I love what Lex has written here in response to your comment - your comment, of course, which is a very valid point of view, and one I certainly shared for a long time.
I agree with her that there's all kinds of grey areas with RPF. I enjoy (and write) RPF or RPS that is AU - so, basically, an original story that uses the perceived characteristics of RP as the main characters and, instead of putting an author's note at the top that says, oh, think David Tennant for the character of Fred Ratgobbler and John Barrowman for the character of Butch Hardly as you read it - simply uses their names. Then it becomes a project that they might make togetehr, another movie or TV show. David Tennant/ Fred as a psychiatrist, John Barrowman/ Butch as a firefighter.
But others go further and write about DT and JB as actors, making Dr Who. I'm much less comfortable with that, and I definitely do not include any members of the family, as many writers do. But can I really draw those distinctions without being crashingly hypocritical? I don't know. And there is undoubtedly a frisson created by imagining the real people in those different scenarios that doesn't exist if their likenesses are simply used.
And Lex's comments about RPF in the broader sense are spot on. What do we make of To Kill a Mockingbird, my second most favorite book of all time? It is widely accepted and known that Dill is, in fact, Truman Capote. When people are well aware of the RPs being represented in a work of fiction (Primary Colors, anyone?), how and how far does that differ from blatant RPF? Does Harper Lee keep herself nice by not naming the character Truman? Or could we make an argument that it's less honest? I have a book actually about all the RL people on whom fictional characters are based, and it's an extensive list (well it *is* a whole book's worth). How do these vary from RPF? Is it disingenuous to claim they're different, when they are physically and in terms of character described to a T but simply given a different name?
All good, crunchy stuff. As I said, I draw the line at my RPF/RPS folks' families, and I do try to keep within the character parameters of the RPs as I see them, so that I can find myself thinking as I read a story, "Oh, this is out of character" even as I'm supposedly accepting that the RPF is an original story 'casting' the real people. If I *truly* believed that, then any depiction of their characters would be acceptable to me, and it's not so. (It would be as ridiculous as watching My Bloody Valentine and thinking, oh, Jensen wouldn't do that!) So I think something else is going on there, and my stance is dishonest. Nonetheless, I do most enjoy those RPF/RPS stories that follow those parameters of close to real characterizations, AU settings and no families.
no subject
I agree with her that there's all kinds of grey areas with RPF. I enjoy (and write) RPF or RPS that is AU - so, basically, an original story that uses the perceived characteristics of RP as the main characters and, instead of putting an author's note at the top that says, oh, think David Tennant for the character of Fred Ratgobbler and John Barrowman for the character of Butch Hardly as you read it - simply uses their names. Then it becomes a project that they might make togetehr, another movie or TV show. David Tennant/ Fred as a psychiatrist, John Barrowman/ Butch as a firefighter.
But others go further and write about DT and JB as actors, making Dr Who. I'm much less comfortable with that, and I definitely do not include any members of the family, as many writers do. But can I really draw those distinctions without being crashingly hypocritical? I don't know. And there is undoubtedly a frisson created by imagining the real people in those different scenarios that doesn't exist if their likenesses are simply used.
And Lex's comments about RPF in the broader sense are spot on. What do we make of To Kill a Mockingbird, my second most favorite book of all time? It is widely accepted and known that Dill is, in fact, Truman Capote. When people are well aware of the RPs being represented in a work of fiction (Primary Colors, anyone?), how and how far does that differ from blatant RPF? Does Harper Lee keep herself nice by not naming the character Truman? Or could we make an argument that it's less honest? I have a book actually about all the RL people on whom fictional characters are based, and it's an extensive list (well it *is* a whole book's worth). How do these vary from RPF? Is it disingenuous to claim they're different, when they are physically and in terms of character described to a T but simply given a different name?
All good, crunchy stuff. As I said, I draw the line at my RPF/RPS folks' families, and I do try to keep within the character parameters of the RPs as I see them, so that I can find myself thinking as I read a story, "Oh, this is out of character" even as I'm supposedly accepting that the RPF is an original story 'casting' the real people. If I *truly* believed that, then any depiction of their characters would be acceptable to me, and it's not so. (It would be as ridiculous as watching My Bloody Valentine and thinking, oh, Jensen wouldn't do that!) So I think something else is going on there, and my stance is dishonest. Nonetheless, I do most enjoy those RPF/RPS stories that follow those parameters of close to real characterizations, AU settings and no families.