"The Cutting Board's" Admin Discussions
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | "The Cutting Board's" Admin Discussions (the title used here on Fanlore) |
| Creator: | Carolyn Claire |
| Date(s): | April 17, 2005, April 24, 2005, and March 24, 2006 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Stargate Atlantis was the focus of the community |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
"The Cutting Board's" Admin Discussions is a series of three posts made by Carolyn Claire, moderator of the fanfic discussion site, The Cutting Board.
Stargate Atlantis was the focus of the community, but the essays and discussion are applicable to all fandoms.
The discussions touch upon many aspects of fannish concrit of fanworks, hurt feelings, posting etiquette, the visibility of fic, differing motivations of readers and writers, privileging readers over writers and vice versa, motivation, and the minefields of fannish personal interaction.
To read more about these posts in context, see Wank.
The Three Posts
- Admin: Things we learn heading West, Archived version (April 17, 2005)
- Admin: A little clarification, Archived version (April 24, 2005)
- Admin: Comment Confusion, Archived version (March 14, 2006)
"Things we learn heading West"
This discussion took place after the comm's topic of the fic Hindsight by Rageprufrock and the strong feelings this discussion created.
[Carolyn Claire]: Thank you, Moonmoth, for that great opening post, and thank you to everyone who is participating (keep participating!) in the discussion of Hindsight. It's been a fascinating first discussion with a lot of interesting and opposing views being discussed civilly and intelligently. Only a few bumps in the road, so far, which I'll go over again, here.
- Discussion in this comm is to stay focused on the stories, not the authors, posters or commenters. People's motives in saying and doing what they say and do are not open to speculation or comment; debate the ideas presented and not what you assume are the thoughts behind them. Authors, in particular, are not open for dissection on the board. You may have insight into their thought processes, but this isn't the place to share it because authors are not invited to refute or add to anything said about them, here. Focus on the story itself, as presented, and your reactions to it, when answering the post and other commenters' points.
- The purpose of the comm is to discuss, debate and even argue points about stories we've read. If we were all to agree to disagree and go home to sit quietly with our own thoughts, there would be no comm. That's no fun. *g* We won't come to any conclusions here, will not agree to disagree or accept that everything ever written is perfectly valid and right and has its own place in the universe and its own following. Of course it is, and does, but that's not what we're interested in, here. We're about stating opinions and supporting them, arguing positions, and sharing our thoughts. No generalizations about what we should all bear in mind or accept about stories, please. The fact that we don't accept everything about stories is why we're here.
- All posts to this comm must be self-contained; no linking to previous posts made outside this comm, please. Conversation begun here must stay here. Previously written essays and reviews are very welcome, here, but must be reproduced within the post for response within the comm.
As I said, you guys have done very well, and I'm really pleased with the response to Moonmoth's post. If I swoop in with my Admin icon and correct anyone in the course of discussion, it's only in service to maintaining open, civil discussion in the way I think is best; I'm not out to poop on anyone's head. There will be errors made early on, obviously, as everyone gets used to the rules, and in future as new people join, that's expected, but I will police pretty thoroughly to make sure that rules are followed and things stay orderly. Thanks for understanding.
And, excuse the caps, but this is very important and I don't want it missed: READ THE GUIDELINES THOROUGHLY when you join, all of them. There's info there that's vital to your not getting corrected or even removed from the comm. I really do intend to be fairly strict, so please read them. Also, I'll add people as soon as I've noticed they've joined, but feel free to email me and let me know if you've been waiting. I'm currently working nights and sleeping days, so it may take me a few hours to get to you, or to make an admin correction in a post or comment, if needed. I promise not to sleep any more than absolutely necessary. *g*
Thanks, everyone, and have fun!
[sinden]:Hey, just a thought. A lot of things do get brought up about people's stories and the motivation behind certain events, actions etc in the discussion of our liking/not liking them. Could there be a point in time [say after a week of discussion or something] that the author could post a seperate post addressing some of those things? ie clarifying their thought behind what happened in this section or what they were attempting to achieve with the story.
