See Icon For Topic
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | See Icon For Topic |
| Creator: | cereta |
| Date(s): | August 6, 2003 |
| Medium: | Livejournal |
| Fandom: | |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | See Icon For Topic, Archived version |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
See Icon For Topic (... wherein we discuss authorial awareness of critical discussions) is a 2003 essay about fanfic public concrit. It is by cereta.
Some Topics Discussed
- public crit of fanfic
- is concrit for the author or the reader
- public and private fan spaces
- differing norms regarding community
- FCL-L and a recent dust-up
- BetterBuffyFics
- Zendom
- "'service to fandom' crap" and fanfic mockery sites
- a fic where Mulder gives birth to a baby through his navel, called Life from the Ashes
From the Essay
You know, it's funny, though: despite my rather obvious affiliation with criticism, I almost never review/critique/discuss particular stories, and when I do, it's generally in the context of a meta essay on a genre or trend. Granting that I have in those essays been less than kind at times, though.
Having said that, I'm not ashamed of anything I've written, at least not in that regard. Lord knows I wish I could go back and fix some of the prose, but I wouldn't change the point of what I actually wrote. I am ashamed that in one instance I went out of my way to make sure the writer of the story I was talking about knew about the essay. It's one of the few things I've ever done in fandom that I am ashamed of, and if I could figure out a way to apologize to her without feeling like I was rubbing her nose in what I wrote in the first place (which I still stand by), I would.
Which leads me to Point the First, wherein we discuss authorial awareness of critical discussions. Now, I'm not talking about writers who actively seek out or solicit critique, or writers receiving feedback. I'm talking about a whole other tangle.
As far as I know, in FCA-L's nearly 5 year history, only one writer has ever taken her stories off the web because of discussion of said stories on the list. Early on, we were informed that in response to an admittedly kind of snarky discussion, the author of Life from the Ashes (yes, that Life from the Ashes) had taken her stories down. She put them back up again the next day, but the act still prompted a discussion.
My actual contribution to said discussion will be covered in Point the Second, but my private reaction, after the Catholic-school-trained guilt reflex was, "Wait. Who told her we were talking about her stories?"
Let me be clear on this: she wasn't on the list, and the archives were members-only. Someone had to be either forwarding the posts to her or at least telling her what was being said. Now, there are two possibilities:
1. A friend told her because they genuinely thought she ought to know. If this is the case (and I'm sure it often is in situations like this), I might gently suggest that such acts are not the best course of action. Yes, I know it's tough to have information like that an not share, but really: if the information is going to hurt your friend unnecessarily (and by that I mean there's either nothing in the discussion she can learn from, or that she's not likely to use the criticism to become a better writer), why do it?
2. Someone who was not her friend (or at least not a good friend) told her because they knew it would upset her. And this is something that is increasingly pissing me off. The various marysues groups are struggling with this now, as someone (or probably several someones) on ff.net is wielding the story reports like a club in the review sections. This is really more properly the subject of its own entry, but it comes down to this: the only real defense of any fannish activity, whether its fiction, criticism, or mockery, is "I enjoy this." Forget any of that "service to fandom" crap: that way lies pointless debate and madness. The only argument against which there is almost no counter is "this is what brings me joy in fandom." Notice I say "almost no counter," because the only real counter is "but what you are doing is interfering with others' joy." And against that the only argument is "But I'm doing it over here where they don't have to know about it, and thus their joy need not be lessened." Which is a good argument and a true argument and an argument that is constantly being undermined by people who take stuff out of that place and spread it around where it can lessen other people's joy. So just quit it, okay?
{deep breath} Okay, clearly that had been building.
Moving right along to Point the Second, wherein we discuss reactions to particular types of works. My actual public reaction to the LftA incident was, "Well, good lord, what did she expect?" I will grant Hope's point that readers should take some responsibility for their own genre preferences and not shred a story for being of a type the reader dislikes. However, I think there's a reciprocal awareness that writers need to have that, surprisingly enough, things that are controversial, envelope-pushing, and just generally outside the mainstream are going to get a reaction, and in many cases, not a positive one. Back when I was playing Mage, a fellow player described paradox thusly: "When people like us do outrageous things, the universe gets outraged." Well, when you write outrageous things (and I mean in every sense of the word "outrageous"), people are going to react accordingly.
