MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 1935 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Orchyd's message by Kenneth Allen Hyde 2) 'bout Misty by "Kristy Lyseng" 3) Re: Orchyd's message by Gisela Vazquez 4) Re: Orchyd's message by "Tim & Tiffanie" 5) Re: 'bout Misty by "Derrick O" 6) the whole RP and FanFic issues thead by "L. J. Thompson" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:54:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Allen Hyde To: Tim & Tiffanie Subject: Re: Orchyd's message Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Tim & Tiffanie wrote: > >>Any use of universes or characters created by Lackey or Dixon is > prohibited. > "use" may be a legal term, but sans that, Are we to suppose reading Ms. > Lackey's works are included in the term use? No. Notice that the statement above does not prohibit the use of an existing copy of Misty's works (i.e. texts). Rather, it prohibits the use of the contents of these works (the abstract, intellectual properties). This seems like a pretty standard restatement of the copyright section of the US. Civil Code's position on the creation of "derivational works." All this means is that no-one except Misty is allowed to create a work that is derived from (as in based on, or substantially borrowing from) her existing, copyrighted works. That seems eminently fair. > But I have the feeling that the universe(s) she created to create > enjoyment for her readers and cause them to purchase her works have, > for me at least, become very closed in places with very high walls > about, and begin to stifle the very freedom flights of imagination > they once caused to be released. But they were never opened, if by "opened" you mean free for anyone to use as the basis for the creation of a derivative work. That's never been legal, at any point during the existence of Misty's oeuvre. If by "opened," however, you mean that readers are free to imagine themselves as part of the story, or speculate about what this or that character might do in a given situation, within the privacy of their own minds, then they have always been open. After all, copyright laws only apply to "published" (in the special legal sense of "committed to a fixed form") works, not to transitory imaginings. The problem with the web, of course, is that since it is a written medium, everything, even idle statements, counts as "published" in this special sense (and probably in the general sense of "made public"). > This is undoubtedly true. Any unauthorized use. There may be authorized > uses which the authors are not thrilled with, various fair use allowances, > etc.... or maybe not. One thing to remember is that "fair use" is not a license. It is a defense. There is only one way to authorize the use of copyrighted material: the author (hence the term "authorized") gives explicit permission, in writing. Barring that, any other use of a copyrighted text is a violation of the author's copyrights. The fair use clauses of the copyright laws simply list the circumstances under which a person may use a copyrighted work without authorization. But this doesn't mean that the author can't sue them for copyright violation, just that they have the right to argue, in their own defense, that their use was fair and not punishable. > At first glance, this seems strange to me. I would think that one > writes to allow just such interaction with one's creation. I would > take it as the highest form of flattery that someone wished to > interact with my world. This seems to be true, until you have seen something that you created being changed or distorted in ways that you do not want, never intended, and deeply dislike. At that point, it's a very icky violated feeling. I've been in this position, where people (some of whom were my friends) felt that they had license to use characters of my creation in their own storylines. In many cases, the distortions were so strong that they were, in my opinion as the original author, real perversions of my original intentions. And they were most unwelcomed. It was like someone was taking a quilt I had made and using it for a dog blanket. Only much worse. > Question is, is rpg'ing in these worlds "exploiting" these rights > electronically? Actually, yes. I can't cite the precedents, but there have been several cases where filling (in whole or in part) a lucrative market niche, whether for profit or not, has been judged to be outside fair use, and punishable. Depriving an author of the profits of their work and it's derivatives is never fair use. This one of the most commonly cited examples of a real copyright violation that can be punished quite harshly (up to 100,000.00 fine). > And if that is