New Fic: On Diving

[Miriam Heddy]

On Diving
by Miriam Heddy

The fish's upturned white belly was precisely fish-belly white and, Larry decided, somewhat disturbing. He had already considered fishing it out of the pond--and wasn't that a strange expression? He'd never actually considered its origin before. And if he did get it out of the water, he hadn't come up with a good place to put it. After all, he could hardly bring it inside and flush it down the toilet. It was far too large. And it was too much like something he cared about to just throw away.

And that was precisely the problem, wasn't it? What did you do with something like this?

Someone else would notice it soon, he supposed, and then it would be out of his hands.

__________________________
Interested in reading more?
On Diving contains:
No acts of violence whatsoever.
No words used as weapons to humiliate or express anger.
No guns, explosions, or criminal activity, nor any criminals.

(and thus this story contains none of the things which the show itself, rated "PG," or suitable for children under 15 with parental guidance suggested, regularly does contain.)

However, this story does include:
One heterosexual expression of intimacy (a kiss).
Two men expressing love for one another physically (and with some description of body parts we all share and are therefore somewhat familiar with), which of course here means that this is an "adult" story and so not posted in full on this site.

http://fangirlz.net/miriam.heddy/ONDIVING.html

[LetterstoElise]

You are a genius. I love you for your disclaimer. I'm going to go read your story now.

[LetterstoElise]

Just read it, babe, and it was sweet. I find Larry's insecurities endearing as well as disturbing - which poses the question, do i find the disturbing endearing? hm.... just kidding, lol.
anywho, I'd have liked to hear more about the Amita thing dying out. You devoted merely a paragraph to it, discussing how things never progressed. I'd have liked to see Amita say she enjoyed it but has moved on... have them continue as friends maybe?

I do love how they banter as well!

Good work!

[Miriam Heddy]

You are a genius. I love you for your disclaimer. I'm going to go read your story now.

Thanks :wink:

Though I've just today had my sweet little Larry plays chess avatar and sig line entirely erased (without warning) by the admin. because of complaints that my off-site (not my on-site, but my off-site) content is both "vulgar" and "outrageous," though there's no rule or reg anywhere in the FAQ describing or defining these terms with reference to sig lines, links, or on-site content, and though one might well use those same words to describe the Jeans of Justice Thread with its continual objectification and endless photographs (posted on the board) of Rob's and David's jean-clad behinds.

So, be warned. First they come for the slashers....

[Miriam Heddy]

What the hell?!? As long as the content is off-site, there shouldn't be any problem with at least mentioning it here.

I do believe that people should be given fair warning as to what they're going to be clicking on, and maybe direct links right to the material shouldn't be supplied right on the post as an additional precaution, but outside from that? This place doesn't have the authority to govern what does and does not go up, "Numb3rs"-related, on the entire 'net.



Yeah, and I also sort of feel like we ought to be given fair warning that we need a warning, and that all of this should be in the rules and regs and FAQ rather than a matter of you're not doing anything wrong and you haven't violated any rules but someone complained so your sweet little Avatar of Larry playing chess has been deleted.

I mean, if you link to your LJ or Blog and you use swear words that may be considered "adult," do you need to always include a warning with your sig line? We can't be sure, as there's no official word in the FAQ on that.

Should the JOJL posters post a warning before every new post and photo indicating that the photo features vulgar objectification of and an invitation to gaze longingly at Rob Morrow's jean-clad behind? Because y'know, that seems like a sort of "R" rated invitation to me. I mean, it's a behind, after all. What are we looking at it for if not because it's sexually interesting?


Yea, it is SO true. The slashers are the first targets. And although I've participated in some threads on this board, I do believe that daily affirmations of "DK is hot!" and screenshots of actors in tight jeans are counterproductive to this forum being a safe, comfortable destination for the creators of the show and the actors involved. I mean, the fawning led to the wedding thread.

