to crit or not to crit?

[xparrot]

I keep telling myself I'm not going to get any more involved in the concrit/review debate, that old saw that's currently making the rounds in SGA fandom. Especially because I straddle the fence on most of the issue, and get uncomfortable with the rhetoric and ideals that both sides throw around. (synecdochic eloquently expresses my general beliefs here.) But in discussion on friendshipper's post, a couple points came up that illuminated part of the situation for me, and why people get all crazy about it.

If I may present a hypothetical (gods no, not another one!, the collective voices of the internet cry; but bear with me):

So I've yet to read the (in)famous YA vampire novel Twilight, but I have read a few eager recommendations online. I've also read a few delightfully scathing reviews and follow-up discussions on various lj posts, gleefully dissecting every flaw of prose and characterization, and they were immensely entertaining as well as interesting from the writer's What Not To Do perspective. These conversations were reader-to-reader, existing separate from the author; if the author had appeared to decry them, it likely would've been seen as wanky, trying to exert an authority that she doesn't have. And no one would question the poster's motives - she didn't like the book, wanted to share her opinions about it, maybe dissuade others from wasting their money on it.

But what if one of those scathing reviews had been written by Anne Rice? Her review might be just as incisive and intelligent - but its motives would be far more questionable. Is she offering her honest opinion just to join the discourse? Or is she trying to undermine sales of her competitor? Is she simply jealous that someone else writes vampires better than she does? Whatever her true motives, she is not an unbiased reader, and no one would accept her as one. This doesn't mean that her opinion isn't valid, or that she shouldn't state it; but she'd probably want to be careful about how she states it if she doesn't want to come across as a bully or worse. Also, if Twilight's author wanted to discuss Rice's opinion with her, it wouldn't be as surprising - that discourse wouldn't be reader-to-author but author-to-author, on equal footing.

In fandom, we're all Anne Rice - we're all amateurs, all on equal ground. There are BNFs, but there are no professionals; there is no distinction between reader and author, between consumer and creator. There are some readers who never write fic or produce fanworks; there are some fan creators who don't consume others' creations (though those are far rarer.) But the only real line in fandom is between participant and lurker. And the moment you start writing reviews on your lj, even if you don't post fic or make vids, you've stopped lurking and joined the fandom, and you're on equal footing with all the other creators. Which means your motives will be questioned - are you rec'ing your personal friends? Are you trying to drum up support for your preferred pairing, or are you trying to insult an author who dissed your favorite char?

I am not advocating that we halt all discussion or debate in fandom just because it can potentially be personal; I'm not calling for a fandom-wide ban on reviews, critical or otherwise. And I believe that everyone has a right to their opinion, and a right to share it in public - that's what the Internet is for.

But if you are reviewing fan creations in a fandom you're participating in (and your review is participation) you can't claim that your opinion is impartial, that you are acting without malice or ulterior motives, that you are only trying to promote discussion - and expect to be believed without question. That may honestly be what you are intending, but your position is such that people may not believe you. And you can't assume that everyone will immediately understand what you are trying to do; you can't assume that they won't take offense, even if you are intending to give none.

I'm not telling people not to review or discuss fanfics. But it is not the same as reviewing a movie or a published novel, because you, as a fellow fan, have a different, more equal, relationship with the other fan creator, regardless of whether you have any personal acquaintance. And if you aren't careful about what you say or how you say it, if you ignore or overlook that relationship, don't be surprised if people get upset, or otherwise misinterpret what you say.

Comments

[dovil.livejournal.com]

I think at the end of the day the crux of the matter is that my values and beliefs may not be that person over there's values and beliefs and as much as I might want, I can't shape a community to suit how I'm comfortable with how people behave because of my own cultural/social background - but what I can do is shape my friends list to suit and at the end of the day that's probably all we can really do.

