"Cult of nice" vs. "cult of mean", round 2847, fight

[synecdochic]

So, SGA fandom is having another round of the concrit debate -- specifically, the discussion of whether or not it is ever appropriate to discuss work in anything other than unalloyed positive terms, whether directly to the author or in reviews/commentary intended for third parties. (Okay, I'm simplifying.) For the initial spread of it, and for

Comments

[fallenkalina]

Thank you for summing it up as #14, because one of the things I love to do is work through a piece of work by discussion, be it within fandom, movies, society at large, whatever.

And I think it has a broader interpretation than just fandom -- this is a frequent argument between my older brother and myself, in fact, in the level of involvement of criticism you can have over a work.

I'm working on something original, and it's out there on the web and posted, but it isn't done. I ask for commentary from my readers, but that con-crit be saved until I go back to do major editing. If it happens, I'm fine, it goes in a file for me to look back on, but I'm at the point where I'm just writing to get it out.

I'll admit I stay out of fandom meta for the most part, but I really enjoyed this essay, because it has just so many broader implications for behavior.

[synecdochic]

I'm actually the same way -- I have a bunch of people whom I write my WIPs at, and the #1 rule for inclusion in that group is Thou Shalt Not Provide Crit While The Story Is Still Being Written. Commentary, yes -- that's what keeps the story's momentum going, knowing how the reader is reacting to the words, to the characterizations, to the actions, etc; knowing the emotions that I'm invoking, knowing what's going through the reader's mind about what's possible and what bits are catching their eye most, etc. Crit, absolutely not, no matter how gently it's phrased -- even if it's just something like "Would he really do that, though?" That will kill any and all motivation I have for working on the story deader than a dead thing.

(Once a draft is done, then I can view it through the editing lens of being able to accept crit -- but dear God, not before

[fallenkalina]

I think a community vocabulary would be quite a wonderful thing -- I'm amazed at how quickly it spreads through a fandom -- because I can really see how people can be reluctant to give constructive crit and commentary. If it weren't for my college work, I wouldn't be nearly as involved as I am, and as it is, I'm still reluctant! But that might just be my personality. A vocabulary would go a long way to help more people get over that.

Not saying that everyone needs a copy of The Theory Toolbox or anything, of course. But a nice middle ground for the reader -- author relationship would be nice, considering how close they can seem to be in fandom.

[synecdochic]

The only problem I see is that when you start building that shared vocabulary-of-criticism, then you have to struggle with the ideas of meta-criticism -- criticism of criticism, so to speak -- so that someone who wants to just talk about something without bringing those critical tools to bear will be judged by the audience as having chosen to implement those tools, whether or not the reader intended for their reaction to be read in that lens ... and that's the point at which it all gets way too postmodern for me and i need to go lie down for a while. ;)

[fallenkalina]

Oh I hadn't thought of that. Huh. That would certainly cause a problem, now wouldn't it.

Our motto in my LitCrit class was that the only natural reaction to postmodernism was a large glass of your favorite alcoholic beverage.

[synecdochic]

Authorial intent may or may not be dead, but it's certainly very drunken.