Nuisances

[fpb]

A couple of days ago I read an outrageously bad and insulting fanfic passage. I left a brief though angry review, noted here that I was worried this might get me in trouble with FA again (which was the only thing that really mattered to me) and left it at that

Comments

[starshipcat]

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. As I grow as a writer, I've come to see the sort of passage that you objected to reads more like kids calling one another names on the playground. And the behavior of the writer and her friends seems to belong on that same venue, and at that same level of maturity.

[fpb]

You know, I did not enjoy writing this entry. It was mainly a matter of setting down my view of the event, seeing as how these kind of people have a habit of settling their own official version via fandom_wank, wiki and backstabber conversations in threads I do not see.

Please indulge my soapbox

[norwyn]

I have to admit that I grew tired of reading the back-and-forth over the first entry. I felt that there was nothing new being said after a point, and stopped reading, but did have a few comments. As a writer, you open your work for criticism, and must be willing to endure same, hopefully growing and maturing in your efforts. When you create characters, you are creating their speech, habits, mannerisms, etc., in short, you are responsible for their actions. I do realize that there are times when the characters must be called upon to be inflammatory...but it must be relevant to the text and needs to contribute to the storyline. I'm thinking more along the lines of the villans in the old war epics and other such movies my dad used to watch. For example, a Nazi soldier would contribute hate speech, and commit unholy acts against various people groups...an overseer would be equally demonic to an African slave, etc. etc

Re: Please indulge my soapbox

[fpb]

I do not think that the author is actually talentless - at least, she seems to have a large following, including a few members of my own f-list. I think rather that she is scarily provincial, ignorant and prejudiced about the world's largest religion, and, what is worse, unwilling, even after years, to admit that there was anything seriously wrong with what she wrote. I think it is really a matter of self-regard. It is a principle with me to admit when I am wrong, but I admit that when my temper is up and I am face to face with an opponent, that does not come so easy. However, even after disengaging from me and taking her grievances to another blog, she still would do nothing more than to ascribe the passage to a "youthful folly", as it had apparently been written five years ago - which still left the issue open as to what exactly the folly was - to write hate speech and ignorant unhistorical nonsense, or to express herself in such a way (while reneging nothing of the content) as to make retaliation inevitable? And she only said