The Art of Fanfic Critique: who and what it is for
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | The Art of Fanfic Critique: who and what it is for |
| Creator: | Flamingo |
| Date(s): | August 15, 2001 |
| Medium: | online |
| Fandom: | |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
The Art of Fanfic Critique: who and what it is for is a 2001 essay by Flamingo.
It was posted to VenicePlace, a closed Starsky & Hutch mailing list, and is posted on Fanlore with Flamingo's permission.
For additional context, see Timeline of Concrit & Feedback Meta.
Related Essays by Flamingo
- Convoluted Writing Thoughts (2000)
- The Art of Fanfic Critique: who and what it is for (2001)
- Mailing List Culture and Critical Discussion of Fanworks (2003)
Some Topics Discussed
- the culture of nice, and females
- honest discussion
- feedback
- the role of critique
- writers are fans, too
- discussing fiction takes as much creativity as writing it
The Essay
This may sound odd coming from the bird who dubbed this building "The Nicest 'Hood on the Net" but I found a lot of this article disturbing. The article's continual admonishments to critiquers -- who, I'd like to point out are also WRITERS, often people who feel as compelled to write critiques or discussions about literature as anyone who feels compelled to write stories -- to do this so as not to cause "damage," so as not to "harm," so as to only "do good," is not only considerably longer than the part that addresses writers (gently encouraging them to state "their" limits, and to handle criticism gracefully), it is also far more restrictive. I say this as a person who has been writing both fiction and non-fiction since the age of seven, and getting criticized since that time as well, and I say it as a person who loves nothing better than a rousing discussion of fiction -- ANY fiction, pro, fan, whatever. Just because I feel like discussing a piece of fiction doesn't obligate me to do anything but that -- discuss the fiction. I didn't apply for a job to become the writer's editor, I didn't decide to hold a writer's workshop to help the writer improve her skills, I didn't accept the responsibility of making sure this person would get anything enlightening out of my discussions. My only interest is in the *discussion* of fiction, something that has gone on since before the written word. Believe me, when the earliest fans sat around the campfire to discuss what tales the storytellers had said the night before, there was someone in there saying, "I've never really liked her use of flashbacks in that story. She really needs to firm that up."
And, in the *earliest* days of fandoms, in science fiction, some of the earliest zines were devoted totally to fiction criticism. Those fans discussed both pro and fan fiction, and they did so for the sheer joy of it. And when media fandom bloomed around Star Trek and soon after Starsky & Hutch, there were entire *zines* devoted to fandom criticism. Zines in which that was all there was, story criticism. Writers knew if their stuff was published, it was fair game. I wasn't around then, but my friends were and they've shown me some of those zines. I've read thoughtful, meaningful, and sometimes contrary criticism that was at times funny, irreverent, and as well done as anything published by professionals. Were writers tougher then? Less sensitive? Of course not. Nor did they view the discussion zines as workshops designed to "help" them. Instead, they knew what now, with this new internet culture, seems to be forgotten -- if you give me something to read, it's gonna make me think, and once I start thinking, God help you, cause the next thing that happens is I'm gonna talk about what I think. Fans then knew that the people discussing their fiction had just as much right to do that as the fiction writer had to create her story. That's one of the things fandom was all about -- THE FREEDOM TO USE WORDS TO CREATE WHAT WE WANTED, NOT WHAT WE WERE STUCK WITH. Who came up with the notion that my right to that freedom in the discussion of fiction is LESS THAN my right to that freedom when I create a story? And who decided that the medium of the internet -- which was specifically created for the easy EXCHANGE OF IDEAS -- should be the most restrictive of all in the very discussion of ideas, which is what criticism is? And how come no one told me that when I joined fandom I was willingly putting restrictions on my right to free speech? This does not fly.
Discussing fiction takes as much creativity as writing it. Discussing fiction does not mean you *hate* it, though it can. But there is a concept, clearly implied in this article, that fiction discussion implies negativity and is "mean." (If I hear that word one more time I think I'll scream.) Why does the person wishing to discuss a story have to be totally obsessed with the writer's reaction and feelings when, quite clearly, the writer does not show that same obsession when putting forth their stories? If they did, then I would never again have to deal with Starsky bottoming first, or his constant crying, or all the other things that happen in fanfic over and over that make me rant around my house like a lunatic and make Anne wish I would develop a passion for collecting stamps. The writer had every opportunity to say whatever she wanted when she put that story in a public forum. Once it's out there, then it's *my* turn to do the same and have the same consideration and freedom.
I hear of people in fandom tell me that it is "impolite" to discuss stories when the author isn't present, because then she won't benefit from the discussion or be able to ask that the discussion not happen.
This concept makes me crazy and has now seeped into other areas of fan creativity. In the early days of vidding, vidders *wanted* their vids shared among the fen. They wanted their vids seen. The most reliable way to get vids was from other fans, not from the vidders, who would have rather spent their time making new vids than cranking out copies of the old ones. Now, there are a few vidders who not only don't want their vids shown in any venue in which they are not present -- again, it's that whole thing about the criticism being for the benefit of the creator -- they don't want them distributed unless they are doing it. As a result, there are fewer and fewer con tapes and people aren't *seeing* vids because of the vidders need to control feedback and reaction for their own benefit. Doesn't this make these vidders the same as the Hollywood moguls they complain about who control their own creations (the things which fuel our fandoms and which we use to create our own fictions and our vids) with an iron fist. Same with the writers that I've heard about in other fandoms who say, "here is my story, but you CANNOT talk about it." Excuse me?
