Metafandom

Seek

Fri, Jan. 20th, 2006, 06:04 pm

[personal profile] inalasahl: Friday, January 20, 2006

General
[livejournal.com profile] musesfool - once they've pegged you, they've pegged you for life - You wouldn't know it to look at my desk or apartment, but I like organization*. Or, I should say, I like knowing where stuff is, and if I don't know where it is exactly, I like knowing how to find it.

[livejournal.com profile] loligo - some people... - How I use the term "crackfic": if I as the author ever giggled and thought "It's so crazy it just might work!!" while writing, then there was crack involved in the genesis of that story. And as a reader, I use the term the same way -- when the story gives me the feeling that the author was experiencing that.

[livejournal.com profile] marythefan - omg, the RED TAPE - I call shenanigans on the definitions that imply a get-out-of-jail-free card as regards technique or storytelling ability or characterization work. "Crackfic" is not a measure of skill or tone or even of execution. There's bad crackfic. There's good crackfic. There's more bad than good - that's because Sturgeon's Law applies just as it does in any case of fanfic. And good crackfic doesn't become not-crackfic.

[livejournal.com profile] saya415 - Observation: Follow the Leader - I'm not sure how other folks become active in a fandom but my understanding of the more "traditional" way into a fandom would be to watch a show/movie/etc and then search the net for like minded folks.

[livejournal.com profile] thassalia - Slightly Less Than Keen Eyes - And I run smack into the problem of the genre fan upon reading this, the umpteenth article that declares a love for BSG and a disdain for other scifi, by whatever moniker.

[livejournal.com profile] damned_colonial - PSA: Internet standards and your new LJ url - One of these standards documents, RFC 1035 , specifies what you're allowed to include in an internet domain name. And, in short, you aren't allowed underscores in domain names.

Fandom-Specific

[livejournal.com profile] destina - Symbolism and symmetry in Brokeback Mountain - Lee had the opportunity to flesh out the spaces in the story, but he wisely chose to let the landscape tell part of the story, representing the interior life of the characters, and to use symbolism and symmetry as a dual means of subtle emotional manipulation.

[livejournal.com profile] lunacy - [noooo, not the heetttt.] - We have to deal with this basic truth of her characterization, whatever our opinion of its plausibility in people -like- Hermione. This isn't -about- people 'like' Hermione (or whomever); it's about Hermione , who actually does find something she's drawn to with Ron. Well, what is it? That seems an interesting question to ask (especially if you can't tell!)

[livejournal.com profile] glossing - [meta/unfic] A/O Ship, Not Quite a Manifesto - Monsters/Lovers: Shipping, Writing, and/or Simply Appreciating Angel/Oz

On Creating and Criticism
[livejournal.com profile] entrenous88 - first to third person switch, POV changes, writing decisions - Am I weird that when someone starts a story in a particular person (first-person, second-person, third-person), I want them to use that mode all the way through the story ? It drives be a little batty when there's one section in first-person, then all of a sudden we're back in third (god help us all if there's a switch to second, though thankfully I've only ever seen second-person stories that stick to that mode throughout).

[livejournal.com profile] justacat - Thoughts about fic preferences ..... - There's this "how to tell a story I wrote" meme going around, and since I don't write stories I figured I'd modify it to suit me: how to tell a story I'll love!

Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 04:58 am
[identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

FYI, since (a) you don't ask permission to link to posts, and (b) you chose to ignore my cut-tag which had enough warning that there was potentially offensive stuff underneath it, and (c) openly posted some of it, I've chosen to flock that post.

Since that now nullifies being linked here, I ask that you remove the link.
  • Link
  • Thread
  • Reply

    • Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 06:48 am
    [identity profile] kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com

    Maybe next time you should put a bit notice that no one should reply unless they agree with you.
    • Link
    • Parent
    • Thread
    • Reply

      • Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 12:50 pm
      [identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

      I do. That's why I label them as 'rants' and not 'meta'. I don't do meta.