Like 'friends list', I think 'community' on the internet is a bit of a misnomer when trying to hang that term and all it's baggage over such a disparate group of people whose only point in common might be a tv show.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

I agree, absolutely, and I'm not trying to define fandom-wide laws or practices; but at the same time, people all need to be aware of those differences in values and beliefs. If there's any internet-wide law of courtesy, it ought to be this - that the Golden Rule doesn't apply; treat others not how you would like to be treated, but how they would like to be treated, as best as you can determine - and apologize when you guess incorrectly.

I also don't believe 'courtesy' is the be-all and end-all; there are definitely things that take precedence. But when it comes to internet fandom, which is entirely a social pursuit and we're all presumably here to enjoy ourselves (in all the myriad ways we do so) - yeah, there's not many things more important here than doing our best to respect others' 'pursuit of happiness.' The trouble arises when one person's happiness is hurting someone else...

...But, yeah, in the end, these are all merely my opinions as much as anyone's, and the best I can do is seek out and create communities that follow them, and let the others be.

[dovil.livejournal.com]

people all need to be aware of those differences in values and beliefs.

The thing about that though is that if people don't articulate it it relies on mind reading and the only mind that I can read is my cats which basically revolves around pats and food.

The one thing that I've noticed the more I travel are my social rules are not other people's social rules. Travelling around on public transport in America I was really surprised to see people striking up conversations with complete strangers - I thought it was cool, but back in NZ public transport is a hell of a lot less interesting - if someone tried that they would be considered presumptious, rude and possibly just plain nuts. We just have a larger personal space bubble.

When in Rome do what the Romans do - but unfortunately the internet is international virtual space, which means people can be stepping on toes but not meaning to or even thinking that it's a toe stepping situation.

and the best I can do is seek out and create communities that follow them, and let the others be.

*holds up lighter* :)

[pineapplechild.livejournal.com]

Huh. What else is a community, then, but a shared interest and grouping around to share it? Comparing it to the flist/reading list distinction implies some sort of trust distinction, but I'm not sure that that is what makes a community. In some cases, trust or shared values can form a community; however that's not fandom's nucleus, I think.

I agree with you about how you can only shape what you... is take in too broad? willingly take in? dunno.

[dovil.livejournal.com]

An internet community is probably just never going to have the same resonance as a real life community and all the baggage that goes with it - I can click and leave internet communities with a flick of my mouse, and I can belong to a community without ever letting myself be known or really ever knowing anyone strickly beyond the superficial of liking a tv show - though I suspect even in real life the ideals of community have changed - the town hall or religious building or knowing the people on your street doesn't seem to have the same bearing any more.

however that's not fandom's nucleus, I think.

Yeah, I agree.

[pineapplechild.livejournal.com]

While I suppose you're correct in saying it's easier to leave fandom then it is to up and move away, just living somewhere doesn't make you part of the community. Living in that area, going to the library and the coffee shops is like being a lurker in fandom. When you start to form connections, it's like meeting people in fandom.
Anyway, it's my opinion that rl and online community is of the same weight, but I grew up with the internet and fandom to some extent. Moreover, I try to be the same person in both RL and online. I don't know that everyone cares to.

[dovil.livejournal.com]

just living somewhere doesn't make you part of the community

Oh absolutely, I mean the community of old were people would gather at town halls et al, certainly doesn't reflect how most of us live our urban lives today. And in a way the internet is filling this gap, because we can now associate with people that we might have more in common with than just a geographic locale.

I suspect we differ about weight given to off-line and on-line relationships, but then again I live so far away from the bulk of other users in lj that phone calls and visits to supplment the distance a keyboard brings really isn't practical.

Moreover, I try to be the same person in both RL and online. I don't know that everyone cares to.

Same here, and I know I'm being naive but I tend to expect the same as others that I interact with - but hey, hats off if they've got that kind of time and energy to want to go to the trouble of creating an internet persona - not my cuppa, but maybe it's therapeutic for some?

[sholio]

It's an interesting point about the equal vs. unequal relationship of fans vs. pro writers (though, in honesty, I've often considered that to be a false dichotomy, especially since some fanfic writers are also pros). It's food for thought, however, and I realize that most fans *perceive* that dichotomy, even though I consider it somewhat flawed.

