The 1995-1996 Criticism Discussion: "As Others See Us"

Meta
Title:	The 1995 Criticism Discussion: "As Others See Us" is a fannish discussion about a story and fan comments about it
Creator:	many fans
Date(s):
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Kirk/Spock, Star Trek: TOS
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

The K/S print zine fandom has a very extensive history of fans critiquing and writing feedback for their fandom's art and fiction.

Many of these comments appear in the letterzines The LOC Connection, Come Together, and The K/S Press.

Like all feedback and concrit, there are many opinions about what constitute "good" feedback and "bad" feedback, who is audience (writers or readers), what is the purpose of feedback (to promote the fandom, to encourage more fanworks, who gets to say what and how, to make fans better fan writers, to help them become professional writers, to assist in fans making decisions about what to read and buy, and how to be a friend.

One Example of the the Minefield of Concrit and Feedback

In 1995 a BNF fan in Come Together wrote a very blunt review of As Others See Us, a story by Alice Hooker.

Many fans took issue with this review, while others supported it.

The story's summary: "Kirk is substituted with an android created by a reclusive businessman who now plans on keeping him a prisoner and having the android commits “suicide” so no one will look for the real Kirk."

Monthly Replies

Because Come Together was published every month, this means that fans had to wait that long to see their replies in print. This also gave fans a long time to ruminate on others' comments.

The Original Review: October 1995

This the review of the story that sparked the discussion:

There's an evil crewmember afoot as Spock goes into pon farr and Kirk wants to "service" him. Then Kirk is in the shower and Spock comes in and Kirk's erection keeps "wilting". It wilted a whole bunch of times until finally Kirk drops his towel and Spock goes screaming out of the room.

The evil crewmember turns out to be a Klingon and he has a big fight with Kirk. Spock saves Kirk, but Spock keeps bolting every time Kirk tries to help htm. McCoy comes in and knows about Spock's pon farr and knows what Kirk has to do. It's all fine by McCoy and he says: "Get in there after that damn fool Vulcan. And the two of you...take care" Kirk gives him a big hug.

And this happens in the first twelve or so pages of the story. Boy, does this girl have lots of plot in her imagination. Which actually is one of her many writing strengths. But there were a number of problems along the way.

Could somebody please explain the name of the planet? What is "CBIooo"? How is it pronounced? What does it mean? I kept hearing "see-boo" when I read it What kind of name is that?

And how come McCoy didn't call first before he came over?

And take out all the "!" please! On one single page, I counted eight of them! But, wait! There's more! Calling the androids 'droids " drove me crazy!

I was also driven crazy by ever-changing point of-view. The POV changed almost every time any character spoke.

Also, I was constantly robbed of the thrill of discovery. Just one example is a scene where Kirk goes into Spock's cabin while Spock is in pon farr. Spock stands there all sexy and naked and scary. I think, oh boy. what's he going to do? How is Kirk going to deal with him?

Well, I didn't have long to wonder and I didn't have to figure it out for myself, either, because the author did it all for me and told me that absolutely nothing was going to go wrong because Spock would never, ever, under any circumstances, hurt Jim. Oh.

Then, after all this, after being told everything, instead of a good, satisfying sex scene, it's "cut-to-the-crashing-waves-on-the-rocks" with; "...surrendering to the long, passionate, heated night of the blood fever." It was lousy for me, was it good for you?

I don't think I once actually heard Kirk or Spock talking. It might have been the author, herself, but it certainly wasn't any Kirk or Spock I know. What Kirk do you know who would talk like this: "...and I repeat, stop all this nonsense now and return me to my first officer!" ?

What can you do with sentences like: "Beating the Vulcan, McCoy got in first."?

The main overall problem is that the author gives the reader no chance to be excited, to feel suspense or to feel anything for the characters. She's too busy letting us know what they're really thinking and what's really happening. And she has to tell us twenty times.

If you've read this LOC this far, you're not going to believe what I have to say now. This is actually an interesting story, a genuine thriller, clever plot, good supporting characters, suspense (sometimes), good development of the villain's psychology and an excellent ending. That, my dear K/Sers, is what makes this so exasperating!

