Homewrecker

Fanfiction
Title:	Homewrecker
Author(s):	GillianDuchovny8
Date(s):	February 17, 2000
Length:
Genre(s):	RPF
Fandom(s):	X-Files RPF
Relationship(s):
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Homewrecker is a very early, and by most accounts, very poorly-written, X-Files RPF story. The author is GillianDuchovny8.

The fic was posted on February 17, 2000.

When the author posted it to alt.tv.x-files.creative, they said: "sorry for X posting....." One of the first responses was: "I don't know what that apology is for, but I can think of something you *should* be apologizing for.

Jerry, assuming this writer is young, inexperienced and doesn't realize how completely inappropriate this story is."

The story caused a lot of discussion at alt.tv.x-files.creative about the morality of writing RPF, whether it was appropriate for discussion, whether it was an "X-Files" story, whether the author herself was sockpuppeting the numerous recs for it herself, and more. One of the foci of the discussion there was the motivations, mental health, and age of the story's author.

Similar Stories

For other examples of similar fic, see Some Examples of Early X-Files RPF.

The Murder of Tea Leoni (1997), Raping David Duchovny (2000), and Homewrecker (2000) are three poorly written, possibly purposely provocative stories cited many times by early fans as to why actorfic was immoral, distasteful, and wrong. Some fans consider them as part of a straw man fallacy; a reference to them distorts other fans' actual positions and substitutes these stories as distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented examples of RPF fiction.

Reactions and Reviews: Regarding the Story Itself

A completely inappropriate story.... I have my doubts about her inexperience. What really freaks me is that Ephemeral has 50 recs for it. 50 people really recced it? I doubt it.

Oh lord, not actorfic.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Nooooooooooo!

Have to agree here. I'm not saying you shouldn't write it, and you can probably find folks who want to read it, but this ng isn't isn't the proper forum to post it. There are several websites that run mailing lists for David and Gillian shippers. They'd probably like to see your story.

Normally I avoid any such story like the plague, but I saw the phrase 'Maddie bashing' before I realized what it was. I am ashamed to admit that I found that statement so disturbing I had to read further and see what this person could possibly consider 'bashing' of an innocent baby. What a terrible thing - and people question why these actors choose to keep their children out of the public eye? IMHO one has to be pretty odd to write such a thing. As a parent this disturbs me. Imagine what it does to those who are the subjects of it. Another thing I just can't grasp are individuals who hold fast to the idea that David is the father of Gillian's daughter. Why would anyone want to believe that? To believe it makes him a man would would create a child and then abandon it. Talk about being a lowlife. There's not much lower than that IMNSHO.

I wish I could be as kind as you have been about this. The fact that someone old enough to use a computer can be so divorced from both reality and common decency is appalling. And just in case the 'she's probably too young to know better' card is played, don't bother. The warning of 'Tea and Maddie bashing! (sorry!)' shows she knew what she was doing....And as upset as it makes many people to see actorfic, it's the vitriol in this particular piece that's especially disconcerting. While the adults portrayed here are all public figures which, unfortunately, makes some people think they're lives are open for investigation and speculation, the children are NOT. What has Tea, David, Gillian, and especially Madelaine and Piper ever done to deserve this kind of treatment?... FANTASY Mulder and Scully are FBI agents who love each other and chase monsters and mutants and aliens, oh my. REALITY David and Gillian are actors who tolerate one another and are not now, nor have they ever been, romantically involved. Their children (who are in no way related): off limits. Period. Perhaps the 'auther' should print this out and tape it to her monitor.

Bad enough actorfic, but some of the emotions expressed in the first few paragraphs are very disturbing.  :(

>This is my first attempt at a David/Gillian romance so be kind!!

I'll try although I am currently squashing my inner bitch.

These are actors playing roles, public people. Their children are not.

You can write whatever you want. Basic decency seems to suggest that you keep children out this. Would you be happy if someone wrote something here and used you as a child, or children you know as subject? Wow.

Um . . . eeeww.

