[a use for mental shorthand?]

[reenka]

I wonder... I wonder if other people have my problem, writing on lj or elsewhere: saying things that require lots of personal context to really get. Like, last post I said, "Newsflash: love is cruel. That's why it's good." And yeah, I knew that would probably be taken the wrong way, but I still meant it in so far as how I intended it to be understood, in the exact context of mock-summarizing and even making light of my rather complex feelings on the subject, both at once. Perhaps the largest reason why I wrote that was just 'cause it -sounded- good (and made me feel good to say), not 'cause I seriously meant it to be taken 'as is'.

Generally, I guess too often, I notice myself overexplaining and going on & on to muddle my point beneath an avalanche of words-- and the alternative seems to be to say things with both a sense of understatement and a misleading sort of flippant determinism. And I wonder if someone else uses this kind of mental shorthand, and if it's utterly useless in public writing or not-- because even my friends get confused with my mental 'abbreviations' most of the time, largely because to understand them, you'd need to ask yourself why would I say it rather than just what did I say, and even they just aren't used to having to do that.

According to Wikipedia, "Typical shorthand systems provide symbols or abbreviations for words and common phrases, which allow someone well trained in the system to write as quickly as people speak." So the problem is probably that -I- use it to 'provide symbols or abbreviations for common ideas' instead of phrases. Meaning, you would have to be highly versed in my set of beliefs and ideas to understand, but at the same time, this is my lj; so couldn't I expect some degree of that familiarity, especially since this is -such- a common subject for me?

Basically, I wonder what would make an optimal situation on lj (a place where one writer has accumulated a body of work where their ideas and opinions have become 'standard' to some degree) where to utilize it. And also I wonder why it seems most people don't need that sort of shorthand-- like-- what's the secret to expressing complex ideas quickly yet clearly, getting them off your chest while under some emotional duress, all without going into the many possible explanations of one's usage? Or is it just dependent on having your ideas be standard in regards to your audience, which is how a lot of fannish concepts work (like the perennial fic feedback debate, etc)?

Like, is that why fandom meta thrives whereas 'loose story meta' doesn't so much outside of ossified academic circles; because you need some pre-determined set of public definitions to start using any mental shorthand, no matter how familiar your audience is with your own ideas? (And that very sentence, too; talk about using too many words to say too little. -.-)
    Generally, I'm starting to feel the true blessing discussing minor points and pitching minor fits in fandom meta gives you, constant wank included; to pitch the same scale fit in a personal (yet still theoretical) arena, you'd need to (quite literally) write a book, and I guess writing that book over the span of something like 4 years in an ephemeral place like livejournal isn't near enough to compete in terms of clarity.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

I have the problem indirectly - nobody seems to get most anything of what I say, or misunderstand it. Then again, all wanks and even meta discussions thrive on people using the same words for different things, and the reaction of others and between others is influenced by how well they know the personal context *shrugs*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah... I guess I just keep wondering how to optimize the shorthand, or if it's hopeless in my case-- or if I should just not try it when I'm upset (like with the last post) 'cause that robs me of my last shred of coherency even with my friends; 'cause in this case, it was people who knew me fairly well who responded, but the confusion was still there. And it's my fault, too, since I was pretty much deliberately obtuse and flippant. But even so, people usually say things off-the-cuff and get away with it-- but maybe it's just to do with subject, since most people don't talk about the stuff I usually talk about, or something?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

All of those things might be true, but I keep going back to how all communication, esp. on LJ, depends on good-will (as discussed previously). And lazyness is the biggest issue - most people simply do NOT read properly, and even those commenting hardly do. My recent (4 months or so) posts showed that like no study could. Give them nothing and they'll impose their own pov, and happily so. Spend weeks, nay months, on making a long post as clear and understandable as possible, and I either get not a single reply, or some completely misunderstanding them.
Since there are people who DO get it, exactly, precisely though, that just proves how the others are too lazy or (and I only say that in your journal, coz I know they don't read here *g*) fucking stupid.
Now, old friends who should know better sometimes have the opposite problem - they know more about you than online friends and infer things you didn't mean in a particular post! Happens again and again.
So. No. There is no shorthand, and if it seems that there are people who have one I found it's usually only that their fanbase happily agrees with everything or they simply say what the community all thinks anyway.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahahah, well, you are good at reinforcing my overall discouragement, so there's that :> I guess I just don't reply if I feel all -that- lazy, but at the same time as of course I've -noticed- everything you'd mentioned, I keep thinking (idealist that I am) that there must be some -talent- that one can have, because some people are more misunderstood than others (like, I'd say sistermagpie or maybe black_dog, but then I'd have to admit this is my pov and also I'm probably one of those people who understands them best 'cause we usually agree, so :>