I mean, I suppose it's possible that a writer could be unaware of how a story in which Mulder gives birth through his navel might be received, but really. It's a bit like Baywatch complaining about not being taken seriously as a drama. That doesn't mean it's particularly nice or kind of people to mock the story, but there's a certain element of Newton's 3rd Law, here: the reaction is equal and opposite to the action. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the writer of LftA doesn't think her story is completely ridiculous, but I've seen cases where extremely astute writers who knew they were pushing the envelope in one way, shape, or form were still taken aback by the reaction to their stories.
There should probably be a pithy conclusion here, but there's not.
Comments at the Post
[ratcreature]: I see your point about spreading criticism into forums/to people, where it isn't welcome, and I agree that this is, in a way, destructive. However I think it is impossible to stay completely unaware that there are going to be people who dislike (and possibly even mock, hate, or ridicule) what you are doing, regardless of the activity, and thus I think it's not a good approach to make the own joy dependent on never learning about other people's dislike, and I can't really understand how this would work for people. I mean, I get not seeking these things out, and I understand a variety of reactions when one becomes aware of less than favorable opinions of the own activities (anger, hurt, annoyance, whatever). But it's really unavoidable to run into these things from time to time, and it's not a fandom thing. Like dog owners, no matter that they don't go into areas were dogs are unwelcome and don't seek out anti-dog clubs, will still run into dog haters now and then. Likewise dog haters will have a hard time to avoid dogs (or walking into doggy poop on their sidewalks) completely.
Any activity is probably upsetting to some people, and that in itself isn't really a good argument against the activity as such. It's more an argument to look for structures that allow for civil coexistence where contact is unavoidable, i.e. like having lists that allow criticism and lists that don't, or to put warnings on slash stories. But those can never be 100% effective, not at least because not everybody agrees on which kind of structures are reasonable "protection" and which are not, as is seen on the various stances towards slash warnings and separation of slash and gen/het content (even the when the slash is not sexually explicit or anything like that).
[cereta]: Oh, I think there's a level on which the argument "but what you're doing is robbing others of their joy" can be met with "at some point, that ceases to be my problem." To me, that level is very simply what I said: I'm doing this over here, and not thought my actions imposing it on those who don't want to see it. If a writer finds out about something I wrote on the Symposium through someone's actions other than my own, then while I take responsibility for what I said, I also put responsibility on the person who directed the writer to it.
In other words, I'll accept my share of the consequences kaiz talks about. If I find out a writer took a story down because I spoke negatively of it, as long as I know what I said was fair and accurate, I can live with that. And I think most people who really like critical discussion feel the same way. I also think the writer has some responsibility for knowing their own reactions and guarding their exposure accordingly. I'll never understand, for example, why people come onto a list like FCA-L if they dislike critical discussion and know they're going to wig out if someone crtiques their story. But those people are in the minority: most writers - hell, most people - avoid places they know are going to upset them, at least in their saner moments.
The people who annoy me beyond all comprehension are the ones who go the author and "Psst! They're dissing you!" That's just shit-stirring of the worst kind.
[nostalgia lj]: See, I dunno. I'm kind of dodgy on the whole closed-forums notion as a whole (says hypocritical Zendom whore) and I think we have to accept that *somehow* leaks will happen.
When the BetterBuffyFics list reopened membership, I was a bit... discomfitted to find myself being discussed in the archives. The 'crit-as-advice' argument falls when the "this fic needs" isn't intended to get back to the author, really. And even though what was said about my fics was generally of the positive, I still felt a bit weird.
But, yes, I'm of the school that says we must accept that what we post is public. Thing is, I think this goes for crit too.
In one of my fandoms we've got someone - quite a good writer - who takes down her stuff all the fucking time. So I'm not going to openly review her, because I know how she'll react if it isn't glowing, and I'm not prepared to embroider the truth.
But maybe I'm just overly-sensitive to the ego-issues of the writer. Maybe I should let myself go a little with these things.
It's just that, really, there's no such thing as a private debate on the net.
[cereta]: Well, "private" isn't exactly the term I would use. And ratcreature is correct in that spaces aren't always clearly defined. However...well, the case I was referring to happened on a list called "Fanfiction Critics Association." I mean, even without the FAQ and purpose statement, that's pretty darned clear. I've really have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the (admittedly rare) authors who wandered onto the list and then blew a gasket over critical discussion of their stories there. They chose to expose themselves to it. I'm not likely, for example, to join an MPREG list and be shocked and dismayed that people are writing MPREG.