>> The thing that disturbs me is that it has received more hits on Ephemeral than any of the chapters of my WIP that I just posted and it has 33 times more recommendations. If this were Brandon, Dawson, Kelly, or any of the other fine writers, I definitely would expect that success, but this is a horrible piece of literature (if you even want to call it that).

Probably because as soon as she got off the school bus she took herself right over to Ephemeral and spent the afternoon rec'ing her own story over and over again. Homewrecker looks like it was written by an eleven year old.

You know I kind of got that same feeling - her fantasy is to have David & Gillian as her parents and the children she wrote are really 'Mary-Sue' characters.

I was asking about actorfic in general .. I'm going to check out Best Performance By. I skimmed over it at Gossamer a second ago and it looked amusing... I guess I'll have to create another rule for myself and avoid actorfic like the plague from now on .... there are always exceptions, but this rule might save me from the agony of another story like Homewrecker Thanks for the opinions and the rec.

>> Well, I don't know about the Tea bashing, but if you are asking if all "actor-fic" sucks, I'd say yes. (There might be one or two benign humor pieces that don't, but those are few and far between ...) Sally-Ann Maslen's Best Performance By, in which Scully/Mulder and Gillian/David cosmically switch universes and have to get back, was respectful and neatly done IMO; but I can't think of any others. Anyone remember that classic "fic" "The Murder of Tea Leoni?" Whooo, *someone* forget their meds *that* day, huh? God, I remember that! The fallout more than the story. That appeared like the day after she and Duchovny married, didn't it?

>> The thing that disturbs me is that it has received more hits on Ephemeral than any of the chapters of my WIP that I just posted and it has 33 times more recommendations. If this were or any of the other fine writers, I definitely would expect that success, but this is a horrible piece of literature (if you even want to call it that). I am usually humble about my work, but I still feel that it had to have been better than this thing; Homewrecker looks like it was written by an eleven year old. Thanks to Laurie for telling her it was OT for XFC, and I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who is appalled by this.

I guess we should also add that if you write a DD/GA romance fic, unless you're *really* careful about what time period you set it in, you may be accusing one or the other of them of adultery, since they have each been married for a significant part of the series. As a general thing, I don't like actorfic; even if there isn't an issue such as adultery, it still seems like an invasion of privacy.

No, [all actorfic is not like Homewreckers]. I'd have to say that the majority of actorfic is creepy and stalker-friendly like this one, but there are exceptions. I really liked ... oops, forgot the title, but it was by Stacey Oziel, and it had Mulder and Scully accidentally switching places with David and Gillian. It was clever and funny, and (as someone pointed out on another mailing list today) dealt with the *fictional* characters, not the real people. Stacey obviously knows about that really big, thick line between fiction and reality.

Actor fic creeps me out because there is something very voyeuristic and unhealthy about wanting to write about real life people when it's not for the purpose of a legitimate biography. There's is only one IMO which manages to pull it off and very well at that. It's 'Best Performance By'. by Marissa Edwards and Sally-Ann Maslen. (on The Annex) It's extremely funny to read and the authors use of the 'actors' never overstep the boundaries of what DD and GA let us see of themselves during TV appearances.In other words it is clear from the start that the 'actors' are written like fictional characters. Not GA and DD but a slightly parodic image of them. I can't resist telling you a bit more about it, it's really worth reading. And if you're as creeped out as I am by this 'Homewrecker' stuff, you may want some nice well written fic for the weekend. The story is about Mulder & Scully swapping place with GA and DD. The bewildered agents find themselves in Los Angeles among the 1013 crew about to go to the 97 Golden Globes while GA and DD end up in Portland within the X-Files universe.

Some great scenes:

Mulder and Scully having to pose for the famous 'morgue' US mag photo: Scully: " Just because we're both lying half-naked in a freezing morgue pretending to be characters in an alternate universe doesn't mean I can't find a way of enjoying myself."

Gillian nonchalantly walking up to Cancerman and stealing one of his cigarette."...mmmm...I prefer something milder."