It's so frustrating to read a story that holds your interest yet is written so roughly. I want to read more Alice Hooker stories. But I also don't want to tear my hair out, I am just a reader, not a teacher, but I think this author only needs to learn some writing basics. Then all the readers will be happy and I'll get to keep my hair.

Response: November 1995

A fan didn't specifically name the story, but addressed the harsh criticism of the first review:

I sat on the first two K/S stories I ever wrote for over a year before I finally got up the courage to submit them. (Thank goodness for Robin's and Kathleen's encouragement and patience with a "new baby writer.") I look back at those stories now and find about a thousand thing I did wrong and that I now could do better. If I had received similar reviews to some of those I have been reading in CT lately, I doubt whether I ever would have submitted anything again.

Now K/S would have gotten along just fine without me, thank you very much, but I would have missed this wonderful, new creative outlet nor than I can say. It is still an incredible trill for me to see a story of mine in print, and one that I would not willingly deny to anyone. I am primarily thinking of that one person out there who has written a K/S story but is afraid to submit it because of harsh reviews, because she is convinced her effort isn't good enough to measure up to the level of criticism we've been handling out lately. I want to read that story! I want her to experience the pleasure I have received in exploring the love between these two wonderful characters.

In this day of K/S zines folding one after another , when those editors who are left go begging for stories, can we really afford to discourage anyone?

The point has been made that out in the "real world" of pro writing, criticism would be even harsher, This is true and all the more reason for us to be gentle with one another because we have the luxury of not competing in that market. We can afford to nurture one another.

Yes, we want our writing to improve, Yes, we want to read more than just "pat on the back" reviews. I would suggest that a review zero in on one or two important things a writer could do that would improve her work for next time instead of citing everything that is wrong with a story. And be libel in saying what you do find that is worthy of praise, (As a teacher I can almost guarantee that subsequent efforts will improve, and after all that's what we all want - better written stories - isn't it?)

As Shelley pointed out last month when speaking of her art going up for bid at the Shore Leave Art Auction, her art is a validation of herself, At least equally so are the stories we write. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we bare our thoughts, our feelings about life and love, with every K/S story we write, we let others have a peek into our minds and hearts, we say things in our writing that we would never be able to express in any other way.

Someone once told me the following a long time ago, and I try to remember it with ever LoC I write: "When you write a negative LoC you are saying, "Boy, is your baby ugly!"

Another fan addressed giving and receiving feedback in a intimate fandom:

... you touched on a subject I also wanted to talk about, and that is our own tolerance for each other's work, and the need we have to support one another at the same time that we are giving each other honest feedback. Shelley and Kathy talked about the same thing, but with slightly different viewpoints. Given the close nature of some of the friendships in this fandom, and given everyone's desire to have more and better K/S, it seems we have set ourselves a very difficult task. I feel as if I walk a thin line with every review I write. But I will vote for kindness to each other every time, and I have sadly read some recent reviews that I feel crossed the line into unacceptable criticism. There IS a way to critique any work without being cruel, without making the author feel stupid! All of us love K/S, and no one should be made to feel small because they don't write fantastically well.

Another fan addressed the issue, and encouraged people to make sure they separate the story from the author, and refrain from personal statements:

I've been thinking about criticism and how important stick to criticism of the work and avoid criticizing the "faults" of the author. This is a variation of the familiar principle, "If you must criticize others, focus on behavior and avoid attacking personalities"; "judge what others do, not what they are." A review is not the place to attack the skills, training and experience of the author, and I pledge to do my utmost in the reviews I write here to avoid doing that.

What's the difference between criticism of the work and criticism of the author? Take the statement "Some like- sounding words are used incorrectly in this story, e.g. 'ravage' instead of 'ravish.'" That's a comment about the work. However, the statement "the author displays a poor knowledge of basic English vocabulary" is a judgment about the author. The reviewer who writes, "the notion that the Grand Pooh-Bah could control a far-flung, technologically advanced empire with just a handful of retainers was unrealistic" is making a comment about the story; the reviewer who writes, "This story illustrates what happens when an author with no training in the social sciences attempts to describe the inner workings of a planet-wide empire" is making a judgment about the author.