Give them nothing and they'll impose their own pov
...this is probably the ultimate clincher, the biggest problem. Even -friends- would probably do that 'cause it's human nature in the end. But at the same time, it's just my nature to think either over-elaborately or in flippant-seeming shorthand. I feel really... like a fish out of water sometimes, but I suspect this is, as ever, my problem ^^;;;

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Oh dear *g* I'm not doing it on purpuse.


Hm. As always the problem of all over-thinkers? I still maintain it's half the fault of lazy or non-friendly readers, but I agree it's only the problem of writers wanting to be understood. It would be lovely to have a clear, simple, uncluttered mind :)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hee! That is a really cute icon :D :D :D
...Wait, wait. So this is because I'm overthinking things? And then, what, underthinking-- or underexplaining-- or... uh... does flippancy come as the other side of the coing of overthinking? OR AM I OVERTHINKING RIGHT NOW?! heh

...an 'uncluttered mind', you say. Though at least with sistermagpie, I don't think she does-- at least, from what I know, our methods are similar enough, though perhaps she -is- more structured even if just as cluttered. I mean, there are probably degrees of messiness, and the lazier the reader, the more they'd be put off by a certain threshold of messiness, and perhaps that's my problem! My mind/writing is so messy that even the people that know me can't always be bothered and order it about somehow before they even begin replying--??

My mind is an apartment and most visitors... uh... feel the urge to clean up???! o__0

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

Yes, I used to use it as "cracking up" but it also works as a wr, internal, aw-shucks icon :)

*lol* I meant that we (at least I know I) overthink things that sim- ... clearer minds simply decide on and then state unequivocally, making it easier for readers to follow and say yes or no to.
Although I realised I had not acknowledged that I agree we both might sometimes just let go, in your case what you call flippant and in my LJ what I consider "letting something poetic/cool sounding stand as is rather than explaining".

Well *hesitates* *is lost* okay, for example I think if one starts reading your post, even though it might look messy and run on, it is internally not hard to follow, it's as you say only the threshold. While perhaps my most immediate outputs have too many jumps between thoughts - real shortcuts *lol* - that it's not as easy to follow, ESPECIALLY when nobody else writes or thinks or at least is used to reading like that.
Where was I?
But I find it hard to believe that people who always write posts that are like mini-essays, structured and tailored to their POINT, have cluttered, messy minds.

*ggg* I wish my visitors would! Look, there's the mop, there's the bucket ...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh, oh! I do see a difference between my 'initial threshold' and your 'internal jumps'-- I think I do those too, but clean those up more because I'm compulsive in that sense (ie, even if I start out with a disconnected skeleton, I only 'let it go' if I'm tired or bored by the subject, otherwise I let the junctures create points for tangents and 'thickening', like growing muscle over bone, whereas growing more 'understandable' bone is painful to me). Ummmmmm... hopefully that makes sense :> And! It also explains why sistermagpie told me she doesn't think I'm really 'incoherent', even though I'm constantly afraid I am; what she meant was that I'm not internally incoherent, but perhaps most people just don't care if I'm not externally... um... skeletonized enough?? Heh.

Also, with her, like... she's a good example 'cause her essays tend to be clear (ie, get a lot of divergent responses from people) but she still doesn't get straight to 'the point' and explores within her overall subject. Hmmm... I really do admire clarity of execution yet not simplicity of subject, but I think it's possible to separate them; like, it is possible to explain difficult things simply, and I've always wanted to, because I do have complex ideas and a desire to communicate them. At the same time, I'm not sure what the 'secret' is, or even if there is one besides thinking of your audience or just using detail in a specific way. Like, sistermagpie tends to operate by giving lots of examples (which I stint on), focusing on specifics to illustrate general points, not really saying unsupported things or supporting them by her opinion/feeling alone (which I believe I do too much of, because I can't be bothered to prove anything most of the time and just wanna get it off my chest).

