What are your rules for fandom?

[lunabee34]

I've been thinking lately about politeness and civility in fandom and what it means to me. As I said before in a previous post, I believe that fandom is a collection of communities made up of individuals who come to fandom for very different reasons with very different emotional temperaments and backgrounds and who as a result participate in fandom in different ways. As such, I don't think there are overarching rules for how to behave in fandom.

However, I do believe that each fan has a set of *personal* rules for how to behave in fandom that may or may not be shared by the average fan. Since these rules aren't written and it's often hard to tell what's important to a fan just by reading journal posts, I thought that maybe if we talked with each other about what we thought was important in terms of acceptable fannish behavior we could . . . Hmmmm . . . not reach consensus, because I don't think there's a consensus to be reached. But I do think that maybe if we understand a little better what our flists (and the fans we are acquainted with to a lesser degree) feel is important in terms of fannish behavior then maybe the controversy over those few things we can't agree about wouldn't be as heated.

So, to that end, if you had to distill your ideas on what constitutes acceptable fannish behavior into three rules, what would they be? (Remember, these are your ideas about how fans should communicate and interact with each other rather than any other aspect of fandom.)

Mine would be:

Normally I would lead off with "Treat other people how you'd like to be treated" but that's hugely problematic because how does anyone know how I'd like to be treated? And what if the things that don't bother me really piss you off?

1. In terms of ficathons and exchange type challenges: If someone writes a story (or makes art, etc) for you, you should acknowledge the story. Even if you don't like it. You don't have to lie about what you think about the story or create false enthusiasm. All you have to say is, "Thank you for writing this story for me. I appreciate the time you spent working on it." In my early fandom days I participated in several ficathons and the people for whom I wrote did not acknowledge my stories, not even negatively. While this didn't send me sobbing into my pillow at night, it did leave a bad taste in my mouth re: ficathons and so I didn't participate in them again until this year. Also, if you must back out of an exchange challenge, let the mods know so they can tell the writer what happened. There is no shame in backing out of a ficathon. Real life does not pause for Big Bang. (Although I wish it did because So. Much. Love.) In one of the ficathons I participated in this year, I was one of the only, if not the only, people not to receive a story in exchange. I never said anything about it to the mods, but it did disappoint me. Even without a story, I would have felt so much better about the situation if I'd known that Fan A was studying for midterms or working long hours or just stuck with writer's block.

2. Remember that tone is often not readily apparent in a post or an email. Be slow to anger. I know in my newbie days (and probably still!) I made a few people angry when I thought I was just being clever or witty. I have seen many times a thread where the people talking were having two different conversations unbeknownst to each other because of misunderstandings in tone. Ask for clarification if you don't understand what someone is saying to you or if what s/he is saying can be construed a different way than the one that is enraging you/hurting your feelings.

3. Give and receive constructive criticism graciously. If you say in your fic post that you welcome constructive criticism, you lose the right to bitch about said criticism if someone gives you some. You do not lose the right to disagree with the commenter or to take affront at flames, but you do lose the right to complain about the concrit you've asked for. If you say in your fic post that you'd rather not receive constructive criticism, people should respect that wish *in your journal.* I still feel that if that reader wants to post a negative review on his/her journal, that is an acceptable fannish practice. However, I think we all should try our best to respect the personal boundaries that people set up within their own spaces (personal ljs). On the other side, I think we should deliver constructive criticism with tact and with the knowledge that constructive criticism is useful for all writers, not the just the writer to whom we are offering writing suggestions. I learn more about how to make my writing effective by discussing yours. As I dissect what you have written, as I discover what you do that works and what you do that doesn't, my own writing improves.



I don't have a lot of personal rules re: fannish behavior because for the most part my fannish experience has been extraordinarily positive. I've never gotten a flame before; no one has ever seriously hurt my feelings in a fannish interaction; fandom has been three and a half years of almost uninterrupted fun for me. I tend to not make rules about things until I have experienced them which accounts for what may seem the weirdness of this list.

ETA synecdochic is smarter than me, not surprisingly, and this post pretty much articulates much of what I feel on the subject of concrit, reviews, recs, etc.

Comments

[wickedtruth.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

You make some good points. And while I'm all for more civility and politeness in fandom, I fear that it's not going to happen. It seems inevitable that virtually every fandom has it's share of wankers and trolls and idiots. I wish it weren't so, but it is. *That* is one of the reasons I never get involved in fandom save for reading and writing. Because the fans cannot be trusted to act like reasonable adults when they think they can hide behind the anonymity of the internet.