Or, maybe, to use an example we're all familar with, we don't usually have a lot of sympathy for people who read a story clearly labeled "slash" and "same-sex content" and then get outraged at that awful gay stuff. Outraged that it exists, maybe. Outraged at the particular scene 3/4 of the way through? Nope.
I'm not saying that I'm absolved of any and all responsibility for what I say in these spaces. That would be pretty craven of me. They're my words; of course I'm responsible for them. I am saying, however, that when I've done all but build a wall around them to keep anyone who doesn't seek them out from seeing them, some responsibility must go to the person who brought them to the writer's attention, whether that's the writer herself or a third party.
[nostalgia lj]: A Crit-List... Yeah, you go there, you expect crit. Which is about as defined as a space can be on the net, really.
Something like all those Mary-Sues communities though... That's gonna leak, especially given the propensity of posters to track down and tell the author in question. And then whine about them coming over to argue. Pick on the person that told them!
I'm not sure that the MarySuers are actually aware of the world of fic-crit. They know reviews, they know flames...
Then again, as someone horribly unliterary, I'm not vastly into crit as it often appears. Meh, different strokes, different folks. But you've perked my ears with FCA, I'l admit. :)
As a fandom_wankee, I'm very touchy about F_W posts that don't concern wank so much as personal attacks, and this carried over, for me, into reviews. And, similarly, I feel painfully aware of my own biases in fic. I couldn't crit, and all power to those that can.
Just... the net is so very very public.
[cereata]: Something like all those Mary-Sues communities though... That's gonna leak, especially given the propensity of posters to track down and tell the author in question. And then whine about them coming over to argue. Pick on the person that told them!
Well, see, that's pretty much exactly the thing I'm talking about and objecting to. And in fairness, the majority of the community members seem to object to it, too, and have posted repeatedly asking the people who do this to stop. I think whosists, the "Fandom Avenger," has stopped doing so.
And in equal fairness, there is a very, very fine line to the basis of the communities that I waffle on, mostly because I don't think a lot of the Sue-writers know that what they're writing is something reviled in fandom at large - mostly I think they're really young and naive and think the beautiful elf maiden they've added to the Fellowship is just the best thing ever. It's one thing to mock outrageous stories when the writer really ought to know that Mulder giving birth through his navel is silly. It's another to mock a 13-year-old who's doing what we all did when we were 13 but didn't have FF.net to post on.
But I digress ;).
[lipsum]:
Even our own LJs are not clearly defined spaces, I think. For a long time I've been trying to think of my LJ as my living room, but I've just now decided that public posts in my LJ are the equivalent of talking loudly on my porch.
[ardent muses]:
My basic statement was that I do agree that it's the responsibility of a writer to stay the hell out of places where she might see her work discussed, if she doesn't want to see that. And yet, on LJ, a lot of those boundaries that used to be maintained by the mailing list format are falling away. It's not so easy anymore, and maybe critics could/should take some additional responsibility for doing their thing with care and tact.
Also, I'm hoping that this topic stays current for another couple of days, because it's really interesting to have this discussion with people from such varied fandoms.
[thistlethorn]: "Wait. Who told her we were talking about her stories?"
Let me be clear on this: she wasn't on the list, and the archives were members-only. Someone had to be either forwarding the posts to her or at least telling her what was being said. Now, there are two possibilities:
1. A friend told her because they genuinely thought she ought to know.
One of the things that has always bothered me about the discussion of works on lists is the fact that they are often posted on lists where the author of the critique *knows* the writer in question is not a member and will probably not see the things being said. So while in many ways it's a public forum, it's also a sort of sneaky secret forum at the same time, because there's no chance of reprisals. I guess I feel that if one (and I mean this generally, not you in particular; your post just seemed a good jumping-off place to bring it up), if one *really* stands behind their words, they'd be willing to let the author being critiqued respond.
This is because I'm more used to the discussion zine and review zine tradition of sending a copy (by snail mail. At the editor/publisher's expense) of any review of someone's work to the editor and/or writer of that work as a courtesy, so that they have the chance to know what's being said and to respond. Contact information was provided so that it would be easier to respond. Praise-filled reviews, downright hysterically funny, sarky and mean (if accurate) reviews, kind-hearted reviews, any and all were scrupulously made available to the person whose work was being reviewed. (In the case of one review zine, the entire zine was sent gratis to anyone reviewed therein. It was an art-filled zine, too, not just text on a page.)
I like that tradition.
