Slash versus non-slash

Meta
Title:	Slash versus non-slash
Creator:	original post by kira-nerys, many others joined in discussion
Date(s):	June 9, 2000
Medium:	Usenet post, online
Fandom:	Star Trek: TOS, slash
Topic:
External Links:	Slash versus non-slash; archive link; another archive link, Wayback link:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Slash versus non-slash is a 2000 post by kira-nerys to the Usenet list, alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated.

The original topic was a Star Trek: TOS story by Gamin Davis called The Loneliness of Command, but this is soon overshadowed by other things.

The Original Post

kira-nerys wrote:

Where do you guys draw the line? I've been reading with interest how a few

people on this list, and most significantly Gamin Davies [sic] comments on the subject. I'm interested, because what I've read of Gamin's stuff signifies as slash to me. There's a relationship between Kirk and Spock where the love shines through, and not platonic or friendship love either. There's a whole lot of touching going on and the dialogue to me suggests rather an unspoken love - as in a romantic love - than a friendship.

What I'm referring mostly to is "The Loneliness of Command" that I've been reading on ASC. I'm not going to quote any of it here since I do not have Gamin's permission to do so, but the story to me is full of very subtle slash, but still slash.

Some Topics Discussed

MANY fans chimed in with their responses which included:

• The Loneliness of Command and the author's long-standing and vocal opinion that her story (and all of her fanfiction) was gen
• what makes a story slash or gen
• what makes a story "girly"
• who gets to decide what a story is about, the author or the reader?
• was it required that a writer get a heads-up regarding the posting of negative feedback on a public mailing list?
• was Harlan Ellison a good teacher? a bully?
• should fans have to self-censor language on an adult mailing list?

Sample Comments

Greywolf the Wanderer: Heh heh heh... Yer eeevil, you wench you. Mind you, I could extrapolate the same thing. Though to me it reads more like some of the mushier non-slash hurt/comfort stuff. That was some of the first Trek fanfic I found, and at first I kinda liked it, being a sucker for angst and all. But once I found the real thing, I lost patience with most of the other stuff.

I recommend, for those who do like hurt/comfort, Lynn Syck <spelling?> and Mary Rottler. Also some of Michelle Arvizu's stuff, though her early work is rough around the edges. And of course the wonderful Mary Wiecek. And let's not forget Rabble Rouser, who has ventured into those waters once or twice.

It can be a lot of fun to read, but I'm a slashman meself. IDIC and all. For me, Gamin's Spock is way too girly, crying in Jim's arms at the drop of a hat. But a lot of her other characterizations are spot on; it may be that most of you reading this will really dig her stuff. Only way to tell is go have a look.

[kira-nerys]: Gamin responded to this [offline], and I think perhaps my first post was a bit offensive, so I chose not to reply to her response because she made some good points. Perhaps I should have acknowledged that I thought so? She says she's not writing slash and I suppose she's got a point. I didn't mean to be rude by writing that post, and I think maybe that I was. I realized something that Gamin pointed out to me and that is that we *do* read what we want into the stories. But if she sees them as only friends in her stories, then that's what they *are* in her stories.

I'd be pretty upset if someone told me something the found about my stories that I didn't mean to be there. Can't think of anything specific, but I know that my stories are my *kids* and god help the one who treats my kids badly <G>

[SAMK]: Yeah, but you know what? The whole point of raising kids is to get them to where you can send them off to fend for themselves. Any reader brings something to the story, and if they haven't brought something to add to what I put there, I just don't think I've done my job right. What really disappoints me is when people can't take enough out of what I've written to see the possibilities.

[Gil Shalos]: And I found that ... fascinating <raises eyebrow> ... because I write K & S rather than K/S but I really don't mind when I get feedback that indicates the reader read it as K/S but without the sex scenes... I rejoice to see that we are different!

[kira-nerys]: Sigh, yet again, I find myself speaking with my foot in my mouth. *Of course* I want people to be able to see more than what I intended. I don't know how to explain what I meant. What I meant was probably I'd be concerned if someone *twisted* the meanings of what I said into something I found detestable.

[Gamin Davis]: And this is of course my opinion of my own work, so I figure it should carry *some* weight <g>. FWIW, I'm much more interested in whether or not people *liked* my story than whether or not they read slash into it. I had an LoC from a K/S slash fan/writer in response to one of my zines, talking about how *perfect* my characterization of Spock was in one of the stories (another Spock's-childhood-told-in-flashback story), and she certainly did *not* see slash elements in it (or in any of the other stories)--so obviously over-emotionalism and slash is in the eye of the beholder.

