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, 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.