I've luckily had friends who told me about reviews of my work on lists, but of course, when not a member of that list, I was unable to respond. And sometimes I *really* wanted to respond: to thank people who liked things I'd written, but mostly to correct the hell out of people who misrepresented what I had written. Not misinterpreted (that can be the writer's fault for not conveying something clearly, or sometimes the reader's fault for being hopelessly clueless); genuinely incorrect information about concrete actions or events in the work being given as fact. (The kind that makes you wonder "did they really read the whole thing, or just skim a paragraph here and there?")
And, of course, now that I have *no idea* how I got here -- I lost my way about 2700 links ago -- I'll just post this into the ether because I'll never find my way back and LJ never emails the responses like they're supposed to. *scowl* (They did the last time I was a paid member, no problem. Then, nothing once I was a free member. Now I'm a paid member again. Still nothing. *grumble*)
I mean, I suppose it's possible that a writer could be unaware of how a story in which Mulder gives birth through his navel might be received, but really. It's a bit like Baywatch complaining about not being taken seriously as a drama.
LOL Exactly. (And, may I say, re: Mulder and birth through navel, despite the fact that I was never a fan of X-Files and only mildly ever liked Mulder & Scully (remember her? The forgotten useless despised female I always wonder about when people speak of Mulder/Skinner and Mulder/Krychek in besotted tones?? You know, SCULLY? The cool lady with the great chemistry and UST with Mulder?) -- anyway, may I just say "EW"! and "OW! That'll leave a mark.")
[cereta]: You know, people have raised that objection before, but we're really getting into damned if you do, damned if you don't territory.
Just to give a little history: I formed FCA-L because every damn time I tried to talk about a story on one of the famdom-specific lists (this was in TS fandom) in any way beyond "wow that was so cool," the conversation instantly became about whether we should discuss stories critically at all, and how we might be discouraging writers, etc, etc. I got this if I said anything less than glowing about a story. I got this if I said anything less than glowing about a type of story. I got this if I said anything less than glowing about a convention or style or anything.
I got tired of it. And I did the only thing I could do: I made my own space for what I wanted to do. Now, it's not as if anyone is stopping writers from being on the list, or joining the list to dispute what's being said about their story. Lord knows that it's happened. Although we do sort of require that one join the list to do so - we have one rule that exists solely because a writer wanted to post to the list without being a member, and, um, no (the fact that what she wanted to post was mostly how stupid and pointless what we were doing was might have had something to do with it).
And yes, I got accusations that we were "talking about people behind their backs." I will admit I was banging my head against the wall by that point, because these were mostly the same people who made it clear that they didn't want their stories talked about in anything less than glowing praise in the places they could see it, either. In other words, we weren't allowed to talk about the story to their faces, but if we did it elsewhere, we were talking behind their backs.
Okay, this is getting really long-winded. Can you tell I'm avoiding grading?
The point, I think, isn't that we're deliberately hiding the discussion from the author. The point is that the writer can avoid it if they want to.
[zvi likes tv]:
- One of the things that has always bothered me about the discussion of works on lists is the fact that they are often posted on lists where the author of the critique *knows* the writer in question is not a member and will probably not see the things being said. So while in many ways it's a public forum, it's also a sort of sneaky secret forum at the same time, because there's no chance of reprisals. I guess I feel that if one (and I mean this generally, not you in particular; your post just seemed a good jumping-off place to bring it up), if one *really* stands behind their words, they'd be willing to let the author being critiqued respond.
My issue with the idea, "If you're going to critique, you need to involve the author" premise is that most of the people who critique publically are not talking to the author. If they actually wanted to talk to the author, you're right, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they have her e-mail address and can address her directly. But I don't see why we have to make an effort to include the author when our statements are written for an audience that isn't the author. When I've seen public critique, it's written either for a forum for critique or for people who respect the critic's thoughts (i.e., those who regularly read the critic's website or livejournal). Writing feedback to an author is a very different from writing criticism for a group of critics or for fans of a critic.
I guess I just want authors to step back and realize that the criticism is not about them. It's about their story, and how that fits into the larger fandom, and the expectations that reader's bring to the story, etc. But they can't dictate what maks it from the page to a reader's head, and they can't make people want to talk to them about their stories, even when the readers want to talk to someone about the stories in question. (And I realize that some criticism is personal, but I'd bet that that 'criticism' usually is communicated to the author.)
[thistlethorn]: But I don't see why we have to make an effort to include the author when our statements are written for an audience that isn't the author.