See, I don't know that Cheryl and Nick and David, et al need protection (or even want protection) from objectification (or slash, for that matter) given that they are all adults producing a show which regularly features bloody bodies, y'know, and in which they have a vested economic interest in our objectification of and desire for their lead actors.

But I can see that protecting children seems to be a big issue, though it's quite unevenly enforced on the board and in the threads, and I know I'd have a harder time explaining the Jeans of Justice to my four year old son than I would slash, as he knows gay people and that sometimes men do fall in love with other men, and women sometimes fall in love with other women, and he knows what parts both men and women have, whereas photo after photo after photo of men walking away from the camera... how does one explain that to a four year old?

[eatmoechikin]

You are a genius. I love you for your disclaimer. I'm going to go read your story now.

Thanks :wink:

Though I've just today had my sweet little Larry plays chess avatar and sig line entirely erased (without warning) by the admin. because of complaints that my off-site (not my on-site, but my off-site) content is both "vulgar" and "outrageous," though there's no rule or reg anywhere in the FAQ describing or defining these terms with reference to sig lines, links, or on-site content, and though one might well use those same words to describe the Jeans of Justice Thread with its continual objectification and endless photographs (posted on the board) of Rob's and David's jean-clad behinds.

So, be warned. First they come for the slashers....

That is just.....dumb. I may be young and inarticulate, but I think all will agree that that is just dumb. Now, I haven't seen whatever off-site content the admin. is talking about, but I have to wonder why it MATTERS? Your avatar of Larry playing chess? Very spiffy, clearly not objectable. Where is the logic in erasing your avatar? What's that going to do?

Make you harder to pick out on the boards?

Someone needs to prioritize :roll:, or go track down everyone (myself definitely included) who's ever posted a cute screencap so it's all fair.

Gerr...

[Miriam Heddy]

What should be a given for the internet, to anybody who uses it, is that whenever you click on a link, you are willingly stepping into someone else's world. That world could contain anything from Care Bears frolicking in a bright green field to four-on-the-floor with a canine. Every single web page cannot be G-rated, free of controversy, or perfectly tuned to someone else's tastes.

Make the mistake of going somewhere once that you didn't intend to, then don't do it again. That's called self-censorship.

I would say, "Word!" but I think I sound like a silly Jewish white chick when I do, so... yeah. What you said.

And also, I have to say that the idea of "Care Bears frolicking in a bright green field" is rather vulgar and outrageous and I have no idea how I'd explain that to my four year old.

I mean, how gay are the Care Bears, anyway? All that caring, and those pastels, and I've heard they even hold hands while frolicking. And isn't caring sort of something girls do, and aren't some of those Care Bears boy bears? :wink:

Aghast, I tell you. Just aghast.

[eatmoechikin]

And also, I have to say that the idea of "Care Bears frolicking in a bright green field" is rather vulgar and outrageous and I have no idea how I'd explain that to my four year old.

I mean, how gay are the Care Bears, anyway? All that caring, and those pastels, and I've heard they even hold hands while frolicking. And isn't caring sort of something girls do, and aren't some of those Care Bears boy bears? :wink:

Aghast, I tell you. Just aghast.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That was so funny, I now need to pee. Thanks a lot! :twisted:

[zero]

Or worse yet-- TELETUBBIES!

Who does Tinky Winky think he's kidding?

And seriously, Miri, that's rediculous. You know, my Uncle Ronnie was a gay right's activist (on the side... professionally he was a State Rep. of Vermont), and I'd like to think that the issues he fought for weren't fought for in vain. I'd like to think we've made some progress in moving towards equality. It's when stuff like this happens that makes me wish he was still alive so he could keep fighting because things still suck.

