Discussion: How to feel about old shame?

So, anyway, I'm nervous about this story.

Okay, for the record, I'm not sure how big a "controversy" this is; I got nothing on Vivisector, and they once turned a completely unrelated thread about a man screwing a dog and posting videos online into yet another "complaining about FurAffinity" thread, so if they don't care after three weeks, that's saying something. Also, Google is getting me nothing much; of course, my weak Google-fu is one of my shames.

Secondly, "discussion" on the Internet serves one purpose; for people to stick around and give a website more page-views and therefore ad revenue and therefore money. Since Flayrah is a non-profit that doesn't run on page-views, there other than bragging rights (and we don't have a lot of that), I think I'll passively discourage "discussion" articles. I mean, if you want to discuss, discuss, we still have comments even if we don't, strictly speaking, need them; but if you've got something to say, say it in the article next time, and if a discussion happens, it happens.

Of course, if a "discussion" article is contributed, I'll send it through; this is just me saying pretty please.

Also, sorry, but I may have just preempted the discussion that we're supposed to be having about old shame, which I don't really think I have anything to say about.

To me the biggest controversy FurAffinity has ever had will be, and probably (and hopefully) always will be the note leak. It's one thing to bring back what was once in public view, and thus public memory. It's a whole other to expose things that were never meant for public consumption to begin with.

I think it's going to be a theme in the coming years. Gone are the days when an artist can pretend that they were always a gift to their form. That they were always as talented as they are now. That's the thing with a publisher studio. Sure they reject you, but in a way they were protecting you from having your work reach an audience before it was really ready. Now that those safety nets are disappearing you have to be the judge on whether your own work is ready for public consumption. And only the most introspective of people are going to know that accurately. Even they will get it wrong once in awhile.

So, you'll have to embrace your growing moments, and not fear the mistakes the past you made. Instead recognize them, and use it to inspire your fans, and your enemies, that anyone can become better. As long as they don't allow themselves to be beaten by their failures.

It is sort of like the Google controversy and the "Right to be Forgotten". The thing is, who has the right to be forgotten and at one point do they no longer have that right? To me what should be demanded, more than being forgotten, it for the right to be forgiven. If society will not forgive a man who declared bankruptcy a decade ago, then it is not the man's problem, nor Google's problem for linking to a decade old article, it is the reader basing their judgement off of outdated information and being unable to determine that information is outdated. The problem is with being unable to forgive the mistakes of the past.

The same goes for if someone is criticizing an artist's current talents through the lens of their decade's old works.

By the way... the "biggest controversy on FA in years" just got eclipsed by FA's acquisition by IMVU. Oh internet. You can't keep them coming can you?

"three weeks since the biggest FurAffinity controversy of recent years happened."

I can't recall anything big offhand and there's nothing in your link that happened three weeks ago...?

Starting a discussion is one thing but this seems far more suited to a forum than here. And it doesn't actually answer questions or frame the discussion in any context.

The same thing goes for writers, actors, and musicians. A lot of creators don't like to be reminded of their early works. "Oh, god, I was so YOUNG when I did that!" How many animators and cartoonists -- Bob Clampett, Walt Disney, Milton Caniff -- have had their high-school work unearthed and put on the Internet? Practically all of the music of Paul Dukas ("The Sorcerer's Apprentice") is lost today because he feared that he would be embarrassed by it as he grew more skilled, and he refused to let it be published. Rex Stout, author of the Nero Wolfe mysteries during his retirement, for decades would not tell what he had written during his youth because he considered it so bad. (A 1914 pulp magazine thriller by him, "Under the Andes", was later rediscovered; yeah, it's pretty bad.) Robert A. Heinlein's first 1930s s-f novel, which he had thought all the manuscripts of had been destroyed, was published after his death. Most amateurs used to be protected from their adolescent first efforts by their inability to have them professionally published; today, with online websites and blogs, that is no longer true.

Right here on Flayrah, I wrote a review of Sofawolf Press' "Hot Dish" vol. 1 that got over 100 comments, and caused me to change my opinion of furry authors' pseudonyms. https://www.flayrah.com/4671/review-hot-dish-vol-1-edited-alopex

I find this extremely interesting, and a little alarming, for a number of reasons - but I'll just stick with one. Furries who have had an extreme change of heart on their contributions to the community - either those who feel their current careers may be harmed if their past in the fandom were revealed or those who just are done with the fandom. There's art from one furry artist who I would love to see again, he did one of my initial badges after entering the fandom and which I love dearly - Stickdevil. He left the fandom for whatever reason, took down all his art (DA, FA, etc), and requested Wikifur not publish anything about him. For someone like him how are we supposed to take this? What if making his art available and somehow that online stuff gets connected to the very real person who has moved on and causes him real harm? Another I might point out is the comic Deo created by the artist Grimal - at some point the comic just completely disappeared from what I can tell, the furry is still in the fandom but for whatever reason he took down the art. I don't know why but is it my call to make it available again even though it's not likely to harm him?

It's a tough call in terms of archivists but since the art is owned by these people I think you really have to side with their decision no matter how much it pains you to let go of creations you admire.

For writers a story may be revised multiple times before a "final" version is left alone and then later deleted... if there are multiple versions of the same story out there are all saved?

Oh and yes, I would be interested in the link. I respect their reasons for taking art down but I really hate the idea of things I admire disappearing forever. And there are a few stories and pieces of art I vaguely remember but cannot find in my favorites anymore and suspect they were purged at some point.

I am currently editing a reprint anthology, that FurPlanet Productions will publish for Anthrocon 2015 in July. I found one story online on a 1997 post that I liked. When I e-mailed the author to ask if we could buy the reprint rights, he said that he had forgotten all about it long ago. He was embarrassed to have such an early example of his writing resurrected today -- but he has taken the $50, and you'll see it in July. I think that everybody will still enjoy reading this "forgotten" story. Yes, there are still gems to be found on "embarrassing" old posts.

At the same time, some early work is truly amateurish and embarrassing today, and I can appreciate the creators wanting to remove all traces of it from the Internet.