CC - having found out that he's *really* dealing with M&S - watching them and wondering if they're going to be able to pull it off for the ceremony: "They were just looking at each other. Trouble was, anyone who knew Duchovny or Anderson well would notice something astray. They stood just a little too close, spoke just a fraction too slowly, eyed everyone just a little too suspiciously, and they watched each other just a little too much."

Made me go: "Awww...bless.":-)

Apparently, some people cannot separate fantasy from reality. Very scary, huh?!

>> I do wish that people would stick to voicing their objections to the stories concerned, rather than speculating on the presumed mental health or otherwise of the authors.... As it happens, I agree with the posters who have pointed out that the story is not appropriate for atxc, as it doesn't involve X-files characters. I also understand that people might want to voice their concern at the use of the real actors in fan fiction. That's what a discussion newsgroup is all about, after all.

<< Wild speculation is right. Based on a 489 word short story, the following has been suggested by various poster: >>

And then lists a whole bunch of possible diagnoses. And looking at the list printed out like that, it disturbs me even more that we can presume to judge anyone's motivations or emotional well-being by the existence of this little story.

I have real misgivings about our society's tendency to label everyone with an uber-trendy pop-psychology "syndrome." Psychology itself is only 100 years old, and its paradigms shift so frequently that I can't keep track of what's considered normal and what's considered unhealthy. Forget trying to keep track of the most up-to-the-minute theories about the roots of human behavior. (Remember when autism was caused by a cold mother-child relationship?) I could take anyone on this newsgroup - ANYONE - and find a character flaw or peculiarity, and then go to the self-help section of Borders and find a book that addressed said peculiarity as an emotional problem that required counseling. (Oddly enough, these books are written by the very people who stand to make money if more individuals seek counseling.) And in twenty years, I bet that most of the hot psychological diagnoses being discussed today will have been forgotten or, more likely, ridiculed and debunked by people eager to push their own diagnoses. The bookshelves will be full of newer, more trendy syndromes.

I don't have any particular faith that psychology has given us special understanding of human nature. In fact, I think that in a lot of ways it's clouded our understanding by leading us to look for a quick label that we can stick on everyone we meet. ("He's an adult child of an alcoholic. She's got ADD. They're codependent.")

And if I have little faith in the field of psychology, I have *no* faith in our ability, as untrained readers of fanfic, to diagnose another person or presume to judge the emotional background of his or her life. This thread is, to me, more revealing of *our* mindset than of the mindset of the original "auther."

> I do wish that people would stick to voicing their objections to the stories concerned, rather than speculating on the presumed mental health or otherwise of the authors.

Apparently it's too tempting. It's how you react to things you don't know what to do with. How else do you react to something that seems to be balancing between what can be done and what can't be done. I've been trying to view this as fiction, just another creative expression, and I had difficulties making up my mind. I think it's much more "innocent" than we think.

Personally, I don't get why a lot of people in here seem to want to bash people for carrying an unconscious "wish", then expressing it, that these actors are or should be a real life couple. That in itself is fiction. So, what's the big deal? Certainly, the writers of such fiction know that, give them some credit. I don't see why anyone would take this seriously ...

Hey, I don't like actorfic either ...

I agree too [that Homewrecker has] nothing to do with the X-files, not strictly speaking. Nor do I think it's a fan gone *bonkers*. It is however some kind of creative expression and (don't throw your tomatoes yet) I do realize that that may be hard to detect here. Perhaps the style was just too blunt and direct but I'm not blowing a fuse over it. There is still (although not much of) a difference between saying what she wrote directly to people and writing it up in a fictitious story (stretch your concept of story a bit and indulge me). Some may not like what she's done, okay a lot of people may not like what she's done. If she'd done it with more nuance and outright (in your face) humor, then perhaps so many wouldn't be overreacting. What the exact value is of *clearly* using existing people in what is supposed to be a work of fiction I don't know. This could be dangerous, could fast become an excuse for insulting people and that (I guess) is probably why so many reacted to it. I wouldn't go there, but that's just me.

I hope she knows what she's doing and I sympathize (kind of) more than condemn what she's done.

