Which shouldn't come as a surprise. I have been having conversations with the boy-friend about the nature of fandom (to be specific the nature of yaoi-fandom that sees m/m in shows such as 'Samurai Champloo,' which makes slightly irritated because he cannot see anything of the sort. The conclusion, we agreed to disagree,) and it really should be obvious that fandom is a diverse culture because people are different. What's worse is that we all take everything way too seriosuly *sighs*
(What irritate me about the whole discussion is not the fact that authors are expressing a view about the perception and treatment of their own work. What irritate me is that there appear to be a double standard now. So, if the author does not want my honest opinion, I should not comment? There are numerous works out there that I adore but I'm not blind to their faults, am I suppose to harp on about their wonderfulness but not comment on what I thought was not wonderful about their work? Many a-author ask, often rabidly, for feedback, c&c they say, and when an honest opinion is given they sees it as an attack on their work. I'm trying to put my thoughts/feelings into words. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if they are not happy with the one-line SQUUE as a comment than maybe they shouldn't complain when they don't get comments. And this is probably another topic, but I honestly do feel as if the line between honest, thoughful opinion and rabid attack is becoming more and more murky. So, instead of c&c please, are we going to be getting something like 'dnc' (do not critique). I just don't know. *frustrated*)
Just tell him it's *fandom,* it mostly *makes no sense.* And that you can never really understand pr0n you don't go for. :D
No, I think writers should be perfectly free to disagree violently and at length at the substance of the criticisms or comments. They should feel perfectly free to say that the reader's interpretation is wrong.
I agree that dnc is helpful. Stops people from wasting their time as well. True, what most writers really want is glowing praise/recs, but what are writers really entitled to? Is it reasonable for them to expect that? These are two different things, I feel. The whole situation in truth interests me as one of whether compromise can be achieved. How can you deal with people who angrily demand that one liners be ceased, when you have others complaining that squee is just fine? Then you have others bitterly ranting that they receive none, others complaining that the concrit was insufficiently constructive, and even some people complaining about being recced where they couldn't see, even when comments were uniformly positive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
(What irritate me about the whole discussion is not the fact that authors are expressing a view about the perception and treatment of their own work. What irritate me is that there appear to be a double standard now. So, if the author does not want my honest opinion, I should not comment? There are numerous works out there that I adore but I'm not blind to their faults, am I suppose to harp on about their wonderfulness but not comment on what I thought was not wonderful about their work? Many a-author ask, often rabidly, for feedback, c&c they say, and when an honest opinion is given they sees it as an attack on their work. I'm trying to put my thoughts/feelings into words. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if they are not happy with the one-line SQUUE as a comment than maybe they shouldn't complain when they don't get comments. And this is probably another topic, but I honestly do feel as if the line between honest, thoughful opinion and rabid attack is becoming more and more murky. So, instead of c&c please, are we going to be getting something like 'dnc' (do not critique). I just don't know. *frustrated*)
no subject
No, I think writers should be perfectly free to disagree violently and at length at the substance of the criticisms or comments. They should feel perfectly free to say that the reader's interpretation is wrong.
I agree that dnc is helpful. Stops people from wasting their time as well. True, what most writers really want is glowing praise/recs, but what are writers really entitled to? Is it reasonable for them to expect that? These are two different things, I feel. The whole situation in truth interests me as one of whether compromise can be achieved. How can you deal with people who angrily demand that one liners be ceased, when you have others complaining that squee is just fine? Then you have others bitterly ranting that they receive none, others complaining that the concrit was insufficiently constructive, and even some people complaining about being recced where they couldn't see, even when comments were uniformly positive.