the summation of it, then much of the above makes sense. Buy > the book, read it, enjoy it or not and forget it it seems to say. Why > should this be any different than the daily news paper? It shouldn't be. > Maybe it shouldn't be. But to me, a fantasy author's work invites the mind > to the creative. It brings one into a realm where there is much that is > bright and grand and sometimes beautiful. It is larger than mundane life. > It entices one to become a part of it. And when it does that, to me at > leat, I begin to identify with it. Perhaps I should then be constrained to > going out and creating and conquering fictional worlds of my own. I think this is definitely true. No matter how creative one may be, there is no excuse for changing or borrowing another persons creation without permission. And, besides, if we go out and create *new* worlds, instead of just rehashing existing ones, we enrich the entire genre. And once someone has done that, they can then make decisions regarding their own work, and the extent to which they are willing to tolerate derivative works being created by others. > But I do know that the feelings of rebuffment and ostracization that > may be felt by some or even, perhaps, many readers of such works of > fiction when they are harshly told to leave the world and not to > return unless the author decides in his or her good time to open it up > again to them, could easily be as painful as the intrusiveness and > even violation mentioned above. Maybe it's just me, but I really don't waste time worrying about the feelings of people who do something wrong, if they get their fingers slapped. It's easy to avoid those feelings of hurt and rejection: don't use other people's work without permission. After all, isn't that a concept we all learned as children: you don't borrow without asking, and if you are told "no," you don't pout. I know that I was and most of my friends on this list seem to have been taught this also. > Any moves at writing in Misty's world, or roleplaying in her world, > will likely push the buttons of the legal types who keep a watch more > intensive than a taleydras bond bird. *grin* Not to mention a visit from your friendly Councilors. =) Hopefully, neither will be necessary, of course. And on a positive note, we almost never have had any problems along this line that couldn't be solved with a quick, polite "please don't do that here." As much as we may debate the validity of Misty's worries on this issue, everyone on this list has shown a great deal of courtesy and cooperativeness with this subject and keeping the "taboo" stuff off of the list. So, thanks to one and all for that. =) May the seas be your solace and the forests a refuge for your spirit, Cennydd Councilor of Mist Kenneth Allen Hyde | No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife Univ. of Delaware | between the shoulder blades will seriously Dept. of Linguistics | cramp his style -- Old Jhereg proverb kenny-+AT+-Udel.Edu | A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me //www.ling.udel.edu/hyde/prof/ken.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:14:37 PDT From: "Kristy Lyseng" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: 'bout Misty Message-ID: <19990415191438.41564.qmail-+AT+-hotmail.com> Heyla! *********************************Fluff******************************** Kristy bounds into the hall grinning, and frightening the sheep who scatter at her sight. Noticing several list-sibs giving her strange looks she shrugs and drags over the soap box. *******************************EndFluff******************************* Hey, y'all! Guess what I found in the bookstore yesterday? A new Misty anthology! It's called Werehunter and it has_every_short story she's ever written other than the ones in Oathblood. And I mean EVERY one. There's SKitty, A Tale Of Two SKitty's, SCat, Stolen Silver, *two* Di Tregarde stories (Satanic Versus, I believe, is one of them). I'm so happy!!!! (Sorry, can't help the exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!) On the Misty fan-fic thing, I have a biased opinion. Being a writer myself (only in the realms of fan-fic, though) I can understand why Misty doesn't want anybody tampering with her universes unless they follow her guidelines, but that doesn't mean I dont' like the attitude she takes with some of her fans who are loyal devotees (like us). Not much, I know. Anyway, does anybody have a good song that would relate to nightmares? I need one for a story I'm going to write. I was considering Enter Sandman or Sweet Dreams by Marilyn Manson (I don't have_any_of his CD's and I'm not planning on buying any). Any suggestions? **********************************Fluff******************************* Kristy spies Yvonne and ducks behind her. "The lutifisk flavoured sheep are after me again!" "Hide me!" ********************************EndFluff****************************** Love, Light and Laughter, Kristy ------------------------------------- "Today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact."--Stephen Hawkings ------------------------------------- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe."--Albert Einstein ------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 19:02:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Gisela Vazquez To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Orchyd's message Message-ID: Just had to comment on this little thing because although I can see where the writer of this was coming from, I don't particularly aggree.. "but i do know that the feelings of rebuffment and ostracization that may be felt by some or even perhaps many readers of such works of fiction when they are harshly told to leave the world and not to return unless the author decides in his or her good time to open it up again to them could easily be as painful as the intrusiveness and even violation mentioned above." To me, the statement above means that chains have been placed on the emagination. No one can really bar you from visiting any fictional world if it is where you wish to go. The mind is free and only bows to the limitations that we ourselves place upon it. We might not be able to write down our fancies or play them out on the net but in our minds and through discussion we can, it seems to me, bring anything that we want into life and sustain it as long as we feel the need. Obmisty is Stolen Silver the only Alberich story? I love him and always try to imagine all these incredable adventures he's been on and what about his love life!? I'bbl stop here. Chocolate sheep to all, rainstar ` ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:29:00 -0500 From: "Tim & Tiffanie" To: "Misty List" Subject: Re: Orchyd's message Message-ID: <003201be87b1$0f38e2a0$fcb7bfa8-+AT+-tiffanie> > On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Tim & Tiffanie wrote: > > > >>Any use of universes or characters created by Lackey or Dixon is > > prohibited. > > "use" may be a legal term, but sans that, Are we to suppose reading Ms. > > Lackey's works are included in the term use? > > No. Notice that the statement above does not prohibit the use of an > existing copy of Misty's works (i.e. texts). Rather, it prohibits the use > of the contents of these works (the abstract, intellectual properties). > This seems like a pretty standard restatement of the copyright section of > the US. Civil Code's position on the creation of "derivational works." > All this means is that no-one except Misty is allowed to create a work > that is derived from (as in based on, or substantially borrowing from) her > existing, copyrighted works. That seems eminently fair. > This was to some extent rant I suppose. I was in no need of clarification as to copyright law on this part. Perhaps others were or were not. However, the words "Any use" here are vague, intentionally in statute and likely the same in the message fm MIsty's lawyer. And it may be legally fair, but it does not seem eminently fair to me at all. I believe certain uses of a work should be allowed, so long as no profit is made, and are in certain instances. > > But I have the feeling that the universe(s) she created to create > > enjoyment for her readers and cause them to purchase her works have, > > for me at least, become very closed in places with very high walls > > about, and begin to stifle the very freedom flights of imagination > > they once caused to be released. > > But they were never opened, if by "opened" you mean free for anyone to use > as the basis for the creation of a derivative work. That's never been > legal, at any point during the existence of Misty's oeuvre. If by > "opened," however, you mean that readers are free to imagine themselves as > part of the story, or speculate about what this or that character might do > in a given situation, within the privacy of their own minds, then they > have always been open. > I mean opened for use as a basis for non profit generating activities or works shared for mutual private enjoyment amongs friends and not attributed to Misty as her works or her opinions. > After all, copyright laws only apply to "published" (in the special legal > sense of "committed to a fixed form") works, not to transitory imaginings. Yet. > The problem with the web, of course, is that since it is a written medium, > everything, even idle statements, counts as "published" in this special > sense (and probably in the general