One thing about it, though, is that what you've described is exactly how the pro writing world does work. Most editors and many reviewers are also writers, and most writers who have blogs will talk about which books they're reading and what they thought of them. Naturally, this often leads to precisely the sort of infighting and accusations of favoritism that you'd expect, but, for better or worse, it's how the system works and I think this might actually be part of the problem that I have adjusting to the "let's all get along" mentality that's prevalent in fandom, because I'm used to things operating in a slightly different way. That you should try to get along with your peers, because we're all in this boat together, makes sense to me; however, the idea that it's a violation of fannish etiquette to discuss or review your peers' work is fairly alien to me, because pro writers do it all the time.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting point about the equal vs. unequal relationship of fans vs. pro writers (though, in honesty, I've often considered that to be a false dichotomy, especially since some fanfic writers are also pros).

I'm up in the air about this. I think that in terms of talent there is little to no difference between fanfic and pro authors. But the communities have some substantial differences, the primary one being that pro writers are all doing it for money (to one extent or another), for a career to some degree; and fanfic writers are not, necessarily. Fanfic is "hobby" and how seriously people take their hobbies hugely varies. Some fanfic authors approach writing from very much the same perspective as a pro, but not everyone does, and I don't believe everyone should be expected to; the amateur aspect of fanfic is one of its appeals, to me.

--And you know this already; I'm still trying to sort out where I fall, and the recent debates just confused me more, because I can see both sides. There's a part of me that just wants to say, yes, in fandom, respect the author's wishes absolutely: if they don't want concrit and don't want their work reviewed, then don't review it (and I refuse to believe that will entirely stifle fandom discussion, because clearly plenty of fan authors are eager for their work to be critiqued; the debate always proves that.) But this goes against my own principles of published work and the right of a reader to react to a public creative piece...ahh, I don't know!

Most editors and many reviewers are also writers, and most writers who have blogs will talk about which books they're reading and what they thought of them. Naturally, this often leads to precisely the sort of infighting and accusations of favoritism that you'd expect, but, for better or worse, it's how the system works

But then, blogs are as new to the pro authors as they are to anyone; the etiquette is unclear because there aren't exactly established protocols. And pro authors don't have the same freedom readers do - reviews are one thing, but a pro who satirizes and eviscerates a 'rival' author's novel is going to be judged differently than if a random reader had made the exact same post. It's tricky ground to navigate (and at least some pros do seem to fall on the 'cult of nice' side - Neil Gaiman's blog praises far more than it criticizes...) And then, too, as you say, this is how the pro world works, but it's not how the fandom world works - whether it should work that way is another question, but right now, in most fandoms, it doesn't, so to behave as if they're the same is asking for trouble.

[sholio]

And then, too, as you say, this is how the pro world works, but it's not how the fandom world works - whether it should work that way is another question, but right now, in most fandoms, it doesn't, so to behave as if they're the same is asking for trouble.

Well, yeah, but my point (probably made badly) was that my own social mores for this sort of thing may have been shaped by the pro publishing world, specifically the comics publishing world, in ways I hadn't realized, and I've brought that with me to fandom. I had never quite thought about it that way before.

I do recognize that fandom works a little differently, but on the other hand, after almost ten years in online fandom, I'm not an guest, having to tread carefully so as not to upset the members of the community. I'm a member of the community, too! I have a right to be here and to act in accordance with my own beliefs on public criticism.

But, like you, I *can* see the validity of both sides, and on top of that, I'm seeing more and more people on both sides who are behaving badly (not, incidentally, you or anyone in this dicussion). There's respect for a person's beliefs, and then there's my own right to have *my* opinions, and ... when they come into conflict, I don't know which one should triumph. At the beginning of this whole debate (not between me and you, but the meta-debate in general) I had seen the so-called "cult of nice" people as being in the same camp as those who, say, dislike the very existence of slash because it conflicts with their interpretation of the character and makes them sad. Your need for a comfortable fan-space doesn't necessarily trump my need to make the fan-space comfortable for me, too. (Generic "you" here, not you specifically.) Unfortunately, the Internet is just so damn public. It's awfully hard to maintain separate spaces for mutually conflicting POVs.

