"If it includes everything, it becomes meaningless."

[alixtii]

There is a claim I've seen being made a lot lately, in a lot of different places (but part of the same overall argument) by different people, that if a word applies to everything it becomes meaningless. Can anyone explain this claim to me?

If I say "everything is made up of atoms" does that mean "made up of atoms" is a meaningless category?

I remember having a conversation on the OTW FAQ and the language it uses, referring to what I would call source texts as "original works" and thus inadvertently imply intentionality which isn't truly there in the case of many RPF canons, in the comments of this post, with jadelennox, in which she said:

The jargon term "text" encompasses the idea that all objects, experiences, encounters, etc. are analyzable under the same lens is we would use to analyze the non-jargon "texts". There really isn't any jargon-free way to say "I mean everything in the world, except everything in the world from the point of view that you can look at everything in the world as a text". I'm not even explaining it well when I try to translate it into a whole lot of English words. *shakes tiny fist*

Is the "except [. . .] from the point of view that you can look at everything in the world as a text" part of her definition really lacking any semantic content?

If I say everything is about sex, or the death-drive, or the means of production, or the will-to-power, am I making meaningless statements?

If everything is X then, a) that may say something meaningful about the state of everything, and b) that doesn't eliminate the possibility that some things are more X than others, closer to the center of the conceptual web, less problematically X, while others lurk in the fuzzy boundaries.

Or am I just insane?

Comments

[princessofg.livejournal.com]

to me, if I say "everything is made up of atoms" that does not mean "made up of atoms" is a meaningless category, but it does mean that "everything NOT made up of atoms, that which is atomless" is a meaningless category.

also, having been in an rpf fandom, it is true that there is no "original text" in the same way that SG-1 the show is the original text for my fanfic. but there is SOMETHING there that the rpf writer are riffing off of. it's just not as easily collected and pointed to. i don't have any dvd boxes for my source text for Lotrips, but it was definitely there.

personally, not meaning to start something here, but i saw no problem with RPF fandoms being included in a definition of "transformative works" but I'm certainly not up to date on the OTW's definition of what it is they are wanting to include in the definition of "media fandom".

hi!

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Yes, "everything is X" certainly entails "there is no not-X"--and _peasant's comments above underscore for me that what we mean by "is" there will have ideological anti/foundations and implications. Il n'ya a pas de hors-texte.

My experience with the RPF I've written (and read) is very similar to yours. Although I could rip the audio files of the commentaries of some of my favorite episodes and put that in a box and design box art if I wanted to.

it's just not as easily collected and pointed to.

Like comics fandom, or Doctor Who? Even that isn't unique to RPF! And as extratextuality goes mainstream, is likely to seem less and a meaningful difference as time goes on. Canons are always constructed and negotiated by fen; I don't treat the Buffy season 8 comics as canon, but some do.

i saw no problem with RPF fandoms being included in a definition of "transformative works" but I'm certainly not up to date on the OTW's definition of what it is they are wanting to include in the definition of "media fandom".

We're in agreement here; indeed, I get very frustrated by the insistence rising out of that discussion that RPF is always(-already? it seems so, although hector_rashbaum would never put it that way) separated from FPF media fandom. That portions of it developed independenttly, I can well believe, but Jensen/Jared, or my Jossverse RPF? I don't think so. And I certainly think that RPF is transformative. (But then, I think everything is transformative, and that "transformative" nonetheless remains a meaningful category.)

I don't think anyone is up to date on what OTW's definition is.

[princessofg.livejournal.com]

hee hee.

i patiently await the OTW new FAQs. I think we can count on them being organized and thorough, with regard to definitions not least.

i do know they are hip to the RPF issues, not least because some of the movers and shakers in the group did indeed write in RPS fandoms.

happy tautologizing.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

What I'm really looking forward to is the first OTW FAQ fic.

[princessofg.livejournal.com]

lol!

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone is up to date on what OTW's definition is.

Seriously. I've asked them how they're defining "fandom," and Naomi (I think) dismissed the question out of hand. Um, okay.

I was pleased to see that the FAQ apparently includes mention of machinima. Though that transformative fan practice has a decided unfemale history.

[princessofg.livejournal.com]

i'm just on the very edges of the OTW thing, but it's my impression that the definition/name issue is/was actually being discussed. i think it's worth trying to define, beyond the band fic discussion.

i know they picked "transformative" because of some very specific legal language in copyright law, but the edges of the definitions are always trickiest, yes? hence this very thread...

*cheers*