![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaOh man. You could tell I'd buzz like a bee to honey on this-- but apparently, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
oulangi's snarky/brutally honest Harry/Snape reviews are getting some more attention now after they'd been recced. And of course, to state my position outright: um, she's like my reccing hero. I wish I could be so carefree, but I seriously couldn't handle the negative/other attention, nor do I want to debate people's fics with them & have them resent me, so I settle for talking in generalities. Hey, works for me! :P
The actual point here is, apparently, that now the writers themselves have been coming to her journal to explain and 'defend' themselves from her 'charges'.
This is just human-- I mean, if/when I (rarely) get public concrit, if it's at all intelligent, I accept the parts that make sense to me and explain myself with the parts I thought the reader may have been missing-- just not noticing-- in their reading. Even though it does hurt me to get slapped with the 'painful reality: wake the hell up!' sticker-- I take it because I care about my writing and what my readers think. I have feelings, and I care about those of others-- they just aren't paramount. And any degree of crit could never make -me- stop writing H/D because I'm self-aware enough to realize how difficult it was, how far I have to go, etc: basically, because I think it's absolutely vital for a writer to be aware of their own flaws! Essential, really. Otherwise you're pretty much a blind man in a house of mirrors.
I mean, this isn't about writing for fun vs. writing for-- what-- not!fun, pain&woe. This is about having a grip on reality enough not to make a fool of yourself, to me.
Like, I don't want to be the Emperor With No Clothes, prancing around certain I'm dressed in diamonds and silk. You can definitely value people's feelings over truth in terms of phrasing the truth kindly or not bashing people over the head with unwelcome truths-- fine. But if you just don't value truth at all-- you'd have to accept you're setting yourself up to suck without knowing it. And me, I'm not willing to deal with that kind of paranoia, myself.
Anyway, I don't just write for praise and jollies-- I write because I care about what I'm writing, and it's not that I don't have ego. Some things are more important than ego even when you have a lot of it (and I do!) You can't learn to write a bike without skinning your knees, and I don't see how you can keep writing for long without realizing this.
So yeah, I would -never- tell the reader what to think if I thought they -did- actually read the story I know I wrote, which just reminds me horridly of those Anne Rice wanks where she went on and on about how perfect she was and how every word was meant to be there. (Aaaaand it reminds me of those hopped-up HP fans who scream so loudly about how OMG JKR'S AUTHORIAL INTENT IS SAAAACRID-- yeah, sell me another holy cow why don't you.) That's the worst kind of author entitlement & riding roughshod over the reader, and it just makes me cringe to think it's not crazy Anne Rice-- it's a good portion of us in fandom.
It's such a faulty argument-- a straw-man argument-- to say 'I value feelings over truth' in this reccing-honesty business in the first place, because it makes things so black&white -and- implies anyone who tells the whole truth of what they think anywhere around ickle baby writers is a stone-cold bastard. This is a personality preference-- ie, people who're okay with conflict and people who're not-- not a moral/ethical dilemma, especially not phrased like that. 'Feelings' aren't about ethics-- they're about politeness. So even ifoulangi could be seen as 'a bit rude'-- I'm sure she'd agree with that accessment, btw-- that doesn't invalidate her points or 'truth value' in any way, shape or form.
It also doesn't impact her recs/reviews whether or not she's being 'helpful'. The whole idea that she -should- be helpful is a projection of what someone else values in fandom & she has no obligation to. Like... there's nothing saying you have to be helpful to writers or your crit is meaningless. In the larger academic world of people actually publishing reviews, this would pretty much be a ridiculous approach. And although fandom isn't structured like academia, obviously, there's nothing guaranteeing it can't be or won't be or shouldn't be if a particular person feels like it.
Also, if you have to use meta to "explain" your piece of fanfiction in the first place to any intelligent reader? That's sort of a clue to let you know you didn't do the best job you could have, isn't it? At least, that's been my experience whenever I've seen a writer I know/have read be all 'but you don't understand my GENIUS!'. Yeah, I guess I can't interrogate those texts correctly :>
Okay, plus I don't understand why this immediately gets into questions of 'who do we write for', as if she's challenging the writer's whole mental/creative structure instead of saying 'this didn't work for me-- meh-- but this did, yaye!'. Of course, when one says 'we' write for unquestioning praise and adoration from rabid fans-- I guess then it becomes clear why this one piece of crit could have such power over one's psyche. I mean, it really -is- like the child pointing out the Emperor Has No Clothes.
I mean, you could say 'this is why I'm writing' all you want, and more power to you-- but as soon as you use it as a defensive tactic, you're screwed. It immediately sounds like sour grapes.
It's not that I think you shouldn't write Harry/Snape 'lighthearted fluff'-- go and knock yourself out! Just, you know, realize this is (OOC) Harry/Snape you're writing, so people are going to have certain well-placed canonical expectations, like say-- oh-- they hate each other's guts more than anyone else in the world. But what do I know, I just read the books.
...Though the thing that actually gets up my craw about all this is how many people apparently think they're God's gift to fanfiction & anyone who says otherwise is a blasphemous heathen who should be put down a notch or ten. Wow. It's like everyone automatically assumes 'having an ego' (perfectly healthy!) means 'having an entitlement complex' or 'having delusions of grandeur'. o_0
Eh. I dunno. It's just... you can't be knocked down very far by sudden concrit if you didn't think that highly of your writing in the first place and/or didn't believe every squealing fangirl that was like, OMG UR THE BESTESTTTT OMGGG RITE MOOORE!!1 Because that? Is shameless flattery, and therefore not to be taken seriously, right? That's what I thought.
oulangi's snarky/brutally honest Harry/Snape reviews are getting some more attention now after they'd been recced. And of course, to state my position outright: um, she's like my reccing hero. I wish I could be so carefree, but I seriously couldn't handle the negative/other attention, nor do I want to debate people's fics with them & have them resent me, so I settle for talking in generalities. Hey, works for me! :PThe actual point here is, apparently, that now the writers themselves have been coming to her journal to explain and 'defend' themselves from her 'charges'.