... actually, since I was the one who brought up slash, I wonder if that's part of the reason for what seems to me to be a greater amount of acceptance of slash among gen-fen, and vice versa, than you used to get in ye olden days? It's something I'd really noticed in SGA - there are a lot of people who read and write both. I remember the walls being much less permeable in the olden days of fandom. I don't know if that's something to do with this fandom specifically, or if it's just that everyone has to deal with everyone else now, so they've learned (for the most part) to get along.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

my own social mores for this sort of thing may have been shaped by the pro publishing world, specifically the comics publishing world, in ways I hadn't realized, and I've brought that with me to fandom

Hmmm, yes - I think that's the problem in a nutshell, that everyone brings their own mores, and they conflict more often than not. Especially since everyone wants to compare fandom situations to other situations in their lives (look at the metaphors running rampant throughout this debate) and the problem is that fandom doesn't precisely correspond to any one situation.

I also think for you, your mores might be especially shaped counter to the fandom majority - the pro comic book world differs even from the pro fiction world in that it's so male-dominated, and in my experience (very broadly speaking) there are differences between female and male social interaction styles online, just as much as there are in real life. Masculine style tends to be more blunt and openly combative than feminine - it's not the opinions expressed are different, but the care taken expressing them (really 'masculine' and 'feminine' styles are misnomers anyway, because such interaction differences are as much related to other social divisions besides gender - I've noticed most German fangirls fall more towards what I term 'masculine' interactions...umm. My point is yes, everyone brings their own social expectations online with them, and it potentially causes much friction and misunderstandings. But you knew that already!)

Unfortunately, the Internet is just so damn public. It's awfully hard to maintain separate spaces for mutually conflicting POVs.

Yes, exactly. Particular to this debate is, say, the matter of ff.net's "reviews" which fall smack-dab in the middle of "commentary", "concrit," and "review," with no hint as to whether they're meant for the author or the audience or both - an author's lj is their own space, but their ff.net reviews, who 'owns' that space? Very confusing.

It's something I'd really noticed in SGA - there are a lot of people who read and write both. I remember the walls being much less permeable in the olden days of fandom.

While I'm not an expert, I think SGA might be something of a special case still? At least what I've seen of Psych fandom, the gen and slash crowds are mostly separate. SGA inherits its unusual permeability, at least in part; eight years ago in SG-1 fandom slashers and genners mingled and overlapped in a way that surprised me at the time, accustomed as I was to things like Sentinel fandom where that line was never crossed (people would change their names if they wrote both...) But I'm not sure (the only other major fandom I've been in lately was SV, and there's no gen contingent in SV; it's all 'shipper, and the het shippers and the slashers do tend to maintain a polite distance, in my experience...)

[nenya85.livejournal.com]

The thing that always strikes me is that people come into fandoms and fanfiction from different places. We’re all looking for different things and have different expectations – and these things sort of play out around and occasionally bump into each other with reviews/concrit often at the flashpoint.

Not every fanfiction author is an aspiring original fiction writer looking to hone her craft. Not every reader is looking for the next great epic novel, and most are certainly not looking to engage in a spot of literary criticism when they review. And that’s okay. There’s nothing wrong with a 13 year old writing fanfic for her friends as a social, not a literary, activity. (And before anyone thinks I’m picking on 13 year olds let me say write off the bat that adults can write badfic with the best of them – we’re just more likely to go in for cheesy smut than falling out of our TV sets into Middle Earth.)