I totally love it when people clean up for me as well, btw :D :D :D My most favorite editors are like that :D :D One of my favorite pastimes is having people explain me to me, so I can just... relax. Ahhhhhhhh >:D

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

*nods* you are internally coherent.
I also clean up, edit my posts 3-15 times and so on, both looking for internal and skeletonised improvements, but that leads to my first comment: some people never read properly, and you can't always be clear for all people :)

It's definitely possible to explain difficult things simply, see Hawking's book or in general how astrophysics is clear to anyone watching SciFi. Then again I tend to explain it too simply, tend to condense my points (on whatever) too briefly, which a) then leads to having to explain and it all ending just as huge and detailed and meandering and b) definitely is the fault of me going for the "poetry" at times, same as your "flippancy" perhaps.
I also can't decide on examples; perhaps I distrust them. They just give more room for misinterpretation, depending on your readers feelings about them, and they can never span the whole range *libra*

Ahahahaha, yes, that ... I dunno. Lately some people who don't get me at all tried to tell me that I'm an insecure, coy teenager, while others claimed I want to deny women their sexual expressions, so ...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah... hard to always get the right example that explains enough-- much easier (quicker? more trustworthy?) to just... explain yourself and not trust people to... uh... come to the same conclusion as you (where they often won't anyway). I know what you mean about explaining in the end, though I end up doing that in the comments a lot instead, ahaha, 'cause when people ask questions I figure out what's missing better.

I definitely think your 'poetic' & my 'flippant' are the same, and perhaps two aspects of the same... um... urge? I mean, I'm not 'serious' in a way, but at the same time -more- serious (condensed? and self-deprecating at the same time). In a way, poetry itself appeals to me because it lets you get away with saying things that you feel/believe without the onerous task of justifying them in a serious manner-- just sort of throwing them up in the air like balls, pretty much. Sometimes it's just a lot of trouble, and even overexplained, it seems... not enough? Ideas can be so slippery, especially overly familiar ones, y'know? If I've tried explaining the same thing many times, there will still be people who don't get it (forget 'disagree', that's not even important if they get it to me); maybe because a lot of my points are -dependent- on my internal world & context-- like, the very solipsism of my beliefs. It's a possibility. And poetry sort of makes that solipsism -look- good even if it's crap. Or something :>

Maaaaan, I was of course implicitly meaning 'only people who've got a clue', where obviously other types are just gonna sound like they're on crack :> I think most people don't even get me enough to form an opinion (besides 'shy' and maybe 'antisocial') in most cases, but the fact that I get called 'arrogant'... I meeean :> HAHAHA INSECURE & COY :)) That's pretty funny. Wow. Well, one of my oldest friends recently called me 'evil', so... anything's possible, I guess :>

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

I'm not 'serious' in a way, but at the same time -more- serious (condensed? and self-deprecating at the same time).
YES!
and even overexplained, it seems... not enough? Ideas can be so slippery, especially overly familiar ones,
Yes, yes, yes to your whole second paragraph! :)


Note how saying YES and not side-lining or bringing in new examples ends a conversation, yet seems much clearer and as if everything were cut'n'dry than the alternative? *ggg*

*Sees name all over thread* *cautiously ignores*

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

First--what's loose story meta? (I am just ignorant here and have never heard that term.)

When I think of something like "love is cruel. That's why it's good" it doesn't sound wrong to me, it sounds...what's the word? It's like a haiku or something. It invites you to think about it. I think maybe your shorthand is a case not of your being incoherent at all but that you're coming at something from a different angle. I think reading your comments where you'll be misunderstood that's what it often seems like, like you're using the words in a different wan than they sound to other people because you're looking at it from one perspective instead of another.

Like, I don't know exactly what you meant by "love is cruel/that's why it's good," but I know just to start that you probably don't mean "Love is cruel and that's good because I like people to get hurt." Or "Love is cruel and that's why it's good because I'm into S&M" or whatever. My instinct, knowing you, is to think that it's got to do with the truth about love. Like, if it wasn't cruel it wouldn't be love. To be as powerful as it is it has to do its thing and not make compromises and things like that. When it exists it's the real thing. It's the same as saying Nature is cruel, that's why it's beautiful. The cruelty is part of what it is. It doesn't mean I want to get hit by a flying cow in a tornado or that I want to go extinct thanks to Global Warming or I wasn't sad when the crops got destroyed and Pa couldn't by Carrie her new shoes. It just means if you think Nature is beautiful that's part of it.