I don't know about anyone else, but that would be something that I would be interested in seeing because sometimes what was attempted and what was achieved can be two totally different things and it's kind of fun to nut out what happened along the way to get there. Plus, it gives a different perspective on the stories themselves that can make you see something you may not have seen before?
[Carolyn Claire]:That is a good thought, and one I've discussed in various permutations, before. I like the idea of additional info being available for the readers; it's interesting to know what the author was thinking and shooting for when writing. There's a couple of things that concern me, though: I'm worried about the perception that the author is being given a chance to rebut or defend, when that's not the case. There are no attacks being made on the story or the author, here, just opinions being expressed by readers. And I'd hate to see authors chomping at the bit for a week, waiting for their chance to get back at people for voicing their opinions or to shoot down their perceptions of the story. (I know not all would want to do that, but some would.) And I'd like to leave discussion open-ended, so that if anyone comes in later and would like to contribute, no part of the discussion will have been trumped by revelation of authorial intent. It really is all about how the story worked for readers, not what the author meant to do, though that's always interesting to know.
Hmmm. Maybe writers who are interested could post in their own journals about their thoughts and intentions while writing the story, in response to anything they see here that they would like to clarify. Auxilliary posts are popping up here and there on lj with people's takes on what's been discussed in the comm, and maybe authors could do that, too. I'm still concerned about the impact of including the author in the discussion on willingness to speak freely, even after the fact. I will think about it, though.
[isiscolo]:Just FYI, here is our policy at hp_fictalk:
Authors of fics being discussed are requested to wait 24 hours before participating in the thread, unless a question is specifically directed at the author. Authors are encouraged (but not required) to make their comments in a separate post, rather than in the discussion thread. Authors are held to the same standards as everyone else; those who react personally to criticism which meets group guidelines will have their comments moderated or deleted.
[sivib]:A humble suggestion: might it be a good idea to ask the author before subjecting their literary efforts to criticism? Feedback is one thing, but this group is attempting something much more intense than that. This is the equivilant of a writer's workshop in which anything is fair game. Quite a different animal.
I know you don't want writers asking for feedback, but perhaps an open invitation to writers to say "Any of my stuff is available for litcrit here. Go to it." Or conversely, "Please do not discuss my stuff without asking first, or at all." That way, no one gets blindsided.
[Carolyn Claire]: That has been suggested before, and, no, that's not going to happen, here. I feel that anything that's been posted with a desire to receive feedback is open to discussion. And these discussions are happening, everywhere, sometimes in public posts, sometimes privately, but it does happen, and, whether it happens here or not, people don't ask first before they discuss. As readers, we have a right to talk about anything we want to talk about that's been publicly posted; I firmly believe that. I, personally, won't post about any story where the author has said "I only want positive feedback and no discussion of my story, please," but I'm not going to ban discussion of any publicly posted story from this comm, so if anyone else wants to post, they're absolutely free to. I may not ever read that author again, though, and I've seen many others express the same feeling. To ask for feedback but to try to forbid discussion of a story anywhere, at any time, is...a number of things I'm not going to give name to here, but not good, in my opinion. Readers have a right to discuss with each other, IMO. Period.
[sivib]:I see your point, and it is of course your board, but I know how I'd feel if one of my stories was presented for criticism here. I'd feel somewhat overwhelmed and steamrollered. My level of skill and self-esteem is such that this level of scrutiny, with no warning, would be scary. There are some darn good writers posting here; my efforts are, at best, journeyman-level.
With warning, I could probably take it. Out of the blue, though, it would seem like a bunch of unsolicited beta-readers setting themselves loose on me. Even solicited, the beta process can be traumatic, but when it is sprung unawares it can be painful.