sense of "made public"). > Whether things written thus should or should not count as "published" is eminently arguable...and the beginnings of law reform and the setting of precedents in a legal sense. >> This is undoubtedly true. Any unauthorized use. There may be authorized > > uses which the authors are not thrilled with, various fair use allowances, > > etc.... or maybe not. > > One thing to remember is that "fair use" is not a license. It is a > defense. Understood. However, it is not without precedent for defenses to become liscenses..or even "court created" rights. *grin* >There is only one way to authorize the use of copyrighted > material: the author (hence the term "authorized") gives explicit > permission, in writing. As long as the material in the use to which it is put in the medium in which it exists is deemed to be covered by the copyright. > Barring that, any other use of a copyrighted text > is a violation of the author's copyrights. The fair use clauses of the > copyright laws simply list the circumstances under which a person may use > a copyrighted work without authorization. But this doesn't mean that the > author can't sue them for copyright violation, just that they have the > right to argue, in their own defense, that their use was fair and not > punishable. Agreed. Only frivolity and maliciousness bar a suit (and often not even that in the U.S.). And, as I pointed out in my earlier post, such suits can have a deleterious effect on one's pocketbook, even when the suit is without merit. > > > At first glance, this seems strange to me. I would think that one > > writes to allow just such interaction with one's creation. I would > > take it as the highest form of flattery that someone wished to > > interact with my world. > > This seems to be true, until you have seen something that you created > being changed or distorted in ways that you do not want, never intended, > and deeply dislike. I have. It is annoying, but certainly doesn't arise to the level of "violation" for me. I suppose I associate that word intensely with rape, and I expect others might too. While it may certainly be argued that a mental component of violation does exist, using the word in relation to a story, as opposed even to a scientific work of some sort, seems to be over-playing on sympathy and perhaps even an attempt to use the word as a trigger to evoke shame on the part of the reader. I do not feel the same levels of shame are warranted even in a flagrant copyright violation. > At that point, it's a very icky violated feeling. > I've been in this position, where people (some of whom were my friends) > felt that they had license to use characters of my creation in their own > storylines. In many cases, the distortions were so strong that they were, > in my opinion as the original author, real perversions of my original > intentions. I have had this occurr to some extent as well, I must admit. > And they were most unwelcomed. It was like someone was > taking a quilt I had made and using it for a dog blanket. Only much > worse. I pretty much felt it was of about the same annoyance level as the dog blanket example for me. > > > Question is, is rpg'ing in these worlds "exploiting" these rights > > electronically? > > Actually, yes. I can't cite the precedents, but there have been several > cases where filling (in whole or in part) a lucrative market niche, > whether for profit or not, has been judged to be outside fair use, and > punishable. I think it May be punishable. I believe there were also some question as to whether punishible was related to whether the author intended or had made any moves to exploit that market niche. >Depriving an author of the profits of their work and it's > derivatives is never fair use. This one of the most commonly cited > examples of a real copyright violation that can be punished quite harshly > (up to 100,000.00 fine). > "Derivative work" has specific legal meaning in the statute and doesn't cover everything that could possibly be derived from a work in any way. > > And if that is the summation of it, then much of the above makes sense. Buy > > the book, read it, enjoy it or not and forget it it seems to say. Why > > should this be any different than the daily news paper? > > It shouldn't be. Of course I disagree, but that's pretty apparent. > > > Maybe it shouldn't be. But to me, a fantasy author's work invites the mind > > to the creative. It brings one into a realm where there is much that is > > bright and grand and sometimes beautiful. It is larger than mundane life. > > It entices one to become a part of it. And when it does that, to me at > > leat, I begin to identify with it. Perhaps I should then be constrained