[ SECRET POST #5254 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5254 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________


03.



__________________________________________________


04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________


06.



__________________________________________________



07.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #752.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. https://i.imgur.com/L2Hd4KJ.png

[(Anonymous)]

I think most people's problem with rpf is often along the lines of "it's creepy to write porn, specifically, about real currently living people." I haven't watched The Crown but I'd be surprised if it had the kind of sexually explicit content that rpf sometimes has.

[(Anonymous)]

Ehhh, after only watching a few episodes at the beginning, it already had a scene which heavily implied then-Princess Elizabeth giving Philip a blowjob.

[sparklywalls]

I think maybe the difference for people might be that things like The Crown more or less keep a fourth wall of sorts but RPF can stray into projecting your idea of someone onto the real person, potentially involving that person more than you’d involve an actor playing an interpretation of that person?

Idk. I’m not sure how others feel, I’m just speculating. I don’t care enough about our current royal family to watch The Crown but everything I see about it comes across as historical fiction, some of them just happen to still be alive. Whereas when I was in a bandom years ago some people seemed to genuinely believe the band were all secretly in love with one another and started sharing stuff with the band. Don’t think anyone is going to be chatting about their fanfic with Liz II any time soon.

[(Anonymous)]

In short, they're more reachable. But, well, I don't think that should be an argument in favor of "RPF series" - being more reachable means you can say "oh I read that fic, fuck you!" easily, unlike the royals.

[(Anonymous)]

Personally I don't necessarily have any problems with RPF as long as people aren't assholes about it

But it seems like there are some pretty stark differences here. For one thing, a lot of what people have a problem with about RPF is the specifically parasocial and the specifically pornographic elements of it - the idea that fans might show actors RPF pornog, or the idea that fans build these really intense fantasies around the human personal lives of people who didn't ask for it, or whatnot. And those concerns don't exist in situations like this.

Second, as you point out, a lot of the time things like this have the express permission of the subjects. But even when they don't, the subjects have a degree of control and recourse through the legal system. Much more so in Britain than the US, obviously, but there are significant constraints when you're making a big-budget biopic.

Op

[(Anonymous)]

Fair point on the porn fantasy aspect.

The idea of a fan bringing up their own fantasy and showing it to the actual people make me shudder in some extreme second hand embarrassment.

And with legal recourse, it's good that the real people have some ability to control their story, but that's also not the case in every biopic made especially of ones that were of events Vs celebrities.

Apparently the Chernobyl biopic has the real life Lyudmilla Ignatenko claim that it wasn't made with her consent and that it made reporters hurl abuse at her about "killing her baby". I mean biopics have a responsibility yes. But sometimes those movies/shows make it so they villanise people (for dramatic effect) who can not afford legal action against them or bring up some real tramatic issues back to the forefront to be confronted by paparazzi or anon strangers.

In the Chernobyl case, they did pretty respectfully imo as a whole but if the accusations by Lyudmila are correct than its still fucked up either way.

I think there is a real issue that biopics are shown as an educational model when a surprising chunk of it may be fictional and can cause a misconstrued view of who the actual person is and what they did in history be it good or bad.

[(Anonymous)]

The anon above brings up a good point about sex scenes in RPF versus biopics. (Though I was the anon that got skeeved out by the male gaze in Tina Turner's rape scene, and how my male family members gathered around the TV for that...) I'd like to add my own take that biopics tend to carry the burden of appearing educational since they deal with historical events. Some of them will even get shown in schools as something to study.

That isn't to say that mainstream media featuring completely fantasy stuff about real life historical figures doesn't exist, like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer (though possibly not the best example, because the book was very well researched from a history perspective), or the anime Yasuke. I just think there's more sensitivity in the mainstream field to "get things right," not only to not make a mockery of real life people being portrayed, and also not be incorrect to history. Biopics do get critiqued and discussed by people for failing to be historically accurate.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't care for either.

Op here

[(Anonymous)]

Wow this is honestly a good discussion on the issue and I thank everyone that this hasn't devolved into mindless hate so far.