I'm not suggesting rules or publication criteria for Come Together. On the contrary, I feel that the editor has wisely avoided such edicts. I'm merely urging as a rule of good sense that we try to refrain from expressing conclusions about authors based on the works we review here. Why? Here are some reasons:

First, criticizing the author is unlikely to result in change for the better. Most of us can improve grammar, style, characterization or dramatic structure in a story if the problem is pointed out to us. But we cant improve our background, training or experience; we're stuck with who we are.

Second, criticizing the author rather than the work can only cause defensiveness and resentment. It's hard enough to deal with criticism of our written product;when the criticism goes to what we are, it's nearly impossible.

Third, in most cases we just don't know enough about the author to make pronouncements about her background or knowledge. The great majority of fans are college-educated and therefore cannot be presumed to lack training in the basics of writing and grammar. For many reasons, however, what we know does not always get translated into the work we produce. How else to explain the phenomenon of CT reviewers who, in their own stories, make the same mistakes they criticize in their reviews of the stories of others?

Fourth, criticizing the author unfairly lets the editor off the hook. If the story is full of grammatical errors, sloppy syntax and poor plotting, why did the editor let it go out with her implied seal of approval? Isn't it part of the editor's job to nurture a writer so that she learns to translate her ideas, enthusiasm and love of the characters into effective writing?

Fifth, criticizing the author leads to unfairness. Most of us refrain, understandably, from publishing harsh critical judgments of our friends, although we might comment on the flaws in a story. Shouldn't we apply the same standard to LoCs of authors whom we are not close to personally?

Finally, its irrelevant, in the last analysis, to the final product who the author is and where she comes from. To quote a TQM mantra, "there are no poor performers; there are only poor performances." The shared goal of the critical project and of fan writing generally is not to improve authors; it's to improve fan fiction.

In sum, criticism that, in essence, challenges the author's qualifications to write will not make her a better writer. Such criticism, by forcing the author - on an emotional level, at least - to defend herself, merely deflects energy and attention away from the written product.

Judgments about the author may be implied as well as express. For instance, reviewers often state that the author being reviewed is "probably a very new writer." I assume this comment is meant charitably, as a way of absolving the author from blame for the errors and flaws in her story. However, the statement can be read as a put-down, or as an unnecessarily personal judgment of the author's skills and abilities. At worst, it can appear condescending, written as it usually is from the lofty height of experience publishing in fanzines - a medium not noted for selectivity or rigor of editing. Sometimes the author is not in fact a new writer. How do you suppose she feels about being called one?

Much "advice" to the author that appears in reviews is also an implied judgment, suggesting that the author lacks knowledge possessed by the reviewer. In many cases, as I argued above, that premise is simply false: The author does know, at least on a didactic level. It is more respectful, in my opinion, to assume that the author is aware of the principles of good writing and to focus on the execution and application of those principles in her story. The advice "get thee to an editor" is too general to be helpful and again, risks appearing as a put-down, especially since there is not a reviewer in these pages who couldn't benefit from that advice herself.

Please, fellow-fans, I am not trying to tell others how to write their reviews, nor am I suggesting that we soft-pedal our critical comments. I admire the tough-minded critical analysis I've read in these pages, and I'm often astonished at the depth and acuity of CT reviewers' comments.

I regard myself as a tough critic, too. I also realize how difficult it is to avoid hurt feelings even when our comments are made with the most impeccable objectivity. Some authors will react personally whenever their work is criticized; after all, it's their baby. Nevertheless, I think that if we can avoid unnecessarily personal and hurtful comments that add nothing to a review, we should try. Anyway, I intend to.

Response by the Author: Alice Hooker (November 1995)

In November 1995, the author of this story, Alice Hooker, made some very graceful comments:

Re - criticism, hey ladies! Hold in there, I'm still a relatively new writer and am still feeling my way it you will. Yet I do bow to the superior talent/knowledge of all whom have been into fandom writing for a great number of years.

I enjoyed reading your comments, Shelley, and can only hope that you have some hair left! I take on board the criticisms. It was another early story of mine that was a long while getting into print, Glad you enjoyed it despite everything though, Yes, I do have a rather vivid/overactive imagination, and I will continue to work to improve my writing skills.

