to crit or not to crit?
Jul. 25th, 2008 05:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xparrotI 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. (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-28 06:03 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-28 08:46 pm (UTC)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.