[...]

That's exactly what it is (by design)--non-slash hurt/comfort stuff. And of course, to me, this *is* "the real thing" and slash isn't. But, as you say...IDIC, people. I was impressed, actually, that you, [Greywolf the Wanderer], bothered to read and vote for *any* of my stories, since I thought I was still on your "scum of the Earth" list.

[...]

Actually, if you read more than one or two of my stories, you'd find out that he only cries during times of extreme emotional turmoil--hardly IMO "at the drop of a hat", although I was a lot worse with that in my earlier stories (and do bear in mind please that a lot of what I've posted so far HAS been my earlier work). I've gotten so I'm much more careful about that. I have my own opinions of what constitutes "girly" (big hint-- it falls more in the realm of slash), and it's not men who have the guts to emote. To me that takes more strength than holding it all in all the time, and I really think Spock has enough stress in his life that it's justified sometimes.

[...]

I will close by pointing out to you what I mentioned to someone else a while back--something you probably already know (read it anyway, just to humor me): everybody has their own idea of what constitutes overly emotional behavior in Spock. To *me*, having him crying occasionally is far more believable than having him have sex with anything (or any*one*) that moves at the drop of a hat (to use your term)--at least we've *seen* him do it on screen, so we know it's possible. On a believability scale--mine, that is-- h/c falls somewhere between a 7 and 8, while slash (again, *for me*) would be no higher than 1. It constantly amazes me that so many people can look at the same characters on-screen and come up with so many different interpretations, most of them believable, even if sometimes only in the given story situations. This happens to be mine.

[Gamin Davis]: You'll have to trust me when I say I've improved, because the originally-published versions of my early stories would probably make you ill (they almost do me). But just like you, I have my fans. They don't seem to be as vocal as my detractors, but at least they're there. Somewhere. I know--I can hear them breathing. <g>

[Gamin Davis]: And I *shouldn't* mind [that some people see my writing as slash]. In fact, I decided a few stories back that I couldn't be responsible for whether or not other people chose to superimpose their own K/S fantasies onto my stories...but, I don't know, it just remains one of my pet peeves. I guess because it's bothered me for so long (no, you all are not the first to mention it, but you're the first *K/S* fans to see it), it's going to take longer than I'd hoped for me to develop a thick skin regarding this.

[ J S Cavalcante ]: You asked why I made such an assumption. I did because sensitivity to criticism of one's stories is everywhere in fandom, so I've encountered it before. I've heard the comment "my stories are my babies" many times, in fandom, from people who had never been edited and had never been given much feedback before. Professionals get edited a lot, and copyedited, and they get used to it. That's all. There are people who have never written for a living who have the professional attitude because they've done a lot of writing workshops or have been edited in school or have good beta-readers here--it's not really whether you get paid for it that makes a difference. It's just that writing *as your work* would seem to be a surefire way to develop it, whereas the other routes always leave you a fairly easy exit. The writers I've known who have said their stories were their babies tended to get their feelings hurt when anyone challenged an aspect of their stories. (And I *don't* mean to suggest these were bad or beginning writers in any way. One in particular was *brilliant*! Others I've known were also excellent writers. They just didn't have the same detachment that I have encountered among professionals, so they suffered more.) BTW, I don't mean to suggest that the criticism in question always came from me. A few times it did--very few--but I saw these people react that way to others more often.

[kira-neyrs]: Gamin, you're entitled to have Spock bawl his eyes out in your stories, don't get me wrong, but Spock crying at all is very hard for me to accept, unless he's been affected like something akin to the Psi2000 virus, or he'd been through something really crippling, or is affected by someone else's emotions like the Horta's in "The Devil in the Dark"

Even then I think he would feel shame at doing so. BUT alas, this is my *opinion* and shouldn't stop you from writing what feels right for you and your interpretation of the character.

[...]

I haven't read many of your stories at all. I simply checked out that latest thing on ASC, and I'm probably not going to read any more of your K & S, and *why should you care*?