I do enjoy reading and now writing, it helps to know that others take the bother to read my output, and I'm sure it's the case with all writers out there, and that our stories don't fall into a black hole.

Response: December 1995

A fan told others to stop thinking of their stories as their "babies" and to toughen up:

On the subject of criticism, I really wish we could all get past thinking of our writing as our baby. The absolute first thing that a writer must learn to do, if she wants to write better, is to be able to step back from a piece of her own writing and see it with the same detachment she views other writing. That way she can learn to analyze its weaknesses and strengths. If a writer does not learn to do this, that writer cannot get any better. She may be good or lousy, but she will never be any better than she is now.

When someone criticizes your work or even you as a writer, they are not really talking about you or your story. They are really discussing the kind of story they ideally want to read. You have to be able to step back from whatever they seemed to be saying about you, and ask yourself "What kind of story did this person want" and "Is that the kind of story I want to write."

The writer of the original critical letter addressed this controversy:

CONTINUING DISCUSSION OF LOCS - I write different types of LOCs for different levels of writers. I take into consideration if the author has been writing for a while and the level of skill. Don't think for a second that I consider myself to be some sort of ultimate judge! My goodness, I'm struggling with my own writing, too! And why is it that if I comment on a story, it means I think I can do it better? Give me a break. I have tried to explain that it's only my humble opinion and it doesn't mean I can do any of it!

By the way, I never, ever just assume that an author is new! I always find out first. I would never u> make an offhanded comment that some author is a beginner, only that she is new to K/S writing. And I make sure! Besides, I'm new to K/S writing, as well. And if acknowledging a new writer as a new writer is condescending, then I give up.

And I resent any inference that I would be one who would write glowing reviews for my friends, but not for the authors I don't know personally. I would never do that — I challenge anyone to go over all my LOCs and find any such mutual admiration society. I write reviews of stories as I see them — and the only adjustment I make is as I explained above. It's kind of ironic that it was only a little while ago that CT was being accused of being "too inbred".

And don't think either that I would rather spout my own self-centered, stupid opinions rather than encourage K/S writers! If encouraging writers means only saying how much I liked the story, then so be it. I don't need to spend hours and hours of my time reading and taking notes and formulating my reviews and typing it up and submitting as many LOCs as I can every single month, if it discourages anyone! Believe me, if someone else wants to write as many reviews as I have, then please do so.

I write LOCs for a number of reasons, one is that I have always believed authors want to get feedback on their work. When I've seen reviews and comments on my work, critical or positive, I have always appreciated it. I've learned from it. That doesn't mean that I don't feel emotionally connected to what I write! I'm very emotionally connected! My stories are as much my babies as anyone's! But if I let critical comments stop me, then I wouldn't be doing anything in life, let alone writing K/S! Hell, we're not talking the New York Times Book Review, here!

I also write LOCs because I enjoy writing them. It's as simple as that. I noticed and genuinely appreciated [B G's] comment about my LOC on one of her stories. That made me feel so good — not that she would agree with everything I said, but only that she knows it comes from my heart. I wrote that lengthy LOC because she's so talented and her writing can only get better. I didn't write it because I thought I'd tell her how to write or because I wanted to discourage her!

And let me say that I've written some unbelievable turkeys in my time! I wasn't kidding when I said I wanted all my early stories to stay hidden in Mr. Atoz's vault! I cringe at how terrible they are. But If I had let some of the comments I received stop me, instead of learning from them, I wouldn't be writing anything now.

So if I'm hurting, stopping or discouraging anyone. I'm sorry. I love K/S so much and I never want it to end. Without writers, it will.