This is just human-- I mean, if/when I (rarely) get public concrit, if it's at all intelligent, I accept the parts that make sense to me and explain myself with the parts I thought the reader may have been missing-- just not noticing-- in their reading. Even though it does hurt me to get slapped with the 'painful reality: wake the hell up!' sticker-- I take it because I care about my writing and what my readers think. I have feelings, and I care about those of others-- they just aren't paramount. And any degree of crit could never make -me- stop writing H/D because I'm self-aware enough to realize how difficult it was, how far I have to go, etc: basically, because I think it's absolutely vital for a writer to be aware of their own flaws! Essential, really. Otherwise you're pretty much a blind man in a house of mirrors.
I mean, this isn't about writing for fun vs. writing for-- what-- not!fun, pain&woe. This is about having a grip on reality enough not to make a fool of yourself, to me.
Like, I don't want to be the Emperor With No Clothes, prancing around certain I'm dressed in diamonds and silk. You can definitely value people's feelings over truth in terms of phrasing the truth kindly or not bashing people over the head with unwelcome truths-- fine. But if you just don't value truth at all-- you'd have to accept you're setting yourself up to suck without knowing it. And me, I'm not willing to deal with that kind of paranoia, myself.
Anyway, I don't just write for praise and jollies-- I write because I care about what I'm writing, and it's not that I don't have ego. Some things are more important than ego even when you have a lot of it (and I do!) You can't learn to write a bike without skinning your knees, and I don't see how you can keep writing for long without realizing this.
So yeah, I would -never- tell the reader what to think if I thought they -did- actually read the story I know I wrote, which just reminds me horridly of those Anne Rice wanks where she went on and on about how perfect she was and how every word was meant to be there. (Aaaaand it reminds me of those hopped-up HP fans who scream so loudly about how OMG JKR'S AUTHORIAL INTENT IS SAAAACRID-- yeah, sell me another holy cow why don't you.) That's the worst kind of author entitlement & riding roughshod over the reader, and it just makes me cringe to think it's not crazy Anne Rice-- it's a good portion of us in fandom.
It's such a faulty argument-- a straw-man argument-- to say 'I value feelings over truth' in this reccing-honesty business in the first place, because it makes things so black&white -and- implies anyone who tells the whole truth of what they think anywhere around ickle baby writers is a stone-cold bastard. This is a personality preference-- ie, people who're okay with conflict and people who're not-- not a moral/ethical dilemma, especially not phrased like that. 'Feelings' aren't about ethics-- they're about politeness. So even if
oulangi could be seen as 'a bit rude'-- I'm sure she'd agree with that accessment, btw-- that doesn't invalidate her points or 'truth value' in any way, shape or form. It also doesn't impact her recs/reviews whether or not she's being 'helpful'. The whole idea that she -should- be helpful is a projection of what someone else values in fandom & she has no obligation to. Like... there's nothing saying you have to be helpful to writers or your crit is meaningless. In the larger academic world of people actually publishing reviews, this would pretty much be a ridiculous approach. And although fandom isn't structured like academia, obviously, there's nothing guaranteeing it can't be or won't be or shouldn't be if a particular person feels like it.
Also, if you have to use meta to "explain" your piece of fanfiction in the first place to any intelligent reader? That's sort of a clue to let you know you didn't do the best job you could have, isn't it? At least, that's been my experience whenever I've seen a writer I know/have read be all 'but you don't understand my GENIUS!'. Yeah, I guess I can't interrogate those texts correctly :>
Okay, plus I don't understand why this immediately gets into questions of 'who do we write for', as if she's challenging the writer's whole mental/creative structure instead of saying 'this didn't work for me-- meh-- but this did, yaye!'. Of course, when one says 'we' write for unquestioning praise and adoration from rabid fans-- I guess then it becomes clear why this one piece of crit could have such power over one's psyche. I mean, it really -is- like the child pointing out the Emperor Has No Clothes.
I mean, you could say 'this is why I'm writing' all you want, and more power to you-- but as soon as you use it as a defensive tactic, you're screwed. It immediately sounds like sour grapes.
It's not that I think you shouldn't write Harry/Snape 'lighthearted fluff'-- go and knock yourself out! Just, you know, realize this is (OOC) Harry/Snape you're writing, so people are going to have certain well-placed canonical expectations, like say-- oh-- they hate each other's guts more than anyone else in the world. But what do I know, I just read the books.
...Though the thing that actually gets up my craw about all this is how many people apparently think they're God's gift to fanfiction & anyone who says otherwise is a blasphemous heathen who should be put down a notch or ten. Wow. It's like everyone automatically assumes 'having an ego' (perfectly healthy!) means 'having an entitlement complex' or 'having delusions of grandeur'. o_0
Eh. I dunno. It's just... you can't be knocked down very far by sudden concrit if you didn't think that highly of your writing in the first place and/or didn't believe every squealing fangirl that was like, OMG UR THE BESTESTTTT OMGGG RITE MOOORE!!1 Because that? Is shameless flattery, and therefore not to be taken seriously, right? That's what I thought.