"Deslea R. Judd" wrote: I made a comment on one of the threads concerning Post-Traumatic Stress. For my part, I never said "This person suffers from X", or even that it was my opinion that she suffered from X (btw we've all assumed the author is female, too). I personally said that children/teens who came up with this sort of stuff sometimes were sufferers of PTSD, and I had concerns for that reason.

And I just thought you were joking! Jesus, you weren't?

So, let's get this straight. What you actually said was that you saw a link between what she wrote and what you think PTS is. Somehow, I find that more disturbing.

Judging from its history and its wrongdoings (lobotomies, experimental therapies, electroshocks) I happen to think Psychology is an even more creative profession than writing (adequately sums up what the X-Files is, doesn't it?) and a dangerous one because it's never acknowledged its own limits. Let's not forget Sigmund couldn't cut it in med school and he was one heck of a writer (huge imagination :) Not just him, they've all written quite a few books, haven't they?

Psychology is no hard science. If it's no hard science, that means it can be someone's twisted opinion and that is dangerous. Where are the limits? Where are the boundaries? The evidence of what I just said, you'll find in psychology's elaborate history and it's nothing to be proud of.

You think you have the right and the knowledge to psycho-analyze a person's writing? You think her writing stands for what she is? For who she is?

If that's the case, one could just as easily argue that you might need some therapy as well, because you obviously don't have the capacity to distinguish between the person and the author.

I read every word of Deslea's long message, and I didn't think she was psycho-analyzing GillianDuchovny8 (or anyone else) -- I actually thought quite the opposite. My interpretation of her post was that she took great pains to explain *both* sides of this discussion. She never asserted that we could in all cases use someone's writing to conclude something about their psyches. I suggest you read her message over again carefully, and respond to more than one point from it before you say things like, "you might need some therapy as well." That, to me, makes it personal, and I'm offended on Deslea's behalf.... I think the only "link" Deslea found between PTSD and what GillianDuchovny8 wrote was that other sufferers have come up with similar writings. In the quote you yourself chose to use in your message, she even says that she never stated outright that the author suffered from PTSD. And no, psychology is not a "hard science," nor is it even accepted as valid in many circles, but when it comes to PTSD I will say from my own experience that there's no pop-culture or "creative" misplacing of cause going on in the majority of those diagnoses. Dismiss whatever else you want, but I just want to make sure you recognize that some people do indeed go through a raft of symptoms after a traumatic experience, and yes, sometimes these symptoms can be detected by others.

Without taking any sides here, I don't think it's necessary to malign the entire profession of psychiatry/psychology in order to argue against the attempt to analyze someone via a fanfic. I think psychology's a soft science, but many people benefit from responsible, professional treatment. This treatment would not include fanfic analysis.

Why is fanfic suddenly so protected as a source of analysis? When I was in therapy over relationship issues about two years ago, I told my therapist that I still had thoughts and fantasies about three women in my life, and he asked me to write about them. I wrote a ton, as is my wont, and he took weeks to go over them. But he also mentioned that he figured out what my issues were in the first six paragraphs of the first piece I wrote. Just because it was posted in the framework of fanfic doesn't add or subtract anything, imho. But, as has been pointed out, the thread needs to die, and all of us (myself most definitely included) who tried to "diagnose" the writer via 109 lines (or whatever) were wrong, and out of place.