There are several reasons for that which are my own and don't really have anything to do with your writing, which I found fairly good . IMO you're a pretty okay writer, Gamin, but your stories are not for me. Your characterization of Spock isn't for me. And I have to admit when I read about Kirk and Spock I prefer them to be in a loving - romantic - relationship. Which sort of rules your stuff out, but that doesn't mean that they're no good, just not for me, y'know.

[...]

There's always going to be someone out there who will be okay with your interpretation of Spock, and I'm sure there are loads of ppl who read your stuff and think "God, I'm so glad this isn't slash."

Probably there are people out there who like seeing him lose control and shed a tear or two. I have to admit that the part of Spock losing control is a very attractive thought to me, but in other contexts <G> and yeah, that was a lewd statement, which I think I'm entitled to.

But overly emotional Spock when it comes to crying is something that rubs me the wrong way. Seeing him as a sexual being does not. Personal preference.

You may argue that it would be more logical to see Spock crying than be sexually attracted to someone, because we've seen him cry onscreen. Now tell me, where did you see Spock cry except for in "Naked Time" where he was affected by the Psi 2000 virus and mind-melding with the Horta? Are there other instances that I just don't remember right now?

As for him getting sexually aroused it's happened on several occasions but he was affected by outside forces there as well - Amok Time (pon farr) All our Yesterdays (pre-reform Vulcan de-evolution) This side of Paradise (the Spores) and he's been using his sexuality on other occasions like on the Romulan Commander in "The Enterprise Incident" f.i. Granted, we never saw him actually have sex, but he gave some serious finger nookie...

So one can argue oneself blue whether it is more logical to see Spock cry or have sex. I'd say both are perhaps just as illogical.

What I find most ... alarming ... in your posts is the way that you seem to think that any thoughts of K/S are *lewd*. Like the scene in the Wrath of Khan when Spock dies. Just because we slashfen find that a very romantic scene and see a lot of romantic *love* there doesn't make us lewd. Or seeing sexual attraction or romantic love in the Sickbay scene in TMP doesn't make us lewd either.

Why is it lewd to see romantic love between two men? Do you think that any such scene has us slashfen thinking about Spock and Kirk in various sexual positions on the floor? That's definitely not the way it is for me.

K/S to me is a relationship filled with tenderness, loyalty, duty, companionship, understanding, friendship, sparkling witty conversations, laughter, sorrow, care, working well together, mutual respect - and yes, sexual attraction, but that's only a part of their relationship to me. The way I see it, that isn't lewd.

[Gamin Davis]: I just generally prefer somebody to at least warn me by E-mail when they're going to post a comment about my work that I might consider negative to the |NG so I see it coming. This sort of blindsided me.

[kira-nerys]: Being out here means that our stories might be commented. Having it out there on a public newsgroup may result in someone commenting on it very negatively or very positively without you ever finding out. That's life on a NG I suppose.

datalaur: "If you have something to say about a story, please say it. It doesn't matter if you'd prefer to send it privately to the author or would rather reply to the list (as most of us do). Be sensible; feedback like "This story sucked!" is no more helpful than "Wow, I loved it!" Plain insults are unconstructive, too. "

"Public discussion of these stories occurs a lot, and more often than not the authors themselves are heavily involved. Try to exercise courtesy if you want to argue a point ... Critical acclaim and attack are welcomed on this list, but be prepared to back up your opinions and discuss them as the rest of us do."

The idea that all comments that "might be" interpreted negatively must go to private email is simply wrong. This is NOT the policy of the newsgroup. Nor is it common public sentiment - though some few would try to portray it so.

[...]

Negative feedback IS appropriate on this newsgroup. Of course there is a courteous way to critique, and THAT is the expectation of the group. Again, the problem comes in with differing interpretations of what a 'significantly negative' critique looks like - that is where the considerate critic should think about going the private email route. Of course, if the author has said "be gentle" or "no negatives" or "all negatives via email", the courteous critic will comply.

Sorry folks for the rant, but this is the one topic guaranteed to get me right back up on the soapbox. "Very negative" is NOT "might be negative" and is a key distinction that seems to be continually missed.

Like the Wolf said: "The day this NG turns permanently into namby-pamby Barney-let's-always-be sweet-and-cloying land is the day I unsub and get the fuck out of here."

[Dina Lerret]: Shit, hmm. I really need to watch my language. God, talk about sterner stuff. For some, this is probably a positive aspect. After having a supervisor encourage me to be meaner, more forceful, speak LOUDER because it's a dog eat dog world. Then wake up one day to realize you don't recognize who you are was chilling. I think I'd rather be one of those 'sweet' folks. Hopefully, not sickeningly sweet. <g> To each their own. Diversity is what makes this group.

