Admin: A little clarification
Aug. 23rd, 2005 09:04 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
carolyn-claire.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
the_comfy_chairI think, after reading some of the discussion about this comm around lj, that it would be a good idea for me to clarify some things about what this comm is and isn't, and why we're doing some of the things we're doing the way we're doing them. I've enjoyed seeing the discussions a lot, and have taken part in one, answering questions and (I hope) assuaging some fears, but I think it would be more effective for me to share some of those things here, where everyone can see them. Feel free to comment in response, but realize that I've put a lot of thought into this, discussed it with friends, read many discussions and considered my own experiences on other discussion lists and still feel the way I feel about it. If all you have to say is, "You shouldn't do this" or "This isn't nice", then save it. Any other sort of considered, reasoned comment about this comm in particular and discussion comms/public discussion of fanfic in general is welcome.
1. This is not an analytical concrit community. I thought I'd made it clear that this was a community for and about readers, their reactions to stories, how they feel and what they think, and not a place where anyone is expected to prove anything, follow any scholarly rules of engagement or come to any kind of consensus about stories based on who has the strongest argument. Have you ever belonged to a discussion community for a favorite show? One where people jump in after the ep and express their feelings, point to parts they loved, complained about parts they didn't, and compared the similarities and differences in their views? That, to me, is what's at the heart of fandom--the shared interest, the way taking your own interest/love/obsession into a public forum and discussing it with others amps up the enjoyment. I'm not talking about pure, unadulterated, jumping up and down squee, here, or not only that, I'm talking about talking about it, getting into it, discussing everything about it, sharing likes and dislikes and why we have those likes and dislikes. Ever done that? That's what this community is. Instead of the show, the fanfic is our source material, but it's essentially the same thing. Some of us are readers and some of us are writers, but we're all sharing from the POV of a reader, here, sharing reactions and thoughts and feelings, using examples from the source to describe why and how. It isn't unbiased, it isn't objective, it isn't definitive. It's discussion of something we love, for the love of the source and the love of discussion. There are people who really, really like to do this; they're doing it all over fandom and lj, already. The idea of gathering people together to talk like this isn't new, it didn't originate with me--I'm basing a number of the guidelines for this comm on discussion lists I've already been on. So, no, we're not doing it the "correct" analytical way, because we're not trying to. We're having a nice, stimulating chat. There's a big difference.
2. There is no intent to provide value to the writers of the stories discussed or fandom at large in this comm. A number of people have responded, "But, if that's what you're doing, how does the writer benefit?" Well, I don't know, or care, really, because this comm isn't for writers, it's not about telling them how to do what they're doing better, it's not to give them pointers to take away with them, it's for readers of stories to get together and discuss stories. Period. People have questioned whether doing this is "valuable"--whether our discussion is valuable in a classic, analytical way, whether what we say has any value to the writer, whether people talking about what they like and don't like adds value to the fandom. A discussion group gives value to the members who participate in it and who enjoy discussing stories the way fandom itself adds value to our lives--it's fun. That's the value. People who enjoy doing this will enjoy doing it, and the opportunity to do it is valuable to them. People who want to discuss stories openly and honestly are not second class citizens; free discussion of anything, anywhere is a right that applies in the real world of fandom as much as it does in any other part of the world. To those who feel that fandom is meant to be sweet, and nice, and nurturing, and protective, and safe, I want to ask, have you met fandom? Because it's not any more of any of these things, in my experience, than any other part of life is. In our own little circles we may find those things, in the cliques and sub-communities of like-thinking people we go to for petting and reassurance, but, in the big, wide world of fandom, there's a lot going on that doesn't fit that view. But that's the beauty part--you can stay in your nurturing circle and not experience anything you don't want to, if you choose. And, over here, we can discuss stories, openly and honestly, the way we want to, and you can stay away. You can. You can play entirely elsewhere, ignore us completely, and we won't mind. We're just here for us. And we're not here to be mean, or to hurt anyone. We have no ulterior motives, no agenda. We like to discuss stories. To us, it's a valuable pursuit. Maybe not to you, but it doesn't have to be.