I speak from some experience, here. I wrote a little SG-1 story and told a friend that I had written it. Not asking for beta or anything, but just sharing the fact of the story. She proceeded to pick it apart for me, in a very constructive manner mind you, but it kinda hurt and surprised me. It might have hurt less, if she had not been such a more accomplished writer than me (she's a published author many times over), but as it was it felt like da Vinci's apprentice being beat over the head with the Mona Lisa. Does this make sense?
On the other hand, if I had asked her to beta, I could have girded my literary loins so to speak and taken my licks. I think. I hope.
This is rambling and I'm not sure I'm making my point at all. I'm not advocating censorship. I guess I'm advocating the right of refusal. It just seems more polite, given the vast variance in people's tolerance for public criticism.
[amalthia]:My main concern about not asking authors their permission to pick apart their stories is the risk of hurt feelings. Good authors have run for the hills for less offense.
Most people are writing for fun and don't expect to see their story disected in a LJ community without their prior knowlege or permission. Some might love it regardless of the circumstance, but I think it's a good idea to ask first.
It does not take long to write an email and ask the author if they are okay with opening a discussion on their story in this community.
No one likes to be blindsided like this and after reading the discussion on Hindsight I didn't see anything remotely useful come out of that discussion for the author or the readers.
I know it's a discussion but basically people picked apart the characterizations of her characters in the story and really it came down to how you want to see the characters.
As a writer you can't please everyone. The disccusion said nothing that could help writers improve their own skills and it came down to two things, either you liked the characters or you didn't.
Maybe I'm missing the point of what a literary criticism is supposed to be about, but I feel strongly that if the authors aren't allowed to respond to the disccussion for what was it? 24 hours? Then you better ask their permission before posting, because it's not right to take someone's story, tear it apart, and then ask them to not say anything about it until your time limit ran out.
It's one thing if the members of the community offered their own stories with the knowledge of the rules but to take someone else's work who isn't even in the community...it feels wrong. And here's the catch, most authors would love to have their work discussed if you asked them. But when you don't ask them it opens a whole new bag of worms and I don't think it's good for fostering a sense of community and safety when posting stories.
Sure all fan fic writers post their works to a public forum where people can discuss them privately or in their own journals but when you set up a community and that specifically says the members can't nominate their own work for discussion but instead have to grab some other person's story, and the authors permission matters not at all, and then the author isn't allowed to voice his/her opinion. I just don't see how the community can last.
I'll never feel comfortable voicing my opinion about a story with this kind of set up. It's one thing if the person offers their story up to the community for critical discussion. I know that person expects the good and the bad that comes with them offering their story.
[Carolyn Claire]:I'm deducing from this that you've never been on a discussion community. This comm isn't doing a new or revolutionary thing; discussion groups have probably existed for as long as fanfic has, because people have wanted to discuss stories for as long as they've been reading them. Fostering a sense of "safety and community" for writers is not our aim, nor is it the aim of any discussion group. There is definitely community in fandom, and there is a portion of the community that wants to discuss stories. There is no "safety" in posting stories to the internet. Work shared publicly with a desire to gain readers and receive feedback will be discussed--in public, in private, anywhere--if it's interesting enough to generate discussion. For a writer to expect anything else is hypocritical and self-serving, IMO.
This is a discussion list for readers, a place to discuss with each other our feelings about the stories we've read. This discussion, as I said, happens everywhere, whether you've seen it before or not. And it is discussion, not passing judgment, not analytical analysis, just people who've read stories, who think and feel things about the stories they've read and who want to talk about that. That's all. None of it is meant for the benefit of the writer. Nothing said here is meant to teach the writer anything or help her with her writing. This is not a place to present constructive crit or offer unsolicited beta; this is a place for people to talk to each other about stories. What the writer does or doesn't get out of it isn't the point. Will knowing that anyone didn't like something about their stories hurt a writer's feelings? Possibly. If they don't understand that no one has ever written a story that everyone loves, it may come as a shock to them that anyone has anything but praise for their work. This is in part due to the encouragement of squee developing into expectation and the suppressing of honest reaction, I believe. Everyone who writes, if she writes well enough to generate interest in her work, has received critical feedback at some point. It's part of the package. Grown-ups suck it up and move on. We do it every day in every other aspect of our lives.