      I recognize three of the names on the compilers list for here as McKay/Sheppard fans, some of them exclusive to that pairing in the fandom. I wonder if that had any input in the decision to include the link in this post.
      • Link
      • Parent
      • Thread
      • Reply
        • (no subject) - (mouse)

        Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 03:09 pm
        [identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

        But links on metafandom are just that, links, they're not thinly disguised mockings or invitations for people to go and disagree with someone - in fact, we take care never to editorialize about the links in any way, and to, as much as possible, link to all the responses related to a particular issue, so that we present a well-rounded view of the issues involved.

        The rant wasn't meta. It was a rant. Posting the verbage the way you did to me is at the very least editing - you didn't pick the start of the post, nor did you pick another part of it that got to the meat of my rant.

        In this instance, we posted both the original rant about pairing names, and your subsequent response (which was public at that time) - why in the world would you assume some nefarious purponse when we link to your post, but not when we linked to the original one?

        Actually, I didn't link to the post that triggered the rant - which means, yep, there's apparently more than one, because it's not linked here.

        I never said anything about nefarious purpose. I did wonder about motivations. And my post is no longer public, yet the link is still up. Mind telling me why, when you pulled one from [livejournal.com profile] thecuttingboard when it didn't fit the guidelines listed in the comm's user info?

        In fact, we all often link to our own posts, so I assure you, being linked here is not an indication of disapproval or disapprobation.

        I'm actually not looking for that type of attention, hence the cut-tag and the warning. I certainly didn't want it from non-SGA fans, of which at least two have responded. If you are seeking that type of attention, more power to you.

        The bottom line is that if you make a public post, people who don't know you will see it, and some of them may disagree with you. Luckily, you always have the option of locking or filtering your posts to control who sees them. Also, as it says in the user info for this community, if you want a link removed, all you have to do is ask (with the understanding that not all of us are online 24/7, so it may take a while for the person who made that particular links post to get your email/comment and delete the link).

        Yep, and I don't mind disagreement. I had several responders disagree with me and where I cared to, I responded.

        And I chose to lock the post. And asked for the link to be removed.

        if you want a link removed, all you have to do is ask (with the understanding that not all of us are online 24/7

        Third time might be the charm: Please remove the link? Since you're obviously online enough to answer this.
        • Link
        • Parent
        • Thread
        • Reply
          • (no subject) - (mouse)

          Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 03:39 pm
          [identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

          I didn't make this specific post, and therefore, I can't edit it. I'm sure that when inalasahl comes back online, she'll edit the post to delete your comment. The reason the link is still there is that she hasn't been back to edit her post.

          Fair enough. I should have looked.

          Since I didn't make this post, I can't speak to the motives involved, but in general, our intentions are not to cause problems but simply to help people find interesting posts (whatever people choose to call them).

          OK. I'll assume the previous post wasn't trying to speak to the motives involved.

          but cut us a little slack and don't assume that we deliberately picked something inflammatory.

          Given that I've commented tons publically about fandom in my journal before - not meta; I don't consider my brains to be that type of intellect - and the first time I appear in here is with one of what even I consider somewhat inflammatory (hence cut-tagging and labeling it a rant), that one's going to be harder, but sure, I'll try.

          The point is that we make an attempt to represent both sides equally. In this case, you're offended that we did link, in other cases, posters have been offended that we *didn't* link to their posts.

          I wouldn't say I'm offended, per se; just not looking for the kind of attention your showcasing vs. my showcasing of that post will bring. Cross-fandom, even. I leave that for the BNF's.
          • Link
          • Parent
          • Thread
          • Reply

            • Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 04:25 pm
            [personal profile] inalasahl

            I feel like I need to respond to some of this, because I'm getting the sense that my motives are being called into question. First, it's too bad that I couldn't remove the link earlier, but I happened to be flying across the country.

            I don't know who linked it for us originally, but my including your entry in the post had nothing to do with any shipper wars. I'm not a McKay/Sheppard shipper. I'm not even in the fandom. I just (like this month) saw season one of Atlantis.

            Posting the verbage the way you did to me is at the very least editing - you didn't pick the start of the post, nor did you pick another part of it that got to the meat of my rant.
            I try to pick a quote that I think is a representative summary of what's in the post so that people can decide whether they want to read the whole thing. Maybe someone else would have picked a different quote, however, if you look at the other links in this post, you'll see that I almost never take the first sentence of anyone's post.