Well .... let me preface this by saying this has been a struggle for me as well. My initial reaction to what we call "actorfic" was that it was just a big ball of wrong: immature, even dangerous, and just plain mean. I realize my negative feelings are focused exclusively towards GA/DD romance stories: I *hate* these stories, and still think they are just plain inconsiderate of the actors who take a large part in the show we all enjoy. I guess I feel if you are a fan of TXF, you should afford the artists involved a little more respect. You don't throw rotten tomatoes at the actors if you've enjoyed their performance; portraying them and/or their loved ones in a disparaging light is not any better. However, I can't *completely* condemn GA/DD fic without also condemning *all* works of fiction that use real people as characters. And I can't do that; because I *do* see the value of this technique. Some of my favorite works of fiction use it: "Ragtime" (novel, film, musical theater), "Shoeless Joe" (film adaptation was called "Field of Dreams"), and the recent film "Being John Malovich." Now I can probably easily make justifications for the latter two. After all, "Being John Malcovich" was made not only with the permission but *participation* of the real people being fictionalized. And "Shoeless Joe" portrayed all "real people" in a positive light. (The fact remains though, that they had to substitute J.D Salinger with a fictional character for the movie. Positive light or not, Salinger did *not* support "Shoeless Joe.") It's more difficult to justify "Ragtime" however. Many of the real people Doctorow fictionalizes are not portrayed in a positive light. Additionally, what makes "Ragtime" so clever is the fact and fiction is so deeply interwoven it is almost impossible to discern what is complete fiction and what is grounded in fact. For example, I come away from "Ragtime" believing J.P. Morgan must have been a bigot even though I *know* he couldn't have ordered authorities when asked what to do about Coalhouse Walker Jr. to "Give him what he wants and then hang the nigger;" because well, Coalhouse never existed. All I can really say in defense of this is that clearly Doctorow has never been a fan of J.P. Morgan so he really doesn't mind being inconsiderate towards him; and that "Ragtime" is an absolutely wonderful, unique work of fiction. <shrug>

Well, I don't know that fanfic is any more protected than every aspect of a person's life should be. I do wonder, though, why untrained people feel that it is their right and duty to play armchair psychologist in *any* arena. And as uncomfortable as I am with the idea that there are people sitting out there, looking up the names of emotional disorders so that they can say "Kipler has X," I'm even more uncomfortable with the idea that this was done to a *real* individual in a public thread whose ostensible purpose was to prevent "real people" from being harmed.

I think some people did go overboard with diagnosing, attributing thoughts, etc, and I think a small number of others expressed reasonable concern for the author - that, *possibly*, subject to a whole heap of factors of which we can know nothing, she *might* want to consider counselling. I made a comment on one of the threads concerning Post-Traumatic Stress. For my part, I never said "This person suffers from X", or even that it was my opinion that she suffered from X (btw we've all assumed the author is female, too). I personally said that children/teens who came up with this sort of stuff sometimes were sufferers of PTSD, and I had concerns for that reason.

I don't think that's inappropriate or unfair, nor is it a judgement. For that matter, I don't even think it's engaging in pop psychology. If I know the symptoms and I see something that is consistent in a particularly telling way with that, I don't think it's irresponsible to say so, though maybe it's a bit intrusive. If I say, "because you/she/he did this I think you/she/he suffers from X", that's going over the line.

Like it or not, when dealing with writing we're dealing with something very close to raw consciousness. It's not a failsafe indicator of someone's state of mind for a whole host of reasons, including conscious filtering, the impact of the intellect in creating a story (eg - I was considered a psychosexually dysfunctional by my family at the age of 12 - the reason? I wrote a rape scene concerning a 13 year old and it was found. Had anyone asked, I would have told them it was written to solve a dates problem in which my main character, twenty years on, had a mother only 14 years older, and I couldn't fathom at twelve a thirteen year old choosing to have sex), etc etc. But if the same set of issues, factors, tendencies, whatever keep on cropping up in someone's writings over a period of time, that's a reasonable (not foolproof) indicator that this is or has been an issue for the author. I don't think it's unfair to read an author's work with that belief, as long as we do recognise that only goes so far because of the factors I mentioned earlier.

Example: Anyone, reading my fanfic, especially Someone I Trusted, Offspring, and Marriage of Convenience, could say very reasonably that my writing suggests I am trying to make sense of sex in the context of committed relationships. To some extent they would be correct; but even if it wasn't I would say it's a fair suggestion. (If they said that definitely *was* the case I would be very offended). Equally, they could say on the basis of my repeated exploration of themes of abandoned, abused, neglected, and lost children - see Someone I Trusted, Offspring, On The Outside, A Soul Unbound, and Eden's Reprise - that my writing suggests I'm an abuse survivor. They'd be right. I'm not saying every supposition one could draw from my writing, or anyone's, is correct; but I am saying we can have glimmers that may or may not be correct, and saying so is not necessarily irresponsibly.