But then you get someone reading it who's looking for a well written story, not a social gathering, and they're judging it by those criteria, which is, from their point of view, equally reasonable. Then they review, and you can see they've set up a teacher/pupil dynamic in their own minds -- and don't realize that the person they're addressing is under no obligation to buy into their scenario. With a published story, you can assume that the writer (hopefully) tried to tell the best story they could, or at least was concerned with writing a polished, finished piece of work. You simply can't make the same assumption, basic as it seems with fanfic. And if someone's purpose is to have fun with their friends, what's the point in telling them they spelled a word (or a lot of words)wrong?

I think a lot of people look at reviews like they’re supposed to be some kind of peer review – and then get mad when they don’t measure up. I think a lot of people think they are being objective when they're expressing their personal opinions and preferences instead.

It's a shame that more people don't acknowledge how big a part their own tastes play in determining their opinions. Because I think what reviews do is more unique than objectivity. They give you an idea of what your story looks like inside of someone else’s head, and how well it fits in with or clashes with the stuff that’s already there. And I think in the long run the lack of rules as to what should be in a review (beyond basic politeness) works to most writers' advantage because you end up getting much more interesting comments when people are saying their instinctive reactions.

For me, the key isn’t what someone has to say, but how civilly they say it. Because while people have a right to their own opinions and interpretations, no one has a right to use those to deliberately hurt someone else. And when I read a review that seems designed to do nothing as effectively as hurt the writer's feelings, I wonder why this person seems to feel that being cruel is a good hobby to have.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

The thing that always strikes me is that people come into fandoms and fanfiction from different places. We’re all looking for different things and have different expectations – and these things sort of play out around and occasionally bump into each other with reviews/concrit often at the flashpoint.

Yes, yes, exactly.

My post didn't make this clear (the post by synecdochic defines it better) but the "reviews" I refer to here are not exactly those on ff.net. One of the issues in the debate as just played out in SGA was the difference between concrit (as given directly to the author, either via email or through an lj comment, or otherwise in the author's space); and a fanfic review, as posted on a separate space and intended for other readers, not the author. The two often get confused, and ff.net confuses it further by having "reviews" that are apparently intended for either the author or other readers (most ff.net reviewers, in my experience, direct their reviews much more toward the author, but it's not clear whose space those reviews really belong to.)

This is an issue because my basic beliefs for 'courtesy' differ between concrit and reviews. I feel unsolicited concrit on fanfic is pretty much always to be avoided (if the author asks for concrit, more power to you; but unless they specifically request it, the safest assumption is that they don't want it, and to stick to the positive only when giving feedback.) However, I see reviews as something different, that the author has no creative control over someone else expressing their opinion about a work in their own space (as opposed to the author's.) But at the same time, there are polite and less-than-polite ways to express opinions, and someone who chooses a less-than-polite way has to understand that their expressed opinion may be criticized in turn.

I also must admit, I'm opposed to the idea of fandom becoming a concrit free-for-all not only from the author's perspective, but from the reader's - when I read fanfic, I don't want to be in 'editor mode'; I enjoy beta'ing, but it's a very different process for me than reading a fic fo fun, and I don't like the idea that a reader ought to be in any way 'obliged' to help a fanfic author improve their craft...

[nenya85.livejournal.com]

I’ve actually had the opposite experience with ffnet. I may just have incredibly thoughtful reviewers, but I find that when someone as an objection, not to how I’ve told a story, but to what I’ve chosen to say, they tend to do so through email or on my LJ rather than through a public review. If I put the wrong army in the Trojan Horse, someone will tell me so in a ffnet review. But I think many people see a difference between that kind of factual correction and objecting to or questioning: a) why I’ve interpreted the characters the way I have, b) my pairings, c) why I’m not writing genfic, d) why I’ve bothered included a plot in my romance, e) why I’m not writing about other characters entirely or, f) why I’m not writing for Naruto when Sasuke and Naruto are so obviously just like Kaiba and Yami only better. In the latter cases, they are much more likely to do so via email or on my LJ.

