Oh my! I'm actually going to take part in this. Strange, eh?
Not usually my cup of tea-- I might say something about it
on FFIRC (stop in and chat!) but I usually don't post....

Perhaps it's because my inbox got all bollixed up and is, well,
now empty as a result (such a liberating feeling!)
This also means that if you've sent me an email in the last week
or so and I haven't replied, well... try again

(aha! So I *DO* have an ulterior motive! What a sneaky bastard,
eh?) ^_^

At 04:10 AM 8/30/98 -0400, Nick Leifker wrote:
<some things which I might snip, as they're irrelevant to this
post>

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Andy Skuse wrote:

	Is it just me or is there something ironic about the parallel
threads of
'what happened to public C&C' and the acrimonious sniping that seems to be
occuring with a lot of that public C&C?

I find it rather delicious, myself, in a way, but then again I've always
found irony to be a very tasty treat. Strangely enough, I never seem to
have a shortage of that particular delicacy.... :-)
	(why am I suddenly feeling hungry?)

C&C is not to 'trash' someone else's work.  It is to help the writer make
a better work, in some way or another.  This means keeping the vision of
the writer in mind; making a suggestion contrary to that vision is not
helping in any way, shape, or form.

Even so, there are shades. Perhaps one sees certain themes which could
quite easily be explored in the fic which the author does not, or which
the author is not developing because they might interfere with what the
author feels is the true purpose of the fic.
	Shouldn't the author know what the underlying truth of the story
he or she wrote? Not necessarily. How many times have you started writing
something that ended up totally different than what you expected? I
believe Zen said as much happened to him when writing the "Bitter End,"
not originally intending it to be as... well, dark, as it is (if I'm
wrong, and I cheerfully concede the possibility that I am, feel free
to slap me around a couple of times and correct me!). 
	I hold the belief that there are multiple ways to view a work
of fiction, myriad perspectives within which to analyse it. Why
should there not be? After all, what affects you deeply might barely
scratch my surface, and what affects me deeply might not affect you
at all. Such a belief means that there is no single 'correct' way to
view a fic, a book, or a manga. The author then has no more authority 
on the text in question (once written) than any other critic, because
while the author may have intended certain things, said things might
not be evident to others.
	It is entirely conceivable that the author did not even intend
to include certain themes, which crept in unconsciously-- does that
mean that said themes do not exist if the author doesn't notice them
or intend them? I do not believe so, at least.

	The fallibity of the author with regards to interpretting his or
her (finished) work, and the concept of more than a single correct
way to read something are things I can accept. It makes sense to me, 
after all, if you read a story again, do you not often get things out of
it you missed before, or perhaps even something totally different? Does
that make the first time or the second time you read a story any less
valid an interpretation than the last?
	As I say, it makes sense to me, at least....

However, who defines 'helping'?  Is it helpful to criticize a different
characterization interpretation, just because it happens to disagree with
your own?  Chances are, the writer knows as much about the series as the
critic - and, yet, I have seen critic after critic push the
characterization argument too far, usually on the simple basis that it
disagrees with their own interpretation.  As such, the writers themselves
have been forced to be on their guard, ready to defend their work to the
death if need be.  (Read: Trigger-happy.) 

I think that there are many (spam/flame/near flame) threads precisely because
of definitions. The participants sometimes seem to be arguing two (or more)
different things, because they do not have an agreement on what the terms
are or mean. One could argue that IC/OOC debates are a quest to define the
terms of the character, I suppose....
	Another part of these ongoing threads is sometimes the participants
seem, to me, to not really be debating or arguing. The winner is
whoever shouts the loudest, it sometimes looks to others. In a debate, one
should go in with an open mind, willing to be convinced by the other side;
not merely trying to convince the other person of your point of view. If you
cannot see the other side, how can you formulate effective counter-arguments?
I never understood that. To me, a debate is about thesis, anti-thesis and
synthesis. The purpose of a debate is to come to a resolution, not to say
"I'm right and you're wrong."

(It sometimes looks like "fan" is short for "fanatic" does it not? ^_^ )

I guess my point is this: A good critic, one who is willing to work with
the writer rather than order them around, is a rare thing anymore.  At the

Language is important. When expressing an opinion one should use much
softer, more passive words. I think I've done a pretty good job of this in
the past when I've done so occasionally on the list. I'd like to think
that this here is a good example, wherein I suggest possibilities and
state opinion rather than make statements of 'fact.'

same time, a writer who isn't jaded enough to be unwilling to accept help

>from public C&C is equally rare.  As such, we have flamewar after

flamewar.

Which leaves us with one question: What can be done to stop it?

A possible answer (maybe I'm too much of a dreamer; I dunno):

The critic must ask if what he or she is writing is for the good of the
work in question.  Will his remarks help the work?  If not, why not?  Is
there a way to state concerns while showing where those concerns come
from?  Finally, is the critique offensive, in a way that is preventable?

One should explain the reasoning behind one's comments when giving C&C,
if for no other reason that it could help the author not make similar
errors in the future, knowing why something is an error. This has
always been my principle (it helps that I have a nigh obsessive
desire to explain myself, and am fond of my own voice, mind you).

If it is offensive, would it be better to post privately, rather than in a
public forum?

If offensive, why post at all? After all, if it contains something useful,
then it cannot be totally offensive, can it? There are degrees, mind you,
etiquette and politeness should play a part (simple courtesy at the very
least).


I also agree with a post by Alan Harnum-- fight irrationality with logic,
ignorance with knowledge and fire with water (well, not all fires... grease
fires, for instance... that'd be bad, dumping water on a grease fire).
	But if the person is trying to goad a response, and doesn't seem to
acknowledge, or refute your arguments and keeps on spewing forth the
same again and again? Well, use logic-- ignore them because if they thrive
on responses and no one responds... you should be able to work out the
rest, I'm sure.

Well, that's pretty much all I have to say about it. Agree, disagree, it's
your choice. I'm done, and that's enough for me....

Matthew "Maybeso" Lewis is:
That guy with "Maybe" and/or "Definitely" in his name on IRC
See him on FFIRC! [bachman.newberry.edu fanfic]
Sojiro_Seta on Kawaiimuck
	maybeso@ican.net
_________________________________________________________________

"The world, however, is not for Fun," Khattam-Shud replied. "The
world is for Controlling."
	"Which world?" Haroun made himself ask.
	"Your world, my world, all worlds," came the reply. "They
are meant to be Ruled. And inside every single story, inside 
every Stream of the Ocean, there lies a world, a storyworld, that
I cannot Rule at all. And that is the reason why."
		--from Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman
		  Rushdie (p.161)
_________________________________________________________________