Flexibility in Editorial Guidelines: A Maverick's Approach
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Flexibility in Editorial Guidelines: A Maverick's Approach |
| Creator: | Linda Frankel |
| Date(s): | May/Summer 1988 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | mainly Star Trek |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Flexibility in Editorial Guidelines: A Maverick's Approach is a 1988 essay by Linda Frankel.
It was printed in On the Double #7/8.
Some Topics Discussed
- controversial topics and fiction
- Star Trek: TOS Kirk/Spock fanfic
- censorship vs opinions vs guidelines
From the Essay
It is now fairly typical to find that K/S zines have editorial guidelines restricting the kind of material that they are willing to look at. This is not censorship. Censorship is an imposition by an authority, such as Paramount, which has the power to prevent the appearance of any stories of which it disapproves anywhere. An editor's guidelines apply only to her own zine. What one editor rejects, another editor may gladly accept. I respect editorial guidelines, even if I don't agree with them. Once I fully understand what it is that an editor does and doesn't want, a try to adhere to the editor's standards. I am sometimes mistaken in my conception of an editor's policy, so I get a rejection. No problem - I've been writing for ten years now, and that's the wav the game is played. I learn from such mistakes. I won't submit a similar story to that particular editor in the future.
Nevertheless, it is my opinion that a zine is better off when editorial guidelines are flexible. Some fairly common editorial taboos are the ones- against rape, slavery, S/M and violence in general. Not only do many editors frown on such stories, but most fans also become highly outraged when zines do pub stories that deal with such themes. Yet even the editors who most oppose this mate-rial do make exceptions for stories that they believe in and which they do not find offensive. Sometimes readers soundly trounce them for this, and sometimes the audience agrees with the editor's statement that an exception should be made for that particular story. Recently, Alexis Fagen Black dedicated an entire zine to stories "that were exceptions to her normal guidelines. The result was NAKED TIMES 17. I declare that the experiment was a success, and Alexis obviously thought so too, because she is continuing to maintain flexibility in requests for material since then.
It seems to me that whether or not a story dealing with sensitive or controversial themes is offensive, depends very much on how the author has handled it and why this story has been written.
RAPE- As I have already shown in my review of DARING ATTEMPT 2, it is possible to write a story about rape that is genuinely moving and positive in its effects. Questions that should be asked" are: Does this story show the victim's viewpoint with sympathy? Is the perpetrator sorry for the offense, and is he making an effort to reform? If the story does neither of these things, does the author show that rape is wrong in some other way?
SLAVERY— There are two kinds of slavery stories. Some are fantasies that have nothing to do with the reality of slavery, and others are fairly realistic. Each of these types of story should be evaluated differently. If it is a fantasy, I feel that the story should be judged in terms of how effective the fantasy is. The editor may not be turned on by slave fantasies. In that case, writers of such stories would be well advised to submit- elsewhere. There are editors and fans who find the slave scenario erotic. A realistic story about slavery is much more difficult to write, and elements of fantasy often creep in. Questions to be asked about such stories are: Does the author truly understand the institution of slavery? Does the story show the crippling effects that being owned can have on an individual? Does the story show how owning sentient beings can have a negative impact on the sensitivity and ethics of a slaveowner?
S/M — stories about s/m can be consensual or non-consensual. It is my belief that a consensual s/m story is harmless fantasy which may suit the tastes of some readers. Recently, there were two stories' in NAKED TIMES 17 , and another story in CHARISMA 1 that successfully employed the element of consensual bondage. Other stories, have dealt equally well with consensual discipline. If it's not your thing, remember that you don't have to read it. Editors who don't normally publish consensual s/m, might be well advised to make a statement in their editorials about any stories of this kind that they choose to publish, so that readers who don't share their taste may avoid them. Non-consensual s/m stories are essentially dealing with rape. Everything that I had to say in the paragraph about rape applies to such stories. Rape is always wrong, and a story about rape is also wrong if it takes no ethical position on this highly sensitive subject.
VIOLENCE— Portrayals of violence always hinge on the author's intent. Is she merely wallowing in brutality, or she is trying to make a statement about how violence affects victims and/or relationships? Not only is it unethical to gloss over the psychological impact of violence, but it is also unbelievable. A character who is a victim of violence may choose to forgive, but it is unrealistic to say that it is ever really forgotten. The victim's attitudes toward the perpetrator must change in some way. Another question that should be asked is, whether the perpetrator remembers that he really does love the victim of his violence. Is he sincerely regretful, and is he making an effort to make sure the behavior pattern that caused the violence is eradicated? Sometimes the violence in stories is due to the nature of the environment in which they take place. Mirror AU stories are an example of this. That is a savage universe. Readers have a right to ask if the writer has taken care to show that there is something wrong with environmental conditions that bring about violence. The characters shouldn't merely accept these conditions. Even if they don't actively struggle against their situation, they should feel inner conflict about it.
I must make clear that all of this is only my opinion. This is how I think current editorial restrictions should be applied. Some fans may disagree with me. They may think that all the themes I have listed are so disturbing that they don't want to see any exceptions made to editorial policies against them, and that is their right. Nevertheless, I think that people should be aware that there is another viewpoint on the issue, and that it is a perfectly valid one. I am not some depraved monster that wants to see K/S descend into the depths of cruelty and perversity. I am simply defending flexibility in the use of editorial guidelines, and I would like to see a good deal more of it.