[BeckyS]

Though I've just today had my sweet little Larry plays chess avatar and sig line entirely erased (without warning) by the admin. because of complaints that my off-site (not my on-site, but my off-site) content is both "vulgar" and "outrageous," though there's no rule or reg anywhere in the FAQ describing or defining these terms with reference to sig lines, links, or on-site content, and though one might well use those same words to describe the Jeans of Justice Thread with its continual objectification and endless photographs (posted on the board) of Rob's and David's jean-clad behinds.

So, be warned. First they come for the slashers....

A slippery slope? First the slashers, next the JOJL, and after that we descend to only being able to discuss math? I don't think so . . .

Hmm. You say that the terms vulgar and outrageous could be equally applied to photographs of clothed actors' bodies (which are one of the tools of their trade, btw) and to slash. Personally I don't have a major objection to either, but even so, I can see that they are not viewed equally in our culture. And I'm not talking how it "should" be -- I'm not getting into gay rights -- I'm talking about how most people view the two things.

Rightly or wrongly, ogling clad or partially-clad bodies of members of the opposite sex is acceptable behavior among most of our society. Stories that pair same-sex characters are objectionable to people for two reasons -- one is that some people are squicked by same-sex pairings. Just the way it is.

But the second and possibly more compelling reason some people object to slash is because of the distortion of characters they love. It's not a gay rights issue, it's that slash, by definition, turns the characters into something they are not, and most people want to read about the characters they see on tv. They probably also would be squicked by a story that turns Alan into a homicidal maniac. Or would not care to read a story where Don is a professional ballplayer for an out of state Single A team.

Now, I don't think anyone is saying what you can and can't do on your own site. Recognizing that I can't read the listadmin's mind, I would think their objection is probably not aimed at restricting your freedom of speech, but rather that there are links to content the listadmin doesn't agree with on the listadmin's forum. That is their right, as listowner. (Though I'm not sure what may have been objectionable about your avatar. Nothing leapt out at me.)

Basically, we all have to remember that we're playing in a listadmin's back yard. They make the rules. Sometimes they don't make them all right away, but since this is not a publicly owned forum, they can do pretty much as they please. If it doesn't fit what we want, then we can always go play somewhere else. It's our choice. And . . . if you're going to play on the bleeding edge (which is what slash is), you're going to need a tough skin.

Becky, rambling

[Miriam Heddy]

Miriam wrote:Though I've just today had my sweet little Larry plays chess avatar and sig line entirely erased (without warning) by the admin. because of complaints that my off-site (not my on-site, but my off-site) content is both "vulgar" and "outrageous," though there's no rule or reg anywhere in the FAQ describing or defining these terms with reference to sig lines, links, or on-site content, and though one might well use those same words to describe the Jeans of Justice Thread with its continual objectification and endless photographs (posted on the board) of Rob's and David's jean-clad behinds.
So, be warned. First they come for the slashers..[/quote]

A slippery slope? First the slashers, next the JOJL, and after that we descend to only being able to discuss math? I don't think so . . .

No, I agree that's unlikely to happen, really, given that heterosexual lust is a protected form of free speech *g*.


Hmm. You say that the terms vulgar and outrageous could be equally applied to photographs of clothed actors' bodies (which are one of the tools of their trade, btw) and to slash. Personally I don't have a major objection to either, but even so, I can see that they are not viewed equally in our culture. And I'm not talking how it "should" be -- I'm not getting into gay rights -- I'm talking about how most people view the two things.

No--I agree. Those two things are viewed entirely differently. My concern is that one of them (het-lust of a somewhat explicit nature) is allowed without warning on the list, despite being of a somewhat "adult" nature, whereas a link to a webpage with slash on it (which, btw, has a very clear warning at the top) is not allowed without yet another warning for those who, um, click and then can't read the warning on the page itself? Interesting, no?

Rightly or wrongly, ogling clad or partially-clad bodies of members of the opposite sex is acceptable behavior among most of our society. Stories that pair same-sex characters are objectionable to people for two reasons -- one is that some people are squicked by same-sex pairings. Just the way it is.

