Mary Sue: 2000 Comments by Flamingo

Meta
Title:	Mary Sue: 2000 Comments by Flamingo
Creator:	Flamingo
Date(s):	January 11-14, 2000
Medium:	posts to a mailing list
Fandom:	Starsky & Hutch, Miami Vice
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Below are a series of three very early 2000 posts written by Flamingo for ThePits, a Starsky & Hutch mailing list. They are quoted here on Fanlore with Flamingo's permission.

Some Topics Discussed

• Mary Sues, slash, hurt/comfort, original characters
• Murder on San Carmelitas, Total Eclipse of the Heart
• we fanfic rather than profic to get certain emotional needs met
• Miami Vice, Starsky & Hutch fandoms
• "Mary Sue is as sexist a term as bitch or whore, but we bandy it about in polite society anyway."
• all writing is personal
• labels on fic can be damaging

January 11, 2000

The term Mary Sue, like the term "hurt/comfort" and many other well-established fandom terms come down from the first media fandom, classic Star Trek. (Before Star Trek there was science fiction fandom, which spawned Trek, but sf fandom was and largely still is a literary fandom. Star Trek [and to a lesser extent Star Wars] spawned a very different fandom, media fandom. SF fandom was largely male while media fandom is largely female.) In the early days of Trek when zines (which had been around all through sf fandom which stems from the 1920's) with Trek stories were new, it was not unusual for these female writers who were just beginning to explore a future that allowed women the right to <gasp> dream of the same kind of exciting futures that had formerly been the sole province of males, it was not unusual for the woman writer to create a character that embodied many of her own subconscious hopes and dreams. And thus was borne Lieutenant Mary Sue, who was smarter, braver, and far more beautiful than anyone could ever be. She usually excelled over the men in all things and usually saved the day. In many ways this was an extremely radical proposal consider the times -- that a woman *could* excell over men in *anything*. But that was what Trek offered us, and it was a heady offering, considering that the world we lived in separated job opportunities in the paper and in the entire job market as clearly defined "male" jobs and "female" jobs and female jobs were the lowest paying, lowest status jobs with the least opportunities, because at the time, jobs with opportunities were held to be the strict province of males. Ten years after classic Trek fandom started, I remember being at a con with all these incredible women and marvelled at how many science professionals were in their ranks. Not just science professionals, but many other careers that 10-15 years before would have been out of any woman's reach. Trek wasn't responsible for the women's movement by any means, but it sure didn't hurt to see professional women in space, even if they were telephone operators and nurses in short skirts. The message was broader than that. We were *there*.

However, the fact is that any character who is overly-perfect is not a very interesting character to read about, except perhaps by the writer. And Trek readers, like their modern counterparts, went to fan fiction mostly to enjoy another adventure with their heroes. They didn't want *anyone* saving them or being smarter than them, etc. Mary Sue soon became a derisive term to indicate this kind of perfect female character, desired by all, smarter than all, the savior of the day.

Unfortunately, over time, the term Mary Sue has been distorted and in modern fan fiction has come to mean to many, many fans, ANY FEMALE CHARACTER AT ALL. I have always objected to this incredibly sexist interpretation. It limits the options of good writers from creating credible female characters and implies that no woman is good enough to even share the stage with our heroes. I protest the term whenever I see it for *any* reason. The fact is, today most fan writers are far more sophisticated than those early Trek writers who were essentially creating a new literary form. It is rare to find any true Mary Sue characters, as fan readers are also far more sophisticated. There is NO EQUIVALENT TERM for original MALE characters and for this reason alone, the term Mary Sue should be deep-sixed, rejected by fans who are almost exclusively women. Mary Sue is as sexist a term as bitch or whore, but we bandy it about in polite society anyway.

I'll save the historical discussion of hurt/comfort for another diatribe.

Don't you love it when you inadvertently push my buttons? ;-)

Flamingo, feathered fist waving on high

Okay, hold it, this is a whole new train of thought. Whoo-whoo! Come on board! ;-)

First off, I'd like to establish something that is an extremely unpopular point of view, but hey, when did that ever stop me? :-D (And Kath, please know that I'm not picking on you, or mad or anything. In fact, I'm very grateful for your contribution to this thread because it lets me wax poetic [or is that polemic?] about a particular fetish of mine. Thanks, buddy!)

