Realism

[rivkat]

I’m interested in the “people who can verify I’m real” meme I’ve seen going around, connected to the Gay Girl in Damascus hoax. I’m trying to sort out my thoughts about it, because in many fannish cases I’m not sure why it’s relevant. I mean, if you’re performing “this is what an X looks like” online, then your “real”/offline identity or performance is likely to be relevant, and more so if you’re asking people to act or change beliefs based on your online performance. If you’re inserting yourself into a political movement and getting real activists involved in trying to help you, then yes, it’s relevant. If you’re asking for money, then yes, it’s relevant. If you’re asking people to meet you offline, then yes, it’s relevant. But a lot of people I read mostly post fannish stuff with occasional personal or even political content—and then I’m not sure how much offline identity means, especially when what you’re performing online is a privileged or locally privileged identity, like cis white American woman. Suppose I don’t have a partner or kids (to whom I occasionally refer)—does that change what my book reviews or stories mean? I kind of hope they speak for themselves (and I am certain that they reveal a lot more about who I am and/or who I think I am than I intend).

Flipping it around, would it matter to me if fans I think of as women were actually men? Would it matter to me if fans I think of as having kids/being pregnant didn’t or weren’t? In a lot of cases, probably not, if all they’re doing is performing a life. Then again, if I found out someone who performed being Jewish wasn’t—kind of like the sister in The Prince of Tides--that would skeeve me out.  There's something here about "always punch up," but I'm not sure how to get at it.

Anyway, solipsistically I assert that I am as real as these words.

Comments

[elements]

Actually, now that I let myself think about all the wank I've seen (which I try to forget), there are a lot of other issues. I'm thinking about all the crap Harry Potter fandom went through in the early years of its being big. Things like fundraising drives, where you need to be sure that the person drumming up money is legit, were huge.

I've always had a bit of an extra level of trust, I guess, with people I've spent time with in person. But not just when I saw a body with their nametag at a con. When you've crashed on someone's couch and can't help but be aware of their real last name on the doorbell, it's a lot easier to feel OK sharing similar levels of detail back. I wouldn't list just anyone as someone I would vouch for as being not just real as in existing, but real as in being who they present themselves as. For example even though I've met you once, if it hadn't been in an RL context I wouldn't consider you someone I could vouch for. But even if I hadn't met you, I do know more and trust the judgment of other people who would vouch for you. But people who've lived in the same city with me for years, or who I've known through various transatlantic visits for nearly a decade, I could. And it would be up to the people taking my word for them as to whether they thought my word, and my standards for getting to it, were enough for them.

[rivkat]

I think we can trust people we've met too much, and a lot of things aren't necessarily verifiable by in-person meetings (e.g., what will this person do with the money?). I understand the desire for verifiability, but I'm not sure how well it intersects with some of the things we in fandom regularly care about.