to > > going out and creating and conquering fictional worlds of my own. > > I think this is definitely true. No matter how creative one may be, there > is no excuse for changing or borrowing another persons creation without > permission. Many of the movies and plays which people laud today are results of a change in the work of an ancient or not so ancient author. While copyright does not protect them, the principle is the same in relation as to whether it is right to do so. A certain amount of change should and may still be allowed. You just face a law suit if you do so and the courts get to decide which way it goes. I am of the firm opinion that a certain amount of use of any creation should be allowed as long as it is in a text type format. It is a prime arena for creative expression today and for centuries past. Still should be. IMO >And, besides, if we go out and create *new* worlds, instead > of just rehashing existing ones, we enrich the entire genre. And once > someone has done that, they can then make decisions regarding their own > work, and the extent to which they are willing to tolerate derivative > works being created by others. > > > But I do know that the feelings of rebuffment and ostracization that > > may be felt by some or even, perhaps, many readers of such works of > > fiction when they are harshly told to leave the world and not to > > return unless the author decides in his or her good time to open it up > > again to them, could easily be as painful as the intrusiveness and > > even violation mentioned above. > > Maybe it's just me, but I really don't waste time worrying about the > feelings of people who do something wrong, if they get their fingers > slapped. I am quite offended by this Cennydd, and I think it was truely uncalled for. I do not see anything morally wrong with some use of any such material copyrighted or not. Legally there may be in some instances and in others, not. I certainly would not accuse a group of (young or old) persons on this or any other list or public forum for wanting to express themselves thru an RPG or writing having to do with whatever author's work as being wrong, wrongly motivated or whatever you meant. That there may be legal consequences to certain of these activities which Mel shouldn't have to put up with I agree. And I am Certain that I do, indeed, worry about it when people start getting their "fingers slapped", after someone decides they have done something "wrong". On a list where the saying "No one true way" is held to quite vocally, to simply decide such a thing as this is unequivocally "wrong" in a moral sense, just doesn't seem to be appropriate in all cases IMO. >It's easy to avoid those feelings of hurt and rejection: don't > use other people's work without permission. After all, isn't that a > concept we all learned as children: you don't borrow without asking, and > if you are told "no," you don't pout. I know that I was and most of my > friends on this list seem to have been taught this also. Again, reducing this to an issue of "pouting" seems quite belittling not only to me, but likely to many others as well. I hope and assume you didn't mean it with as much force as those words seem to come accross. And there are things which as children you learn are OK for you to use. Some things become community property like the bath soap, everybody uses it once its open (at least in a large family). Some parts of an authors work should be community property in this sense, and the area of copyright (and most other for that matter) law is concerned with determining where society says the limits are. But, even when the limits are set, it doesn't, at least for me and I certainly hope not for most others, determine what is morally wrong and or right completely. And frankly, I suppose I would be happy in some cases to be a criminal defense lawyer, since I believe in innocent until proven guilty (and knowingly so in most cases) as well as being quite assured that continued freedom in almost every area requires that the leviathan of government be carefully controlled before it gets too finger slapping happy. *grin* > > > Any moves at writing in Misty's world, or roleplaying in her world, > > will likely push the buttons of the legal types who keep a watch more > > intensive than a taleydras bond bird. *grin* > > Not to mention a visit from your friendly Councilors. =) Hopefully, > neither will be necessary, of course. And on a positive note, Were all the other notes negative? *grin* >we almost > never have had any problems along this line that couldn't be solved with a > quick, polite "please don't do that here." As much as we may debate the > validity of Misty's worries on this issue, everyone