Having said that, I may have simply spent too long today reading about the OMGWTF side of life/fandom and my cynicism is showing more than usual.

OK, shutting up now. Sorry.

No apologies necessary; convo is what this is about. :)

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

I like your cynical side. It is pretty and prickly. :)

I completely agree with you that we're all never going to agree (on much of anything LOL) and that there will always be people (in any community and in any setting) who seem hell bent on Fucking It All Up for everyone. And those people can seem so much More than the rest of us sometimes. But I have to believe that most of us are not trolls and idiots the majority of the time (freebie idiocy once a year for all!) or else the thirteen year old girl in my heart starts to cry and then I have to find her pictures of Jared Padalecki photoshopped nekkid with Chad Michael Murray.

*pets you*

Re: No apologies necessary; convo is what this is about. :)

[wickedtruth.livejournal.com]

It's just a shame that the trolls/wankers are always so much louder and more obvious than the majority 'normal' people in fandom. Also a shame that the normal people (and I include myself in this, because I *never* get involved) don't do more to kick the loudmouths in the arse and tell them their behaviour is not acceptable.

Also, it has to be said that most photoshopped manips make me shudder in horror because they are so damned creepy (also often badly done). Personal opinion, of course. ;)

Re: No apologies necessary; convo is what this is about. :)

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

Yes they are creepy.

But I will take what I can get when it comes to my CMM love. LOL

Teaching a Blunderbuss to Sing

[executrix.livejournal.com]

I know that there is all sorts of insane hideousness in fandom, but my rule is "Let there be peace on Earth--and let it begin with me. umbo, who is also a HLOTS fan, btw! really made me think about Right Livelihood in fandom.

I also want fandom to be a Happy Place for everybody. One of the things preventing it from being (apart from the uanvoidable participation of various kinds of sociopaths) is that at least two axes are co-existing.

That is, there is the continuum from Fantastic Writer to Complete Embarrassment to the Alphabet. There is also the continuum from Serious Literary Artist to Just Here for the Lulz. See subject line: trying to teach a pig to sing does no good and only annoys the pig,and it's wasteful to use a blunderbuss to kill a mosquito.

So I see the niche for concrit as being in the quadrant where at-least-middling writers genuinely want to work on their technique--and where they DON'T think of each story as they finish it as over with, and "on to the next thing!"

Also, sometimes the reason a story didn't get betaed, or isn't up to someone's usual standards is that she was in traction after the car accident that killed her entire family or something, so I feel like a *real* cad for snarking about the story once I find that out.

Lots of people, including of course you, have tried to have concrit spaces. It's kind of uphill work, which leads me to believe that, just as in the early days of Usenet, anyone claiming to be female was probably lying, anyone who says "I love concrit!" should be assumed to Have you seen the shared_wisdom comm btw?

The real elephant in the living room is that critique is helpful only if the person giving the critique actually knows what ze is talking about. I'll never forget the book manuscript I submitted that was heavily edited by the typesetter. She isn't a lawyer, and many of the changes she so blithely made took a sentence that, to the best of my knowledge, accurately stated the law, and made it inaccurate. There were other instances where she took grammatical complete sentences (perhaps not the clearest or most eloquent of sentences...) and turned them into something that failed to meet those criteria.

Re: Teaching a Blunderbuss to Sing

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

*nods*

I know. I think that's what disappoints me most about concrit arguments. You see all these people begging for concrit, wanting a place to have it, and then when posh comes to shove, many fans are not willing to undertake the work that concrit entails. Because it is work. You have to read the fic and read it critically and engage other fans in conversation/debate about what you've read and this is much more work than simple fic consumption.

I am proud as hell of what we did in club_joss and what we're doing now in sga_talk. I met and befriended people I never would have met before (hello, lyrstzha!); I read and am reading fic that I never would have found before on my own or through my flist; I am *learning* things. And a handful of other people are too and I guess that's honestly pretty damn awesome. But the fact remains that a comm like sga_talk would function so much better with a lot more participation and when I see the disparity between what people say they want and what they actually *do* it does frustrate me.

And you are absolutely right about the relative value of concrit. It's just like in workshop in college. Devon usually had interesting commentary that often made me take a poem in another direction and Annie barely had a grasp of basic grammatical rules much less something insightful to say about my line breaks. LOL

Digressing to sga_talk

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Sorry, wandered in from Metafandom, and this is pretty much off-topic, but it's interesting to me to think about what does and doesn't work about sga_talk. I was one of the people who was really enthusiastic about the whole idea of the comm in the beginning, and I think you've done a fabulous job of running it -- always on time with the week's new story, contributing heavily to the discussions, promoting it wherever you can. Also, I think you've got the most wank-free possible working model for such a comm.