I think that this is because both email and LJ posts feel more informal; it’s certainly more private, and maybe it makes the exchanges feel more like a dialog. Now where I might differ from a lot of the debate around this issue, is that I think each reader is as entitled to their preferences in reading as I am to mine in writing. I don’t see why they shouldn’t feel free to talk about how my story matches up with the one they want to see in their head, or how my interpretation not just of how a character is, but what they might be capable of in the future matches theirs -- provided they can do so without acting as if I was somehow responsible for their expectations or disappointment. And honestly, these are conversations I’d rather have via email or on my LJ (if I want to have them at all, which depending on how polite/demanding/interesting the person is, can be at times a debatable point) because they really are about reading and writing in general or how we see the characters rather than about a specific story.

I think though, you can usually get an idea of what kinds of conversations someone’s open to on their LJ simply by reading it, and I think that it’s only polite to use that as a guide before butting in.

I know though, that it's easy to get defensive when someone disagrees with you -- especially if it's based on their interpretations or preferences. Sometimes I need to take a step back and consider that what feels in that first moment of reading like an attack is probably someone expressing themselves quickly or bluntly -- but who has no intention of insulting me, even if they're disagreeing with what I wrote or how I envision the characcters' futures.. After all, people are going to spend less time on their reviews than I spent writing and that needs to be factored in.

I tend not to offer concrit unless specifically requested simply because if I’m reading a story, I tend to focus on what I liked rather than what I didn’t. Also, I have the attention span of a flea, so I tend not to read stories I don’t like or that are poorly written. Also, if the problem I have with a story is that the person has interpreted the characters in a way that, although reasonable, isn’t the way I prefer to see them developing, I tend not to comment. Because if I can’t honestly say that their interpretation of how they might develop is implausible, then it seems unfair to criticize it because it simply isn’t the vewrsion of how they would act that I want to see. And if the character’s actions were totally implausible, I probably would have already abandoned the story, making the point moot.

[paradise-city.livejournal.com]

This was an interesting post. I tend to think of the community not in terms of equality, but in terms of distance (e.g., I'm about as likely to know Writer A as I am Stephen King, so why can't my review of Writer A's fic be as honest as my review of Stephen King's book?) and perhaps that's why I can't understand the culture of niceness inherent in most of fandom.

Thanks for framing your argument so clearly. It's great food for thought.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think the perceived distance is a big problem - you see yourself as being quite separate from the author, but even in a fandom as huge as say, SGA, there is far less separating you from any fan-author than from Stephen King. Even if you don't 'know' Writer A, someone on your flist likely does - in any fandom it's never 6 degrees of separation, usually only one or two. It may not be a close personal relationship - but it's enough that you don't have the same presumption of impartiality that you would if you were reviewing one of King's books. And the more people read your reviews, the more popular you are, the higher your chances are of intersecting personally with Writer A, and introducing that much more suspicion of bias into whatever you post...

...Though this is becoming more true of pro authors, too, as the blogosphere brings everyone together; how many pros are on lj thee days, in fandom these days? We're all so new to this that the rules aren't set. And I don't know what those rules should be - and I don't think that most reviewers review fic out of any sort of personal grudge. But I have a hunch that to people who don't like more-than-only-positive fic reviews, who don't understand their point, the easiest explanation for them to grasp is that such negativity is inspired by personal feelings - and you have to be aware that if you post reviews, you have a chance of being so judged.

[paradise-city.livejournal.com]

I'd never thought about impartiality as a function of distance in fandom. Could you talk about that a bit more? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I don't understand how being two degrees away from Fic Author A and six degrees away from King makes a reviewer less likely to be impartial if the reviewer doesn't know either person. Or are you saying that Fic Author A is more likely to make negative presumptions about the reviewer's intent than King because of that lack of distance?

Quote:

But I have a hunch that to people who don't like more-than-only-positive fic reviews, who don't understand their point, the easiest explanation for them to grasp is that such negativity is inspired by personal feelings - and you have to be aware that if you post reviews, you have a chance of being so judged.