on this list has shown > a great deal of courtesy and cooperativeness with this subject and keeping > the "taboo" stuff off of the list. And should keep right on doing so IMO. This seems to fall right into the "if you want to use Mel's toy you have to behave in a manner that won't cause her to lose it" category for me. > > So, thanks to one and all for that. =) > > May the seas be your solace and the forests a refuge for your spirit, > > Cennydd > Councilor of Mist Kristjan wrote, >>Carrach wrote: >>These people represent Ms. Lackey. They are insulting. This does not make me feel any furtherance of >>good will toward her and, in fact, lessens my already ebbing desire to read further of her works. >Well, I dislike the tone of the letter, and because of such letters get more and more anoyed at Misty, but I >still like most of her work, so I suppose I'll keep reading her. By the way, why is your disire to read her work >ebbing? Sooner or later, the annoyance factor begins to weigh heavily against the wonderful creation factor. For me, when the friend I had becomes too formal or, in other cases, a bully who is inordinately concerned with controlling everything about the "toy" or in this case the work, I guess for me its time to say goodbye and leave them to their toy and internal difficulties (especially if I can't do much to help them get over it) and go play with someone else who isn't as annoying and stressing. Also, I feel that her more recent works have lost much of the flair and imagination of her earlier works. Thanks all. Look forward to further discussion, if anyone's interested. And I'd like to take this chance to thank those of you who sent me those wonderful congratulations (and squirrels *grin*). They were much appreciated. Thanks! Carrach ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 22:49:34 PDT From: "Derrick O" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: 'bout Misty Message-ID: <19990416054935.55258.qmail-+AT+-hotmail.com> Well since everyone else has voiced an opinion on the legality of writing in Misty's world, I guess I'll voice my opinion to. First off I can understand her situation. I am also a writer (although unpublished) and I know that if I were to ever get anything published the thought of someone out there doing things with the world and characters I've created would simutaneously upset me and honor me. It would honor me becuase I know that someone was interested enough in my stuff to want to see more of it, but it would upset me becuase it is MY world and MY creation. More than just whether it is legal for them to be there should they morally be doing things with something that isn't their's? When we each picture Valdermar or any of the things that Misty has writen we see it through our own eyes and with our own impressions of it. We don't see it how she does so any games or fan-fics based upon her characters are just getting in there and messing up this world that she has created out of her own mind. To put it in more physical terms would you want some stranger going into your house and cleaning it without your permission? No becuase when they do it they are violating your space and when you write about someone else's world you are violating them in just the same kind of way. Yes Misty is very harsh about it, but in many ways she has no choice but to be, because you give in even a tiny bit then you're going to be expected to always give in. Well that's my rant on the subject. Someone wrote (Sorry I can't remember who): Anyway, does anybody have a good song that would relate to nightmares? I need one for a story I'm going to write. I was considering Enter Sandman or Sweet Dreams by Marilyn Manson (I don't have_any_of his CD's and I'm not planning on buying any). Any suggestions? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enter Sandman would be a good one or maybe something from Nine Inch Nails, my guess would be something off the Broken EP or Downward Spiral would work well for that. -Derrick _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:18:08 -0700 From: "L. J. Thompson" To: "'mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk'" Subject: the whole RP and FanFic issues thead Message-ID: <01BE879E.A19A9E80-+AT+-BASIL> I've been trying not to post, because I'm busy trying to get 10 million school-related things done, but I have my own slant on the whole RP and FanFic thing, and I thought I'd share it with the list. If this thread doesn't interest you, read no further. It seems to me that RPing and writing FanFic in Misty's worlds really would be kind of pointless in a lot of ways even if it was legal. I don't know about the rest of the list, but my favorite thing about Misty's books