3. Writers should be asked for permission before their stories are discussed. I've tried to come up with anything in any area of my life about which I have to ask someone's permission to discuss, and, you know, I can't. And that applies to artwork, too, of any kind--I've never had to ask anyone, anywhere, if it was okay for me to talk about a painting on display or a book I've read with people who want to discuss those things with me. The idea that in fandom one should ask permission to have a discussion about a story that's been posted publicly with the expectation that it be read and, the author hopes, responded to with feedback, publicly recced, nominated for awards, etc., is ridiculous to me. Once you've posted a story publicly, you release control; an author cannot control response to her story. She cannot dictate that people like it, and she cannot dictate that they only comment on it if they like it. I have the right to discuss, I have the right to like or not like and say so, I have the right not to be censored in my thoughts and opinions. I do, and I won't give that away to appease the "culture of nice". If it's okay if I squee publicly, then it has to also be okay that I also criticize publicly. My saying that I didn't like something about a story is not an assault on the author; authors are not their stories. No one has yet, as far as I know, ever written a story, in fandom or professionally, that everyone, everywhere has liked. Criticism is inevitable. But it doesn't have to be mean-spirited or cruel, and that's the reason for the rules of this comm. Honesty isn't cruelty. What people create, or what they think, is not the sum total of who they are. We can weather honest comments about things we do, if we're grown up about it. We do it every day, at work, at school and at home. We can do it here, too.
4. Inviting authors into the discussion can only make it more informative and interesting; excluding them is unfair. Discussing stories with authors, those who are interested in doing it and not just in being petted, is a great thing. It's interesting, and informative, yes. It's just not what we're here to do. We're not necessarily looking for a deeper understanding of what the author meant to say (and if we are, we always have the option of writing to the author directly and asking her.) We're here to discuss with each other our reactions to the text as presented, what worked for us and didn't and why, and not what we should have gotten from the text, not what the author meant to say. It's interesting to know, yes, but it's for another forum, not this one. I wonder how those who worry that writers will be upset by seeing their stories discussed here think those upset authors are likely to respond, given the chance? Many people who are interested in discussing a writer's work with her have tried to and been rebuffed, been snapped at, been ignored, been told she just doesn't "get it", etc. There's a learned wariness there that can inhibit discussion, I believe, if participants know there may be a writer waiting to pounce on what they say, once she gets her chance. And, really, when we're talking about our own perceptions of a story, which are filtered through our own biased brains, what can the author's response be? "Here's what I meant" has nothing to do with "Here's what I saw while reading." I believe in the text having a live of its own outside of the writer's hands and intentions, and that's where I want the focus of this comm to be. It's hard for many people not to see authorial intent as trumping interpretation; I don't want that to happen, here. There will always be many interpretations, and they're interesting and worthy of discussion, whether it's what the author meant or not. And, in the end, I feel a "now it's the author's turn" can't feel like anything but a chance for rebuttal, and there can be no rebuttal of personal perceptions and opinions, really, and no defense where there's been no attack. I don't want to give the impression that there has been by offering what may appear to be the opportunity to "defend".
These responses address, I hope, the most common questions I've seen brought up in relation to the comm. These are the answers; you may not agree, but I hope you understand better what the intention of the comm is, what I'm trying to do, and for whom, and why. I've never seen a discussion comm yet that didn't generate concerns about hurt feelings, meanies getting their jollies trashing writers, hidden agendas being forwarded, etc. None of that is meant to happen here; thus, the firm hand of admin correction when I see comments potentially leaning in any of those directions. I'm serious about this being a clean, welll-intentioned, brightly-lit place to play and not a scary back-alley of evil. I think it can work--it has worked elsewhere--and I think it's worth doing. And the option is always there for people to avoid the comm. No one's forcing anyone to participate. For those who want to, it can be a lot of fun. And it's a kind of fun we have a right to.
