We've got HER Permission!

[apolla]

Check this baby out:

Rowling Backs Potter Fan Fiction

Although... have to ask... why does SQ get a mention AND a link? Isn't that a little partisan? Would it not have been rather more diplomatic and give FAP a mention? And FF.net? Way to make us all look like sub-literate moronic 9 year olds.

ETA: You know that 'should the trio be replaced' thing? Well, that's also on BBC News.... complete with a mention of Stockard Channing being 33 when she was Rizzo. Are the BBC checking out LJ these days?

Comments

[emony.livejournal.com]

FA carries R rated stuff though, and the article specifically quotes the dude saying "it mustn't be obscene, we must protect the little kiddies", so they can't really link to somewhere like FA. Nifty article though :)

[apolla.livejournal.com]

Doesn't SQ?

[emony.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't know, I've never been there. Isn't it full of Harry/Ginny wedding and babies fic?

[apolla.livejournal.com]

I went to SQ once in the spirit of bipartisanship (I've been watching West Wing a lot, bear with me) and I didn't last 30 seconds. It's just not my bag. And it was very orange, if I recall.

I know they have supposedly very strict rules about quality of SPaG etc, but I dunno about R ratings. Perhaps the Twoo Lub between R/Hr and H/G is such that they don't require sex.

[emony.livejournal.com]

I've hit fics there by accident once or twice, but I've never stayed beyond, "hmm, is this.. oh no, wait, I'm on SQ *leaves*." Maybe it was just the one that the BBC reporter guy found when he did a search. And it doesn't carry any slash, so it's not so contentious as FA. But then ff.net does carry slash, and R rated stuff, so I don't know.

[apolla.livejournal.com]

Basically, the reporter hasn't done very much research (and why should he?) and has listened to the PR... I think SQ's better known outside fandom and has been more proactive in making itself known.

I think R/Hrs were using the fact JK said she'd seen SQ as proof it was clearly meant to be.

[emony.livejournal.com]

It is clearly meant to be <3 ;)

Well, as long as JKR doesn't pull an Anne Rice and force us all underground, I don't much mind. She seems like a top woman, and I think it's only really her PR people and the agency and the book people and all those ones that are interested in protecting the image, and to a much lesser degree the copyright.

[apolla.livejournal.com]

Right. I think if anyone understands the whole 'inspires creativity' thing, its gotta be her, right? I understand though, wanting to protect it from a publishing/money point of view, and I think it's absolutely right that people don't make money from fic.

And I don't mind R/Hrs coming up with proof, but using her visiting their site as evidence?

[emony.livejournal.com]

Yeah. There's no way anyone can really make money off fic writing, unless they publish zines and charge extortionate amounts of money for them (and I know of someone who does that). That's wrong, but it's not the fic writing aspect that makes it wrong. I can see their POV about the "protecting the kiddies" aspect too, as much as I might mock it. Kids shouldn't be stumbling across explicit stuff, but they shouldn't be allowed to be wandering around the internet on their own anyway, so that's just linked in with a whole 'nother issue.

You've gotta take evidence where you can find it *g* How's your work going?

[apolla.livejournal.com]

Yes to all of that... but I don't think people should be made to STOP writing that stuff... and mostly I think it's relatively well labelled. Writing the characters as under-age and explicit is another story, I think, and one I'm not down with.

And work? Well, I have a document open, but it's empty thus far. I do have my review done, more or less. One thing of many.

[emony.livejournal.com]

No, I don't think it's fair to stop anyone writing, even the stuff that I personally really dislike. As long as things are appropriately labelled, it's up to us as adults (the adults who should be supervising the kids on the net, in the case of kids) to judge what we do and don't want to be reading.

I'm working on my critical evaluation, which is basically a big long explanation of how shite I am and how much my feature article sucks. I hope he marks my feature and review first, otherwise he's going to get to the end of this and go, "okay, you convinced me - 12%. Fail."

[apolla.livejournal.com]

I would imagine he'd mark them first, so that the evaluation makes, you know, sense.

[emony.livejournal.com]

With Ian and Iain, I've decided never to make assumptions that they'll do things in any kind of logical manner.

[apolla.livejournal.com]

True.

Oh, how do you do a standfirst?

[emony.livejournal.com]

From "Subediting for Journalists" by Hicks and Holmes:

The standfirst [that they have as an example] is the classic two-sentence version: the first sentence explains what the story's all about and says why you're reading it now; the second sentence, which incorporates the byline, gives more detail on the feature itself.

The standfirst can be extended if there is more space or more to say - but generally the two-setence version works better than longer ones. The second setence can be cut to a simple '[name] reports', or the standfirst can be cut to a single sentence: '[name] talks to [interviewee] about [issue, and why its now]'.

[apolla.livejournal.com]

So mine would be something like "Education might soon change forever as education experts set out plans for online exams. Clare Worley speaks to former headteacher Maurice Regan about the pros and cons."

And is it on a separate page of the copy? He didn't tell us (that I recall) how to set it out.

[emony.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's perfect. I've no idea how to set it out. I've no idea how to write a damned feature, so getting the standfirst layout right is the least of my worries really ;) I don't think it much matters, as long as you hand it in. I'd probably do it either at the top of your feature, maybe on a separate page first, like another intro.

[apolla.livejournal.com]

Right. Thanks honey!

[emony.livejournal.com]

You're welcome.

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

I believe the BBC reference to Stockard Channing means that they read YOUR livejournal :D which means I'd better stop in and offer my smart-arse remarks more often :))

[apolla.livejournal.com]

I thought I made the remark on yours?

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

Yes, you mentioned her being "really old for Grease" then I looked up her age on IMDB.

Goodness, I'd better go spiff my journal up. Good thing I didn't go with that All-Dan background ;) *ducks* just kidding, he's like my w00bie nephew these days *smiles happily*

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

Wait a minute, that reference appeared in MY live journal. AEEIEIEIEIEIEI :))

[emiliap.livejournal.com]

Gah, I felt the same way when I saw that link. Why does SQ always seem to get article mentions these days? I agree FA would be a much better example of Fanfiction quality and such.

Hugs,
Kate

[apolla.livejournal.com]

I dunno about quality so much as fairness. Everything is allowed at FA except bad SPaG (Although it's not unknown there), whereas almost everything is not allowed at SQ. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but they shouldn't be used as the example of everything the fanfic community is.