[datalaur]: I go on at nauseating length to correct any statement that would imply *all* negative criticism must go on email. We as a group have lost your insights! Right now, most people are too afraid to say anything other than praise. That's *horrible*, and I say that as a person who has too often stayed silent when I really did have constructive comments. Because of lack of courage and honesty (and I include myself in this) I fear that we are robbing ourselves and each other of precious opportunities to improve their craft. Even if an author chooses to discard a given piece of advice, the brain-stretching required to simply consider another's viewpoint is *still* valuable.

My challenge to all of us is to write kind but honest public feedback, keeping always in mind that the main goal is to HELP the author (and not incidentally, other writers).

[kira-nerys]: I didn't exactly dislike your story. It was well-written, but some of the characterizations were 'off' for me. And it wasn't slash. I prefer slash.

[Gamin Davis] :"Like" may be lame, but it's more honest than "love" and shorter than "have a favorable impression of" or whatever your phrase of choice would be. Yes, I know you prefer slash. Occasionally, slash fans have been known to like my stories, but of course if all slash fans liked non-slash to any great degree, they probably wouldn't be slash fans. (Or something like that.) Makes me wonder why a slash fan would read non-slash if s/he already knows s/he won't like it. But, oh, well...

[T'Rhys]: Whoa, nellie. Just because someone is a slash fan doesn't automatically mean they won't like non-slash. Some of us were reading non-slash before getting into slash and some of us still are reading non-slash even after. Some of us even read NON-TREK scifi/fantasy.

Laura Jacquez Valentine: the first Trekfic I posted was non-slash, and I'm pretty much rampantly bifictional in my reading, although I don't like most het (probably because I don't have good enough filters in place to eliminate the bad stuff). And I'm with T'Rhys completely on this issue: being a fan of slash does not mean you can't be a fan of other stuff as well, any more than liking Iggy Pop means you can't also like Bing Crosby. (My favorite

[Gamin Davis]: Now, my POV has always been that it strikes me odd that in most slash, Spock behaves totally (or as much so as possible) in character--sometimes, to me, seeming overly Vulcan--until the story starts dealing with sex scenes and the characters' physical attraction to each other. Then, IMO (and the things I know about K/S slash you could count on one hand), he totally goes off the deep end and starts behaving like any Human with hormone control disorder (yes, I have read a few of the less explicit K/S things, and even some that were explicit when I didn't expect them to be from the rating). But that's just my perception.

[...]

Because *to me* it is--sorry, but I can't help thinking that way. Now, does that mean *you* or any other slash fen have to worry about that? Heck, no--this is just the way I am, and sorry, but my upbringing just doesn't allow for me to view the idea of people fantasizing m/m relationships between characters presumed by most people (probably including the creators) to be het any other way. That said, *you* certainly should not be concerned or inhibited if this is what appeals to you--even if it does involve imagining them "in various sexual positions" (no, I'm sure most/many slash fans aren't like that, but some do give that impression from their writings--though only a non-slash fan would probably think so--they put a sexual spin on any scene where Kirk and Spock seem to me to be just expressing friendship for each other).

You say, why should I care what you think of my version of Spock? Well, why should *you* care what I or any other non-slash fan thinks of slash? It's just as irrelevant, when you come right down to it. It is no more my intention than it probably is yours to dampen any creative juices. None of us are making any profit off these stories anyway, so speculate away and write what you want to write. If *anybody* likes it- -regardless of my opinion--then it's a worthy effort.

[...]

Well, I only see the sexual part as "lewd" (and believe it or not, I try to incorporate as many of those other aspects of their relationship as I can into my stories)--but as I said, if it's what you enjoy, and others enjoy reading it, then why pay any attention to me? This is just my opinion.

[...]

My intended audience is people (fans) who like Kirk and Spock and their friendship, and who want to see Spock's emotional side. I don't care whether slash fans turn out to be part of that group or not; certainly I won't, and haven't, object(ed) if that's the case.

[kira-nerys]: Once more for clarification. If slash fans have been known to like your stories. Great. More power to you. BUT the reason I didn't exactly fall head over heels with your story wasn't the fact that it wasn't slash - since I saw slash in it, you're kind of missing the point. You don't feel that it's slash - okay, the slashy bits are in essence in the eyes of the reader so to speak. What I didn't like was your characterization of Spock. Period. My opinion. Others like your Spock. Wonderful.