And this brings up an interesting point, as well. I've only read a bit of the meta so my view may be off kilter, but it seems like most of it has been directed at the community in general or the reviewers, not the authors. If the problem is negative presumption on the part of the author, then it seems more would come of encouraging authors to rethink their reactions than from warning/admonishing reviewers to play more nicely in public).

Again, not trying to argue. You just see the issue differently from most folks on my flist and I'm trying to understand your point of view. I've always been intrigued by the formation and maintenance of fandom norms and the variation from fandom to fandom.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Or are you saying that Fic Author A is more likely to make negative presumptions about the reviewer's intent than King because of that lack of distance?

Kind of, but it's actually more complicated than that - what I'm really referring to here (in a sort of oblique way) is how other readers, other fans, interpret the reviewer's intent. In the recent SGA kerfuffle, as far as I could determine, it wasn't the authors who were offended, but the 3rd party readers/fans/friends of the authors. They (the offended readers) were interpreting the negative reviews, not as an impartial reviewer commenting on fanfic, but as an author 'attacking' her fellow authors.

I understand this viewpoint, because frankly, when I first saw the reviews in question, they looked like an attack to me as well. It wasn't until I examined her history of reviewing that I realized she wasn't targeting anyone, and this was simply her habit of reviewing - but the fact that her first batch of reviews negatively rated every story in the Match except the one by an author that I knew had past acquaintance with the reviewer (they've co-written) - yeah, I had a knee-jerk negative reaction. The people who became so upset were those who didn't look beyond that first reaction. The trouble with the reviews, as I see it, wasn't their existence, so much as they were posted with a tactless unawareness of how easily they could be misinterpreted.

(Ah, and don't worry about arguing with me, I genuinely enjoy genuinely friendly debate, and in this case my opinions are in flux; I think both sides of the argument have strong points, and don't know how to reconcile them, so a lot of my blathering here is me struggling to figure out these issues myself.)

[paradise-city.livejournal.com]

Quote:

I think both sides of the argument have strong points, and don't know how to reconcile them, so a lot of my blathering here is me struggling to figure out these issues myself.

Same on my end. And thanks for the comments -- this gave me a new way to look at things.

[khym-chanur.livejournal.com]

This is just a hunch on my part, but I think that many of those who think that reviews of professional authors is okay but reviews of fanfic author aren't think along these lines: for a professional author their writing is payed work, and when you get payed for your work you have to put up with being harped on by your customers (the readers, in this case), but a fanfic writer is like a volunteer, and harping on a volunteer in mean.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think this is how some people see it; a professional author is getting a tangible benefit of cash from their work, while an amateur author's only benefit is audience reaction. So a negative reaction, while appreciated by some authors, is a slap in the face to others.

I also think there's an element of fandom being a hobby - criticizing a pro sports player's game is a way to participate in sports fandom; but watching a couple amateurs playing a tennis game at the local club and explaining aloud what's wrong with their backhand is considered fairly obnoxious.

[laurificus.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with your last paragraph. I think people are entitled to review in their own space, absolutely, but I also think there are classy ways to do that and not so classy ways. You still might get wank if you go the classy route, but possibly less, and if you go the non-classy route, I don't think it's all that surprising that some people aren't exactly falling over themselves to welcome it. I don't ever want to be a part of any attempt to try and stifle that kind of reviewing, but if posting a fic publicly means it's acceptable to critique it, then posting a review publicly, by similar logic, means it, too, must be eligible for discussion and critique.

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Courteous or classy, yes - because it's not about denying someone's right to say what they want, how they want say it; but pointing out that there are some ways better than others to say it. Hmm, if that makes sense. The source of wank isn't what people think or whose feelings are hurt, but how they express those thoughts and feelings - not that you should bite your tongue, but that you should take care when you speak.

I don't ever want to be a part of any attempt to try and stifle that kind of reviewing, but if posting a fic publicly means it's acceptable to critique it, then posting a review publicly, by similar logic, means it, too, must be eligible for discussion and critique.