BUT - and this is a BIG but - we must ask if it is a *good* thing to say these things. If we're going to deal even peripherally in matters of fracture and healing thereof (whether we speak medically or otherwise), then we must IMO obey the adage, "First of all do not harm." I would perhaps go further and say that if we will not do good we should remain silent. Does it do any good to say the things which have been said in this thread? I would offer the following remarks: [MUCH snipped] I could probably go on, but I'm starting to get on a roll, which is great with fiction but not with USENET, because not quite as much editing attention occurs here, and you don't have the lead time to fix it :-). Hence, I will head off. But I think this could turn into a really good thread about what is and is not helpful, so please, let's continue on this thread.

Peace to all, including GillianDuchovny8

Brandon, if nothing else, I admire your convictions when you can draw the line that firmly for yourself and stick to it. But as Teddi points out, the use of real characters in popular fiction is nothing new. Most people don't find it that shocking, nor are they even bothered by it.

Best selling thriller author Nelson ("The General's Daughter," "Plum Island") DeMille's latest novel, "The Lion's Game," makes use of real, living characters from Ronald and Nancy Reagan to Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, and fictionalizes historic tragedies such as the 1986 U.S. bombing of Tripoli and the New York World Trade Center bombing. (It pokes fun at XF too, but in a good way <g>.)

As a reader, I have no way to know if Qaddafi is actually an adulterer or a murderer as the story suggests. I don't know if U.S. war planes "accidentally" dropped a bomb in the backyard of the French Embassy in Tripoli because France refused to let us fly over their airspace. I really don't know about any of this stuff. I like the author, I read the novel. I'll probably read his next one. DeMille likely did a lot of research, but it's still fiction, so I take all of it at face value. And I guess my point is to say, like Teddi, that nobody (not a single instance in the reader reviews section on Amazon) out there even questions whether or not an author like DeMille should have written this story, or alleges that he's somehow disturbed because of his choice of subject matter.

I haven't read "Homewrecker," but it seems to me that many fans in XF ficdom don't like actorfic because they have a certain level of personal regard for the two people that bring the show into their lives every Sunday night.

To say the fic is poorly written seems within bounds. To say it isn't appropriate for this forum is actually correct. But to attack the author personally and say the piece should not be written is a bit of a stretch. At least as far as the parameters of popular fiction go.

I have also been pleased to see the thread shift away from personal analysis and onto what is to me the more fruitful topic of what writing can tell us about ourselves in a more general way. I found the subsequent discussion from Deslea and others very thought-provoking, but I'd like to take it even further from the study of the individual and look instead at what writing can tell us about our society and our culture.

There are reasons that certain fiction becomes popular at particular periods of time. The outrageous bawdiness of Restoration Comedy was a direct response to years of Puritan restraint, for instance. Something similar happened in the nineteen-sixties when the stranglehold of centuries of literary censorship was finally lifted. (How delicious it must have felt to be able to read an unexpurgated edition of 'Lady Chatterley' or 'Fanny Hill' for the first time. And how quickly new authors took advantage of the freedom at their disposal. I remember that time in the mid-sixties when it seemed that every novel had to have an obligatory graphic sex scene in the first chapter.)

The proliferation of fan fiction sites which the net has made possible is a fascinating sign of our own times. I know that fan fiction has existed in some form for decades, but the advent of the internet has allowed unprecedented numbers of people access to it, as both writers and readers. The popularity of this newsgroup is a case in point.

I love the following explanation for the phenomenon. I think I've probably quoted it before, but it can't be said too many times: "Fan fiction is a way of the culture repairing the damage done in a system where contemporary myths are owned by corporations, instead of owned by the folk." --- Henry Jenkins, director of media studies, MIT We all say it in our disclaimers, don't we? Yes we know that Mulder and Scully and co 'really' belong to Chris Carter and Fox and 1013 Productions, but we have *so* much more fun with them and there's nothing quite like taking back that control; like staking our own claim to the territory.