Please know, too, that the author of the review I just posted is fully on board with having her story discussed--she wants that and hopes people will have things to say about it. I know this because she offered it to me for review, early on, as a discussion opener, and she told me she'd be very interested in what people might say about it. If you're feeling any trepidation about commenting on reviews presented here for discussion, know that the author wants you to. I have no problem with anyone preferring to ask writers for permission before they post a story and letting the comm know in the post that they've done so, or with people informing a writer that they intend to post/have posted a review of their story here. I'm not saying any of those things shouldn't be done if the poster chooses to, I'm saying that I won't require that they be done, or ban any story from discussion where this hasn't been done. Everyone here should do what makes them comfortable. In the case of Taf's story, I wouldn't want to see the current controversy over author permission/notification inhibiting the discussion she'd like to see.
1. This is not an analytical concrit community. I thought I'd made it clear that this was a community for and about readers, their reactions to stories, how they feel and what they think, and not a place where anyone is expected to prove anything, follow any scholarly rules of engagement or come to any kind of consensus about stories based on who has the strongest argument. Have you ever belonged to a discussion community for a favorite show? One where people jump in after the ep and express their feelings, point to parts they loved, complained about parts they didn't, and compared the similarities and differences in their views? That, to me, is what's at the heart of fandom--the shared interest, the way taking your own interest/love/obsession into a public forum and discussing it with others amps up the enjoyment. I'm not talking about pure, unadulterated, jumping up and down squee, here, or not only that, I'm talking about talking about it, getting into it, discussing everything about it, sharing likes and dislikes and why we have those likes and dislikes. Ever done that? That's what this community is. Instead of the show, the fanfic is our source material, but it's essentially the same thing. Some of us are readers and some of us are writers, but we're all sharing from the POV of a reader, here, sharing reactions and thoughts and feelings, using examples from the source to describe why and how. It isn't unbiased, it isn't objective, it isn't definitive. It's discussion of something we love, for the love of the source and the love of discussion. There are people who really, really like to do this; they're doing it all over fandom and lj, already. The idea of gathering people together to talk like this isn't new, it didn't originate with me--I'm basing a number of the guidelines for this comm on discussion lists I've already been on. So, no, we're not doing it the "correct" analytical way, because we're not trying to. We're having a nice, stimulating chat. There's a big difference.
2. There is no intent to provide value to the writers of the stories discussed or fandom at large in this comm. A number of people have responded, "But, if that's what you're doing, how does the writer benefit?" Well, I don't know, or care, really, because this comm isn't for writers, it's not about telling them how to do what they're doing better, it's not to give them pointers to take away with them, it's for readers of stories to get together and discuss stories. Period. People have questioned whether doing this is "valuable"--whether our discussion is valuable in a classic, analytical way, whether what we say has any value to the writer, whether people talking about what they like and don't like adds value to the fandom. A discussion group gives value to the members who participate in it and who enjoy discussing stories the way fandom itself adds value to our lives--it's fun. That's the value. People who enjoy doing this will enjoy doing it, and the opportunity to do it is valuable to them. People who want to discuss stories openly and honestly are not second class citizens; free discussion of anything, anywhere is a right that applies in the real world of fandom as much as it does in any other part of the world. To those who feel that fandom is meant to be sweet, and nice, and nurturing, and protective, and safe, I want to ask, have you met fandom? Because it's not any more of any of these things, in my experience, than any other part of life is. In our own little circles we may find those things, in the cliques and sub-communities of like-thinking people we go to for petting and reassurance, but, in the big, wide world of fandom, there's a lot going on that doesn't fit that view. But that's the beauty part--you can stay in your nurturing circle and not experience anything you don't want to, if you choose. And, over here, we can discuss stories, openly and honestly, the way we want to, and you can stay away. You can. You can play entirely elsewhere, ignore us completely, and we won't mind. We're just here for us. And we're not here to be mean, or to hurt anyone. We have no ulterior motives, no agenda. We like to discuss stories. To us, it's a valuable pursuit. Maybe not to you, but it doesn't have to be.
