on the shadowlands of story and author
Concrit vs. analysis is once again up for debate, and I choose to let most of it slide, except for a statement that I see over and over again in discussions and that is to me completely wrongheaded: the idea that criticism of the story isn't criticism of the author.
The hell it isn't.
Mind, I'm not saying that people shouldn't criticize stories; of course they should. And obviously some things about a story are relatively "safe", such as line-editing or fact-checking; any author who sees it as personal criticism when someone points out that Buffy's mother is called Joyce and not Jessie is pretty much overidentifying. But the author isn't an entity completely separated from her story, and there are many ways to criticize an author in a review without stooping to namecalling.
Let's take a non-fannish example: Sin City. It's a film that has been controversial to say the least. It has been called (among other things) immoral, nihilist, obsessed with violence, misogynist, stylistic but empty, infantile, and wanking material for pimply-faced boys.
Now, if it Miller and Rodriguez don't give a flying fuck about Sin City and only made it to get some cash, the adjectives above won't touch them. But if they actually like the story, if they told it because they wanted to tell it, then of course the reviews are criticizing them as people. At that point, claiming that "I called the film misogynist, not the director" is splitting hairs.
Frankly, if a story isn't to be seen as something deeply ingrained in a writer's personality, I don't know what is. Looks? Is it somehow more personal to claim someone is ugly than that her story is a sick, deranged fantasy? Because it isn't to me.
I think the taboo against self-insertion in fic has lured people to believe that writers don't put anything of themselves in a story, and that's simply not true - not of a good writer. There will be experiences in there, beliefs, fantasies, opinions. By daring to review, you are entering the territory of the ficcer's psyche.
And that's as it should be. Reviews should be as personal as the stories themselves. It's unpleasant, but so fucking what?
Dag Hammarskjöld said: "O Caesarea Philippi: to accept condemnation of the Way as its fulfillment, its definition, to accept this both when it is chosen and when it is realized." Putting it another way: if you do something, it's a given that people will condemn it. He spoke of religion, but the same is true for every action, and that's something every ficcer must remember as well. No matter what the ficcer writes, someone will dislike it, someone will misunderstand, someone will question it on a moral principle, etc. Sometimes it won't matter that they do. Sometimes it'll be annoying. And sometimes it'll downright hurt.
The trick is for the ficcer is to know this, to decide in advice that it's worth it. Thicken up, listen to the stuff that's worth listening to and disregard the mindless idiocy. Because the alternative - the only alternative - is to not post at all, and that would be so much worse.
In short: It's not the business of the reviewer to be nice. Perhaps not even compassionate. But it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that authors find their stories personal.
The hell it isn't.
Mind, I'm not saying that people shouldn't criticize stories; of course they should. And obviously some things about a story are relatively "safe", such as line-editing or fact-checking; any author who sees it as personal criticism when someone points out that Buffy's mother is called Joyce and not Jessie is pretty much overidentifying. But the author isn't an entity completely separated from her story, and there are many ways to criticize an author in a review without stooping to namecalling.
Let's take a non-fannish example: Sin City. It's a film that has been controversial to say the least. It has been called (among other things) immoral, nihilist, obsessed with violence, misogynist, stylistic but empty, infantile, and wanking material for pimply-faced boys.
Now, if it Miller and Rodriguez don't give a flying fuck about Sin City and only made it to get some cash, the adjectives above won't touch them. But if they actually like the story, if they told it because they wanted to tell it, then of course the reviews are criticizing them as people. At that point, claiming that "I called the film misogynist, not the director" is splitting hairs.
Frankly, if a story isn't to be seen as something deeply ingrained in a writer's personality, I don't know what is. Looks? Is it somehow more personal to claim someone is ugly than that her story is a sick, deranged fantasy? Because it isn't to me.
I think the taboo against self-insertion in fic has lured people to believe that writers don't put anything of themselves in a story, and that's simply not true - not of a good writer. There will be experiences in there, beliefs, fantasies, opinions. By daring to review, you are entering the territory of the ficcer's psyche.
And that's as it should be. Reviews should be as personal as the stories themselves. It's unpleasant, but so fucking what?
Dag Hammarskjöld said: "O Caesarea Philippi: to accept condemnation of the Way as its fulfillment, its definition, to accept this both when it is chosen and when it is realized." Putting it another way: if you do something, it's a given that people will condemn it. He spoke of religion, but the same is true for every action, and that's something every ficcer must remember as well. No matter what the ficcer writes, someone will dislike it, someone will misunderstand, someone will question it on a moral principle, etc. Sometimes it won't matter that they do. Sometimes it'll be annoying. And sometimes it'll downright hurt.
The trick is for the ficcer is to know this, to decide in advice that it's worth it. Thicken up, listen to the stuff that's worth listening to and disregard the mindless idiocy. Because the alternative - the only alternative - is to not post at all, and that would be so much worse.
In short: It's not the business of the reviewer to be nice. Perhaps not even compassionate. But it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that authors find their stories personal.