[...]

- your perception. I've got a different one and I think we just won't ever see eye to eye on this. In your eyes this is lewd, and seeing K/S as a couple romantically/sexually involved is wrong. Why do I discuss it with you? - we're never going to agree. So, let's agree to disagree.

[...]

I guess that too is up to the viewer to make up their mind about. But in your world sex is kinda non-existent, right? Why *are* you on a newsgroup that is centered around EROTICA? I'm not trying to say "Leave, Gamin because you don't fit in" I'm genuinely curious. It really surprises me that you - with your attitude toward sex in general (or at least the way I've interpreted your comments) are on Alt. Startrek Creative EROTICA.

[...]

And I'm sorry ... I don't understand why this bugs you so much. Why does it drive you up a wall at the idea of Spock and Kirk being lovers? I don't understand it and that's probably why I keep this discussion going although I am beginning to see how futile it is. Because I'm not saying that stories that have K/S being friends and just friends are wrong. They're fine with me and some of them are *really, really* good.

[...]

I think the weird thing is that we both see a lot of the same things in the K/S relationship, apart from the sexuality of it.

What I wonder is why you can't accept the idea of K/S as a couple? I mean, it's not like you have to be either a slash fan or not a slash fan. You can be both. I am. I read S/f, Spock/Uhura, Spock/Chapel or stories where there isn't a sexual relationship at all. The K/S universe isn't exclusive to me. I like K/S, but I can enjoy other stories too. But you seem intent on that there is no such thing going on between Kirk and Spock and I wonder why you protest so vehemently. Why is the idea of homosexual love between them so wrong for you.

[...]

Is it the idea of explicit sexual love between two men that bother you, that you don't want to read about?

To me, love is love, whether it's between a man and a woman or two men or two women. There's nothing lewd in that.

How do you feel about reading het-smut?? Do you think that's *lewd* as well.

I think that's what I'm hung up on - the word lewd. Life's fun being sexually open, but lewd has such a negative ring to it and doesn't have much to do with love.

[Gamin Davis]: I don't see Kirk and Spock as gay or even likely to *become* gay. If they did, sure, they'd be most likely to pair off with each other, but...the way Kirk gets involved with so many women, I just can't see it. I do not believe the characters are or were ever intended to be gay, and that's why it "drives me up a wall". It doesn't matter to me what other people think--if they see Kirk and Spock as being in a m/m relationship, if that works for them, fine. I'm okay with that. I just don't respond well to the idea of somebody thinking I'm writing them that way in *my* stories.

[...]

What I object to is the idea of two CHARACTERS who I see NO evidence of being gay being portrayed that way. As far as same-sex relationships in RL, it's not my thing, but I really can't feel anything more negative than compassion toward them after seeing the anti-gay conservative backlash over recent years, which has really gotten out of hand. Shall I tell you what I told my brother-in-law when he finally "came out"? I was glad he was in a monogamous relationship. I already knew him before, and it didn't make any difference in my feelings, my liking or my respect for him (which is more than I can say for certain members of his family at the time). He had written my husband a letter, but my husband is not a writer and I thought it should be responded to so I sent him a letter back. Neither he nor his SO fit any of the gay stereotypes--if you met them on the street, there's nothing that would make you say right off "these guys are gay". His SO is a very nice guy and he (my brother-in-law) hasn't changed personality or suddenly become an Evil Minion of Hell, so no, I don't pre-judge real people as to whether or not they're gay, nor do I care. Good enough? I just don't believe *Kirk and Spock* could possibly be gay.

[Gamin Davis]: As I have been trying to emphasize lately, I *do* take a "dispassionate look" at people's comments, *especially* negative ones if they seem constructive, and I frequently wind up using them, even if not on the story they were critiquing. But *initially*--right now, I'm sorry, but I usually just can't help reacting defensively. I may or may not take it personally, depending on the nature of the comment, but the fact that I do does *not* mean I don't give it any consideration when I've had a chance to think about it for a while.