ALL of fanfiction is "private diary fantasies posted as if they were stories," and I blatantly confess that I am the most egregious perpetuator of this. There is no place in professional fiction that you could get publish what we consider the very best of fan fiction -- never mind the very worst. Fanfic is full of purple prose (why use 1 adjective when you can use 2 or 3 -- check out *any* description of Starsky in *any* of my writing), the plotting is often illogical or inconsequential (check out Murder on San Carmelitas, or my Crystal Blue Persuasion), the main characters, never mind any others, behave in ways ordinary humans never could (right Barb? check my latest chapters of Total Eclipse), it is mawkishly sentimental (bring on the h/c!), and often filled with so much gratuitous violence that it would curl the hair of any First Amendment activist (bring on the h/c!)! AND THAT'S THE BEST STUFF!!! That is why we LOVE it. If it merely filled the expectations of the pro fiction reader, none of us would be reading it, we'd be devouring the latest best seller. We CAN'T get this stuff in pro fiction, which is why we write and read fanfic. Fanfic fulfills our most private fantasies about these characters we have fallen in love with. That is why we write it, those of us who do, and when we read it, we are doing so in search of that fiction that will come closest to our favorite fantasies. (Which is why Starsky gets handcuffed to Hutch's bed in Chapter 2 [or 3?] of Total Eclipse. :-P) I write professionally for a living, and there is no pro market that will let me write what I write in fanfic.

I object to the rejection of fanfic from writers who choose to create original characters, especially female, who are overly dominent in the story. Why shouldn't they be able to write what THEY please and call it a story, when I am writing what *I* please, and believe me, what I am writing is a story. Assuming that fanfic is a level playing field, in that anyone who can put pen to paper has as much chance as getting published or publishing themselves as the next person, why shouldn't they have the same priviledge of attempting to garner fan readers as I do? Or Suzan Lovett? Or the totally unknown person who wrote to me yesterday who can't spell to save her life but has something for me for the Archive? (Non-American fans on the list, I don't mean to be exclusionary in this next sentence, but it is of specific cultural interest to those of us living in the US.) Fanfiction is the embodiment of America's promise of freedom of speech. Anyone who can scrape together the where-with-all to reproduce pieces of paper with writing on it, or who can find someone to post their story to the web can be published. This is TRUE freedom of speech, something people in repressive countries fight for, and we've got it right in fandom! It's wonderful!!! (Okay, you can cut the volume on the Battle Hymn of the Republic!)

Also, I'd like to mention that whether or not a story contains a "Mary Sue" character is very subjective. I've heard people say that Joan Meredith (a character from the show) that Suzan Lovett used in Goliath (which is considered a fan classic and the winner of many awards) is a Mary Sue -- which is ridiculous. Generally speaking, since the media characters we are using are usually given attributes no human could sustain, if anything, THEY are the true Mary Sues! So, who gets to judge which stories really have Mary Sues? Are the characters Mary Sues because they marry one of the media characters? So none of the media characters can NEVER marry (except in slash where they marry each other)? Is an original character a Mary Sue if they save the life of one of the media characters, or interact with them too much, or perform an act of bravery? This relegates all extra characters to cardboard figures that can only stand there and be used as furniture. You can't write like that! The writer has to have complete and total freedom to produce whatever it is she wants to produce. Some of the finest work in SH or any other genre has dominent original characters -- Nathan, in Cost of Love, Hutch's partner in the Beckett/Powers trilogy, Don in Murder on San Carmelitas, Joan Meredith in Goliath, Hutch's sister in a terrific story in the latest zine, Dreamers. Undoubtably, all these characters were drawn on the imaginations (fantasies) of the writers -- that's how writing happens.

Let the writers have all the freedom they want to do whatever they want. As you're reading it you can figure out how close it comes to your personal fantasy fulfillment and either keep reading, or stop reading.

>> Maybe a totally new term could be devised?

There already is a term: original character. It is totally non-judgemental.

>> I'd love one for the practice of giving the favorite member of a slash pair all the characteristics of the author.

This is another thing I don't agree with. (I know, I know, name one thing I do. ;-) ) Since "Mary Sue's" or even the favorite member of a slash pair often has the characteristics of the perfect person: totally beautiful, completely desirable, capable of super human feats both in and out of the bedroom, smarter than everyone else, and almost always right -- I reject the notion that these characteristics represent the author's view of themselves. Trust me, while I'm a lot of fun in bed and have been known to wear my partner out, I'm no Starsky! ;-) I couldn't fit his jeans on my arm! I have *none* of these superlative characteristics and neither do most of the fans I know. Most fans are disenfranchised from society, do not enjoy being conventionally attractive, have extremely low self-esteem, and are often not very physical, never mind superbly so. Most fans, that I know, couldn't imagine themselves that way. If they create an original character with those attributes, again, that is their wish fulfillment of a person they might desire (more so then say, they wish to be.) And if that's what they want to do, so let them! I've read some fiction I've loved that had these elements.