But my enthusiasm has really tailed off, and I've been trying to figure out why. Part of it is just not having time; there have been discussions on a couple of stories that I loved and would have liked to discuss, but the conversation was already over by the time I got there, and even though I know we *can* dive in later, it kinda feels like talking to myself at that point. I think a lot of it, though, is simply that I don't have much to *say* about most stories, and I'm not criticizing the model of the comm for that (like I said, I think you've got about the best working model out there for a wank-free discussion community), but it means that most of the stories coming up for discussion are ones that I don't have a whole lot to say about. This isn't to criticize the quality of the stories; it's just that there aren't very many stories that move me to really discuss, and usually those are stories that I had a very strong emotional reaction to, either positive or negative. Most of which are stories whose authors probably wouldn't put them up for discussion, precisely because of those reasons. And in budgeting my limited fannish time, I tend to put "discussing a story I don't have strong feelings about" kind of low on my list of priorities. Which, again, is not a criticism of either the stories or the comm; it's just like I don't post about most of the movies I watch or the books I read, because I don't have that much to say about them. I only post when they really get a reaction out of me.

So ... yeah. I think you do a great job of running the comm, and (on a purely theoretical level) I'd like to do more discussion over there, but in general I'm not really moved to do so, and I'm trying to figure out why.

Re: Digressing to sga_talk

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

Thank you thank you for all the positive things you say and I really appreciate this reaction from you.

I know that lots of people have very legitimate reasons for not participating in the latest discussion.

1. They don't know about it.
2. They're afraid they're not academical enough and don't possess the appropriate vocab to talk about the fic.
3. They hate the pairing.
4. They hate the rating.
5. They hate the warnings.
6. RL has superceded.
7. They have too little fandom time to devote to a story they're not OMG Yay about.

I completely understand these and the million other reasons that people don't participate in comms like sga_talk. I never think less of people for not being able to discuss.

But by the same token, maintaining this kind of comm is hard. It means chiming in even when you don't like the story, leading the discussion even when it's not your cuppa, articulating helpful and respectful concrit even when the writer couldn't spell his/her way out of a paper bag. And it is a hard road to trawl alone. Ish.

I think that maybe the success of this comm lies in writers realizing that there is something valuable to be learned (gained?) from dissecting even stories that don't ping them emotionally or intellectually. (Which is not to criticize your use of the comm or anyone else's. I'm just glad anyone at all is interested in any capacity)

Granted, not everybody has the time to grad school workshop a fic they don't give two shits about. And I totally understand that. I guess my main disappointment with sga_talk is that people say over and over again how they want concrit. Crave it. Demand it. Need it. And they don't get it. And when people create spaces for concrit to exist, those same people don't take advantage of it. And I don't understand why.

Re: Digressing to sga_talk

[executrix.livejournal.com]

And when people create spaces for concrit to exist, those same people don't take advantage of it. And I don't understand why.

Borscht Belt joke: Grandma takes her baby grandson to the beach. Suddenly, the kid is swept away in a tidal wave. She shrieks out to the heavens: "Oh, God, spare the life of this innocent child!" A moment later, a huge wave deposits the unharmed baby back on the beach blanket. She shrieks out to the heavens, "Y'know, he HAD a hat."

Re: Digressing to sga_talk

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

What is the Borscht Belt? That is a kind of soup or stew, right?

:)

Re: Digressing to sga_talk

[executrix.livejournal.com]

It spills over the Bible Belt...

Re: Digressing to sga_talk

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Well ... for one thing, do you see sga_talk as more of a writing workshop comm, or a discussion comm? Because the two are different, and people who are into one may not be into the other. From your comment above, I get the idea that you envision it as (at least partly) a writing workshop, but the way it was presented, I'd seen it as more of a discussion-type community, where people get together to chat about fic rather than pulling it apart to see how it works and better themselves (and the author) as writers. Maybe one of the problems is that the comm's mission statement isn't clear? If it's a writing workshop, perhaps it would be more useful to "market" it as such, and encourage writers to submit their stories to better themselves. Maybe you could make a "rule" that someone has to comment on others' stories in order to have their own up for dissection.