So it is kind of a lazy readership--that is, they're not lazy unless they can't do the little extra work to get into your pov. People often just find it easier to stick to the superficial reading. Or maybe sometimes it's them making you have to be less lazy. Like when you're having one of those threads with adora where you're like, "But that's not really what I meant..." and she says, "Well, that's what you said, foo!" It's like trying to train an athlete up to its potential so you can find the way to talk about the more difficult concepts in your mind.

heee :D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehehe, I should hope you know I'm more cautious nicer than to say anything just like that~:)) Haha, you are just a great example of someone who's explorative and not overly to-the-point and yet often reach a number of different people with your essays-- like, I'm sure some of them go off on tangents or just don't get it or whatever, but I think I'd still learn something if I tried to study you & do what you did-- though actually I know. Probably using specific examples to illustrate your points is one of those things I know I should do more of :>

Umm, 'loose story meta' is just a random phrase I made up, ahahah. Like, you tend to explore lots of different subjects within the same story/fandom, whereas by nature, I explore the same range of subjects within different stories/fandoms, which is unusual in fannish circles but typical for say... an English major. Sort of :>

And I'm so happy you got what I said from just my little haiku <33333 Hee. I feel like if only you understand, that is enough, anyway :D Of course it's about the 'truth about love', yessss :D For me, it is always about the truth, of course... generally, I'm so predictable and easy to understand if you realize my few overriding values that dictate how I perceive things, and it's just-- if you read my lj, aren't they obvious? How many times do I go on about Truth and Love and all that? But you're right that you'd have to know my direction & the whole difference of usage (I'd mentioned that 'usage' and finding a 'standard' might be the issue). Though trying to think in a standard manner really makes my head hurt if I really do have to do it to be understood.... waaahh; this time I was -aware- that phrase would sound funky to most people, but then I'm lazy too, yeah :D

It's the same as saying Nature is cruel, that's why it's beautiful.
Yeah! :D! That is totally something I'd say as well. It's hard to um... get away with saying without all sorts of philosophical context, but then isn't this lj equivalent to getting it if you read it for awhile?? Or maybe I'm overestimating the degree to which one becomes familiar with my beliefs through my entries, though... uh, if one doesn't, where do all those words -go-? Ahahah.

Though I'm not sure who's the athlete to be trained here-- me or my readers. Probably me just as much, anyway ^^; I mean, I realize I've been pretty lazy since I laid off fandom so much :>

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

I don't know... If you write things you don't mean and are deliberately cryptic and know that you're writing things that will be unclear or obtuse the to the audience, and don't provide examples to illustrate them, doesn't that kind of explain the problem? (Not trying to be snarky here, but the reason for noncomprehension doesn't appear mysterious at all.)

The thing about fandom meta "shorthand" is that it *isn't* a personal context, it's a shared context. The shorthand is a shared jargon, and that's why it increases communication rather than impedes it. The shorthand does use use words for ideas, like "meta" or "slash," but these need to be thrashed out publicly, and certainly you have seen people policing the boundaries, have you not? Being brief and clear is very difficult; it's a discipline of explicative and/or argumentative writing. The more you write to a group of people who don't share your basic assumptions/worldview, the more explication you need to do.

In general, I think it is too much to expect readers to "ask yourself why would I say it rather than just what did I say," because, you know, death of the author and all that jazz. Because clearly, whatever you have said, you have said. Most people IMHO do use shorthand; they just divide between which ideas are shared and which ideas are arcane, and must anticipate the audience's mentality.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess to me, it's not as simple as being intentionally 'cryptic' or meaning to be unclear... um, I can see why the problem exists, anyway, but at the same time I don't -try- to be unclear, and hope that my previous entries would provide context (over years and years on my lj, going over the same sort of subject). Like... that whole 'thrashing out' and 'policing the boundaries'-- I can easily see why that would be necessary, but at the same time, with the whole subject of 'cruelty/visceralness/truth in love stories', I've thrashed that out on my lj with a lot of my readers a number of times. Explaining my take again and again seems redundant at some point, doesn't it? Bad enough that I bring up the same -subject- again and again, I'd just feel pathetic if I actually said the same -things- about it; so at some point I just hope that my personal context can become a limited 'shared context' for my more constant readers.