The discussion caused one of Come Together's prolific LOCer to rethink her own letters:

I have decided to re-evaluate my policy against doing critiques in CT.... I know from personal experience that writers aren't always in a frame of mind where they can benefit from a thorough critique of the problems in their stories, I did critiques for TLC because there was a list of writers requesting them. Since CT didn't have such a list, I was at a loss to know who really wanted them. I have decided that it is reasonable to write critiques of stories by those individuals who critique other people's work extensively. So I have a little list ( and to quote W. S. Gilbert, "none of them will be missed") I'm going to try to follow suggestions, but being nurturing without seeming to be patronizing is difficult. Should I assume that the writer understands how to fix the problem, and not offer her advice that she may actually need? What if a writer makes the same mistake over and over? Shouldn't I assume that this is an aspect of writing where the author genuinely needs help in understanding the principles involved? Well, I can only to the best that I know how. Some of those on the list are prolific writer, and my time is limited, It may take a while for me to finish commenting on this mountain of work. If you want to be added to my critiquing list, don't hesitate to write me.

A fan commented on different LoCs for different folks:

You made a good suggestion, to focus in a LoC on one or two important things a writer could do that would improve her writing for next time. I'm going to try your idea. Even when a story seems to have many problems, they usually are only examples of a much smaller number of important issues. So your suggestion really makes a lot of sense as a way to organize a review.

I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though - just as you want to read the writings of that author who's wary of criticism, so there are authors out there who want to know what you honestly think of their work. If you gloss over too many of the negatives and weak points, you are not giving them what they want and what they subscribed to CT to receive.

It's true that no one says in a LoC that "so and so is a jerk." However, sometimes we say things like, "This author needs to learn to write a clear sentence," which is the same as saying "this author doesn't know how to write a clear sentence." Why can't we just say, "The sentence ... is unclear" and leave it at that? Anyway, bravo to you too for being willing to welcome criticism.

How best to explain what we like and don't like:

An interesting discussion last month about writing LOCs, the main idea being that no one should be discouraged from writing stories because of them. Certainly as bad, in my opinion, is to put your work out there and...silence.

I liked what Carol said, that rather than making our criticism harsh because it would be even harsher out in the real world (which would only matter to those wanting to write professionally and needing to develop a thick shell), this wonderful K/S fandom is a luxury — that we can nurture each other, encourage each other's best with honey, not salt, or whatever the saying is. At the same time, LOCs are an expression of what the reader liked and didn't like — it seems an LOC speaks about the person writing it as much as about the story being reviewed.

A Response: A Fan Provided Some Stats (December 1995)

From December 1995, some stats:

For those who like to play with numbers, here are a few I gathered from the last six issues of Come Together. Warning: This survey is strictly quick and dirty. There are no tests of inter-rater reliability, statistical significance, content validity or standard error. In fact, I didn't even double-check the numbers. And the figures are probably way out of line just because I don't know all the pen-names who are really the same person.

The last six issues contained LoCs by 17 different reviewers on works by 62 different authors and artists. (I excluded whole zine LoCs from the survey). However, 85% of the LoCs were written by seven reviewers, all of whom are also prolific K/S writers and artists. In fact, those seven fans created over 30% of the works reviewed during this time period.

I rated the LoCs on a five-point scale from very positive to very negative. Another warning: These were my own judgments. I should have used a panel of neutral outsiders. However, I did develop a set of operational criteria for each point on the scale. I found that most LoCs were positive: 49% very positive, 27% positive, 16% neutral, 7% negative and only 1% very negative.

However, when I looked at the LoCs written by the seven "prolific reviewers" (PRs for short) - those who collectively account for 85% of the LoCs - on one another's work, I found that those LoCs were significantly more positive than the average. For example, 70% of the LoCs written by one of the PR's on a work created by another PR were rated "very positive," compared to only 38.5% of the LoCs written by one of the PRs on a work by a non-PR author or artist. With only two exceptions, all the LoCs rated "negative" or "very negative" were written by one of the PRs on a non-PR author's work.

What's the reason for the difference? A plausible hypothesis is that the PRs simply produce better work than the non-PRs. Or, the difference could have something to do with the role that our most prolific writers, artists and reviewers have played in shaping our common aesthetic.

[...]

Anyway, I offer these numbers for whatever heuristic value they may have.

Some Responses to the LOC Survey

Judith - I found your survey interesting, but there were several things not taken into account. My free time is limited, and I find LOCs harder to write than stories, so perhaps I don't write as many of them as I should. (I don't like filling out report cards either.) And I for one don't review stories I dislike. One reason I don't is because as Shelley and Billie have said, it's all a matter of personal preference anyway. The story I don't care for is sure to be someone else's favorite. For another, like Joyce Bowen, I don't think I could do it with any finesse or give any useful advice. I also don't think I've received less "gentle" criticism from those who know me personally.

