Talk:Dead Dove: Do Not Eat
Good to see some edits on this page. I think the use of the phrase "deemed morally reprehensible without explicitly condemning the sensitive aspects" is inaccurate (or rather not comprehensive enough) in describing how the term is currently being used by fans. DDDNE is sometimes used for content that is neither moral or immoral Ex: a scene that depicts accidental decapitation is disturbing and violent. But the act is not immoral. Nor would the depiction of an accident be considered immoral or reprehensible. The reason a fan would use DDDNE is to signal to the reader that - "yes, there will be a decapitation and yes, it will be an accident." The function of the term seems more about conveying the accuracy behind the content tags (aka what is says on the tin). So I'd propose broadening the section to: "deemed disturbing without explicitly condemning the sensitive aspects". If there are those who feel that the phrase is used mainly to warn of 'morally reprehensible " content we could document that there are different interpretations - we'd need to find sources where fans are saying that immorality is the main use. MeeDee (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
A content doesn't have to be exclusively problematic to use the dead dove tag. it could just be extremely cringe, or unsettling, or heavily angsty, or anything that the author WARNED you in the tags. It is to PREPARE YOU of their seriousness in using the mentioned tag. [2], Archived version
[quoting the original author] the dead dove: do not eat tag doesn't mean "hey, this fic is very fucked up, disturbing and will make you question the author's morals", it means "hey, this very much is a very fucked up fic that is VERY disturbing and will make you question the author's morals". [3], Archived version
Do not argue with me on this one. DEAD DOVE DO NOT EAT is for TRULY FUCKED UP SHIT, potentially making you question the author's morals. End of fucking story. [4], Archived version
Original intent of the tag
I'd like to propose a tweak to the opening line of this article, as follows:
- Dead Dove: Do Not Eat is a warning or tag that was proposed in 2015 as a way to indicate that a fanwork depicts potentially "problematic" tropes exactly as described in the fanwork's tags, for the purpose of enjoying those tropes and without necessarily any subversion or condemnation of any problematic content.
I know there's been a lot of shifts in usage and meaning in the time since, but mostlyvalid's original post makes it clear that the crucial part of the proposed tag was authorial intent, or rather the author's lack of intent to subvert or condemn anything that readers may find problematic. To quote directly:
- "Sometimes, in fandom, we just want to write id-tastic fic that rolls around in tropes that might be viewed as problematic. But we don’t want to address the problematic side of things in this particular fanwork; we just want to roll around and wallow. ... I propose a tag that signals that a given fanwork is for rolling around, not giving a measured evaluation of anything."
This was reflected in the original version of this Fanlore page, which started with the introduction:
Highlighting that a fanwork's tags are accurate was definitely a part of the purpose of the proposed tag, but the current introduction to this article is incomplete, as it leaves out the key point that the tag was also meant to be a signifier of authorial intent. Eatingcroutons (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah tbh I have issues with a lot of the "easier" ways to summarize the article's lede, just because the word "problematic" can mean so many different things. Thing is, that first paragraph of the intro is the ONLY thing that shows up above the infobox on mobile, and many many people will stop reading there. So I would think that erring on the side of a broad opening paragraph is preferable to a short sentence standing alone that is clarified in later paragraphs. Aurorasulphur (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point - have restructured the intro again to focus on the current situation and leave details for later. Have also directly quoted mostlyvalid rather than paraphrasing their use of the word "problematic" in the intro. Eatingcroutons (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Alright so, have done a bit of an overhaul of this page and among other things I have:
- Restored the original intended meaning of the tag, to be closer to what this page originally said in 2016, but without the loaded language that was added afterwards about "morally reprehensible" content
- Explained that the interpretation of "this work is tagged accurately" emerged soon afterwards and is probably still the most common today (that's certainly my anecdotal experience but I wonder if we could find evidence to support it?)
- Added some more context and explanations for quotes included in the page (thank you so much User:Aurorasulphur for all the evidence you gathered btw!)
- Made a distinction between the use of DD:DNE as a tag and the concept of "Dead Doves" being a category of darker content
- Added a bit more context in the section on purity culture
Sadly my laptop has just died on me and faffing about editing wikis on my phone is a pain so it might be a couple of weeks before I can get back to doing more, but a couple of things still on my To Do list would be:
- Sift through the sources from Twitter and pare them down to a smaller number of key representative examples of different interpretations
- Maybe get some examples of rules about DD channels in fandom Discord servers - I'll ask some mods of some of the larger servers I'm in
- Replace the list of numbers of fics over time with a graph maybe? Could possibly use and cite the one from toastystats' analysis?
- Finish cleaning up the formatting of the references Eatingcroutons (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just popping by to drop a link to a tumblr post by caparrucia that was made recently! It only has like 1000 notes so I wanted to drop it here in case it doesn't make the rounds enough for anyone else to find it. here is the direct link and here is an archive. Hoopla (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
"Meta/further discussion" section?
Not really sure where to fit this into the article b/c it's less about the actual usage of the phrase and more about what (the meta writer) thinks it indicates about fandom purity culture but seem worth linking on the page (EDIT: Indeed this is the same meta Hoopla linked almost a year ago LOL): Full offense and pun fully intended, but I genuinely think the very existence of "dead dove, do not eat" was a fucking canary in the mines, and no one really paid attention. by caparrucia. 19:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)