But in another sense, of course I understand-- even if I've discussed these things, the difference is that the 'nature of slash' or what have you commands more -interest- from more people, so they remember it more and actually think about it -themselves-, which is key here. Not having -others- think in their presence, but thinking of it themselves. That's why the newbies keep making the same basic flawed assumptions and go through the same rigamarole over and over again, right? No one ever learns except by trying it themselves. Well... me, I'm more observational and I absorb by comprehensive reading, but I can't necessarily expect that sort of attention to myself, I guess.

And I definitely know being brief & clear is difficult :D It's my dream, but I wouldn't lust after it so much if it was easy :> Perhaps you're right that 'discipline' has something to do with it, actually-- that's probably why it comes so hard to me, anyway, as discipline of any sort is not one of my strong points. I don't necessarily expect people to -share- my assumptions so much as be -aware- of them through the familiarity of having almost certainly read a more in-depth essay on the same subject by me before. But it definitely is a question of audience, yeah; I mean, since this is -lj- (a personal-yet-public forum) and not really an academic or entirely public arena (to me), I just... get lazy and take my cautiousness down a notch. I think the qhole question of 'how cautious are you on lj' differs for people based on their perception of just... their own usage of the forum & their prior experiences, the sort of flist they have, etc. I've always been rather informal, maybe somewhat in the middle between the truly 'personal' everyday ljs & the more 'public' lecture-format or seminar-format ljs, and this ambiguity is probably reflected in my rather unstable 'tone' and the irregular 'public success/failure' rate of my posts.

Hmm... but yeah, I think I do intuitively -mentally- separate the shared and the arcane, it's just that I don't label either clearly, and sometimes mix the two approaches as the mood strikes me, just 'cause I'm a messy-minded & lazy sort :> But it's true that I shouldn't expect or demand people to ask 'why' or to put themselves 'in my pov', as sistermagpie said above; I suppose I just wish they would in a sort of... gesture of good-will? Heh.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Uh, what I mean is that you can't expect everyone to have read your LJ for years, or to remember what you've said. And I think only writing to your established audience is limiting. Like for example, I think it is possible to get discussion out of metafandom linkage, but it never happens to me either; I think I have problems with this too.

Framing is important too; people don't usually discuss cruelty/love/whatever because most view it as an aesthetic rather than philosophical issue, and there's no point to discussing something you think is a taste issue if people instead posit it as a "truth" issue.

It's a problem in that if people have assumptions that are different enough, there simply cannot be any discussion because there is not enough common ground. However, I don't think that you're unique in having an LJ between personal and public. Most fandom LJs that do meta are exactly this, and it's not really academic formality, I think, but an informal writing skill that allows people to communicate clearly.

I think to a certain extent you can expect people to stretch, but only if they can and you telegraph it enough. It may simply be that they cannot answer the question "correctly"; I don't see it as a matter of good will. To most people, good will means accepting what the person says at face value, rather than doing hostile readings.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I dunno if they'd need to have read it for years so much as for a few months-- but you're right in that I shouldn't limit myself or assume people would remember (though, y'know, -I- tend to remember people by their set of beliefs/ideas as much as anything). At the same time, the reason I write to a limited audience is just for my own comfort: it's -easier- for me to write naturally if I don't constantly second-guess myself and am largely unaware of the huge echoing chamber of... um... unseen possible audience. I'm an introvert... it would freak me out. But I -do- want to have 'an informal writing skill'-- I even believe I do have it sometimes; I think that's where the question of effort comes in, actually :> With the cryptic statements I was referring to, I was just ranting, not really making an argument; rants by (my) nature are directed at acquaintances rather than strangers, even if I don't bother locking :>

I do wonder about the aesthetic/philosophy division, and I definitely think you're on to something. In -fandom-, I think it's an aesthetic issue, whereas in my actual English & philosophy & art history classes, aesthetics -itself- is a philosophical issue, so~:) Perhaps it's also that issue of 'framing' in yet another sense, whether you would combine something fully personal like 'taste' and a more general concept like 'aesthetics'. To me, the two aren't the same, even if they overlap. But I realize that in fandom, this is just how people put things to avoid ruffled feathers and wank or whatever.