Er, courtesy? The same way that many fans extend to others in net fandom the anonymity that they implicitly request. A courtesy that's become convention for the net.
Or maybe personal integrity: that if one's words truly carry the conviction of their ideas, allowing the author access shouldn't be such a big deal.
And, of course, criticism about an author's work is *certainly* about them, in addition to all of the other things you mentioned (with which I happen to agree). Excellent or excrable, it was written by a person.
And whether or not that person respects the critic's style or thoughts is as immaterial as whether or not an author wants to be criticized.
If for no other reason, sometimes people communicate truly interesting ideas in their critiques that the author might never have thought of, or would benefit from. But, oh, wait, look, it's on Obscure Fan List #257, to which that author doesn't subscribe.
But mostly, that author might want to respond, whether with agreement or rebuttal, to what's being said about her work, and can't due to lack of information or access.
I think freedom to criticize is a good thing, but I also think access is a good thing, and am simply suggesting that it's not impossible. I don't expect the idea will become tomorrow's Social Fannish Revolution.
[zvi likes tv]: Er, courtesy?
I don't understand where you're coming from with this. I sincerely don't understand the theory of politeness involved in cc'ing the author when one is talking to a particular group of people which doesn't include the author.
Or maybe personal integrity: that if one's words truly carry the conviction of their ideas, allowing the author access shouldn't be such a big deal.
But I don't understand what the personal integrity or conviction in her ideas has to do with sending the author a piece of writing when the author is not the intended audience for the work.
My point is that in public critique, the critic is not talking to the author. She's talking to the people she's addressing. She's talking to a group of Mulder fans, or the list members of chubby-character-cuddles, or the people who are in her slash 'book' discussion group. In the ideal case, she has written her critique keeping that particular audience in mind, and the author may or may not be part of that audience. To be more concrete: suppose Critica Goodheart is in a discussion group for slashers who want to write better sensory detail in their stories. Ms. Writesalot writes a Fastlane story where Critica Goodheart finds that Ms. Writesalot's symbolic use of color interferes with good visual description. Critica writes up a detailed analysis that uses a lot of phrasing that is familiar to members of Bad Touch Anonymous, but that doesn't mean quite the same thing in normal fannish. Why should Critica cc Ms. Writesalot? The Fastlane story isn't about color symbolism or visual description, it's about the relationship between Deaq and his dead brother Dre, and Ms. Writesalot says that in the author's notes.
And, of course, criticism about an author's work is *certainly* about them, in addition to all of the other things you mentioned (with which I happen to agree). Excellent or excrable, it was written by a person.
I disagree. If I don't know the author, just the story, how can it be about the author? The author is not her work. There are plenty of people I like very much whose fiction I don't particularly enjoy, and a number of people who write well that I don't actually want to hold a conversation.
I'm not saying that critique is never about the author, but it's not about the author by definition. If the critic and the author have a relationship other than the work, then the critique is informed by that. But if not, the critic is working on the basis of the words in front of her and her past life experience. The author may take the critique personally, but that doesn't mean the critique is about the author. In just the same way, the critic may be deeply affected by the story the author told, but the author wasn't reaching to hit the critic's buttons, she was looking to hit the audience's buttons.
But mostly, that author might want to respond, whether with agreement or rebuttal, to what's being said about her work, and can't due to lack of information or access.
I don't understand why we should privilege the author's access or viewpoint. If one posts in public, maybe the author sees it and maybe she doesn't. But if the person posting isn't trying to engage the author in dialogue, why should she be encouraged to take steps which would foster dialogue with the author?
[ratcreature]: Uh, more courteous than what?
I don't see why it is more courteous to cc than not to cc the discussion or the discussion location to an author. I think cereta's approach that everybody frequents the forums they like works perfectly well for the most part, and that it is not impolite to talk about people's works without informing them about this.
