RPF is really fucking weird - or is it? An essay.

I've been thinking of the nature of Real Person Fic and the way it is treated in fan discourse for a while and now you can read it (though prob you won't XD)

It will have three parts:
1. RPF as fringe entertainment
2. Better to ask for Permission?
2. The Great Porn Debate

Introduction: RPF - a transgressive attack?

I've been in fandom for over 15 years and I've mostly seen RPF treated as, at best, weird and, at worst, transgressive.

The argument goes that since it is real people you are writing about, you are overstepping boundaries

There is surely some truth in that argument. The way it is often phrased is how would any of us feel if someone took our name, likeness and extrapolated our feelings and experiences etc. out of the bit of interaction they've seen?

If someone drew us in situations we aren't in?

It might feel weird and make us re-examine both our behaviour and how much we show to the public - even if we aren't celebrities (or what happens more often - youtubers who have a following)

But is that a good argument to make against RPF as a whole? Let's find out

1. RPF as fringe entertainment

Real Person Fic is exactly what it sounds like - it's fictional narratives based on the lives of existing people (living or dead) as opposed to fictional subjects.

It can be about them in AU scenarios or about their real life circumstances.

When it is brought up in the context of fandom - either in fannish circles or publicly through e.g. talkshows showing celebrities fanart - it is treated as shameful, even as "normal" fanfiction/fanart has gained a somewhat existing level of acceptance

It goes to far.

It misrepresents the real person.

It disrespects that person's autonomy.

It infringes on their most valuable personal privacy.

It interprets and extrapolates and adds situations, feelings and reactions that never existed and puts them in someone's life story

However, what if I ask you to consider it from a non-fannish perspective.

What if I ask you to, for example, to look at Oscar-winning biopic Bohemian Rhapsody

Is that not - by definition - Real Person Fiction? We are given a narrative of a person's life, edited for entertainment.

A lot of this is true, based on facts, interviews, retellings. But isn't every scene, every moment that takes place in an intimate setting, an extrapolation

Isn't every moment where Freddie Mercury is shown to us alone a fictional narrative? It might be based on what we know to be true, but it's still a *guess*. It is still *fiction*.

And that is true for *every single biopic you've ever seen*.

They are *semi-fictional* narratives

The Crown? RPF

The Help? RPF

12 years a slave? RPF

Hamilton? RPF to the extreme

As we can see with this short and non-extensive list these are all critically acclaimed, well loved - despite the main narrative around RPF telling us to be ashamed of it

2. Better to ask for Permission?

Now you might say, this situation is different, because permission was obtained. Either the estate (in the case of deceased people) or the person's management was contacted, a deal was struck. Profit gets made.

Fan-RPF however falls under no such purview - since anyone can write it, there is no quality control under the purview of the person or their people.

Which means the person can be ridiculed, misrepresented, demonized etc. without any recourse

An 'official' project, you might say, has some levels of control. You can control the narrative that is being told about you (or your relatives) and therefore the morality of that sort of RPF is higher than someone writing a story about Liam and Payne going shopping.

An official project would also strive for truthfulness - in a biopic, you want to tell the "real" story of the person so even if you have to invent some things to fill in the gaps, you will want to stay as close to real events as possible - no JK having a Ferrari for fun

To that I would give you two rebuttals:

No1: Even if that *might* be true for people alive or just-dead in some cases, historical figures (who I might need to remind you *were real people*) are not afforded that sort of dignity

I'm pretty sure Queen Elizabeth I. as a scorned woman on Doctor Who wasn't approved by the Crown.

Or that anyone would call what they did to Shakespeare in 'Anonymous' respectful.

Or that we have any clear proof that the Scottish independence war was fought with dragons

No2: Even with people just deceased/still living a claim to fairness, accuracy or respectfulness is *not* a given. Not every biopic has gotten the approval of relatives/the people it is based on by *any* stretch of the imagination.

Casual googling brings up *multiple* lawsuits

In fact, as opposed to what most people like to believe, a filmmaker does *not* need approval of anyone to create a fictional narrative about real people - they might be sued in the aftermath for defamation or libel, but creative freedom gives you a *lot* of leeway

3. The Great Porn Debate

So what, really, is the problem people have with fan-driven RPF? The success of biopics/narratives around real people pretty much proves it can't be talking about real people as if they are fictional characters?

It is imo, as so many things, about sex.