I have never turned to a co-worker and said, "I really like what you're wearing today, and I'm curious what Mary and Sue think about it--would you mind if I discussed your outfit with them?" That's what I feel asking writers for permission to talk about their work would be. I will discuss anything on earth I want to discuss, and I will not ask anyone's permission to do so, and that includes stories that have been publicly posted for reader reaction. Writers post stories wanting reaction, but some want to dictate what that reaction is, or at least how it's expressed. I don't believe writers have that right. If they want to control reaction to their stories, they should post them privately, to lists inhabited only by their friends, where they can be assured of the petting they crave. Out in the real world, not everyone will like everything you do. And fandom is part of the real world, peopled with real people. Real world rules apply.
I won't post about a story on this comm that carries the request that no one talk about it. I also won't read her again, or send her feedback. If anyone on this comm wants to ask permission before they post about a story, they're free to do so, but I'm not going to require it, nor am I going to refuse to allow any publicly posted story to discussed. I understand that you don't agree with that, but it isn't changing, and it isn't open to discussion.
The reason, people are asked not to submit their stories for discussion is because this is not a beta group, and I don't want it used that way. The stories discussed here should be stories that members have read and have thoughts about that they want to share. Members shouldn't be expected to give concrit on demand for stories they may or may not be interested in reading. That's not the purpose of the comm.
[cofax7]:You know there is a third option, here: you could notify the writers that the discussion is about to take place or is taking place. Or the poster could, not you the moderator necessarily.
I say this because I think it would probably be easier, as a writer, to watch a discussion forming, and have the choice to read or not read, than to come across it afterwards, or to be completely unprepared for it.
This is not giving the author any kind of veto power, just letting them know it's coming. I'd see it as a courtesy, giving me some choice as to how I would respond.
There was some fairly blunt public criticism of vids in the Vid Review panel at VVC this weekend; but that comes out of a community that historically has participated in that sort of dissection. And everyone who submits a vid to Premieres knows it's going to happen, and has time to prepare themselves. While everyone who puts a story up on the internet hopes people will talk about it, it's not the same as knowing your work will be subjected to an intense, and public, scrutiny. While some of us may want this to be common, and accepted, it's not the reality for much of fandom, and so many people are unprepared for the experience and their own response.
Additionally, I must say that many of the commenters are unprepared to participate in such a forum appropriately. Fandom isn't the same as English class, and I do think we err by trying to make it so. It's more, and it's less, and it's different. Dickens is dead, but I'm not, and I'm only one or two LJ clicks away from whoever starts the thread critiquing my Teyla characterization.
Additionally, the number of participants in any given conversation on LJ is nearly infinite; this is less of an issue on a mailing list (or a locked post), and I've seen people engage in "pile-on" behavior on LJ that wouldn't happen on a list because the list (or filter) has a finite number of members, and once they've had their say, the discussion moves on. On the other hand, I have no way to fix that, so.
Just a few thoughts, none of which are intended to question your ownership of the community or your right to make these decisions; I'm mostly thinking out loud about how to make such a discussion work without hurting too many feelings.
[Carolyn Claire]:I know, and I'm not offended, believe me. And I've heard about the Vividcon vid crit--I didn't know that went on there, though I'm not surprised that it does.
I think something I haven't made clear, that I tried to in the most recent post, is that if people WANT to ask permission or inform writers of reviews, they can. I don't forbid that, I just don't care if people do or don't. I'm not going to demand it, and I certainly don't want to have to enforce it. Can you imagine the blow-up if I did demand it, and someone claimed to have followed the rules, but didn't? I don't want to be responsible for that. If people want to check with authors, they can. It's okay with me.