But if it's a discussion community more than a workshop community, maybe it would help to offer more leading questions, or a framework for the discussion. It seems like some of the most successful discussions, like on Grace's fic, are the ones where you offered some topics for discussion along with the fic. I know it's more work to do that, but it would also be possible, perhaps, to do a mod post or two offering some (suggested) guidelines for discussion -- casual (non-writerly) readers often do have trouble doing literary analysis (heck, *I* often have trouble, and I like it!) so maybe it would help to give them an elementary grounding in the sort of "questions" that they could answer (Did I like it? Why did I like it? How did it treat my favorite character? etc...).

There are a lot of different levels that a fic can be discussed at, and a lot of different things that writers can mean when they say they want concrit, ranging from "It's okay if people discuss my fic, but I don't want to read the discussion" to "I want to hear what's not working about my story". It's possible that part of the problem is that different people are coming into the comm with different expectations -- some are expecting to see stories taken apart in great detail, others just want to say "I liked it!" "Me too!" -- and they're leaving when their expectations aren't met.

Just some thoughts ... please take all with a grain of salt!

Part 1

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

These are very good points.

To answer your first question, I see sga_talk as primarily a discussion group rather than a writing workshop (although I think that the writing workshop model is part of how I approach the comm when I'm making comments about the fic or what I would want from the experience if my work was the work being discussed). I also think the comm is a place to meet people and a place to find fic that's outside your comfort zone (in terms of author, pairing, rating, etc)

You are absolutely right that many levels of discussion are possible in the comm and we often get a wide variety of kinds of comments, from: "I really like this" to "here's a detailed analysis of why plot element X didn't work" and I think that both kinds of conversation are valuable and contribute to the mission of the comm.

I think I'm going to say this wrong; I'm having trouble articulating myself today. Here goes: What I was trying to say so poorly in my previous comment is that the discussion itself is a learning experience. Even though it's not set up like a traditional writing workshop, I feel like the participants are able to take away from the discussion information that will make their writing better, if that's what they want. (Some of the people who participate in the comm don't write and their experience and participation is no less valuable than that of a writer's.) So to summarize, I think sga_talk does a lot of different things at once and that one of those things is offering a safe place to give and receive concrit should the participants take the conversation there.

I also think that sga_talk could be utilized more heavily by the authors whose work we are discussing. I completely understand that some writers feel really weird engaging in discussion about their work and don't want to participate which is totally fine. Some want to wait until the discussion is essentially "over" to chime in so as not to stifle conversation and that's fine as well. I do think we have the best conversations when the authors eventually get involved--explaining decisions, offering up ideas about the writing process or about how they approach canon, asking questions. I haven't really seen any of that last in this incarnation of the comm but it happened a bit in club_joss and I always thought it was wonderful when a writer said, "I know I have a real problem with X. Is this working here for you guys? What would you suggest?" The comm is the perfect place to pose and work through those kinds of questions if a writer wants to.

Part 2

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

The second part of your comment is also very true re: me leading the discussion. The more time I spend leading the discussion the better it seems to go (although after a few months, it's clear to me that people are going to participate more heavily in McShep or John/Rodney friendship stories than any other kind) and if a writer alerts her flist that we are discussing her story that also ups participation.

When I was modding club_joss I ran myself ragged. I got permission for the fics we read, spending a lot of time chasing down authors and trying to find interesting pieces to read. When that got time prohibitive, I put the onus of finding fic to read on the comm members (a decision I transferred to sga_talk). Theoretically, this should up participation because the readers are themselves choosing the material. Surely no one would submit a fic they didn't think would generate discussion? In practice, I can't tell that choosing fics this way has made any difference except that I'm less harried. I took it even one step further in sga_talk with the recent polls we've been doing for choosing fic within a category. People like polls! They like to click buttons! But that seems to have had little effect on participation as well.

In club_joss, I always made sure I read the fic before the discussion went live and usually kicked off with a comment that had a lot of the kind of leading questions you're talking about. And it did help discussion but it also drained me and made running the comm such a chore. I just didn't and don't have the kind of time to be that prepared. To that end, there's a list of questions for generating discussion in the Welcome Post of sga_talk. Maybe I could just cut and paste that list into each discussion post. Do you think that would help or is it really having the questions tailored for the particular fic that will make a difference?

The other thing I've done with sga_talk that seems to help with participation is the in-between reminder post with quotes from the ongoing discussion. That almost always garners at least one more person participating and sometimes more.

Do you have any more suggestions for what lyrstzha and I could do to address these issues?