The first thing, the *one* thing, most nsfw RPF creators hear when being critizied about their hobby is, that it is wrong and weird and transgressive, not because RPF as a *concept* is all of these things, but because it's a *sexual* narrative

Now, you could take that as simply prudish behaviour, a sort of pearl-clutching at the thought of explicit material in general.

And part of it might be that. But that doesn't explain why even non-RPF nsfw fan creators shy away from explicit RPF. So let's dig a bit deeper.

I have two theories on why this is such a deal breaker for so many people. They might both be correct or not correct at all, or only a little bit correct obviously - I'm just talking about what makes sense to me as I have observed it in my time in fandom.

Theory 1: The concept of privacy

For many people sex is the biggest intimacy to them personally and in the way society perceives it. It is, at the same time, the thing everyone wants but no one is supposed to talk about.

It is *private* in the most basest of sense

And I'm not in any way, shape or form condemning that. I might write nsfw, but I am *extremely* private irl when it comes to my sex life.

I don't like talking about it, I don't really like joking about it - it is for *me*. It is my body and experiences

So I certainly understand the impulse to have that be the place to draw the line. That ridicule and misrepresentation and making someone a villain might be bad, but it could be seen as criticism. But infringing on someone's private *intimate* life like that is wrong.

But may I ask you that - is sex the only realm of intimacy we have?

Because while I don't just talk to anyone about my sex life, I *also* don't talk to them about my depressive period in my early 20s or the last time I cried alone or grief I've experienced in my life.

All of these things, all of these moments: they are also intimate and *private* - and I've never seen a biopic that did *not* exploit these moments for drama and ratings.

I've seen a camera held close to someone playing a person wracked with grief or breaking down

So I find the insistence that *sex* is where you aren't allowed to thread, that that is what is *wrong* to show - even when it can be beautiful and the culmination of love and togetherness, but hardship and pain are fine to plaster everywhere very much a double standard.

Theory 2: Too much realness in my real

My other idea needs a bit more elaboration and ties into the bit about pearl clutching I sort of glossed over at the start of this section, so settle in for the last stretch.

Explicit RPF in fandom is often(as a lot of stuff in fandom) about what many people would call 'irregular'or 'transgressive forms of sexual expression (not what I would call it but ykwim)

both on the level of *who* is depicted(LGBTQ*)and*what*is shown (SM,hybrid, hard kink etc.)

That might make people uncomfortable in *general* but a) that's not what this essay is about b) re:what don't read properly tagged content you don't want to see c)re: who: fuck off

But with RPF I think it makes people uncomfortable on a different level too: realness

In section 1 I've explained how many RPF narratives actually are shown to us all the time, how our media diet has very much been saturated by it.

And no matter the actual value of the facts presented, the thing all of these narratives have in common is it's *authenticity*

'Based on a true story/people' holds *power*, because people feel closer to a narrative - no matter how fictionalized or wrong it is, when people *think* it could have happened they give it's message more weight.

It touches them more. Which equals profit

So providers of these kind of socially accepted RPF stories have been pushing the idea that what you *see* in these stories about real people is *what really happened*. Or at least as close to it.

Which is supposed to blur the lines between fiction and reality. On purpose.

And anyone who has ever come across a real delulu or stumbled on one of those 'ship analysis videos' That's Bad.

Real Bad.

But you can see where it comes from how they could have gotten that idea, because if The Uncivil War is true then why not 10 Best Taekook videos

You can then also see why (explicit) RPF makes people uncomfortable - because subconsciously they think you are pushing for your story to be seen as a documentary instead of fiction.

Which is where the old 'don't assume people's sexuality' argument comes in.

Which makes people uncomfortable because to them sexuality might be a hot button issue/close to identity and they want to protect their favourite celebrities from being exposed to that sort of speculation

Conclusion: What now?

I think if I wanted to do anything with this thread it's not about making everyone suddenly a RPF enthusiast - I certainly wasn't until BTS forced me into it (lol)

I just want you to critically examine people calling it out as 'wrong' and *why* they do so.

Do they actually find it wrong or do they think any RPF is trying to portray *reality as is* instead of *reality as it could be*, because every "official" RPF they have ever been exposed to used that narrative to get butts in seats.

In actuality, in its best form, That's not what RPF, at heart, even *about*.

It's, as any fiction, using a fictional construct - be it of a real person or of a fictional person - to express yourself. To write stories you want to see. To create a reality you enjoy.

And isn't that something to be cherished and treasured? Something to celebrate?

Or at least the next time you want to make fun of a RPF writer, really *think* about the reason you find it off-putting enough to hurt people over, yet enjoy Orange is the New Black.