            I'm actually not looking for that type of attention, hence the cut-tag and the warning.
            Cut tags are only visible if you come to a post through your friends page or the user's journal page. I never saw a cut tag.

            Given that I've commented tons publically about fandom in my journal before - not meta; I don't consider my brains to be that type of intellect - and the first time I appear in here is with one of what even I consider somewhat inflammatory (hence cut-tagging and labeling it a rant), that one's going to be harder, but sure, I'll try.
            I don't know you or anything about what you've posted in the past. I sincerely was not trying to be inflammatory.
            • Link
            • Parent
            • Thread
            • Reply

              • Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 07:24 pm
              [identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

              Cut tags are only visible if you come to a post through your friends page or the user's journal page. I never saw a cut tag.

              I guess I never figured my rant would be popular enough to warrant passing around links that skipped the tags, which was partially why I ended up locking the post.

              I don't know you or anything about what you've posted in the past. I sincerely was not trying to be inflammatory.

              And I did put effort into what I worded here. But when I'm getting Harry Potter fans covering something that's been done to death in preceeding comments (beating a dead horse is exercise, I guess), then it's probably time to lock it anyway. Thank you for the explanation, and again for pulling the link.
              (no subject) - (mouse)

              Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 07:29 pm
              [identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

              Someone stumbled across your post and thought it would be of interest to readers of this community. The fact that no one has ever linked to one of your posts before simply means that no one *saw* your earlier posts.

              Thank you for the explanation; I'm just kind of at a loss as to why the post was here. It's a rant; kind of a one note thing and unlikely to spark more discussion than it already has. I'm not looking to change the face of fandom with my post; I was merely unloading. Yes, in a public post, but really - unless I was of the type to flock any and everything, it wasn't high on my expectations to get quoted and potentially offend people who would never fall into the category I was ranting about.
              • Link
              • Parent
              • Thread
              • Reply

                • Sun, Jan. 22nd, 2006, 03:03 am
                [identity profile] kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com

                It was a rant written as a response to [livejournal.com profile] thefourthvine's rant, which was linked in the previous issue of metafandom (http://community.livejournal.com/metafandom/42171.html). Seems like a pretty good reason to link it to me. Metafandom very often links posts (be they essays or rants) written in response to posts they have previously linked in the assumption that people who read the original post would be interested in further discussion.
                • Link
                • Parent
                • Thread
                • Reply

                  • Sun, Jan. 22nd, 2006, 03:54 am
                  [identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

                  It was a rant written as a response to thefourthvine's rant, which was linked in the previous issue of metafandom.

                  Since I never mentioned the source, that's a leap on your part. In fact, I've seen similar posts in the past - never people I read all that regularly, and not anyone I'd suspect as having an interest in my fic.

                  Seems like a pretty good reason to link it to me.

                  I'm not you. I disagreed. And it was my journal, so it was my option to lock it. Which I did.

                Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 11:23 pm
                [personal profile] fairestcat

                [deleted and reposted as the beginning had gone vaguely nonsensical somehow]

                Since I was the one who posted and then removed the [livejournal.com profile] thecuttingboard link, I can address what happened there.

                Only a couple minutes after I made my post, [livejournal.com profile] isiscolo left me a comment that she hadn't realized when she memoried it that teh community only allows comments from members. If I had realized that at the time I would not have included it in my original post.

                However, it is only because she caught it that fast that I was still online to delete the link. The [livejournal.com profile] metafandom update is usually one of the last things I do before going to bed. If she'd made her comment even half an hour later, I wouldn't have seen it until I got home from work the next evening, as I don't check lj from work. The speed with which the [livejournal.com profile] thecuttingboard link came down was in fact an anomaly due to fortuitous happenstance, and should not be taken as the norm.

                Also, I feel compelled to point out that while I do read and enjoy McKay/Sheppard, I am not an exclusive fan of any one pairing in any fandom I'm in. The only SGA story I've ever written is Elizabeth gen. And in my last SGA recs set (of [livejournal.com profile] sga_santa stories) only 4 of the 13 stories I linked to were McKay/Sheppard. In fact, one of the stories I recced -- and then praised again in a later post -- was yours.

              Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 05:12 pm
              [identity profile] isiscolo.livejournal.com

              Hi there. I'm the person who added your post to the link set. I am not an OTP fan of any pairing; I like McKay/Sheppard, but I also like McKay/Weir (I am less interested in Sheppard/Weir because not enough McKay, but I'll read it). The pairing aspect of your post had no bearing on my decision to add it.

              What did was that 1) it was apparently a reply to a previously linked post, and 2) as the previously linked post contained comments mostly against the use of "Sparky" as a designation that contains no useful information for newbies (which I agree with and had commented on there), I thought it was reasonable to link to a post that presented the opposite view.

              In response to your comment about not linking to your other posts, I am new at [livejournal.com profile] metafandom this week. I also found your post via friendsfriends, so I wouldn't necessarily have found your others. I don't have any personal bias against you, if that's what you're wondering.

              I'm sorry if I created any problems for you.
              • Link
              • Parent
              • Thread
              • Reply

                • Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 07:41 pm
                [identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

                What did was that 1) it was apparently a reply to a previously linked post, and 2) as the previously linked post contained comments mostly against the use of "Sparky" as a designation that contains no useful information for newbies (which I agree with and had commented on there), I thought it was reasonable to link to a post that presented the opposite view.

                Hmm, the one I read was as against "McShep" as it was "Sparky". It was kind of a purist one. And it wasn't a dislike of the pairing name that sparked the rant, in any case. People like what they like and not everyone's going to agree. No, the rant was more about telling fandom what it as a whole can and cannot do.

                Again, as stated, when I posted I wasn't expecting a response from anyone other than my flist, and maybe one or two others in SGA fandom, so getting response from the Harry Potter fandom was a bit of a surprise.

                I want to say, I've enjoyed your fics in the past and most likely will again in the future; I also don't have any bias against you, but when trying to figure out why a post that was basically one note ranting made a meta list, I was scratching my head and drawing a blank.

                Problems were most likely contained and nipped by flocking the post and having it removed here, so thanks again for that.

                Sun, Jan. 22nd, 2006, 02:50 am
                [identity profile] kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com

                I'm unfamiliar with the definition of rant as something no one should disagree with.

              Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 03:58 pm
              [personal profile] inalasahl

              I've removed it. If your cut tag had some kind of "don't link" message in it, I apologize. I never saw a cut tag, as they don't show up in entry view. However, I don't think that "offensive-ness" is weighed when deciding what to include in a [livejournal.com profile] metafandom post. (This is only my third update; I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.)
              • Link
              • Parent
              • Thread
              • Reply

                • Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 04:11 pm
                [identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

                Thank you. It didn't, per se, but the verbage indicated that I was ranting and didn't really welcome people who might tell me where and how to shove it. If I'd wanted that, I would've posted a link on [livejournal.com profile] sga_noticeboard.

                I hope you have many more (and more fun) updates ahead of you. I fully acknowledge that while something might not be my cup of tea, that's absolutely no reason for tea in general to be taken off the market, so to speak.
                • Link
                • Parent
                • Thread
                • Reply

                  • Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 10:57 pm
                  [identity profile] commodorified.livejournal.com

                  the verbage indicated that I was ranting and didn't really welcome people who might tell me where and how to shove it.

                  I have, on one or two occasions included at the top of a post which for various reasons I wanted to leave public 'I would prefer this post not to be linked'

                  -- usually because it was a thought in progress, but in no case and for no reason has the request been ignored or even questioned by metafandom compilers.

                  It's not a bad way to avoid this w/o feeling compelled to lock stuff down.
                  • Link
                  • Parent
                  • Thread
                  • Reply

                    • Sun, Jan. 22nd, 2006, 03:56 am
                    [identity profile] rosewildeirish.livejournal.com

                    Thank you for the advice. As I've said before, I'm still pretty much scratching my head over this. I really didn't think the rant was in any way, shape or form interesting to those who don't regularly read my journal, let alone cross fandom.

                  Sat, Jan. 21st, 2006, 06:47 am
                  [identity profile] telesilla.livejournal.com: sorry for the wrong URL

                  More meta about crackfic -- http://telesilla.livejournal.com/381457.html