Concerning Judith's impromptu survey of the LOC's written recently.... I generally will not write a review of a story that I don't like. If there isn't something to compliment about a story, why embarrass the author with a tirade and only negative reactions? Writing reviews isn't always easy, especially if I'm trying to make a real contribution to the author by my analysis of her story. I have to reread the story, make notes, put together the analysis, rewrite it.... I won't waste my time or effort on a story that hasn't captured my imagination. It simply isn't human nature to do so. My gut feeling is that most reviewers work in a similar way, and that could be the primary reason why there are so many mostly positive reviews published in Come Together.

Continuing discussion of LOC's - I thought Judith's statistics were very interesting. It seems we have a very large silent majority. Are you being silent because "prolific reviewers" always get to the zines first, and there's nothing left for you to say? Or are you afraid to make waves by disagreeing with these women who have read so much? I personally think C I would be a lot more interesting if we had more people with different ideas reviewing.

If anyone's interested in my ideas on community aesthetics, drop me a line. I know a lot of CT people don't like K/S analyzed to death, so I won't bore you with it here.

A Response to the Survey by the Original Author

I agree that most of us feel little motivation to LOC story we didn't like. I tend to LoC those stories that engage and challenge me, in other words stories with substance, originality, or promise. Usually, I write a LoC to try to understand why such a story works so well, or how it could have worked better. What I found interesting about the "survey" was not the overall positive quality of the LoCs but the distribution of positive and negative LoCs.

[...]

Everyone: I hope you will convince Billie to share her views on community aesthetics in Come Together. She has thought a lot about these issues and has a lot to say. I think CT readers would enjoy reading her views, and that a lively discussion would result.

Response: January 1996

This fan addresses, among other things, nitpicky reviews:

When I got started on my notes about the stories I set aside for critiques, I noticed that most of my criticisms were about matters so minor that I thought sending tern in to CT would be petty. [C S's] guideline about focusing on the two most central problems was of great assistance in helping me to decide what to discard. I think that writers would benefit most from critiques dealing with problems involving the story's concept, the plot or the characterization. Nitpicks about background details that aren't important to the concept or the plot probably aren't terribly beneficial. I also think that stylistic infelicities, grammatical errors or misspellings are the responsibility of the editor, I would never mention those in a critique directed at the author, So as of now I'm completely caught up on critiques of stories by PRS (to use Judith Gran's abbreviation [for "prolific reviewers"]) that I have read and which I thought needed comments.

Fans write for different reasons:

We should also be very careful about insisting on strict adherence to grammatical English. Every rule is broken sometime. If broken with elan, it's called style, just ask e.e. Cummings or even James Kirk. This does not mean that we cannot criticize unclarity or point out the author did not make her point or made it in a manner that distracted us from full understanding. Frankly, when a reviewer starts dissecting sentences, I skip to the next review-particularly if the story is one I've read and enjoyed.

It also would not hurt to remember that some who write K/S don't want to be professional writers. This is a hobby or simply a way of expressing our feelings about the Star Trek universe or even a way to get free zines. One always wants to write well in that people enjoy what is written, but not all want to loose their amateur status.

The writer of the original review said:

I love sharing all our experiences writing K/S. Writing K/S seems to be such an unique thing. It seems unlike any other form or genre of writing. It is so much just for us. It speaks only to us and moves us in ways that seem untranslatable or indescribable.

[...]

But I confess—there are plenty of times I read stories that have lots of writing flaws in them and I still enjoy the heck out of them. There. I guess that's the nature of K/S for me. Most of the time, it's the emotional impact that makes the difference. Of course, good solid writing makes a huge difference, but for the most part, its just K/S itself that has the biggest effect on me.

What do fans want?:

We've been talking a lot about what writers get out of the reviews, but there are other reasons to read and write reviews. I personally read reviews so I know which zines to buy or avoid. I don't have the bucks to buy everything that comes out, and I find it hard to choose things I like even with the reviews.