I crave these discussions (even if I rarely have the time I need to participate in them). But people are so afraid of the whole "feelings" issues, that they get totally bollixed up behind how hard it is to say what they want when it might hurt someone's feelings. We are constantly telling people if they don't like something on email to use their delete key. Don't writers have these, too? If writers are too sensitive to read criticism and discussion on their fic, then
- don't*. If you need to, get a friend to vet it for you, like those
stories that have no warnings. You have every right not to read it, but don't tell me that I shouldn't *write* it. (But my advice for those writers who would demand control over criticism would be to toughen up, sisters. It's all just words on paper. You are not your story. And if any discussion of anything you've written is all that it takes to crush your spirits and discourage you from doing this, then how the hell do you handle your job, your kids, your relationships at home, the difficult people you handle every day of your life, and this bitch of a world we live in? Because all of THAT is a hell of a lot harder to deal with than someone's cranking at you about your use of pov -- something you can FIX.)
I also think there is a major control issue going on here. In the world at large, and in the pre-internet fandom days, writers knew that once they put their writing in a published venue, whether it was a zine, a letter zine, or even a private mailing circuit, that people were going to discuss it. They knew what people today have largely forgotten: there are two parts to any form of communication -- the message you intended to create when you sent the communication (the part you have control over) and the message that is received by the recipient (the part you have NO CONTROL over). The message that is received may have little to do with the message you intended to send. You can't help that. You can improve your control over this message by becoming a better writer, but you can't do anything about the personal likes and dislikes of the reader, or the culture she is from, and all of this shapes the way she receives the message. Which is often why we like to talk about how we all perceive these messages -- the stories -- in all the different ways we do. However, lately, the idea has been fostered that while the writer might not be able to control how people perceive her message, she can at least control what they say about it. That is nonsense. But the promulgation of this idea tears up fandoms, divides lists, and makes people drop out of their fandoms all together. It's a control issue. If you say things I don't want to hear, I'll punish you by not writing stories anymore. The threat is clear. Story junkies, and aren't we all to some degree, panic. Don't discourage her writing! And this promotes an atmosphere where writers are encouraged to believe that their needs supersedes anyone else's. (The best piece of personal advice I've ever received from Harlan Ellison was right after I received a devastating review of my work in a writer's workshop where a pro writer said, in front of 30 people, that my submission was "repulsive" and the room agreed with him. Yeah, I was shook. Harlan said only one thing to me: "If that's all it takes to discourage you from writing, then you should be." I got published the next year.)
Of course, there is also the "fun" argument. "I'm not getting paid for this. It's not professional publishing. I shouldn't have to have my heart torn out when I'm only doing this for fun." Well, I'm not getting paid for the hours it takes me to read your story enough times to be able to write meaningful critiques, either, and I'm doing that for fun, so I think there's a leveling field here. And again, the writer has the same ability to delete unwanted emails as everyone else on the list does. (Don't think this doesn't happen among pro writers. A good friend of mine just published a book that sold for major bucks. We're talking 6 figures here. The review in the Publisher's Weekly was so devastating that no one around her will let her read it. I don't think they were doing her any favors, and I told her that. It's an opinion. Just because it was written down doesn't make it gospel. It's still just words on paper.)
It's not the reader's *job* to help me [with my fic writing]. (That job belongs to my editors.) The story is in a public venue. I have no control over what anyone thinks about it or says about it. Nor should I. During the writing of Total Eclipse I knew there was a lot of private discussion over the progression of the story. While not privy to the discussions themselves, I knew there were parts people objected to and wanted to see go different ways than I wrote them. Would I have liked to have been part of those discussions? Why, sure! I'm a writer which means my ego craves to know every little thing ever said about something I wrote. But realistically I knew I had no right to interfere in those discussions. I wouldn't have minded hearing them, but the discussions had value in and of themselves and it was not my place to interfere with them or even "explain" my motivation in what I wrote. My job was to do that in the *story*. Writers can't go around later and say, "but this is what I really meant." What you really meant had to be in the story in the first place, and if it wasn't you lost your opportunity to share it with the reader.
Part of the pleasure of reading is reviewing the experience of that story with others. Reading isn't something that's done in a vacuum, and stories are often enhanced by discussing them. I've read stories that I've really disliked and after having discussed them with others, with all my dislikes plainly out there, came to view them in another light because of the viewpoints of someone else who made me see things in the story I never would have otherwise. Story discussions have just as much a chance to be positive as negative. And whatever they are, they have value to the people writing them. If they end up having value to the writer, all well and good, but that shouldn't be the sole purpose of the discussion.
Someone I've discussed this with before felt that the problem with these discussions on lists is that fandom is mostly made up of women and the whole culture behind women accommodating others is too ingrained for us to be able to discuss these topics without yielding to the need to be "nice" and "not hurt feelings." Well, I'm not buying into that since the early media fandom culture was almost entirely women and those are the people who created review zines, and put real effort into meaningful discussions of fan fiction. Were they just tougher broads? Are we all weenies now?
On another list I'm on, the list mom complains that the internet has foisted a demand for "nicey-nice" behavior that precludes meaningful criticism on any level. If I say, "Starsky's behavior wasn't well motivated in this part of the story," and don't add a ton of ameliorating language and emoticons and all that other crap, then I am essentially attacking the writer. About every six months or so I have to post a note on VP that reminds people it is a DISCUSSION list and that discussion by its very nature means DISAGREEMENT. If everyone agrees on everything you have NO discussion, just a bunch of "me, too" posts. The very fear of disagreeing is the atmosphere that creates the over 90% lurk rate on most discussion lists.
This attitude has begun to permeate life off-lists, too, where people feel that if someone disagrees with them they are attacking them personally. It demonizes discussion and meaningful debates, and in the long run, gives the message that it is dangerous and anti-social to think critically. Which may explain a lot about our politics these days.