isn't the setting. Yes, it's kind of neat, but it's not really the reason I read the books. I read the books because I really like the characters, and how real they seem. (I'm thinking mostly LHM and Arrows here, for the record.) The plots are neat, the characters are WONDERFUL and the setting is kind of nifty, but not the most important bit. I love roleplaying, and spent a great deal of my free time on it, but I came to the conclusion that trying to RP in my favorite fictional worlds (Velgarth and Babylon 5) would be futile and pointless even if it was allowed. For example, I've bought almost every Babylon 5 book, even the stupid ones, but I didn't bother to buy the RPG. Why? Because I thought about it, and realized that I liked that show for the PLOT, not the setting. So anyway, (to yank this post back to the list I'm sending it to) instead of whining about how I can't RP or write FanFic set in Misty's worlds, I sat down and really thought about what I liked about her books, and about the other books and TV shows that I liked, and thought about how I _could_ incorporate those elements into my own games. For example, I discovered that the books I liked tended to have main characters with a sadness that they were carrying around, and tended to build walls between themselves and others. So, I took that element and started playing characters like that. End result: I'm having more fun RPing now because I like my characters better and, to my knowledge, I didn't break any laws in the process. To use an analogy, it's like the difference between basically coping a paper and doing research to write your own paper. Which is not to say that writing authorized FanFic or RPing in someone else's world with permission is necessarily a bad thing, just that it pays to analyze WHY you like something rather than just copying it blindly. If you just played a game in a Velgarth setting (which I'm not advocating for a moment that you do, it's an example! Keep the big scary lawyers away from me!) and you didn't have the kinds of characters and plots that make the books so wonderful, you'd most likely be disappointed. But maybe that's just me. Maybe other people really do just like the setting above all else, and the plots and the characters just get in the way... I don't know. OK, my next point on this topic: Another problem with FanFic/RPing is that I believe (I think I read this somewhere Once Upon a Time, and I'm not sure where or in what context. I'm a Computer and RPG geek, not a lawyer of any sort, don't take this as necessarily being correct. Nice lawyer. See L.J.. L.J. is doing nothing wrong. L.J. is not dispensing legal advice about which she knows nothing. L.J. is just sharing what she has heard. L.J. is not claiming that she knows what she is talking about.) that it can limit what the original author that the FanFic is based off of can write about in the future, because the fan can throw a huge legal fit and claim that they stole their idea. That's why the official release forms for FanFic that I've read always include something along the lines of "I realize that other people may have this idea too and won't sue if the original author later uses something similar." I know that most of the people who write FanFic wouldn't even consider suing, but it only takes one greedy person. Hmm...on a side note, Piers Anthony has a completely different opinion on RPing, as far as I can tell. (I have no official knowledge that you don't have, this is just my interpretation of his newsletter. Don't rely on me if you plan on RPing in his worlds, go find out for real. Get the scary lawyers and their nice big doggies away from me!) In the April newsletter on his website, he said that he would be putting up a Xanth timeline soon, so that people playing games in his world would have a reference. So I interpret that to probably mean that he doesn't particularly mind if people RP in them. (But see my disclaimer above!) Every author sees things a little differently. I wish that Misty would allow RPing in her worlds, because people might find it fun, but I can see her side of it too. And finally one other thing that may effect my view of all of this. I see a real line between liking an author/artist and liking their WORK. I don't know enough about Misty to know if I'd like her as a person, and I don't think it's that terribly important. What's important to me is that I like her writing style, so I buy her books. Some writers, the more I learn about them, the more I think I'd probably like them if I met them socially, and some I don't. That doesn't stop me from enjoying their work. This used to really confuse my roommate last term, BTW, because my favorite musician is in his 50s or 60s