Another aspect of reviews (and one of the reasons I suspect the PR's are so prolific) is that writers can learn a lot about what to do with their own writing by looking closely at what other writers have done. Writing a review is a really good way to make yourself sit down and look at why something works or doesn't.

This letterzine as a safe space:

I like that this discussion about LOC's is going on. It's a rich dynamic, all of this that we do. K/S has so many different aspects or levels, and we each have our own approach from somewhere along the intellectual-emotional continuum, our responses to LOC's being as varied as our responses to the stories. My own preference, besides futuristic stretching of our minds, is more for emotional response, for myself and hopefully that I can stir it in others. I don't care if stories can be scientifically proven to be realistic or if they conform to ideas of what literature is. But I do need not to be distracted by poor grammar, etc.

We need to feel this is a "safe" place to put ourselves out there. We have a wonderful freedom here. Others may not share our personal vision, but we have to be free to express it, knowing its validity will not be denied. I never like to think of anyone's feelings getting hurt, but each of us is different as to how much we can take without feeling hurt, and if we don't know that about someone else, we just have to come from where we're coming from. Again, LOC's often say as much about the reader as about the story.

So, we can feel "safe" here, yet be prepared that someone else's juices might get all stirred up in some manner because of what we've put out there. The feedback we want to get might sometimes be more like backlash. We are exploring,so we might stray into unsafe waters, but that's what it's about, yes?

Response: February 1996

From the fan who wrote the original review, a pep talk:

For any of you out there who don't think you have anything useful or important to say in LOCs—that ain't true! Every bit of feedback is useful and important to all of us. Even just a "I liked this story" lets the author know someone enjoyed it and lets others know to buy that zine. Even a "I didn't like this story" serves the same purpose. After all, there's lots of reasons why someone doesn't like a story. It doesn't have to be insulting or discouraging to say, for example, that you didn't like the way Kirk and Spock were portrayed or you aren't a big fan of master/slave. I agree with the axiom "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." But how about something helpful, something insightful or something interesting like your own opinion?

Besides, I'm finding out more and more how much I enjoy even the most flawed of stories. Obviously, the reading experience would be best if the story were written well, then we'd get the maximum reading enjoyment, n'est pas? But, there's always something in a story — a look, a moment, a line — that makes it worthwhile. I would be so upset if someone didn't write a K/S story because they thought they couldn't write it well enough. There is no "well enough" in my opinion.

We need more K/S writers now. People are podding and publishers are stopping. This is ironic in light of the increase in interest. There are lots of K/Sers out there — all across the country (and the world!) that we don't know about or who don't know about us! And something interesting that I have been discovering through correspondence. Often, I have thought I was the only one who felt a certain way. But I wasn't. This is another reason why your LOCs or just comments are important.

A fan discusses amateurs and pros:

I wonder if the discussion of amateur v. professional reviews isn't mixing Kaferian apples and oranges. I'm not always clear whether the issue is the standards applied or the manner in which the critique is written. I read and subscribe to several professional review publications and am an especially avid reader of The Women's Review of Books, and I find nothing "professional" in criticism that is harsh or cruel. Making fun of an author or holding her words up to ridicule is the very antithesis of "professionalism." On the other hand, "amateur" is not synonymous with "held to a lower standard," either. Surely it's possible to apply high standards to fan fiction in a way that doesn't wound the author-or is it? Are people saying that criticizing a story's grammar or literary structure is hurtful, or just that it may apply an irrelevant standard?

Response: March 1996

More on amateurs and pros:

I did not mean to imply that I relate "professional" reviews with harsh and cruel. You are correct about amateur being as high a standard as professional. I meant that K/S seems to be a literary form unto itself, in that we read and write K/S in accordance with our own needs. So when we review a K/S story, we review it according to our own standards—such as emotional impact, characterizations of Kirk and Spock, even such

important items a s did they hop into bed too quickly, etc. But we still can apply "high standards" to our writing, don't you think? And hopefully, by critiquing the grammar and structure and content, we can get better stories instead of hurt feelings.