To continue my rather heavy-handed metaphor, this whole thread began when a new writer staked her claim on property that many see as out of bounds - on the actors rather than on the characters they play. I suspect that she won't make that 'mistake' again, if mistake it was. The point is, it has since given the rest of us a chance to look more closely at the function to which we put our writing generally - and at our fan fiction specifically. IMHO, that has been a very good thing, and I for one will be quite happy if the thread continues along these lines.

Homewrecker isn't an XF story. It was written by an extremely troubled kid, too.

My, what a piece of trash.

Trash. Trash. Trash.

Poorly written trash.

Completely inexcusable subject matter.

Worst of all? Probably written by some little writer among us posing as a 13 year old goofy girl. Hint: if you need attention for your writing this badly, write something of quality, not some trash.

TRASH.

2000 Comments About Its Place on Ephemeral

In March 2000, fans discussed the newly-published X-Files RPF story Raping David Duchovny, and questioned why this new story was pulled from Ephemeral when "Homewrecker" was allowed to stay.

Well, it's Scott's archive, and he can do as he pleases. I don't even object, in this instance. But I do think he may live to regret it. If I were the author of this piece, the obvious question would be, "Why is *my* piece of actorfic being censored, but not the *other* pieces of actorfic which have previously been posted here? Some of them *very* recently.

True. "Homewrecker" (Parts One AND Two) are still up there as of the last time I looked.

Yes, [the archivist can do what he likes]. I can't even believe anyone is questioning him. Ephemeral is a fantastic service and resource. Great looking, easy to use, lots of features...and unless I'm mistaken, a *volunteer* effort on Scott's part.

We don't thank him nearly enough.

(Scott? Thank you. I love Ephemeral. I know how to skip stories I don't like. You're doing a wonderful job and I appreciate your work every day.)

If you think his decisions are a mistake, it seems to me that you could write him privately (which keeps the pot from getting any more stirred up around here) or, if you really get offended, stop using the resource. Sheesh.

The basis for the removal [of "Raping David Duchovny"] was that it's actorfic, and therefore not relevant to an archive of x-files fanfic. I even agree with that opinion, and I don't regret that this story was removed. And as I said, it's Scott's archive -- even if I *disagreed* with him, it wouldn't matter. I was just pointing out an inconsistency, since other stories with the exact same flaw have in the past been allowed to remain on ephemeral.

Scott has now posted (elsewhere on the ng) that he does not intend to screen every story that goes through. I think that's very wise of him, if he wishes to have a life at all.  :) But I still think he's setting himself up (potentially) to be subjected to the heckler's veto ... according to the new standard, if he gets a significant number of emails objecting to a story, he'll read it and decide whether to pull it. The potential for abuse in this policy should be obvious.

I should add that I hope it doesn't happen. I like ephemeral, I'm glad it's there, and from the handful of exchanges I've had with Scott, he seems like a nice guy.

I agree here. I'd like to make it clear that it would have to be a very *very* special case where I'd pull a story. Believe me, me and my conscience have been at odds the last couple of days. I'd rather leave a story up in all but the very few cases. Homewrecker, for example, hasn't been removed. Its actorfic, true, but I personally don't think that actorfic is necessarily a bad thing. As I've said before, if you don't like a story, don't read it. FWIW, I've only had one disapproving email about Homewrecker, most others have simply not read it or not cared.

To reiterate, you'll have to have a damned good argument or be the author to have the story pulled. For R.D.D, a significant population was offended, the story was not x-files related, it was massively crossposted so as to remove its relevance to this newsgroup. Its available elsewhere... etc. I still don't feel *real* well about having done it, but its done.

I do want this hashed out in an open forum, not dealt with in hushed emails. Its just better that way, so I can get a feel for what the community wants. However, I am likely to stick to my principals.... Just to reiterate, RDD was *not* pulled due to its offensive content. It was pulled for its massively crossposted nature, and for its not-even-remotely-x-files related nature (both of which are being debated).