Yes - I think you just summed up my take on the matter in one succinct sentence. (And, likewise, if you are going to criticize someone's critique, keep it classy yourself, else you aren't any better!)

are you rec'ing your personal friends?

[ender24]

*snickers*
I saw your post linked via metafandom, btw.

when I saw that that line above?
my immediate thought was:
Sure, I rec personal friends.
and personal enemies.
and personal nobodies.
and personal anybodies.
as long as there is fic involved that I like, you know, you could be the dead princess Diane herself, and I would rec you, even if you would protest from your grave *g*

whatever is currently happening again in SGA, just LOL!

Re: are you rec'ing your personal friends?

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

*laughs* I don't think most people are protesting rec'ing, though I do think people rec for different reasons - casual rec'ers are more likely rec their friends, in my experience, but dedicated rec'ers such as yourself rec everyone. And as far as I'm concerned, both are fine (most especially if they're rec'ing meeee~ XPPP)

(the SGA situation is complicated, and members of both sides have been losing their shit a bit, but I'm hoping it's settling for the moment - the debate will never really be decided, but it'll be slumbering again soon...)

(Metafandom? o rly?)

(Metafandom? o rly?)

[ender24]

yup, o rly ;D

and SGA is always complicated, considering the size of its fandom...

nearly as good as HP *G*.

endless fun and amusement for metafandom and fandom_wank to keep on their biz for years and years XD

[indywind]

here via synecdochic, just to say... while comparing mechanics of community interaction relative to fandom, versus relative to pro-fic, whyn't consider also scholarly academic publication?

It really looks a lot like fandom from a certain angle. People rec/reveiw/criticize with and without permission, publicly or not-so, on basis of ideas or execution or personal affinity. The academic's version of "your characterization is totally off from canon" is "your results are not borne out by research", academic writers have to offer their friendslist (major advisors, advisees, collaborators, and others with potential "conflict of interest") to publishers and funding sources to reduce the effect of bias on formal/important reveiws, while at the same time, informal recs & reveiws are continuously employed and invaluable in shaping the course of researches.

Fandom might learn from academia in that formal reveiwing venues give proceedures for producing a useful reveiw, and discount those which don't adhere--that way reveiwers from very different traditions can all understand what's expected in that vanue. Meanwhile, no such explicit guidelines are in place on informal reveiws, but anyone will tell you that you must be aware of your audience and their likely reaction--privately to your old chum from college you may be as effusive or scathing as you like, maybe a little less so in front of your own grad students/immediate colleagues (analogous to unlocked post in your own journal?), and it's wise to be quite circumspect in front of acquaintances at a departmental meeting or conference (analogous to a public comm) regardless of whether you care about their feelings, because your own reputation and future opportunities may depend upon it.

I could drag out some more parallels...
What do you think?

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Hmm - I've seen this comparison suggested before - synecdochic seemed to be referring to it indirectly in her post - but you lay it out clearly here, and it does make a lot of sense. Especially in how you point out the social aspect as well as the intellectual, because there are similar expectations of courtesy and preserving one's reputation. (The rivalries in scholarly papers amuse me terribly because they always have that veneer of civility - "my esteemed colleague is totally and indubitably WRONG"...)

I think the major problem in fandom is that there is no one standard. So every fan ends up bringing their own social expectations to the table - some are thinking of it as a hobby, others as a writing workshop, others as a literary pursuit. Concrit and negative reviews are rare enough in many fandoms that when they do occur, people misunderstand and assume the worst about them. To someone who thinks of fandom as a social activity, harshing on another's squee can only be conceived of as an act of deliberate malice; while as to someone who sees fandom as an intellectual activity, to not critique and analyze is denying the best part. I resist trying to fit all of 'fandom' into one particular mold, because any one model you pick is going to leave out the majority of fans, isn't going to be why most people joined fandom, only a particular subset.

And fandom isn't academia, either. But I think you're onto something, that aspects of academia are a good place to look for structuring certain basic fandom practices.