Comments on Harlan Ellison

[Gamin Davis]: Even pros can react [in overly-sensitive ways to editing and criticism]. And yes, they should "get over it", but I'm not sure how many of them really do. Case in point: Harlan Ellison, professional SF author with credentials up to his...er...neck who wrote "City on the Edge of Forever", the original version of which I've read--30+ years after GR supposedly "ruined" his precious story, he is still so bitter that the first thing he does after GR dies is write a horrible, scathing article for STARLOG magazine in which he basically says "I'm glad Roddenberry is dead" and all but cusses him out! Then more recently, he gets on the Sci-Fi Channel and still manages to get his digs in on the man, although I got the definite feeling that he was edited/muzzled to prevent some of his more acerbic comments from getting on the air. What accounts for that if not artistic temperament? Even *I* am mature enough not to hold a grudge against someone for 30 years for making changes--*necessary* changes, I may add--to my story. What Ellison originally wrote was a futuristic cop show. That may be the way *he* sees ST (and I know from a TV interview he did once that it is), but I don't think a lot of its *fans* feel that way. It had to be edited. I would have liked one or two things to stay in, but having read the original, I mostly agree with GR's changes. (This has always been a sore point for me, so pardon me for getting worked up.)

[Datalaur]: Much as I love Ellison, I'd have to say it's just temperament and arrogance. But that's part of why Ellison fans love him. ;-) But I do agree with you, having read Ellison's rants and the original screenplay, GR mostly did the right thing in making the changes.

On the topic of professional criticism and Ellison and author's self esteem, it made me think of something I'd read recently. It's a quote from Ellison in a book he edited, Again Dangerous Visions. Here's an excerpt from the preface to an Evelyn Lief story, where he was talking about an incident in a six-week writing workshop where he was teaching a one-week segment and was reviewing an assignment:

"I selected one of the bad batch and decided to use it as a hideous example to the other students. ...It took me the better part of an hour to tear that little 1000-word short story to shreds. To flay it, to masticate it, to denounce its author in the vilest possible terms. 'This piece of shit isn't fit to line the bottom of a bird cage. Miss Lief, you aren't a writer, you're a ghoul... This wretched abomination has as much charm and grace and symmetry as a thalidomide baby. As a writer I'm offended, as an editor I'm repelled, as a human being I'm nauseated. This is a grotesquerie unsullied by beauty in any form whatsoever. It is unstructured, illogical, moronic, ungrammatical,despicable in the extreme. Rather than simply tearing it to shreds and stomping on it--' <which he proceeded to do> '--I should stuff it up whatever available orifice in your body I might find, including the anal one from which it clearly emerged. You are a talentless creature, an affront to anyone seriously considering writing a craft, a chacma baboon in human guise. If you ever *dare* to submit something as noxious as this again, I will beat the crap out of you. Is that clear? Stop crying and answer me! Is that clear? Is that perfectly, crystal clear?'

"Evelyn went to her room and with fury and ferocity scrawled a note that said something like FUCK YOU HARLAN ELLISON. YOU DON'T KNOW SO GODDAMN MUCH! and put it over her typewriter and started writing."

He wound up buying the story she wrote that night, "Bed Sheets Are White" for the book.

Anyway, I thought the shock tactics Ellison chose were interesting, though I'd sure hate to be on the receiving end. Guess he figures any 'real' writer will respond as Lief did. Kind of a risky tactic but then again he goes on to assert that more than half of the students of this program went on to sell stories/make a living at writing. There are many programs that operate on the principle of 'break down the person' then rebuild them, something like Marine boot camp being an obvious example. Maybe there's something to it. ::shudder:: Like I said before, sure would hate to be on the receiving end.

Not trying to suggest this model of criticism for ASCEM -- far from it!!! Feedback needn't be gutless/namby-pamby OR brutal. We can have the happy medium of honest and constructive critique framed in a friendly tone.

[Jane/jat]: You know, I have always hated this story. For one thing, it cheats. He pretends to be supporting Lief, praising her for picking herself up and writing a damn terrific story, and all, but meanwhile shows us that he really must know so goddamn much, mustn't he, if he realized by sheer psychic ability exactly what Lief needed to prompt her to write that good story?

Ick, Ellison. Your smugness is really showing. And he enjoys retelling all those insults *way* too much, like he still thinks they're the cleverest.

But I also dislike it on a professional level. There's no way that can be construed as genuinely constructive criticism. The last time we talked about terrible dismissive teachers, a few people had this kind of "and the next story I wrote really knocked her socks off" response, and that's great: you're strong human beings and good writers, and I thank each of you for making that teaching disaster into a learning opportunity.