3. Writers should be asked for permission before their stories are discussed. I've tried to come up with anything in any area of my life about which I have to ask someone's permission to discuss, and, you know, I can't. And that applies to artwork, too, of any kind--I've never had to ask anyone, anywhere, if it was okay for me to talk about a painting on display or a book I've read with people who want to discuss those things with me. The idea that in fandom one should ask permission to have a discussion about a story that's been posted publicly with the expectation that it be read and, the author hopes, responded to with feedback, publicly recced, nominated for awards, etc., is ridiculous to me. Once you've posted a story publicly, you release control; an author cannot control response to her story. She cannot dictate that people like it, and she cannot dictate that they only comment on it if they like it. I have the right to discuss, I have the right to like or not like and say so, I have the right not to be censored in my thoughts and opinions. I do, and I won't give that away to appease the "culture of nice". If it's okay if I squee publicly, then it has to also be okay that I also criticize publicly. My saying that I didn't like something about a story is not an assault on the author; authors are not their stories. No one has yet, as far as I know, ever written a story, in fandom or professionally, that everyone, everywhere has liked. Criticism is inevitable. But it doesn't have to be mean-spirited or cruel, and that's the reason for the rules of this comm. Honesty isn't cruelty. What people create, or what they think, is not the sum total of who they are. We can weather honest comments about things we do, if we're grown up about it. We do it every day, at work, at school and at home. We can do it here, too.
4. Inviting authors into the discussion can only make it more informative and interesting; excluding them is unfair. Discussing stories with authors, those who are interested in doing it and not just in being petted, is a great thing. It's interesting, and informative, yes. It's just not what we're here to do. We're not necessarily looking for a deeper understanding of what the author meant to say (and if we are, we always have the option of writing to the author directly and asking her.) We're here to discuss with each other our reactions to the text as presented, what worked for us and didn't and why, and not what we should have gotten from the text, not what the author meant to say. It's interesting to know, yes, but it's for another forum, not this one. I wonder how those who worry that writers will be upset by seeing their stories discussed here think those upset authors are likely to respond, given the chance? Many people who are interested in discussing a writer's work with her have tried to and been rebuffed, been snapped at, been ignored, been told she just doesn't "get it", etc. There's a learned wariness there that can inhibit discussion, I believe, if participants know there may be a writer waiting to pounce on what they say, once she gets her chance. And, really, when we're talking about our own perceptions of a story, which are filtered through our own biased brains, what can the author's response be? "Here's what I meant" has nothing to do with "Here's what I saw while reading." I believe in the text having a live of its own outside of the writer's hands and intentions, and that's where I want the focus of this comm to be. It's hard for many people not to see authorial intent as trumping interpretation; I don't want that to happen, here. There will always be many interpretations, and they're interesting and worthy of discussion, whether it's what the author meant or not. And, in the end, I feel a "now it's the author's turn" can't feel like anything but a chance for rebuttal, and there can be no rebuttal of personal perceptions and opinions, really, and no defense where there's been no attack. I don't want to give the impression that there has been by offering what may appear to be the opportunity to "defend".
These responses address, I hope, the most common questions I've seen brought up in relation to the comm. These are the answers; you may not agree, but I hope you understand better what the intention of the comm is, what I'm trying to do, and for whom, and why. I've never seen a discussion comm yet that didn't generate concerns about hurt feelings, meanies getting their jollies trashing writers, hidden agendas being forwarded, etc. None of that is meant to happen here; thus, the firm hand of admin correction when I see comments potentially leaning in any of those directions. I'm serious about this being a clean, welll-intentioned, brightly-lit place to play and not a scary back-alley of evil. I think it can work--it has worked elsewhere--and I think it's worth doing. And the option is always there for people to avoid the comm. No one's forcing anyone to participate. For those who want to, it can be a lot of fun. And it's a kind of fun we have a right to.
