot like fanfiction, in a way: you have a certain set of facts to work with (canon), a bunch of common assumptions and myths that haven't really been proven (fanon), and then you have your ship wars ("Jefferson slept with Sally Hemmings!" "OMG, no he didn't!" "Yes he did; we can prove it!").

It becomes even hairier when most people's only "historical" exposure to the character is in fact from fanfic! For example, I once met someone who insisted Richard III of England was a much better king (and Henry VII a correspondingly greater bastard) than is popular opinion... but most people haven't studied the era, they just take Will Shakespeare's word for it.

[bladesno1.livejournal.com]

I once met someone who insisted Richard III of England was a much better king (and Henry VII a correspondingly greater bastard) than is popular opinion... but most people haven't studied the era, they just take Will Shakespeare's word for it.
Except there's a fair amount of research that shows that Richard III was pretty much sandbagged historically by the following reign. I have not doubt he was both bad and good. History alone knows how he really was, we'll never really know. And Henry was a Bastard in a lot of ways. Dood killed several of his wives on rumour alone. And other reasons.
But just as medieval and renaissance characters fall into the comfortable zone of 'okay to write cause they are so dead', Vietnam era characters are also okay to write because they are historical as well. Last week is historical. Two sentences ago is historical in the strictest sense. History is not a hard and fast objective genre. It's a manipulation of events through the eyes of the recorders of the history who are biased in their own ways, most of whom are the victors and have an agenda regarding the content of their stories for posterity.
In a sense, a very real sense, historical writing is fanfiction. People writing it are fans of the event and write from that bias. The bible as well as many scriptoral writings also fall into this catagory.
There are many actual canon pieces of information, I'll grant you that. Dates and times and sometimes even amounts of things, like deaths or monies or such. But the why's and wherefores are muddled by time and distance.
Anyhow, this got a lot longer than I anticipated.
I would add that even the telling of a story within a family has it's twists and turns. Ever play telephone as a child? That's how I view history. The idea of absolute truth is, in my mind, reserved for scientific facts and human nature. How we interpret them is what makes the fiction.
I'll shut up now.

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

Well, yes? I haven't disputed any of this.

[bladesno1.livejournal.com]

True enough. But saying someone just takes Shakespeare's word on it implies that affore mentioned writer didn't know what the fuck he was talking about. That he made everything up. But his stories were all rooted in the facts of the time and he was famous for putting his own cultural references in his writing.

[seanchai.livejournal.com]

The comics are on their way, and if all goes well, you ought to have them by the end of this week. ^^

I'd have gotten them sent sooner, but I was looking for a couple of the issues I knew I had lying around, that contained some truly glorious examples of the fact the while Midnighter may be the psychotic one, Apollo can damn well be a violent bastard when he pleases. Also, there are aliens on horses. I figured it would be worth the wait.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

Aliens on horseback are always worth the wait.

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

...and if you read the passage of mine that you quoted, you'll notice I wasn't claiming that Shakespeare was talking out of his ass, just mentioning that I'd once met a person who made that claim.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

most people haven't studied the era, they just take Will Shakespeare's word for it.

Which would make them something like the fanfic writer who hasn't actually read Les Miserables, and decides to base her Valjean/Javert slash epic solely on the musical. The musical's a very good adaptation of the book, but think of all the details and subplots that get left out! Or like someone who's seen half an episode of SGA, and decided to write a Sheppard/McKay pwp based solely on having read Freedom.

Research is a lovely thing. Why, if I hadn't done some admittedly half-assed research for that Tombstone WIP, I'd never have known that Bat Masterson had a pimp stick, and my world would have been a sadder and far less amusing place.

[bladesno1.livejournal.com]

It becomes even hairier when most people's only "historical" exposure to the character is in fact from fanfic! For example, I once met someone who insisted Richard III of England was a much better king (and Henry VII a correspondingly greater bastard) than is popular opinion... but most people haven't studied the era, they just take Will Shakespeare's word for it.

This is the quote you posted. You seem to be saying that this person got his impression from reading shakespeare, and that most people haven't study the era. I'm sorry, but to me it reads as if you're saying that Shakespeare isn't a credible source. That's how it reads to me.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

In a sense, a very real sense, historical writing is fanfiction. People writing it are fans of the event and write from that bias.

Having done an undergraduate history thesis on the Civil War, I can get behind that idea. Every time I found a new primary or secondary source, I had to check when and where it was first published. Sometimes the battles had different names. Sometimes the ships had different names. Underwater mines were either a thing of genius, a bloody nuisance, or an abomination in violation of all laws of war, depending on whether the person writing about them was a Confederate naval officer, a blockade runner trying to sneak into Charleston harbor in the dark, or Union naval officers who were irritated that they hadn't thought of them first.

Even films about history have their own editorial slant: to stay with the Civil War genre, there's Birth of a Nation or Glory, Gone With the Wind, or Cold Mountain.

[seanchai.livejournal.com]

Research is a lovely thing. Why, if I hadn't done some admittedly half-assed research for that Tombstone WIP, I'd never have known that Bat Masterson had a pimp stick, and my world would have been a sadder and far less amusing place.

See, this is why people who don't like doing research baffle me, cause it's half the fun. I mean really, how can people not enjoy finding out that Bat Masterson had a pimp pimp-stick. Or that Virgil used to call Wyatt the 'Earp-ape'. Or that Doc was born with a cleft-palate, and had to be fed out of a shot glass as a baby. Or, well, all of those fun facts that research can turn up, which are at least half the reason that I like writing historical fiction.

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

I don't think she's claiming that Shakespeare isn't a credible source, just that his plays provide only one take on events (also, they punch it up a lot in order to make it play better on stage. I'm sure the real Macbeth didn't run around making deals with witches). If someone based their whole view of 15th century British politics on his work, it would be like making assumtions about the Napoleonic war based solely on Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series.

As far as Richard III goes, the fact that Elizabeth I, the ruler of England when Shakespeare was writing Richard III, was descended from Henry Tudor, whose claim to the throne was shaky at best and who basically got to be king by having Richard III deposed, probably played a part in Shakespeare's decision to depict Richard III in a negative fashion. If you're writing a play about the guy the current bunch of rulers kicked off the throne, it probably pays to make him look like the bad guy, and show the people currently in power in the best possible light.

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

Well, what I actually wrote was about how I'd met someone (not me) who insisted (i.e. stated his opinion) that Shakespeare was not a credible source.

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

Amen! Though there are some things about research that make my teeth hurt. For example, just as Dumas preferred to ignore all the blood-and-gorey aspects of period warfare and focus on the gloriousness of it all! so do I prefer to ignore the fact that most probably, the real people behind the characters all had lice and bad teeth and smelled like week-dead goats. My Musketeers bathe, thank you very much!