Yeah...on 2 Jul 98,, at 16:03, that cat David Lerman was going on 'bout
something:
I am commenting about it because otherwise it is not a badly written story
and illustrates that a story can be well written technically and still be a
mediocre or bad story. Recently, I have had the impression that too many
of us on the FFML only read a story when the spelling and grammar are
correct. Certainly, mea culpa. The very fact that I read through a story
that had little appeal for me demonstrates this phenomenon. Although a
good story should be independent of the quality of the spelling, often I
skip a story because of poor aesthetics (repeated misspellings, poor
formatting, and the like), perhaps because stories with poor aesthetics are
rarely well written. Misspellings, poor grammar, and bad formatting signal
to the reader that the author did not put much work into the story. If the
author doesn't care about the story, then why should the reader? .
What should critics look for in a story? We use terms like "character
development", "plot", "consistency", but each of us have a different idea
of what these mean. I would like to see some discussion on the FFML about
what we look for when reviewing a story, what we like, what we dislike,
i.e. what makes a good fanfic.
The problem with looking beyond spelling and grammar when critiquing a work
is because deficiency in those two areas makes for difficult reading. I've
had a hard enough time looking through MY fanfictions before running them
through the first cycle of proofs--they're still in that process (I don't
think I'll finish them anytime this year, so what I post is bound to have a
few grammatical mistakes and spelling errors). However, some fanfics arrive
either on the newsgroup or this mailing list without any indication that the
author took the time to proof in the first place. For longer fics, this is
understandable--largely because a fair number of mistakes in a work as long
as (random example) Jeanne Hedge's In the Shadows is spread out over several
pages of e-text. Reading something relatively short with the same number of
errors takes some getting used to. I neither have the paper or toner to
print it out on a more convenient medium nor do I have to the time to sit in
front of a screen for an hour or more simply deciphering homonymic and
homophonic mistakes for a story massing no more than ten kilobytes.
When critiquing a work, the first thing I do is remind myself that I *didn't*
write it. That means I don't question an author's handling of an established
character (unless its one of my creations), or interpretation of established
plotlines. Also, it means I won't criticize plots, settings, and imagery
unless certain conditions compel me to do so. If one writes a fic with the
intent of passing off a hard sf feel, I'll critique the science involved. I
am no expert in any field, but even I can pick out the multphasic field in
all its hellish configurations. This goes for stories using real life
knowledge--history, science, geography or otherwise--with significant impact
on a story's primary imagery or plot. I prefer to point out any such
inaccuracy in the form of polite corrections, much in the same way you'd
inform someone of a grammatical or spelling error.
However, if it is not pivotal to a work, or if the story presents itself in a
manner that makes factual knowledge utterly irrelevent, OR if the author
seems to require a critique in another area, I'll ignore that echelon of
criticism. Instead, I prefer to critique on the basis of clarity (I've had
enough criticism of that sort for my own fanfics, so I'm proud to say I know
something about the subject). Can I understand what the author is trying to
do in a certain scene? Does the dialogue make sense? Does the author
maintain internal consistency in plot, characterization, and (if applicable)
theme? If not, is their a deliberate attempt to skew consistency that can be
detected? If there is, has the author done so successfully.
I write verbosely, and it would be hypocritical of me to critique negatively
on that issue. Of course, it would be antithetical to my wish for every
fanfic author to improve to advocate writing profusely rather than sharply
and to the point; so I refuse to critique from that perspective.
Finally, I never EVER send a complete, serious critique to a public forum--
for two reasons. A) I can always send shorter, broader critiques or MSTies
to inform an author that I am reading his or her fic and I'm interested in
reading more. B) The complete criticism should be made public by the author,
not the critiquer, IMHO. If I do draft a critique, I prefer to work with the
author on it--and those discussions may lead into areas that require some
degree of personal confidence. I manage to avoid spoiling my fanfics by
accepting the general criticisms of the mailing list populace while relying
on a close circle of interested readers that comment via priv-mail.
Well, that's just my two cents. If you ask me, a lot of fanfics out there
are "crap" only because we've all read works by people PAID to write.
Mediocrity becomes such a relative term that I don't even consider it;
fanfics are written primarily to be enjoyed. Some authors attempt to convey
deeper messages in their works--hell, I do, albeit from my ultra-right,
hawkish hook on life. Yet it requires an extraordinary suspension of
disbelief to get past the absurdity of the vehicle we choose. After all, how
many people REALLY watched Patlabor 2 the first time for Oshii's political
testament?
-The Reverend Prez
* * *
------------------------------------------------------
-----The Representative of the Everlasting Funk-------
--<Presley H. Cannady II>--<cannady@magiccarpet.com>
"Do not encamp on entrapping terrain. Unite with your
allies on focal terrain. Do not remain on isolated
terrain. Make strategic plans for encircled terrain.
On fatal terrain you must do battle...."
-- Wu Sun-tzu, fourth century B.C.E.
----<http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1731/index.html>
----<http://members.tripod.com/~revprez/index.html>--