"Just the way it is" is a very unfortunate phrase, as it seems to suggest that "the way it is" can't be changed, suggesting a certain passivity is in order. But passivity in the face of discrimination is never a reasonable response, though it does protect those in power from articulating their reasoning (and, in being asked to articulate it, perhaps become accountable to admitting their own biases).

But the second and possibly more compelling reason some people object to slash is because of the distortion of characters they love. It's not a gay rights issue, it's that slash, by definition, turns the characters into something they are not, and most people want to read about the characters they see on tv. They probably also would be squicked by a story that turns Alan into a homicidal maniac. Or would not care to read a story where Don is a professional ballplayer for an out of state Single A team.


I won't address your examples except to say that it's somewhat odd, perhaps bordering on the unintentionally offensive, to group together, "Charlie might be gay" with "Alan turns into a homicidal manic" and "Don is a baseball player."

Turning the character into something they're not is the essense of fanfiction, but it's also the essence of fanfiction to explore what the character is or could be. Not being Cheryl or Nick, all fanfic writers-- regardless of whether they write slash, heterotica, or gen stories in which Don fights the bad guys with his big, bad gun and then goes to dinner with the family-- are always interpreting the character and making an argument based in canon, but going beyond it.

The important thing to remember is that fiction is always making an argument about character.

And much of the really badly written (but apparently unobjectionable) G-rated Numb3rs slash out there has badly done and innaccurate characterisation.

I would hold my Larry and my Charlie up as rather good characterisations, actually--and my Larry is probably some of the best Larry out there not written by Cheryl and Nick themselves, but sounding an awful lot like him. If it's a distortion, it's only in that my mind and Cheryl/Nick's minds are not one and the same. And that's not distortion. That's interesting!

That a reader and I might not agree on his sexuality does not, in and of itself, mean that my characterisation is bad, or innaccurate to canon, as you and I and other readers have no idea at all what Larry does in the bedroom, so we can (and probably will) speculate. And we know only a little of what goes on in his heart (and from canon, we certainly know that he loves Charlie very much).

Now, I don't think anyone is saying what you can and can't do on your own site. Recognizing that I can't read the listadmin's mind, I would think their objection is probably not aimed at restricting your freedom of speech, but rather that there are links to content the listadmin doesn't agree with on the listadmin's forum. That is their right, as listowner. (Though I'm not sure what may have been objectionable about your avatar. Nothing leapt out at me.)

My link to my slash page admittedly had no warning, but it would have been polite for the admin to request such a warning before summarily taking down both my links and my entirely unobjectionable avatar of Larry playing chess. Yet my slash page itself has a very prominent and clear warning at the top of it, so I can't see the necessity of reproducing such a warning.

My LJ site is, like all LJs, a sort of public diary, and as such, there's a reasonable expectation that I, being an adult, might occasionally swear, have sexual thoughts, and also talk about my 21 month old baby, what I had for lunch that day, and what I did at work. I am an adult and all these things are adult things. All these things are on my LJ, and yes, sometimes it's outrageous (and perhaps vulgar, though vulgar does not necessarily mean adult, as children can be vulgar when they tell the latest fart joke).

I'm not objecting, btw, to providing warnings, but I am objecting to what seems like an uneven enforcement of standards in a case where there aren't even any written guidelines in place (and thus no standards on record).

Basically, we all have to remember that we're playing in a listadmin's back yard. They make the rules. Sometimes they don't make them all right away, but since this is not a publicly owned forum, they can do pretty much as they please. If it doesn't fit what we want, then we can always go play somewhere else. It's our choice. And . . . if you're going to play on the bleeding edge (which is what slash is), you're going to need a tough skin.

Certainly, they make the rules, but again, this is also a community, and the listadmin was in no way responding to his own response to my links. He was responding to "a handful of people" and their objection to my off-site content. This is an invocation of "community standards" and thus it seems reasonable to discuss them within the community itself.