Please know, too, that the author of the review I just posted is fully on board with having her story discussed--she wants that and hopes people will have things to say about it. I know this because she offered it to me for review, early on, as a discussion opener, and she told me she'd be very interested in what people might say about it. If you're feeling any trepidation about commenting on reviews presented here for discussion, know that the author wants you to. I have no problem with anyone preferring to ask writers for permission before they post a story and letting the comm know in the post that they've done so, or with people informing a writer that they intend to post/have posted a review of their story here. I'm not saying any of those things shouldn't be done if the poster chooses to, I'm saying that I won't require that they be done, or ban any story from discussion where this hasn't been done. Everyone here should do what makes them comfortable. In the case of Taf's story, I wouldn't want to see the current controversy over author permission/notification inhibiting the discussion she'd like to see.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-23 03:52 am (UTC)I'm not going to require it, and I say why, above. I don't think it should be a requirement, I don't think I, myself, should have to ask anyone for permission to post their publicly posted stories. Like you say, my feeling that way won't prevent any drama, but drama doesn't scare me--I've been in online fandom for ten years, and I've seen my share of drama. That said, I won't post any reviews here, myself, of stories where the author has requested only positive feedback (or, with the advent of the comm, that her story not be discussed anywhere.) I don't ever read stories with requests for only positive feedback, anyway.
As I said, asking permission is an open option for anyone who wants to do it. I'm not forbidding that, and I never meant to give the impression that asking first, or informing, wasn't allowed. I'm just not going to demand it, and I'm certainly not going to do it for people. Anyone who wants to, and wants to include in their post that they have, is welcome to.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-23 03:55 am (UTC)"What the heck are you talking about, with outlines, and editing, and plans? It's just fanfic. I do this for fun, for C****'s sake! Where do you get off criticizing me in the one place in my life where I don't expect to be critiqued?!"
As I said, I haven't experienced that in *this* particular fandom yet, but I have to believe that--despite the amazing group of online writers this fandom has attracted--it has also attracted some of the other, less seriously intented types. So, while I appreciate what you say about how "people who post stories publicly shouldn't complain," I can tell you that a good number of them do *not* feel that way. This is their hobby, their free time, their escape. And I feel that so long as you don't ensure that the authors that are discussed here are okay with it, you're opening this community--and this fandom--up to problems that could have very easily been avoided.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-23 07:38 am (UTC)And, as I've said, I'm not disallowing asking writers for permission, I'm just not insisting on it. That's a decision for the posters.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-23 04:02 am (UTC)I agree that the text does have this life: it must stand alone.
But ... I think you're privileging the readers above the writers, in a place where the writers are part of the community too.
I don't say the writer has greater say over an interpretation, or can control how someone should read their story; and I like the equivalency that you're drawing between readers of fanfic and viewers of source text. (Although I don't recall seeing a lot of squee in the discussion about Hindsight. ::shrugs::)
However Peter DeLuise and Ron Moore aren't part of my community. Most of the source producers don't care what I, cofax, think about their work, so long as the network keeps supporting them and they get their paychecks and they don't hate their jobs. (Of course, if all the fans hate their work, that's a problem, but nebbermind.) Whereas if, say, I said the sort of thing I tend to say about TPTB about a story written by someone I know even tangentially through LJ, well, there's a good chance I'd hurt her feelings.
And I don't think that my opinion of a story on the internet is more important than the emotions of someone who is part of the community I'm a member of, a community I value.
God knows I think it's important to be able to talk about stories and what made us squee or squick. I agree that once you've put something out there, it's fair game for commentary.
I just worry that by, well, kicking the ficwriter out of the room, you're making something already fairly sensitive into something that could be really divisive.
I'm your reader and your writer. Without both, we have no party.