It's also an interesting point about having to -ask- (or 'telegraph') my request for 'stretching'; you're probably right with that, yeah. I mean, to me, the fact that I post it here at all is an implied request for-- what?-- some understanding?-- but it's true that most of the time I'm just grateful they don't assume I'm 'arrogant' or whatever, 'cause sometimes that happens too, especially when I'm not careful. Not that I meant to imply I thought I was unique with the personal-yet-public meta thing, but I think most people I know have a rigid boundary (like, meta tends to be literally 'public' and non-meta locked, for instance). Still, I'm constantly rather aware that yeah, there's some sort of 'informal skill' others possess that allows them more clarity or understanding from others. I'm not sure if I -want- to sacrifice whatever it is (my personal style? I dunno) to be widely understood-- or commented at-- if anything because too many comments and/or attention would freak me out, but.

I'm never certain about just how different my assumptions -are- from 'most people'; I just get frustrated when I see a basic difference, generally, and rant a bit until I feel better. I'm really such a simple person :>

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

You'd be surprised what people remember and don't. I mean, I did a poll asking people what my favorite characters were, and there was so much failure. I mean, try asking them about whatever it is that you think they keep forgetting. Most people who write meta are introverts, though.

Well, aesthetics is also a philosophical issue in fandom. What I really mean is that when people make statements of dislike of a particular style of pairing, they aren't necessarily saying it's "false." (See, I don't think it has anything to do with "truth." If anything, the true underpinnings are psychosocial and have to do with socialization and cultural background.) They're saying they don't like it. "Love is cruel" can be discussed as a philosophical issue. (And one it is possible to reject, depending on your def. of "cruel" or "love") But "that's why it's good" is statement of taste. If you mean "I enjoy reading stories about the overwhelming power of love that drives people sometimes into obsession and cruelty," is that something people can debate? There are many kinds of love stories, but most of us can't stand to read certain types, and not because we don't think they're "true," or psychologically unrealistic. I think taste is just a shorthand for aesthetic, mostly.

Eh, a lot of people post all kinds of daily life stuff public, including those who do lots of meta. Like any other skill, if you want to get better at it, you have to work at it.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah... I do think I tend to forget to um, take account of people's differing memories and such and am solipsistic in this regard as well. I'm bad with names & details, for instance, but I remember general concepts really well. Maybe I -should- do a poll :>

About the 'good' bit as a signifier of taste... well, that's why I knew it would be misunderstood, because my usage wasn't typical in this case, and I was assuming people would look beyond the obvious just 'cause I wouldn't be stupid enough to say the obvious~:) A weak excuse, but then it wasn't a serious argument and more of a 'haiku' (er, or 'statement involving the use of poetic license'), as sistermagpie said above when she, uh, explained what I meant (http://lunacy.livejournal.com/307402.html?thread=4019914#t4019914) for me :> In the end, I knew my usage was asking for misinterpretation, in this case more clearly than in a number of others, but I just couldn't be bothered; I was tired & it sounded good. However, naturally I didn't mean 'good' as in 'positive' or 'desirable' or whatever, which is, yeah, a question of taste. You're right that "love is cruel" depends on definitions of 'love' & 'cruel', but 'good' also depends on its own definition, especially in context; in that context, yeah, I was arguing that in 'Sex Pistols', to immediately reject 'the Bastard' character and root for the rather milque-toast and not even especially well-suited 'gentleman' type is to misrepresent the nature of love being portrayed, and perhaps the nature of romantic love in general. By 'good', in this case, I meant not 'enjoyable' but rather something like 'real' or 'strong'. I was talking about the story, still, rather than myself, but I wasn't explaining the context enough (just lazy, I know). Even so, it's... hard to know where to stop, with explaining and implying both, sometimes.