It is nevertheless *damn* unprofessional behavior, and not because it's negative criticism, but because it is personal and negative. Let me say that again. *It's bad, bad teaching even if it did manage to work once or twice*.

I'd say the one thing the writer has to learn is that the person who writes is one entity and the story is a separate one. Ellison must know that at some level though he periodically does a grand imitation of not knowing it. The story's over there; I'm over here. You can like the story, loathe the story, critique the story, ignore the story; that's not happening to *me* but to the story.

This isn't easy to learn. It certainly isn't any easier when something that is supposed to be about what's in the story turns into "you are a ghoul." Anyway, what's in that diatribe that Lief could use as she tries to write again? A few adjectives like "grace" and "symmetry" that apparently represent desirable qualities in fiction, but nothing about what in her story makes it violate those criteria and nothing about how to make those qualities happen in fiction.

I *give* negative critiques. I've seen writers use them to get better. But if I ever said anything like that to anyone, I'd be fit for nothing but unemployment.

No, God forbid we ever start honing our little insult daggers and thinking that is feedback. You're right, laur, we're better than that.

[Datalaur]: I would agree with both of you, but let's not demonize Ellison. It should be considered in the context of 30 years ago, when the book was written (it occurred 32 years back). Equating a person's personal worth with their work was considered a valid practice. Certainly Ellison's colleagues and bosses knew what he was doing, and obviously it was not stopped. I daresay it may have even been a selling point for the workshop. I have several older relatives who were Marines/Army who would consider Ellison's personal invective to be mild. I've even had an older boss or two who thought this was the way to behave, and if a someone cried (or quit), it was just proof that they weren't tough enough to 'take it' and were mocked. (I guess on the good side, that having lived through it, it doesn't bother me a bit to be yelled at.) The oddest thing is that people who've been through things like this will often defend it (Lief actually thanks Ellison in her commentary!) and seem very proud of making it through the trials. I personally believe this is why things like hazing are hard to get rid of. Thank goodness we have mostly learned that this sort of nasty personal attack rarely, if ever, produces good or lasting results.

[J S Cavalcante]: And this is exactly what I was trying to point out in my reaction to the "my stories are my kids" idea. For the record, when I encouraged writers to grow a thicker skin, I did not mean to suggest they should sit and tolerate something like what Ellison did--which was not feedback or literary criticism at all, but merely an attack. I would have got up and walked out.

As for Ellison's diatribe, I'm in complete agreement with Jane, that this was most unprofessional behavior. Disgusting, even. He was just showing off his formidable verbal abilities at the expense of someone else's feelings, and he deserves no credit for the fact that she responded by writing something really good.

[Gamin Davis]: Out of respect for any possible fans of his reading this, I will not go into any detail on my personal opinion of people who would become fans of someone *because* he's belligerent and treats his fans like dirt. Let's just say I don't get it.

It really bothers me that a professional writer can get away with that just because a lot of people know who he is. I would NEVER consider giving feedback like that. That constitutes a personal attack, if anything ever did--pure destruction. And he is PROUD of this?! I don't know who Evelyn Lief is, but if she was a beginning writer/novelist, that merely confirms my belief that Ellison has more chutzpah than should be allowable in one person. That would thoroughly intimidate me if someone I'd submitted a story to told me off like that. If he wound up buying the story, what was the point of making the author feel like trash? Because people have come to expect stuff like that from Ellison, they put up with it. Makes me wonder if any editor has *ever* told him where to get off. [...] To me, Ellison is the best example I could think of of a professional writer who doesn't behave at all in any way that I would consider "professional". Every time I read one of his diatribes against ST, I just want to write him and say "Will you for God's sake GROW UP and GET OVER IT? It was 30 years ago--you act like you never wrote anything after that! It's not like GR changing your script killed your career!"

[Datalaur]: I meant that fans like myself like Ellison because of his outstanding writing, and also because the guy is such a strong personality, a person who is just so unshakably self-confident in his writing. There's something to admire in someone who simply won't be squashed, no matter what. The fact that sometimes he *should* be squashed, of course, is the downside of such a strong ego. The other being that such a person is only tolerable in small doses. I thought I was pretty clear in saying that I personally do not agree with the personal attack method at all. Nor will you get any disagreement on the ST issue - he *should* just get over it.