[amalthia]:I think a lot of people won't want to participate in a discussion over a story if they aren't sure the author is aware and okay with it. I know I don't feel comfortable doing so. Yes no story is safe and yes you can discuss it until the day is gone without the author's permission. But it doesn't foster a sense of community or respect and basically it's not right. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. I haven't been on LJ discussion list no.
I've been running an archive for the last eight years and I talk to a lot of writers and readers. I think the reason my archive is still a sucess is because I respect the author's authority over their fiction. When someone asks me to remove their story, I do so right away. If they say don't post their story, I don't. I might ask again a year or two later to see if they changed their mind...but I respect their decision and I think it makes people feel more comfortable posting their stories. I know a lot of people pull down their fiction or vids when people abuse their stories or vids...
I just think to keep this community going and thriving you are going to need people willing to discuss the stories. I'm getting the sense that most people who commented on Hindsight didn't know the author had no clue her story was up for discussion or hadn't really given any thought to the author. but once they realized that her feelings were kind of hurt they felt guilty and I have a feeling a few of them aren't going to be as willing to share their thoughts on the next story.
I know this wasn't your intention. The discussion community sounds like a great idea and I love the idea of getting the chance to talk about my favorite stories too. I just want to do it wtih the sense that no one is getting their feelings hurt or feels blindsided. People offering their own stories up for discussion does not necessarily mean it'll turn into a beta reading list.
People can discuss the pros and cons of story without going into beta reading mode. Besides once it's posted...I figured it's a bit late to go back and beta read. You can make a rule saying only stories that have already been beta read and posted on the net can be offered up for discussion.
As for the permission issue, I almost lost the Angst Archive eight years ago because I started archiving stories without getting the author's permissions first. I had to take it down completely and start writing to people for their permission. Some people didn't care or realize I had archived their fics but others were not happy about it and let me know. It all worked out in the end but I'm not running a community that depends on people to interact in the community. You can run it how you like but just letting you know if you respect the authors wishes people respect you for that and I think the community will thrive in that atmosphere.
It's obvious people want to discuss they just don't want to hurt anyone's feelings/or step on people's toes.
[Carolyn Claire]:We're not going to agree on whether it's "right" or not to review stories without the author's permission; I maintain that it is, and why, in my most recent post. We're not going to agree on that, obviously. I also don't agree that archiving stories without permission is similar to talking about stories without permission--one infringes on an author's right to decide where her property is housed (a sort of stealing if done without permission, IMO) and the other is about people excercising their rights of free speech about anything that's been presented for public consumption. I don't think they're similar.
Not everyone has a problem with having their stories discussed; some love it and wish someone would do it for their stories, while others aren't thrilled by it but knows it comes with the territory and are grown-up about it. Those who get bent out of shape about it may not be doing the wise thing in putting their stories out there for public consumption. People have different limitations.
As I told Suela, and spoke of in my most recent post, I don't have any problem with anyone asking permission first or informing writers of a review if that's what they want to do. No one's stopping them. I'm not going to demand it because I don't think I should and because I don't want to have to enforce it, but if doing so would make people more comfortable, they certainly can. I'm just not interested in making it a rule.
"A little clarification"
This discussion also took place after the comm's topic of the fic Hindsight by Rageprufrock and the strong feelings this discussion created. It began a week after the first admin post on this topic.
[Carolyn Claire]: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.
[unknown poster]: deleted comment
[Carolyn Claire]:I think it would be a good idea to ask the authors' permission in order to avoid this.
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.
[fantasyenabler]:There's also the fact that many fanfic writers are *not* honestly looking to have their work seriously discussed, and can be offended if you try to--even if you *like* their story. I may be new to this fandom, and I can't say I've encountered this attitude in this fandom yet. But I have tried to have serious discussions/offer serious opinions in other fandoms, only to be met with the following response:
"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.