To elaborate more on what I was trying to get across,

I guess what I'm trying to point out is the hypocrisy of RPF hate. I just think it's weird that professionally made biopics are given a pass by fandom but RPF that maybe 1000 ppl max are going to read is considered horrible and invasive when they're pretty much in nature the same thing.

I mentioned the crown and the Judy garland film because both of them are probably the worse offenders of this and in many ways are worse to me than the most depraved RPF fanfic written because:

1. People are actively profiting off of your story and traumas

2. You can't control the narrative of your history and it may contribute to a sizable public believing some untrue things written in the show/movie for dramatisation.

3. Those celebrities in question have to be confronted with it publicly and asked about their opinion by news stations/paparazzi (aka revisiting tramatic events).

Imo it's worse to have something so public closely mirror your reality that large chunks of the public now believe are true/could have happened Vs I dunno insert your worse most depraved fanfic that like 99% of people are not going to take seriously and maybe 1 or 2 crazy people think are true.

Heck at least the fanfic is usually locked to the site (thus the likelihood of the actual person coming across it extremely rare/nonexistent) and are actually prefaced with - this is a piece of fiction. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I read somewhere that the royals actually tried to get "the crown" to preface their show with that line and failed.

Ultimately, the issue is that RPF is a lot more nuanced than people are willing to concede. People have a knee jerk hatred of RPF that isn't really fair on the intent and scope of the creators.

Re: Op here

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's totally accurate to say that RPF is only gonna have a thousand people max reading it. For reference, the most-viewed RPF fic on AO3 has 2,009,719 hits.

I think there are just a few things that people really have a problem with when it comes down to RPF - one, people think writing pornography (not just explicit sexual scenes but pornography) about real people is wrong. Two, the idea that someone who's not a towering world-famous celebrity can have RPF written about them feels like an invasion of privacy because it's disproportionate to their fame. And three, toxic fandom dynamics - parasocial relationships, tinhatting, and showing pornography to the people that it's about.

And... well, none of those are quite as pronounced with a biopic. It's almost always going to be about someone who is world-famous. It's almost never going to be hardcore pornography. And the toxic social dynamics aren't going to exist as much because people are reacting to a specific creative work.

Is it annoying that people can get the wrong idea about what actually happened, and the paparazzi exist, and all the rest of it? Yes, absolutely. But people getting the wrong idea about real events is something that happens constantly all the time, and if someone has a really defamatory depiction of you, you do have the ability to sue them over it. And paparazzi obviously already exist outside of biopics. So it just feels like a less pronounced problem.

I do agree that peoples' reaction to RPF is pretty disproportionate to the actual problems with it though. FWIW

Re: Op here

[(Anonymous)]

I think RPF is vastly preferable to biopics of living people (and dead people) because it doesn't pretend that it's real.

The royal family and Judy Garland, to use your examples, were done far dirtier for more profit, by the gossip-profiting press, for decades.

Though I dislike family members of celebs and kids in particular being mentioned in RPF, there are also disclaimers about the fact that they are actually works of fiction. Weird J2 fans aside, nobody who runs across RPF on a fanfiction site are going to believe that Jared Padalecki is Jensen Ackles' sex slave.

Re: Op here

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, honestly, 1 and 2 are also true for RPF with the notable exception that the RP in question have little legal recourse against largely anonymous fic authors and they have a shit-ton of it against, for example, HBO.

3 is not true for RPF, but also the paparazzi have never needed a TV series to repeatedly ask celebrities intrusive questions about traumatic events.

Re: Op here

[(Anonymous)]

I want to say something intelligent but honestly you've managed to put everything that I feel but can't explain when "RPF antis" go Punisher on RPF writers/fans into words like I'd never, so a big "THANK YOU" is all I have to say.

[(Anonymous)]

I think making money off the fictional lives of real living people is much worse than writing fully-disclaimed RPF about them. My opinion used to be confined to tabloids and gossip magazines and gossip websites, but now it's Prestige Drama, and...gross. Wait until everyone involved is dead, please. (Ruth Wilson playing her own grandmother in Mrs Wilson is a good example of doing it right!)