Regarding the "favorite member of a slash pair" who is overly dominent in a story, which is what I think you were trying to represent, there is also a term for that. It is called "author intrusion" when the needs of the story are sacrificed completely so that author can put in her favorite character doing her favorite things regardless of what the story needs. One of the most consistent perpetuators of this writing problem is Lynna Bright, who is considered probably the finest writer in all of SH and whose writing is breathtakingly beautiful. Hutch was her favorite and Starsky was frequently given a lesser status in her stories, his scenes truncated or not represented at all, the plot often sacrificed so that Hutch could do something great. I noticed every single time this happened -- because I've read every story of hers over a dozen times. Even committing this type of writers "sin" this woman's work is so superlative, I'm more than happy to let her do whatever she wants. I only wish I had her command of the language.

>> It *feels* to me like the old Mary Sue, though it doesn't look like it, but it's just as much bad writing.

Bad writing will always be bad writing, whether it has Mary Sues or not. But fanfic is *full* of bad writing even without Mary Sues. And what one reader things is the worst writing will invariably be another readers's *favorite* story. And some of the worst writers will eventually go on to write something really good, especially if they get involved in fandom and get a chance to expand their repetoire and learn different styles of story-telling.

But I think the door must be left open for supposed "Mary Sues". It is a traditional form of self-expression in fanfic, and this may be the only place writers have to place that kind of story.

No one says we have to read it, or if we read it, that we have to like it. But every fan writer should have the freedom to write what pleases her.

January 14, 2000

<< There are plenty of bad stories that really are Mary Sues, and cruel as it may be to a novice writer to be told that her story isn't very good, she won't get any better if she is only told "great story!". And if she is told of the existence of the genre "Mary Sue", she might be able to recognize when she is walking down that path.

But this presumes that there is something wrong with the path simply because it's a Mary Sue (as opposed to the basics, having poor plot, poor characterization, poor dialog, etc.). This presumes that not writing Mary Sues is for the writer's "own good." This presumes that someone else is a valid judge of what is for the writer's own good. This is no different than the pro romance publishers who are so rigid about must and must not be in their books that it is impossible to present an original idea. This presumes that what the writer is already writing isn't good enough *for her.* While many writers do want to improve and write to do so, the fact is that writing and self-publishing -- good or not -- has value in and of itself to the writer. That the writer cares to share with us what is important *to her* is sufficient. All readers can evaluate for themselves if that writer's writing has value *to them* -- and they can evaluate that usually within the first few paragraphs and bail out. If the writer wants to share her most personal writing -- and I would argue that everything a writer writes is intimately personal -- that's her business. Most stories are not "good enough" for *someone's* standards. The list of things fans *don't* want to read is daunting! (No Mary Sues, no slash stories where one character has always been gay, no rape stories, no death stories, no h/c -- whoops, that just slipped in! :-D ) A well-known zine publisher once told me, after a fan harshly criticised her for publishing what the fan felt was a very weak story, that she had learned over the years that *every* story, no matter how weak by conventional viewpoints, would eventually be *someone's* favorite, would touch something inside someone.

The Mary Sue story is a legitimate, traditional fan convention that has just as much value, certainly to the writer, as does hurt/comfort, cop procedurals, crossovers, or slash. A Mary Sue story shouldn't have to "transcend" its label to have value to the writer or to the reader. To single out Mary Sue stories as having so little value in fandom that the writers "won't get any better" if they're not instructed to change their *genre,* (not their plotting, style, pov, etc.) is not only unfair to people who want to write this form of story, but it's sexist. Many h/c writers come to these fiction lists having no idea that they are writing a well-established, traditional genre fan fiction. I've never heard ANYONE suggest that people writing h/c as a genre be told of the existence of that genre for the sole purpose of guiding them *away* from it so they can "improve." No, h/c writers are lovingly absorbed into the fold, encouraged to hurt the guys more, kill characters that will emotionally scar them, and perform all forms of sadistic acts to satisfy their audience. H/C writers aren't told that their writing would be "better" if they stopped focusing on h/c and wrote stories with human conflict only. Anyone suggesting such a thing would be considered *crazy* in fandom. But if you're writing Mary Sues you've got to stop immediately and "improve." Never mind if it pleases *you* to write them. Let Mary Sue writers write what they WANT, let them not only walk down that path, let them skip down it happily. More power to them. They celebrate women and women's freedom, so let's give them credit for doing that, particularly in a field -- action/drama media -- that routinely villifies women while deifying men.