[Carolyn Claire]:I'm aware that a lot of people are only in fandom to play, believe me. I know that there are people who don't take their own stories seriously. That doesn't impact on whether I have any thoughts about their story that I want to discuss with others. I'm not offering critique to them; I'm discussing the story with other people. Both writing and reading are my hobby, my free time, my escape, and so is discussing stories. People will offer critiques, and they'll discuss--that'll never stop. But if it's done sanely and carefully, with restraint and control (that's me, exerting the controls on the discussions), then it's a step up from a lot of what's already happening out there.
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.
[cofax7]: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.
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.)
[Carolyn Claire]:I think you're privileging the readers above the writers, in a place where the writers are part of the community too.
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.
[Miriam Heddy]:I just wanted to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly, for two reasons.
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*)
[Carolyn Claire]:I think "A place for the thinking woman's squee" would be an excellent subtitle for the comm. :) It does make me very happy when people get it, when they understand what I'm trying to do, when they can see beyond their love for a writer and their fear that the writer they love will pack up and leave if things aren't done her way. There's a sort of tyranny of the writer happening in fandom that bothers me, as a reader. Writers should appreciate that readers are important to the community, too. Their feelings and their wishes shouldn't be subordinate to those of writers; they deserve to be taken seriously, they deserve to experience fandom in the way they want to, too. Offering up a story is only the beginning of the reader/writer transaction, and isn't more important than what follows. We can write for the love of it, but we post online for the feedback, for the payback in reader response. Trying to dictate what that response should and shouldn't be doesn't seem right, to me, and I'm speaking from the writer side as well as the reader side.
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. :)
"Comment Confusion"
[Carolyn Claire]:There appears to be some confusion over how posting and commenting work in the comm, so I'm here to clarify, answer questions, if there are any, and make a small change. The way the comm is set up, you must be a member to make a post. Anyone can join the comm, and anyone who joins will receive posting access; there's no screening, no velvet rope. This rule is about controlling trollish behavior, not about exclusivity or keeping anyone out. The power to grant posting access also gives me the power to remove it from anyone who posts maliciously or inappropriately. No one has ever been refused membership.
One need not be a member to comment, though; one need only friend the community, not join, even if it's only for the short period needed to add a comment to an existing post--one can friend, comment, and unfriend. I set it up this way as part of my plan to control misbehavior, but, on researching a little further, I see (I think) that I can ban any user from commenting in the comm if I need to, whether they've friended the comm or not.
Because of the confusion created when people try to comment and can't who don't understand that it's friending, not joining, that gives them commenting access, I'm going to remove the 'friends only' comments restriction and allow any registered user to comment--anon comments are still not allowed. If it goes well, it'll stay that way; if it doesn't, it won't, and I'll let you know if I change the settings back to friends only.
If you wanted to comment on Cath's post but don't want to friend the comm, you should now be able to. If anyone tries and still has difficulty, please email me at cc1 at charter dot net and let me know that it didn't work for you. If that happens, I'll...bother the help staff, I guess. It should work, though. And everyone will play nice, yes?
[isiscolo]:Actually, it's not sufficient to have friended the community - that only puts the person on the comm's friends-of list, so to speak. If you have commenting set to friends only, it means that the commenter must be friended by the community - that is, must be a member. At least it works that way with the comms I maintain.
But thanks very much for lifting the restriction. As a maintainer you can ban any abusive behavior and delete abusive comments, so I think you shouldn't have a problem.
[Carolyn Claire]: It's been a little confusing for me, too, because I've seen people who had friended but not joined comment on posts, and others who said they couldn't, but they might have been assuming, thinking they couldn't because they hadn't joined. I've had people who had joined but not be approved yet who were able to post. No wonder everyone's confused. *g* This should make it simpler all around. Everyone's behaved themselves pretty well, so far, so I think we should be good.
[cesperanza]: Oh, duh--thank you, this is very helpful!