Back-Talk: Reacting to Reviews and LoCs

Meta
Title:	Back-Talk: Reacting to Reviews and LoCs
Creator:	Susan M. Garrett
Date(s):	1992
Medium:	print
Fandom:
Topic:	feedback, LoCs
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Back-Talk: Reacting to Reviews and LoCs is an essay by Susan M. Garrett in Psst... Hey Kid, Wanna Buy a Fanzine? #3.

Its focus was feedback and LoCs to material in zines.

For additional context, see Timeline of Concrit & Feedback Meta.

Excerpts

Have you ever heard an editor say that they didn't want letters of comment (LoCs)? Or a writer, artist, or poet request that no one tell them what they thought or felt about their work? No? Well, neither have I--yet everyone I've spoken with recently who's written an LoC that contained honest criticism has told me they've been attacked as "bitchy," "unfannish," "stupid," "ignorant," or worse. Why are people asking for comments if they don't want them? Maybe they only want good comments--"It's a really great zine and will be wrapped in plastic and handed down to my family with the rest of the heirlooms." Yeah, that's great. Doesn't mention anyone's work, so you don't have to make someone feel bad by telling them that you really liked the story by "X" with the incredible setting and excellent characterization, but didn't think the one by "Y" was up to their usual standard because of sloppy plotting, or that "Z's" artwork was interesting, but suffered from poor reproduction, and so on. That way, no one has to hear "bad" comments, which means they won't know how to improve their work, which means they probably won't grow as a writer or artist or filker, or editor, or poet...

Rarely (never, in my personal experience) lias anyone written a bad review or LoC because of a personal vendetta or jealousy-yet those are the two main claims made against LoC writers or reviewers who write anything but unlimited praise. I have seen reviewers and/or LoCers attack a show, aspects of a show, or zines based on aspects of a show they don't like. The basic fact is that unfavorable criticism written to present a forum for the reviewer's or LoCer's personal agenda is the exception rather than the norm. But that's always the review or LoC that gets the most attention and the strongest reaction from editors, who usually react in one of three ways-blame the reviewer, blame the contributor, or blame themselves. Guess which one occurs most often. There are times when a reader misreads a stop.', or doesn't get the point that was intended. Don't accuse them of bias. Look at the work. If someone's not getting the point it could be that something wasn't explained enough or described correctly. If you're the editor, don't blame the contributor-substandard material shouldn't be printed and if there's a mistake you should have caught it. And regarding people who can't see the forest for the trees-there are thickies no matter where you go. Don't sweat them; laugh a little instead. All you can do is the best you can do, whether you're the contributor or the editor...

LoCs seem to be less controversial than reviews because fewer people see LoCs, if they see them at all—if the LoC is sent to the editor, the editor has complete control. How many zines have you bought or contributed to where an editor has stated within the zine, in contributor guidelines, or anywhere, how LoCs are disseminated? Can you be certain that the contributors will get to see the LoC you write, complete and unedited, if at all? And what happens when you make the effort to write a thoughtful LoC, only to have the editor butcher or not print it, for whatever reason?

LoCs from contributors should be mandatory. LoCing is a way to make certain the zine improves from issue to issue and you'll continue to be proud to be accepted as a contributor of that zine...or you'll know not to bother in future.

But this is real life. Yes, I'm among those who receive a 'trib copy, put it on the shelf and don't look at it for a year or two...and I admit that I'm wrong. I try to make the time to read the zine, then give my honest opinion to the editor in a LoC. But there have been times when I haven't sent a LoC, or sent a completely honest opinion, because I knew the editors) or contributors) couldn't handle any unfavorable comments. It was the coward's way out and I admit that quite freely. Just as I'll admit that, over time, I stopped submitting to those editors, dealing with those contributors, or purchasing those zines. Editors, ask yourselves how many of your former contributors may have felt this way before you begin to complain about a lack of or decline in the quality of submissions.

During the rush of letterzines in the late 70s and early '80s, LoCs or reviews were printed as a matter of course. But letterzines have dwindled in recent years, becoming limited in subject matter and content. Reviews appear in the occasional adzine or letterzine, but where can you print aLoC that an editor won't or doesn't bother to print, and know that thecontributors will see it? Apart from sending copies to each and every contributor, a laborious and unprofitable task at best, there is no place to print a LoC if an editor doesn't print it. Editors don't have a right to prevent your LoC or review from being printed, as reviews and LoCs are commentary, protected under the Bill of Rights. They do, however, have a right not to print or disseminate your review or LoC themselves. So, what's a LoC writer to think? Maybe editors don't want LoCs. If they don't want LoCs, how will their contributors find out what the readers are really thinking? Maybe the contributors would prefer to have their material printed in a zine where comments on their work will be passed on freely, complete and unedited by the editor. Maybe the editor will start losing contributors and, because of it, lose readers as well. When you lose readers, why put out a fanzine at all?