Anyway, I'm again with the handwaving and having no options, other than to encourage people who want to start discussions to contact the writers of the original stories? Just so they're not blindsided?
Your community, your rules; just some thoughts about ... stuff.
(And if I ever do get around to writing my essay about MDR and Legion, I'll drop Auburn a note and let her know.)
no subject
Date: 2005-08-23 08:58 am (UTC)Yes, I am, absolutely. This is a place for and about readers, and I am putting them first. Yes. That's the point. Because I think there needs to be a place where that happens.
Whereas if, say, I said the sort of thing I tend to say about TPTB about a story written by someone I know even tangentially through LJ, well, there's a good chance I'd hurt her feelings.
That's the reason for controls on what's said here. No one is supposed to get ugly or personal. The focus is on the stories.
And I don't think that my opinion of a story on the internet is more important than the emotions of someone who is part of the community I'm a member of, a community I value.
At some point, I have to question how much I'm willing to give up, what rights to do things I think are fairly innocuous and that I know I'm doing without intent to harm, on the possibility that someone might get hurt. I love story discussion; it's an important part of my enjoyment of fandom. I feel I have a right to do it, and I feel that those who get bent out of shape over it are often overreacting, imagining an intent to hurt where there is none. So I have to do without? How far do I carry that? How far back must I let myself be pushed out of the things I enjoy? I'm not a hurtful reader--I don't do public snark, don't send unsolicited concrit, don't write stories parodying badfic or MSTing it. What I want to do is discuss stories, calmly and reasonably, in a controlled forum where personalities don't get brought into it, with like-minded people gathered from all over fandom. But I shouldn't do it because someone might get upset? People are doing it in other fandoms, already, and it's working well. And, yes, some people probably do get upset over those discussion groups, too--I know they get upset over one of the snarkier ones--but I think intent is important, I think it counts that no one is out to cause harm, and I think that some writers overreact dramatically to what should be a given--that not everyone is going to love everything they write.
I, personally, won't post a review here about any story where the writer has asked for only positive input, but I won't forbid anyone else from doing so. I'm looking for a middle ground, here. I'm not willing to give my right to discuss away, but I am willing to put some types of controls on discussion to try to lessen the possibility of hurt. Because telling me I need to keep my honest opinions flocked away somewhere, keep them in my lj like they're something unsavory and not fit for public consumption, makes me unhappy, and I'm part of the community and I matter, too. So does everyone else who feels the same way. Yeah, I know, cue the violins. *g* But I'm both a writer and a reader, too, and, as a reader, I'm feeling kinda disenfranchised and overlooked, here. Writers are important, of course they are, but readers are the reason writers post online. They matter.
The contacting the writer beforehand thing--I mean, not asking, just letting them know. Is that what you're suggesting? Do you think that would make it easier for the writer, for someone to say, "This is heading your way, watch for it"? Shouldn't the potential poster ask if it's okay, then, if they're going to do it at all? I can't see that being any comfort to a writer if they're told it's going to happen or has happened but aren't given the option of vetoing the idea. If they're going to object, then I think they're still going to object, and if the review is already up, then it's too late for them to object. I'm not sure that would be so reassuring to anyone who's going to have a problem with the whole idea.
I'd love to see Auburn's things discussed here; they're gorgeous, and original, some of my favorites. Her use of time-shift in Legion was particularly affecting, I thought--it's a device I've used, and I thought she used it very effectively. And the dark tone of much of her work is wonderful, like dark chocolate. She's one of my favorite writers.
Re: 4. Inviting Authors In
Date: 2005-08-23 04:06 am (UTC)The first is that I've sent more than one longer-than-one-line LoC to various slash writers about stories I liked but which I didn't beta (and this includes LoCs to both strangers and people who I thought of as friends). I did so not to "improve" their writing, and not because I was under the impression that they needed a post-pub beta or concrit, but because I genuinely thought that they, being writers who seemed thoughtful and articulate, might care how someone else read their work.