[(Anonymous)]

I'm with you, OP. People have a knee-jerk "it's wrong" reaction to RPF without appreciating grey areas or nuance. Not every RPF fan are harassing celebs, I'd argue not even most are. People judge RPF by the worst of the fandom and it's not cool.
The hypocrisy of people who hate RPF is what gets me. fine, don't like RPF but also don't read gossip mags and don't consume any media that is "based on a real life person" or you're being a hypocrite imo.

[(Anonymous)]

There is literally no difference between Schindler's List and an NHL gang bang fic.

[tabaqui]

I've never understood the hate for RPF, especially considering just how much discussion of actor's private lives goes on in fandom spaces, including speculation about their love lives and whatnot.

And the 'they show actors their porny stories!!' thing is...c'mon. That doesn't happen often, and to some actors it happens *never*, and if you really think every person who writes or reads RPF is like that, you're very confused (universal you, not OP).

[(Anonymous)]

Some people are hypocrites. I mean, yeah, some people who dislike RPF also dislike biopics unless the real people are involved or have given their approval.

And, for some, yes, it's partly about the explicit RPF (but a lot of these people don't acknowledge that there is a fair amount of non-porn RPF).

Plus, yes, tinhatters are awful, though they not exclusive to RPF (no, seriously, there have been some manifestos about fiction ships or 'secret' episodes that are just... something), they do often come with it, but they are only a fraction of the people in the fandoms. They often seem so prominent not just because they are loud and fanatic, but because others in the fandom try to travel under the radar a lot.

Also, I don't know how many times I've seen something like, "I don't really go for RPF, except for this one ship." Some of not wanting to admit that yeah, okay, RPF isn't the evilest evil to ever evil is due to the negativity that they will get.

I'm going to consider someone a hypocrite if they are fine with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or Pam & Tommy, but are not okay with slice-of-life RPF not written by a tinhatter.

[(Anonymous)]

You're right and your should say it, OP. That's all I've got for this one.

Op

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks to the secret maker for making the graphics. I don't think I could have made it as aesthetically pleasing as you did.

[meadowphoenix]

I'm of two minds about it. I think you're correct that the ability of mainstream media to influence public reputations completely outstrips the ability of RPF to do so. I think the corollary is that RPF tends to focus on celebrities who a) are far less likely to have mainstream media focus on their lives and b) are the subjects of fandoms made of people are more likely to be influenced by RPF in ways that cross the fiction/reality line because there's already a parasocial connection (cons, twitter, etc). I kinda think that it's a wash in toto, and I actually do dislike the ability of mainstream media to warp reality the same way I do RPF's ability in the specific fandoms they exist in.

That said historical RPF (i.e. fic about real people who live in history's memory) is just...part of art from it inception in a lot of real ways, I don't see the point in distinguishing. I would love to study when real people become historical enough for this transition tho!

[(Anonymous)]

It's the institutional aura of appropriatness that elevates the Crown - it has the cloak of respectability and prestige to it that will never be given by taste makers to fic, even if there was no porn in fics whatsoever. Note that the most serious and "respectable" offerings affect the way that other really less serious (and more dubious) takes on the same people are deemed acceptable by society - your cheesy lifetime movies, baffling and often tasteless comedies, etc. And I think one of the reasons for it - not the only, mind you, but still one of - is the fact that RPF as sold by traditional media is a money maker, and RPF fics are not monetised, so there's no explicit market value and institutional investment in keeping this form of RPF "acceptable" enough to sell to the masses.

/on the sex front - it all made me think about "Rhodam" - which has sex scenes in it and is widely seen as acceptable because it's an acctual published book by a recognised author, with a push from a respected publishing house behind it, and, consequently, has been written about and reviewed as a "serious and appropriate" thing. It's all in teh packaging and institutional grant of approval.

[(Anonymous)]

idk man i don't think they're different and i don't like them. where does your assumption come from that everyone who dislikes rpf is raving about the crown.....?

[(Anonymous)]

I agree there's not that much difference, but it's also why I won't watch The Crown. It feels unfair since these are living people, regardless of how much they may be in the public eye.