Only comment on what you like, or what moves you:

how to critique a story - re: if you don't like it, only point up a couple of major flaws. Don't trash the entire story, I agree, but unfortunately I don't posses the expertise to write a negative review using constructive criticism, Somehow, I don't think saying, "Hated it, Thought it sucked," is going to do anyone any good. Why does Command Decision come immediately to mind? Anyway, I have solved this problem by only LOCing stories I really enjoyed.

Response: April 1996

Fans in Come Together (and certainly other places as well) continued to discuss writing, motivation, quality, promotion of their fandom, and their community.

In April 1996, the original writer of the first blunt review gave fellow fans a pep talk:

So besides for yourself, do it for us! We need more K/S writers. We need more zines. So if you've even had just an idea for a story, try writing down just the idea. Don't worry about how it's written, just get it out on paper. The hardest part is getting the words out Once you've got those pesky words out, then you can fix them. That was advice I got from a K/S writer (a good one) a long time ago.

Also, this is important for everyone to know — a big part of the joy of K/S is the discussions we have about stories. LOCs are like discussing stories with other K/Sers. It is so fun and we all get the pleasure of learning more about writing. So maybe we should look at LOCs in that light In addition to discussing stories, commenting on LOCs is educational, as well. Finding out what opinions others have of stories and discovering certain aspects that they saw that you might have missed is great fun!

Besides, I'll never forget the excitement and thrill that I felt when I saw my first story in print I might as well have won the Pulitzer prize! The story happened to be pretty bad, but who cared? I was a published author!

So try it.

Response: June 1996

A fan bemoaned a decline in the volume of K/S fiction and art. She explained what she thought were some of the reasons why, and cited the discussion about Hooker's story:

I'm also very concerned about our beloved fandom. Less and less new zines and less and less LOC's in CT. Less and less people write stories or produce art and the few who do can't fill all the zines all the time.

Perhaps editors should accept less perfect work - not all artists are Shelley Butlers and not all authors are Jenna Sinclairs! There are not so many people out there, who are able (!!!) to do so wonderful, perfect art/stories!

I think, people (I mean us simple fans) who see this, will say "Boy. I can do this, too!" and they will do it! People who read perfect stories and look at professional art will say "I can't do it. I'm not good enough. I'm a simple fan." And they will not submit anything.

Very disadvantageous were also the many bad LOC's (I think e.g. of Alice Hooker). A lot of people have fear to submit anything, because of the reaction in LOC's.

Remember, K/S is hobby, fandom, fun. Why has the grammar or the writing style to be perfect? Why can't a Spock have too big feet or a Kirk the wrong looks? I myself loved it to draw and to write now and then a poem. But it happened two times, that I got things from (two different) editors back, because it wasn't what they wanted. O.K. I know, I'm not good, but it takes many hours to draw a picture and it is done with love. And I don't s e e why editors publish zines without or with less artwork, when they can have some. Hell, it's fandom, it's fun! And who cares if Alice Hooker doesn't know the right grammar as long as she tells us her terrific plots!

Even in CT is this professionalism now. "How to write a perfect LOC." If this continues, "normal" people won't write LOC's anymore! What about some simple rules: criticize the plot and "unclear sentences", not the author and her abilities. Don't hurt, embarrass or offend someone. And above all remember this is fandom, hobby, fun!

The few perfect writers and artists are not able to support all the many zines all the time! K/S fandom needs more writers/artists. So if the editors don't encourage the simple fan and reader to do something, K/S will die in the future!

Response: August 1996

I despise nasty criticism. I have read some reviews that would have reduced me to tears if they had been about me. (Mercifully, I've only gotten constructive criticism, even though some of the stuff I've done has been poor - now that I look back on it.) Some fans are terrible toward their fellow fen.

I understand it's far more vicious on the net.

We do need criticism. That is the only way we improve. BUT all criticism needs to be done graciously. I'd say that if you REALLY dislike something, then you shouldn't criticize it because you're going to have trouble doing it kindly. Or if you do criticize it, make it brief. (If you dislike the author personally, then you shouldn't write a criticism at all.) People can learn more from two paragraphs listing problems than from three pages because too much criticism simply overwhelms people - even constructive criticism.