Admin: A little clarification

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I 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.