For example, as a comparison, I talk about comics all the time, in blogs, LJs, review pages, whatever, and many of those creators also have web pages and are just an email away too, so to speak. I've met several of those creators at cons, and talked with them in person, which is more than I can say for almost all fanfic authors. I don't assume they think its impolite that not everybody in comic fandom (and many of the creators I talk about see themselves definitely as comic fans too, so it's not like with movie stars or something who are really separate from their fans) sends them all their posts that mention any of their works. I mean, I enjoy talking to comic artists, it's fun to chat with them during cons or at signings, to ask questions when they're on a podium, I've even emailed a few, and though I rarely comment on message boards creators frequent or join chats with them, many other comic fans do. But still when I talk to people who are not the comic artist I do just that. That doesn't mean that comic artists won't google sometimes for their books to see how they're received and see my comments, or that I would *mind* a comic artist reading my comments, or that I'd present a different opinion should I meet said artist at a con at chat with him or her, though I might well choose a different focus, after all the things I want to talk about with the artists are different from those I want to talk about with other readers. I certainly don't feel like I'm "talking behind their backs" since it's just not a reasonable assumption that anyone could (or even wanted to) be informed about everything anybody anywhere in any conversation says about their published works.
[thistlethorn]:
I thought the discussion was about criticism and reviewing, not conversations.
[ratcreature]: But on lists, boards, blogs etc. criticism and reviewing *are* conversations, at least a lot of the time. I don't do "formal" reviews like you might find in a magazine, my comic reviews are like for example this one of Gotham Knights #43. I say what I liked, what I disliked, what I'm not sure about yet, what confused me because I'm missing previous issues, I wonder how the plot might work out, whatever, and I hope to invite discussion with my posts, because I like to talk about comics with other fans, maybe someone will have even read the backissues I don't own and might clear up my confusion, it's not like I have access to the several thousand issues of backstories in the Batverse, as of yet I only own about 300 and very few of that are from before the mid-90s, and I have no clue about most of the wider DCU, so often I hope someone more knowledgeable might chime in when I write about a comic. It is conversation for me.
It's exactly the same when I post on a list about some fanfic. I don't review or critique formally, I just want to talk about some stuff in a story, to have conversations with other fans who also read that piece of fanfic.
[Kathy Langley]: Jean Kluge pointed me in the direction of this discussion, knowing I don't frequent LJs. Jean, one of my oldest and dearest friends (27 years and counting) also knows that we disagree completely on this subject, so the following will be no surprise to her.
Jean is correct when she says that it is a long-standing fannish tradition (going back to early SF fandom) that, when a publication is formally reviewed, such review gets copied to the editor of the publication (not for approval, just for notification). I followed this tradition when I posted a formal online review as well. Also, many fiction zine editors published LoC columns which included the informal comments and critique sent to the editor by readers of the previous issue. (When Loc columns became unfashionable, such comments were sent on to the contributors directly. Some editors today continue this practice or provide message boards for fans to comment.)
In letterzines, (the print fandom equivalent of Internet discussion lists), fans also could comment on stories, writers,and editors. There was never any expectation that said writers and editors be notified of such discussion. If it happened that they were subscribed to the letterzine, or heard about it otherwise, and joined in the discussion, that was fine. But it wasn't required.
It's a peculiar byproduct of Internet fandom that many readers and writers seem to assume that any time a story or author is commented on, the comments *must* be intended for the author. As if there is no other reason for commenting on a story. This is not true and never has been.
Fans like to share opinions about fan fiction with other readers of fan fiction. This might occur in private conversations, phone calls, letters, letterzines, and emails. It might occur at convention discussion panels and in convention hotel corridors and room parties.
It might occur on Internet discussion lists.
Trying to raise the critical standards of the writer (specific) or writers (general) might be the point of the discussion. Trying to raise the critical standards of the readers, reviewers, and LoC-writers might be the point of the discussion. Recommending a story for reading--or avoiding--might be the point of the discussion.
Sometimes, just talking about fan fiction because you like talking about fan fiction is the point of the discussion.
Just as with the letterzines of yore, the writer may or may not be a subscriber, may or may not hear about the discussion. The writer may or may not take part in the discussion. Again, fine if it happens, fine if it doesn't.
Discussion with an author certainly can be a very interesting part of fandom--seeking clarification or understanding of where an author was coming from when they produced a particular piece can be very illuminating and may be exactly what a particular reader wants to know. But it's not required.
There is no obligation--moral, ethical, or social--to open a discussion with the author of a piece. There is no fandom-given right granted to an author to defend her work.
(And it also must be noted that, in the modern era, when so many story posters react *violently* to story comments that are--either in reality or in their own perceptions--anything other than favorable, discussion with an author also can be a very serious pain in the ass. In fact, in a fannish culture where many story posters arrogantly expect readers to get their *permission* to discuss their stories--and not to do so if such permission is not granted--it certainly cannot be surprising that it does not occur to fans to seek out authors, try to divine their feelings about story discussion, and notify them of same.)