I think 'working at it' translates into 'when I've got something -really important- to say, then I'll bother'; otherwise I just hope I'm coherent. People tell me I am as often as they tell me I'm not. I've been seen both as eloquent and confusing, so... the feedback really tends to vary depending on the person and the amount of effort and attention they seem willing to bring to reading my posts. Like, the feedback I get is rather irregular, is what I mean, and there are always people who 'get it' no matter how minimalistic I get. So maybe I just don't have a clear enough idea of what my audience that '-almost- gets it but not quite' is like, maybe. I'm not sure whose reading comprehension level am I supposed to be approximating for, especially when people whose intelligence I respect tell me both 'you're totally coherent' and 'you're mostly incoherent' at the same time. :>

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

I did read the comment. But you have to take into account that "beautiful," "strong," "real," "pure," "authentic," etc., when applied to love, are even more fraught than "good," and are also value judgements. There are people who don't believe nature is beautiful because there are hurricanes, and would rather see a nice sunset. This is what I mean by taste. To say "I like to see sunsets rather than hurricanes," or, "I hope the author will end with a nice sunset," or "hurricanes sux! sunsets 4eva!" is not misrepresenting the nature of the natural world; equally, to say "I want the characters to end up happily" when the author is gunning for a tragedy doesn't mean that the reader misunderstands life (to say that sounds rather condescending. Fans want what they like. The "truth" of what they're seeking is their own pleasure. I don't think they're wrong, because to not be in touch with the author's aesthetic in romance is a valid response), especially considering that these are fangirls having fan-like responses, rather than readers who are scrupulously attempting to understand "what the author is doing." I haven't read the work in question, but what its sounds like is that you're in tune with the author, but a lot of people want to ship against her intent... It's possible to understand what an author is doing, yet reject it in favor of one's own romantic aesthetics.

It's a question of wavelength and reading ability, as well as familarity, not so much pure intelligence.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

You're right about it being a value judgment anyway-- I'm just not sure if they cross the boundary from 'taste' into 'aesthetics' (er, philosophized taste? I dunno). Values allow for discussion in a way pure 'tastes' wouldn't, it seems like, but I could be wrong. Of course I wouldn't presume people would have to agree or anything; it's just a question of trying to accept reality 'as is' on my part. Nature -can- be cruel, so -if- you call it beautiful without acknowledging the inconvenient parts, you're ignoring a part of it to do so; that's really all: no one's asking anyone to prefer hurricanes to sunsets-- I mean, -I- probably prefer sunsets too. As long as some clue is being had, I'm happy; on top of this, 'Sex Pistols' is in progress and no tragedy has yet occurred-- Kunimasa is just being a jerk, but who's not 24/7, anyway? That was sort of my thing.

However, it's true I'm easily irritated when a favorite story or manga is simplified to the point of 'but why aren't they fluffy-smexing NOW?!' So I admit I'm oversensitive just 'cause I like it... and hey, I think that's a fan-like response too. :D

In a sense, I'm not just coincidentally 'in tune' with the author in this case, even though I am; if the same milque-toast guy showed up in another story (and he probably even will sometime in the series), I would accept that context and the definition of love offered this time. I just... um... don't impose readings in general? It freaks me out anytime people do, even though I totally agree it's a normal fannish response. In HP, for instance, there are tons of 'against author intent' subversive and/or deconstructive readings, forget 'the wrong squee', and generally I'm okay (not too annoyed) if I -do- feel the person understands what the author is doing; generally I get irritated 'cause I see no evidence of that, I guess.

The other issue is 'is this good for the characters' and sort of projecting one's own desires onto the characters (which I don't do no matter what my romantic aesthetics). Claiming sympathy for the wronged party in shipping him with the 'nice guy', it seems disingenuous to ignore his real needs and feelings as a character, or something. Also, I always balk at the way fans turn against characters so easily, painting them with such broad brushes of dismissal or acceptance based on the most surface, shallow behaviors. I'm not saying they don't have a right to them or it's unfannish, of course not-- it just annoys me anyway :>

Well, y'know... people on my wavelength just usually get me and tend to be good readers as well (it seems... ummm, related when it comes to getting me, obscure wanker that I am), whereas people who aren't... don't, even if they're familiar with me. The degree to which I 'should' popularize myself & the relationship of this to my overall writing talent has always seemed... up in the air somehow :>

[indywind]

"I wonder if other people have my problem, writing on lj or elsewhere: saying things that require lots of personal context to really get."


Yes.

I stole a lovely quote from --darn, now I forget who-- something to the effect of: "so this is what it's like to be an English major--there's all these layers of context everywhere!"

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I guess this just goes to show I'm fighting a losing battle against being an English major :> Oh. Does that mean 'layers of context' are bad for clarity by definition? Or like, do you have to be careful to divest your writing of layers if you want to write clearly and simply? Like... is that... um, like applying the scientific method to writing? *head hurts*