I am an idiot

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

thelastgoodname just totally called me on my use of terms (http://thelastgoodname.livejournal.com/219354.html?thread=1766618#t1766618) and she's right.

*facepalm*

So, yes. It seems that what I am talking about is not really concrit, but literary analysis for the good of all! Or something. LOL

Re: Teaching a Blunderbuss to Sing

[princessofg.livejournal.com]

thank you for this.

Re: Teaching a Blunderbuss to Sing

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Yr welcome! By my own standards, which I fail to live up to, I would comment only when I had something nice to say, or when the obligations of etiquette require (e.g., getting a story back in an exchange ficathon--although, as lunabee points out, GETTING a story back isn't exactly a certainty).

It's certainly inappropriate for a poster to carry on as if the posting of a mediocre (or even a flatly lousy) story is a menace to decency and good order.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

1. Always remember sarcasm doesn't always work online.

2. Don't do anything online that could bite you in the ass if people in your mundane life found out you did it.

3. Always be prepared to defend your opinion.

4. Always remember that your opinion doesn't equal a fact.

5. College students online often make the mistake of taking what they're learning in their classes seriously. This tends to make them articulate but pains in the ass to deal with. So before you start to argue with them ask yourself if it's worth the argument taking several days. Especially if it involves a Lit or some form of Sociology major.

6. Rationality is rarer than gold online. Remember that at all times.

7. Some people are so married to their opinions and ideas that, no matter how crazy those ideas might be, they will stick to them in the face of any rational argument or evidence to the contrary.

8. Many fans think they can do a better job than the professionals. Fans like this should be given a logic smackdown whenever possible.

9. Whatever your opinion, due to it someone online thinks you're the Devil.

10. Nothing in fandom is ever life or death. So take a step back when things get heated and remember that in 100 years you'll be dead and no one is going to give a crap about what you're arguing about.

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

Interesting list. 1 and 3 resonate with me especially.

In 8, when you say that many fans think they can do a better job than the professionals, what do you mean exactly?

:)

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

On number #8, that bunch of Harry Potter fans who started a petition to have some ficwriter instead of JKR do the last book comes to mind.

Fans who start crowing about something being wrong before a story has fully played out fall in there as well.

As an example, I read comics and in one series a bunch of fans had a fit over how one of the X-Men was acting really OOC. I agreed it was OOC but said we should wait for the story to play out before demanding the blood of the author. You can imagine how many people were willing to take that advice. Flash forward two months and the character in question turned out to be a bad guy in disguise.

So while I still thought the story wasn't all that good the writer, as those people had assumed, wasn't some dumbass who didn't know how to write the character in question. Hell, he'd been good enough to fool most of the readers.


Another example is from an old comics mailing list I was on. Every issue we'd all share our thoughts and it was pretty fun. Then a new writer comes on the book and the majority opinion, mine included, is that he was a mixed bag.

But one girl on the list takes the griping even further. She starts e-mailing the author every month with what he did "wrong" that issue. Some of it was really out there stuff too.

She was upset that in one issue some stuff happened with some cops that didn't follow the actual laws in California where the story was set. I pointed out that there was no reason to think that the laws in the real California were the same as in the comic book California and that it was a little unrealistic to think that the regular writer should go and research actual California law for something that was really a minor point. She said that if she was writing it that what she'd do and what she'd done to prove the writer "wrong."

Which was the first step to the two of us getting into a pretty big headbutting match. You see, in addition she was also on a quest to get herself hired as the normal writer of the series and had told the current writer she was after his job. I thought that was mighty damn rude and said so. You can imagine how things went from there.

Not my best moment as a fan but I was 19 at the time and really enjoyed a good geekscrap.


I guess my whole thing on #8 is that talk is cheap and bullshit walks. If someone wants to claim they could do a better job than the pros then get published or whatever. Until then a fan claiming to be better than the pros is just someone blowing hot air. Not to mention 99% someone who, from the works of such people that I've read, really ISN'T better than the pros. Usually they're pretty bad, but that just might be my experience.

[lunabee34.livejournal.com]

Okay. That makes sense now. Thank you.

:)

I'm not involved in Harry Potter fandom besides the occasional crack_van trawling so I hadn't heard of fans making a petition for someone else to finish the series. LOL Was it a particular fan or just a generic "Not you, JKR" they were after?

I have encountered several people in fandom whose writing skills I think are equal to or superior than the source material but these are not people who go around declaring such, thank goodness.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I heard that Harry Potter story from someone else and as I understand it they wanted some Harry/Draco writer to replace JKR.

*eyeroll*