>> Maybe the prevalence of these type of stories is a function of the fandom?

Ummmm...not historically. Mary Sue stories are one of the oldest forms of fan fiction, originating in the early days of classic Trek. They were a strong statement of women's frustrated desires to break out of conventional female stereotypes, and as such have an important political significance. Women's writing, through the ages, has been the most repressed writing of all, and in these stories women were saying, "We can be as strong as you, as smart as you, and in fact, when the chips are down, we can even save your ass!" In a world where women were historically ignored, and in a genre -- media fandom -- which idolizes shows that depict men's fantasies, including almost all depictions of women -- this was one of the first times, historically, where women had a chance to write about themselves as men have always been encouraged to do. In Trek, this kind of story was so traditional that it became tiresome to the fandom. (For some reason, this never seems to happen in h/c!) There were protests about the prevalance of these kinds of stories, in deference to stories that only featured the primary characters. At least in Trek there were regular women characters who could be featured in stories in positive ways, such as Uhura and other characters, unlike media fandoms that followed, SH and Pros. Eventually, the derisive designation of "Mary Sue" appeared and these kinds of stories were actively discouraged by zine editors. This was a completely subjective criticism, and became more derisive through the years, until this kind of story is routinely vilified now. Putting the label "Mary Sue" on any story is enough to kill it and put a designation on a writer she may not be able to shake. "She's a Mary Sue writer."

>> SH seems mercifully free of them, (I don't know about the old days).

The original SH writers came from Trek and had already had any interest in this genre beaten out of them. I've talked to many of these fans who complained about this, too, and mourned the loss of that genre and more importantly mourned the loss of being able to choose to write this form of story. (Suzan Lovett worried so much about her Joan Meredith character being saddled with this label that Paula Smith, her editor, in her introduction informed the fandom that in no way was this character to be labeled a Mary Sue. Paula was a formidable enough character in fandom that few would go against her. ;-) ) There is another factor in SH, too, that seems to transcend story type -- both in slash and gen, writers of SH truly prefer to have these men inseparable and generally aren't interested in having third parties come between them. In Trek you had a larger group of characters to work with, in SH we have The Two and that's it. But Mary Sue stories, by then, were so frowned upon, there was little chance of their being written. In early letterzines, writers wonder about the lack of what was then called "lay 'em" stories -- stories where the main characters had sexy affairs with women (fairly common in Trek). Since by this time any original female character was in danger of being labeled a Mary Sue, there was little chance of this form of story being written, in spite of the fact that there was an audience for them! Writers hesitated to have anyone come between the sacred pair. This discourages writing! And if you can't write what you want in fandom, then where the hell can you write it?

>> and I never noticed any when I dipped in MV.

I can quote you chapter and verse on why these stories weren't written in MV. You weren't ALLOWED to write them. By the time I got into MV -- my first fandom -- nine years ago -- not only were Mary Sue stories effectively banned, but so were any stories that didn't fall into the now very rigid parameters of fan fiction. This was pre-net, (a mere 9 years ago, folks, 1991) and the only way to read stories and get them published was to get your stories accepted into zines. There were plenty of zines, and multi-media zines had reared their ugly heads and were very prevalent. Miami Vice fandom had taken a nose dive after the show went off the air in first run, and about the only MV fans still writing stories were in slash. Having discovered MV through syndication, I wanted to write it, I needed to write it. And so I did...and discovered no one would publish my stories. They wouldn't even read them. In spite of the fact that I was a pro writer, no one would even *look* at my stuff.

