The Right of Fanzine Reviewing: Part 1
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | The Right of Fanzine Reviewing: Part 1 |
| Creator: | Sharon Emily |
| Date(s): | August 1976 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Star Trek: TOS |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
The Right of Fanzine Reviewing: Part 1 is a 1976 Star Trek: TOS essay by Sharon Emily.
It was printed in Spectrum #27.
The essay is a companion piece to The Right of Fanzine Reviewing: Part 2 by M.J. Fisher.
Some Topics Discussed
- poor reviews of The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face that appeared in other zines; note the author that zine is the author of this essay
- cruel, nit-picky zine reviews harm writers, and in turn, that harms fandom
- the fear that similar reviews by fans of the long-awaited forthcoming [1] movie, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, would also harm fandom by causing TPTB to not give fans more goodies
- tender egos
From the Essay
A short time ago, reviews of the zine The Other Side of Paradise appeared in Menagerie #9 [2] and in Spectrum #25 [3] . Both reviews contained synopses of the novella "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face." Both reviews of this novella committed a veritable sin that is becoming ever-more frequent throughout fandom -- that is, the use of sarcastic, even caustic personal remarks; inept descriptions; and, chiefest sin of all, total revelation of the plot.
The two zines are named because they were the most recent to commit this "sin"; however, there have been others whose editors have allowed the same thing to happen, using sarcasm, personal remarks, and inept descriptions are techniques which create a form of criticism that is not beneficial in fandom. As a matter of fact, it heralds the development of a new strain pf reviewing.-- destructive reviewing.
It isn't just a new strain — it's developing a whole new set of problems; perhaps one could even go so far as to say that it even creates a whole new type of threat to fanzine readers and producers alike. Such reviews are an insult to the author. These reviews also reveal that the reviewer is completely unconcerned about someone else's feelings.
Reviews which rely upon sarcasm and reveal the plot of the particular work they are discussing at the moment, deprive the readers of the opportunity of having an objective view of the zine. Not only that, reviewing the ending of anything ruins the enjoyment the reader might have experienced.
The entire problem can be summed up in one word -- Negativism. The reviews that reveal plots of zines or tend to personalize their comments reflect an increasing trend in fandom toward negative thinking. It is becoming so bad that it seems that if anything good can be said about something -- it probably won't be...perhaps even the forthcoming STAR TREK movie will receive the same treatment!
There is also a tragic aspect of this situation, for this type of reviewing accomplishes little for either the reviewer or for the authors whose works have been discussed. Such reviewing can succeed in showing the reviewer's immaturity, however, and it undermines the confidence of the authors whose works have been reviewed -- which can only lead to a shattered ego and to disillusionment. Something like that certainly can't be helpful to fandom!
The erosion is already starting. Already, several individuals who have mentioned interesting story ideas stated flatly that they will never write those stories because they don't think they could endure the unpleasant reviews that they'd surely be getting. Naturally, if an individual wants to be a writer badly enough, the prospect of unflattering, even hostile reviews won't be a deterrent. When a fledgling writer is discouraged before the first attempt is made because of the reception other writers are being given, that's another matter.
Is there any good to fandom that can come out of reviews such as those that have been discussed in this article? It is clear that these reviewers offer little or no constructive criticism — that they say very little that the writer in question can use a a learning tool. Instead, they reveal an alarming tendency to ignore what is good in the story being discussed and lean toward emphasizing whatever bad points may be there. Unfair. Such reviews can only end up harming the authors whose pieces are attacked and in the end, harm fandom itself.
The reviewers must temper themselves.
That is the most logical solution to this problem. Concurrently, fandom must insist that proper treatment be made of fanzines, stories, art and other forms of communication. Limits must be drawn to keep everything within the bounds of constructive criticism, which is, after all, the most beneficial for everyone concerned.
References
- ^ Fans in 1976 often referred to Star Trek: The Motion Picture as "forthcoming," and just on the horizon, when in actuality they had to wait another three years.
- ^ The comments by Sharon Ferraro in "Menagerie" #9 regarding Sharon Emily's story: "Sharon Emily presents a "What-if?" story based on "The Day the Earth Stood Still," with her Mary Sue falling in love with the alien and dying in the end under the wheels of a bus. I could not wade through all its 71 pages, though I' did read the first half. The movie was by far superior."
- ^ The comments by H.O. Petard in "Spectrum" #25 regarding Sharon Emily's story: "The main story is one of those seemingly interminable Sharon Emily offerings that all of us know and that some of us are reasonably fond of. This one, 'The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face'... has one of her patented forlorn heroines who performs all sorts of unlikely deeds and a Sarek-like hero who, for some incomprehensible reason, fell in love with her. At least we won't have to worry about a sequel... at the end of the story, the heroine fell under a convenient bus and died."