I'm probably beating a dead horse <G>, but I think part of Scott's point was he really doesn't have time to read every story to see if it qualifies as an X-File fanfic. (Who does?) In the case of RDD, *a lot* of people wrote him and so he checked it out, agreed it wasn't an XFF; and just as he would have done if he discovered he archived a "Star Trek" fanfic or misleadingly titled advertisement, he pulled the story. However, he doesn't want anyone here to *expect* him to take on the burden of carefully reading each and every story and judging if it really belongs on his *temporary* archive. Pulling "Homewrecker" at this point might just feed into that expectation; and I think this *may* be part of the reason he's decided not to deal with that story. There's another reason I wouldn't pull "Homewrecker" if I were in Scott's position. It is an unfinished story. <It appears to be finished; at least its labeled in the archive as two full parts. </ref> For all we know, Mulder and Scully could drop in through an alternate reality portal in the next chapter. I doubt that was the writer's intention and if that's so, she shouldn't post future installments of the story to this newsgroup. However, in this situation Scott simply does not have enough evidence to judge whether or not this story really belongs on an XF fanfic archive (even if he wanted to do so :)); because none of us really know what's going to happen next.

Precisely. I should also note that I'm very unlikely to pull stories because Ephemeral, after all, is just that. Ephemeral. The story will remove itself in good time. In the meantime, don't read stories that you don't like. This is along the same lines is if you don't like whats on TV, change the channel, or turn it off. You do have free will, after all.

Your example of "actorfic" is acceptable not because it's parody; but because it has conspiracy ideas and a little gray alien. In other words, it may use "real" people; but as long as the "real" peoplefic *crosses over* with characters and or situations/themes of the show, it qualifies. "Homewrecker," at least the part that was posted, existed in a universe where the show was complete fiction (i.e. "our universe") and totally incidental. Now if later in the story, Mulder and Scully were to appear out of a parallel universe portal or something or *even* if aliens suddenly took GA and DD thinking they were really Mulder and Scully (a la "Galaxy Quest"), then it would qualify as X-Files fic. Though, I admit the latter is a tad shaky, and I know if it turned out to pair GA and DD romantically, I wouldn't care for the story, personally. But heck, at least it would have aliens and the characters of Mulder and Scully would be somewhat significant. However, posting pure DD/GA fic here like "Homewrecker" is really no different from posting pure Dharma/Greg fic or pure Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman fic here.

Well, in my eyes, the difference is obvious. While one was just plain annoying, the other is advocating and glorifying a *crime*. Pretty big difference, imo.

To me, the difference is obvious, too. I didn't see the "Raping" story as advocating crime; I saw it as an immature person writing out a fantasy. It was tacky and deplorable, but that's as far as it seemed to *me* to go. The Homewrecking, story, though, libeled both DD & GA, by suggesting that they would engage in an adulterous affair, and also defamed DD's new baby!!! I'm sure there were some hideous things said about Tea Leoni, as well, but I've tried to blank the damned thing from my mind.

I thought I was alone in disliking "Homewrecker" more than RDD. As I saw it, "Homewrecker" was much more discourteous to the actors and their families.

My point wasn't to say that one story was in poorer taste than the other. On the contrary, I found both to be creepy and appalling.

However, "Raping David Duchovny" left me with the impression that rape is an okay way to take revenge especially if you don't get caught. I also think that people in general (not everyone) would be more uncomfortable with the idea of a fantasy of inflicting physical harm upon a real person.

I'm not saying that "Homewrecker" is not libelous or that it doesn't have the ability to be hurtful. It pains me to see people defaming the names of innocent children.

I find both stories equally upsetting. However, I can understand why people would be more uncomfortable with the story dealing with rape. It's a touchy issue with fictional characters, much less real people.

There was a time when I considered stories like "Homewrecker" to be libelous just as Brandon does. I've since amended that attitude. I don't believe "Homewrecker" qualifies as libel. I also don't believe RDD qualifies as a threat or a stalking action.

I believe both stories are *inconsiderate* of the real people fictionalized. Since I enjoy the work of both GA and DD, I don't approve of these stories. As I see it, approving of RDD is similar to shouting nasty obscenities at DD. Approving of "Homewrecker" is similar to coming upon one of the actors in the park pushing his/her daughter on the swings and demanding he/she stop paying attention to the kid and sign autographs for you.

Neither is illegal; but neither is very nice either.