Why? Two reasons: 1) the most eggregious -- there were women in them and sometimes the characters had sex with them. I was treated by several fan editors as if I'd suggested defecating on the rug. My stories were pan-sexual, combining elements of slash and hetero relationships. No one would look at them, not slash editors and not gen editors. The few fans who read them thought my stuff was good, but, "You've got to rewrite this stuff and take the women out." 2) I wrote about the "wrong pair." In MV at the time, the only stuff you could get published was Crockett/Castillo, a combination I thought ludicrous. No one would read, never mind publish my stories, until I changed the pairing and gave up any foolish notion I had to write about women. Don't talk to me about romance publishing. I don't believe for one minute that my experience in MV was any different than any other writers who were in small fandoms. (Imagine my dismay that, now that I'm out of the fandom, the only pairing in MV anyone seems to care about is Crockett/Tubbs when no one would let me write about this before. :-/ )

By the way, there are some terrific gen MV stories (and the best of MV writing was gen) that featured on-going original female characters in a series of stories by an incredibly terrific writer (whose name, of course, escapes me). In any other fandom these would have been considered Mary Sue stories, especially since these women ended up with Crockett and Castillo and one of them was an ex-spy at least as scary as Castillo. They were WONDERFUL, exciting stories, and they were published because the writer was friends with the editor and the editor realized how good they were. But they were Mary Sues by any definition. They were published in the Sanity Maintenance zines and later independently. And damn, they were GOOD.

>> have you read any Phantom Menace?

I 'm told I'm a seriel monogamist. My only fandoms are SH and to a much lesser extent now, MV. I have friends in the fandom, but I have never been able to read outside my fandom. However, if by this you mean there is a huge prevalance of Mary Sues in Phantom Menace, then I would assume that is because PM has brought in legions of new fans who have never been involved in fandom and haven't had their own interests discouraged. I think that's good for fandom. Freedom of thought is good wherever you find it. But think about it -- if these stories are bad, are they bad because they're Mary Sues or because the writers are new and don't understand anything about writing, plot, characterization, pov use, setting, pacing, etc. Wouldn't those same stories be just as bad if they were h/c or slash or action-adventure?

>> No, that's not what I meant. I mean characters, whether OCs or canon, that live the life and think the thoughts of the author, regardless of plausibility and story requirements. The best example of this might be the genre of "male pregnancy" stories.

I agree in part and disagree in part.... Again, I think this is all fan writing. (Maybe with the exception of h/c! ;-) ) And maybe even ALL writing. The first premise of writing is write what you know. In SH there is a strong prevalance of "get them into a comfortable life" stories. Stories where the guys are taken out of Bay City or left there but elect to persue a very mundane existence -- middle class house, not so dangerous job, maybe out of police work all together, frequently in different jobs where they are not partners anymore -- someplace cozy and safe. I don't believe this scenario, but it is clearly predicated by the writer's anguish over all the terrible things that have happened to SH over their careers, culminating in the worst thing of all, the Gunther shooting. When I read these stories -- and some of them have been TERRIFIC -- I know going into them that this is a rational desire of the women writing them, to bring safety and security to these men. The fact that it is completely beyond anything these men would have desired for themselves makes the story a hard sell for me. But I have enjoyed some of these really excellent stories. Writers can't help but put themselves into their characters, whether they mean to or not. We can only write what is inside us and what is inside us more than our own lives and thoughts?

ALL of my SH stories stem from experiences drawn from my own life. Many of the lines of dialog come from conversations I've had, and many of the conflicts come from conflicts I've endured. I write from experience, and whose experience can I write from but my own? (One of my stories, "Happy Birthday To You," was taken almost word for word from an experience I had with a friend in a restaurant.) I've had my partner come into the office after proofing one of my SH stories and smack me in the head with the manuscript and yell, "I can't believe you put THAT in that story!" I just smile, rub my head, and assure her no one will know. But the stuff in my stories comes from my life. Do I believe those characters as presented on TV would ever do or say those things? Absolutely not. Hell, I don't even believe in slash! I would encourage everyone to write what they know. Fanfic is for our self-expression, not for the check from a publisher.

Now, you're are absolutely correct when you say "regardless of the plausibility (thought that's subjective) and story requirements." Because fan fiction is written largely by amateurs, many of these writers don't understand the premise of the *story's* own requirements. They're too eager to put down the story *they* want to read. (This goes back to one of my favorite writer's comments, on how the story is now out of their control, or the characters made "decisions" about the story -- which often ignores the story's requirements.) I do agree this is rife in fandom and can be disappointing for the reader, even while it satisfies the writer enormously. And that is the value of lists like this! (Commercial! ;-) ) I think with some careful editing you can have both, story plausibility, and writer satisfaction. But it is a lot more work.