and that didn't bother me in the least. I liked his music, and didn't really care that terribly much what he looked like, what he did with his spare time, or the fact that he is older than my parents. Doesn't matter to me. I put of posters of unicorns, not photos of him, and played his music every morning before I went to class. Whereas HER side of the room was plastered with pictures of some guy in the GooGoo Dolls. She didn't see the same separation between artist and performance that I did. Do most people? Or does my brain work strangely? (Wouldn't be the first time.) Well, this post was longer and less on topic then I thought it would be. Sorry. I'll try to be shorter and more on topic next time. :) May squirrels never take a liking to your teeth, L.J. Thompson ICQ #6886878 begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(A0'`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!-+AT+-`(````Y 0```````#H``$(-+AT+- <` M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0-+AT+-36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````-+AT+-`"``$$ MD 8`Z $```$````0`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````5P`````` M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````&UE4!H97)A;&0N M8V\N=6L`4TU44 !M97)C961E``(P M`0````4```!33510`````!X``S !````'0```&UE4!H M97)A;&0N8V\N=6L``````P`5# $````#`/X/!-+AT+-```!X``3 !````'P```"=M M97)C961E4!H97)A;&0N8V\N=6L` M`````-+AT+-'W7P$```!7`````````($K'Z2^HQ 9G6X`W0$/5 (`````;65R8V5D M97,M;&%C:V5Y0&AE4!H M97)A;&0N8V\N=6L```,`_5\!`````P#_7P`````"`?8/`0````0````````" M`6\!!( !`"4```!T:&4-+AT+-=VAO;&4-+AT+-4E -+AT+-86YD($9A;D9I8R!I^`1X`< `!```` M)0```'1H92!W:&]L92!24"!A;F0-+AT+-1F%N1FEC(&ES.%/5:\W\1TK-+AT+-*`. I)WJ)```>`!X,`0````4` M``!33510`````!X`'PP!````#P```&QJ=$!L8VQA$-+AT+-='(R>0N 9R 7 M( 5 =&] ('!O2L8AAE!9Q% ( ] (&WI`Q!L M:0(-+AT+-( 3P$U &\+8M"7 +8'0)-+AT+-!B :!C!+00-+AT+-9!0;B<%0 N '2 )0&; C4"PQ+=870!T0_QX4.!,9`BS5,I0PP!Q!'G#_)1,?XC8S,4([ M7!G(+,8<(/YK*;(8(!#R`- F`3?A(+)_$U 'X"S2'](:P"D2)% H?QI2'6(M MT1C-+AT+-!& 9D"T13-Q(32"C!Q #8'<$(">!'QX!`A %P#*4!:%D+BG_$R ?\0M0 M&1 $(",2..0^S %%-+AT+-U=/3D1%4D;\54P-+AT+-HS;Y-H$X6 :0+!#?'A09`Q_Q0B(C M0&T9< `-+AT+-_1]R8B-0,4()`!-+AT+-1`V -+AT+-4.<+41BR(;1S< GP!4 O(/\)P2GQ`0! M82XA-#()T1B _P=Q'Z(C4!X6&? IHAE0/L/]`B!C"D `D!^S*?$:Z""!^RNQ M-#IF#> J\ (-+AT+-0&$L9;PH5ASP,1 G82"C0-+AT+-&-+AT+-]GD)``.-+AT+--430+4ATS*?%,(3Z!8^4B\,,R`4/F4$Q/5!FP2F9M-S=3 M&5 `<'DOL1FP*/4907D`<&LDE!ER&# `T/]H-+AT+-5$$)!(:0Q$P(,!(PQDB_T30 M"X 9D"4B+X(=<3480 +_4((EHB"!!;$JPA-+AT+--+AT+-(/41,?]#$0!X%:#E\Q!/#_3%$)<5(% M/-=D5VJA'3(94/\>E MQ1FHC-+AT+-R\-+AT+-<)!?8"ZR_WYV+2$F$5"10R 8LPK "&#_ M(, AM'_H&I #$"JA+/$]0OYT6=!=I"E '/ 8$'847\/_/"%G8'!2&4 V4"G$ M>Q5-5/\!D `-+AT+-'3%,U49J/G4=$"10RD5C0W,7`'0Z&D,>D?]!Y",A)T #H"HD M,?(]:#YS_Q[A1GF&828!(*)&$7O3,>+](%!D&X!]A%]D)1%H-+AT+-&>1720`84-1 M;T$?XG #8&/[+K$D4%094!H2`Y$`< = _&]G2?$X$SYW7T !("81_U& &"*& MA&E #=$L\P6-+AT+-7D#[*E(98&%-L)$S'<$8PB8A_24-+AT+- CL"3!&05PD#IB_RGQ*L8:`"(Q!1!CPB#U!;'_*B1O03KP!X 7,7L! M$3 L-O\C=)G!&_ $$!PRG2(%D"ZQ?PK `Q :P"\-+AT+-:4 =11FP:O\:$#)R*?$C M40JP+]$90972YGECP$=02%DF8CYDH++_-/1Z85_C$0`#H*3#F1$8L_\C40)-+AT+- M+>$M$"13IM*DPTS2WW-2?%,NY%5'2(8H;#&;`?\:4AD")3 T-+AT+-!GP*O-#XB\-+AT+- M_P1-+AT+-B8,ITZ;2'= W]0.16F6H(2!+">!P.Y1I&.#_!/ *P)/#JT!&\B^Q3R$# M0)G58-$;<65= M4:X#LL7_+A*3HCKP`" 9L#&$`9 ^D_\DP3#!HSH80(K3!;!$821!/DX-X"/Q MLN-G04]13"[^2L41V5)(\II$R0(8PBK _P(-+AT+--Y'9MAD"?<%-L0"0&-'_,/.N M,MA2Q.$'),('0$'3,C-$P?\ITR-";7$D`1OP ',2:Q(%#J M0?]#TBE!0^(-+AT+-]V0B& (E$P= _R^S>?$*0 $`IUF5\>-C(_+[7I$N$B(]Y&.Q M*<2]^[PQ_[4F),'QHHBB*G0QDXS0(S'_,S3H#AT"!< :$.WI/]*\C,EOE4-+AT+-(6XL+4,EHC #_U%AF)"Y0<_Q(8,Y1!^A.E+O MN &V`:$!"<)D&L"9P3KQ^2>[2&U!$,4`SI,$8ACR_QX!*C"VPLCP(C&3L>&2 M+R#_1(!:DFY-+AT+-OP*751^1F3$<,O\<02HC(;'T0?_PUE)M4W_1_QP002(>A"<1 M\O>2!Z^ZM/;_1A+[0KSF7& EXY2-+AT+-"R"ND?\,\,B&\R)+)O]F1(L#2M!%%7#/HE4#A=N+_ MVE$*DFH`D0!7D0N'JA.!P?_-+AT+--+AT+-(CT;W,A%5F3%NE?\6_V_^SV^B:R0'B!&'/G M08XQ4"B_H)%/45_B"./XD6L3;P=K_\CPS1 8<7&#H/)?Q?=#MZ7_7& G4)=P MV !.\HV0S;#4-+AT+-__!,0%CHI#%(BX2)R)4D2,CWX9FEK&$`\ZAGN,O*U(!,<_/ M0D"E\41'8%)+Q2Q=1D^3T9!-+AT+-U!)YE_V^16K(CTH$4X88AB#%I!/_\8]DA&>.KLH]-+AT+-QC$39(9F_T&YF<'T M`B*0E\'+19+1%-+[NA0LE#_.$* `*L(2DI- __ `T/%:(8H!MH#:8+JA-+AT+-2#\ M*%<#9KQC\^'Q<*3BSO'[YA#&*E<.41&U;Y)W-+AT+-_>B_YG5,:"4\,?SR)+Q,LZ-+AT+- MS$*_1((%4R$F3Y+7T*HB)\$Q_X*P17.]P>" U1&9U8WCB"<3QU.$PR ZA1M< M8V80,%QF,8] "" &``````# ````````1-+AT+-`````.A0`````` M``,`.8 (( 8``````, ```````!&`````!B%````````'-+AT+-!(-+AT+- -+AT+--+AT+-!-+AT+-`````` MP ```````$8`````-H4```$````!`````````!X`28 (( 8``````, ````` M``!&`````#>%```!`````0`````````>`$J "" &``````# ````````1-+AT+-`` L```XA0```0````$`````````'-+AT+-`]``$````!``````````,`#33]-P``Q",` ` end ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 1935 **********************************