"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

[chrismm]

Many thinky things, which I do not have the brain cells for right now, but I wanted to add a type of comment/feedback/whatever that you don't have there. That is "expression of gratitude." A lot of my feedback is not commentary, it's "thank you for putting this out there for me to read/view/etc." Sometimes it has commentary, too--"Thank you for this AWESOME thing..." But sometimes not.

That's maybe not related to the rest of your essay? But maybe it is, in that its existence/presence informs/affects people's expectations?

[synecdochic]

I'm kind of of-two-minds about that question -- whether or not it affects people's expectations. I do, though, think it can create (by its very existence) a form of shaping-the-discourse, in which readers who come by the post/announcement/etc will see the presence of that sort of thing and feel either more or less inclined to comment with their reactions, etc.

Basically, I think it's got some effect, but fucked if I know how much of an effect it has, or in which 'direction'. On the other hand, it's always nice to hear. :)

[synecdochic]

Hmm. (That is a thoughtful hmmm, of the "I recognize your reaction and understand where it's coming from even if I don't share all elements of it", just for the record. *g*) I'm trying to poke through my reactions here, not disagreeing with you

[synecdochic]

Well, I think another part of the problem is that most of the perspectives on this issue (and many other issues in fandom, heh) are mutually exclusive: either you think that talking about someone's work in anything other than glowingly positive terms (to them directly, or to a third party) is rude, or you don't. Either you think that 'rudeness' can sometimes be justified, or you don't. Etc, etc...

I personally hold the perspective that the Geek Social Fallacies are alive and well in fandom, that too many people are concerned with avoiding even the appearance of exclusion or hurt feelings, to the point where most people will overwhelmingly self-censor in public lest they be perceived as one of the Mean Girls In High School, while at the same time blowing off steam in private (because that's human nature), which then turns around and blows up when private or semiprivate becomes public ... but reconciling that with my genuine desire to avoid hurting feelings unless it is critically necessary, and the accompanying problem of defining '

[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. ;)

[anatsuno]

Thank you.
Not sure I'm completely on board with every detail--
(I think it's rude-ish to choose to write an unqualified 'I thought this story sucked' in one's own journal as a review, but I don't think that there is a proper moral imperative to avoid doing it - there are degrees. I don't even think it should warrant a public shunning... but then, this is where mileage varies a lot, innit. I never equated rude with mean, etc. *g*)--
but it's so complete and articulate and neat and close-enough (for me) that, yeah. just. *adopts to ponder moar*

[synecdochic]

I think it all depends on how it's phrased, for the most part. I can certainly see "I didn't think this story did what it set out to do" as being okay, and "this story wasn't for me", that kind of thing. I don't know if I'd say that there's necessarily a moral imperative to avoid "I thought this story sucked"-type reviews, but I think there's a classy way and a non-classy way to do it. *g*

I don't equate rude with mean either (for one thing, I try to avoid the words 'nice' and 'mean', becuase i think they're even more culturally-loaded than 'rude' and 'polite' for one and i think the word 'nice' has acquired a culturally-loaded assumption of phoniness at its worst and insipidity at its best), but I think it's possible to be classy even while you're expressing strong opinions, and that's something I strive for, you know? Don't always hit it, but I try. :)

[kita0610]

You R SmaRt.

And that's all the brain matter I have left for this, alas.

*bookmarks*

[synecdochic]

Considering that I have been awake for the better part of 24h and on heavy narcotic medication for much of that time, I hear you on the brain matter thing. *g*

[kita0610]

Ergh...me too. Late plane, early meeting. Nggffff. Unfortunately, no narcotics for me. JUST A LOT OF COFFEE.