I know little about "male pregnancy" stories, however, while they make my eyebrows climb, I know people who love them. All the people I know who write them, don't write them because they WANT to be pregnant themselves (some have already been pregnant, others never want to be) but they write them because of the desire to explore, either through humor or wonderment, this very human condition that is currently only experienced by half the human race. (Frankly, I think if all men could get pregnant just once, it would control the burgeoning human population in a year.) And frankly, that is what all writing, but especially fan writing, is doing, letting writers explore the human condition that is most important *to them.* As such it should all be encouraged. But if you try to make me read one of those male pregnancy stories you're gonna have a real problem on your hands! ;-)

>> I think that what I'm trying to say is that terms and labels for tendencies and genres of fan writing can be useful, at least as prolog to further discussion of story structure and plot. A short-hand, if you will, for a body of common knowledge.

I'm no fan of story labels, as friends of mine on the list can attest. I agree that *if* labels were used to prolong discussion of story structure and plot, that would be great. However, that is not how they are used. They are used to help readers avoid certain types of stories and their very use discourages writers from writing stories that will then be labeled and avoided. I have never really written the kinds of things I *wanted* to write in fandom because of the discouragement I've received in those early years. I wanted to write fanfic bad enough that I persisted by writing what the audience wanted -- the way I have been trained professionally. But I'm made of pretty stern stuff, and I *am* a pro. How many people have stopped writing because of derogatory labels and discouragement? And how many, after a few years of maybe writing really poor stories, got enough encouragement to improve and started writing much better? I have a friend who wrote the most god-awful stuff you can possibly imagine, I mean terrible grammar, spelling, no clue as to plot, I mean her stuff hurt my eyes -- and now, several years later her stories are good enough that people are asking for them. (Hey, it amazes her, too!) She hasn't written an award winner yet, but maybe in 2 more years.... Yet, judging by her first really awful stories I wouldn't have predicted that. Suzan Lovett tells me her first ST stories were terrible...and some were Mary Sues. Encouragement in a fledgling enterprise like fanfic is important. Not indiscriminate praise, encouragement. And the elimination of unnecessary, even unfair discouragement.

> However I do see the counter argument than they can be more destructive than useful. And as soon as one tries to define the term it begins to slip away. "H/c" is a slippery one too.

Loved that comment. So true. Apparently, h/c seems a very broad label to many, yet it certainly isn't to me. I know what it is when I read it. I can't understand people who insist I write h/c when I *know* I don't. Every time someone sends me another note telling me what a great h/c writer I am, I just sit there and blink. I write about human conflict. I don't write h/c. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. ;-) But apparently, others don't agree.

> "Slash" is actually close to undefinable, if the discussions that have been going on other lists are any sign.

I'm unfamiliar with those discussions, however I would say that slash may be THE most definable form of fanfic. Just ask any fan who objects to it. She won't have any trouble at all defining it. The definition is very simple. Slash is fanfic that depicts a romantic or sexual relationship between two characters of the same sex, whether that relationship is graphically portrayed or merely just IMPLIED. There are stories where that implication is very subtle, but trust me, fans that object to this premise have no trouble figuring it out and objecting to it. It does not have to have sex to be slash, it doesn't have to have body contact, it doesn't even have to have a kiss. However, it must at least imply a relationship that is more than strong friendship, a relationship that involves something different than filial love. I've had several new fans ask me if a male rape story is a slash story. Not unless the two primary characters have a romantic or sexual relationship depicted or implied. Having a straight, hetero male character raped doesn't make story slash anymore than having a woman raped on a tv show makes that a romance. I'd love to know why anyone would think slash is undefinable??? Share.

>> Now if I were having this discussion with a non-fan I would probably shut up completely and let your arguments carry the day. "Polemic" is a perfectly good term for advocacy in a hostile environment.

Oh, please don't shut up! We're just getting to the good parts! And no one's hostile here, just debating different povs. Hey, I've had plenty of these discussion with non-fans -- most of the pro writer friends who cannot comprehend why I write this stuff. Not exactly a hostile environment, more like one of complete dismay! :-D

> I'd like to say that I've been very impressed with the friendly atmosphere on his list, especially when compared to lists in other, "nicer" fandoms. But that's another, loong story.

I've always found SH fandom, in general, much warmer than others. Compared to MV fandom which was a lonely place, it has been quite a nice experience. The discussions are lively, the people intelligent, and the atmosphere accepting. I've made some of my very best life-long friends in this fandom, and I hope you will, too.