And yet... I've yet to hear find any of these thoughtful and articulate writers be anything but apparently unnerved to read an interpretation of their writing.
Most all of them have responded to my LoC (if it's anything more than a "squee!") with a characterisation of my reading as "seeing something that isn't there" or a characterisation of my reading as "something you brought to the text and I know this because nobody else has said that" or something similar that essentially discounts my reading as idiosyncratic at best, a misreading at worst. And they often offer their intention in what seems to be the spirit of correction.
And y'know, I don't think it's me or that I'm a particularly bad letter writer, or critic, or reader, or whatnot. And the responses to this new SGA community seem evidence that this is a larger problem, and that the suggestion to carry out such discussions at the source, in private or on the writer's LJ, seem rather ill-considered.
I think that the mistrust of interpretation is endemic to fandom as a whole, and that LoC has, in fact, lost its original meaning such that it's no longer expected to be a "letter" at all, and certainly not a "comment," but instead perhaps a gush, or an ode or a tribute.
And frankly, that response has made me rethink LoCs and has sent me to a place where I've been hesitant to respond to anything at all, on an LJ or in email to the writer, and has meant that I'm often left gasping with happiness when anyone writes anything at all substantive in response to my own stories.
My other, I think relevant, experience with authors comes from my participation in Numb3rs fandom, on the Numb3rs.org forums. The writers/producers of the show are regular participants in the forums, and that's led to a paucity of discussion of anything more substantial than what hair care products the actors use, and how cute they are, and to request that the writers give their own authorized readings of the episodes (and in the event anyone dares to offer an intepretation, these same Powers that Be swoop in to "clarify" the text.)
It's frustrating, and I've come to realize that I don't know how people can respond to something they enjoy without thinking about it, and to suspect that maybe I'm odd in that the moment I sit down to articulate my joy, I'm necessarily thinking, and coming to understand that enjoyment. And that it feels weird to live in a fannish world where so many respond to that concept by saying, "Good for you, articulate your joy and keep it to yourself!"
Because when I write fiction or analysis of fiction, it's to share the joy, in all its complexity. Not to convince someone else, necessarily, to see what I see, or to argue them into the ground (though often that seems to be the assumption).
So it sounds like you're working to provide a place that allows for the thinking woman's squee.
And that is really cool.
(This, btw, is an LoC. *g*)
Re: 4. Inviting Authors In
Date: 2005-08-23 09:48 am (UTC)Some people really are in it only to be squeed at, but many are not. Many are withering away for want of intelligent, interested feedback, would love a long, beautiful LoC, would love to see their stories considered interesting enough to merit discussion somewhere. But readers are wary and afraid because someone might get hurt, or someone might throw a writerly tantrum of doom and pick up her toys and go home. I would really, really like to see some opening up of attitudes about who's due what in fandom. Yes, we want stories, but what should we have to give up to get them? The right to enjoy the kind of open, in-depth discussion we love? Do we really have to tiptoe around this way, afraid that someone's going to off herself because a reader didn't agree with her characterization or found a plot hole? The potential for hurt is too great a price to pay for that freedom, some feel. How much hurt? A pity-wallow? A pang? A sniffle? Wailing and rending of garments? Do we have to assume that every un-squeeful remark made in someone's hearing is going to blight their life? What about all those people who find this kind of attention flattering, who crave it? Do we hold off on sending the LoC's they'd love to receive because somebody might be offended? I could go on and on, and I am, apparently. *g* But the "if you can't say anything nice" mindset doesn't leave any room for honest, well-intentioned discussion, and that's not right. Honesty does not equal meanness. Most of us learn this in other areas of our lives; I'm baffled as to why people think that doesn't apply to fandom, too. Fandom and the people in it are as real as any other part of our lives.
Thank you for the LoC. I love the way you've put things, here; you express some of my own feelings about fannish intercourse beautifully, and some of my regrets. You can LoC me any time. :)