I need a life, part 495,746

[sholio]

Pertaining to the previous SPN post, a couple of links to interesting discussions on race and gender issues in SPN:

Letter to Eric Kripke
On fannish objections to race/gender discussions of SPN

What I should be doing at the moment is working on my graphic novel script, which is soundly kicking my ass today. Obviously, I'm having some trouble maintaining proper focus. Also, I just realized it's already the 23rd and I still owe stargateficrec two recs each in the Sheppard and Sheppard/McKay friendship categories before the end of the month. Oops.

Hey, a question for everybody: When you rec stories, do you feel compelled to point out the flaws in your rec (making it more like a review, I suppose), or do you try to remain positive?

I find myself taking a different approach when I'm reccing things on my journal vs. at a public rec site like stargateficrec or stargategenrec. In my role as "public" reccer, I really do try to do all-positive recs -- which sometimes means finding things to rec that I really don't have any complaints about, or sometimes forcing myself to avoid mentioning the issues that I might have had with something I'm reccing. (Spelling/grammar mistakes, an ending I didn't like, etc.) I suppose that it seems unfair to bias a reader against something beforehand, when the item that bothered me might not bother them at all.

On my journal, though, I'm usually a lot more honest -- I still wouldn't rec something I didn't feel was worthy of it, obviously, but I do tend to mention things that bugged me about the story as well as things I thought were brilliant. The difference ... I guess that it's a matter of my journal being my own private space, and because it *does* make me a little uncomfortable to rec things I'm not 100% positive about without mentioning the flaws, I'd rather preserve my own comfort in my own journal. On public rec sites, I'm less concerned about my own comfort and more interested in pointing readers at a fic without predisposing them to look for the flaws in it.

As a reccer, what about you? Or is it even something you've thought about?

As a reader, do you prefer an honest, "warts and all" review, or would you rather go into a story with a more positive impression in mind? Or do you even read a rec beyond simply finding links to click on? (Which is actually the approach I take, more often than not. I'll skim the summary part of a rec to find out if the story sounds like my cup of tea, but I don't usually read beyond that because I'd rather be unspoiled.)

As a writer, do you object to having recs of your stories that aren't all-positive? Would you prefer not to be recced at all rather than have your story memorialized for all time as "Great characterization, terrible grammar"? (Me, I don't mind a bit, just for the record. Well, I might gripe in private about a review that I thought was really, truly unfair, but mostly I'm just interested to find out what people have to say about my stories.)

Comments

Here from metafandom

[waywardoctagon.livejournal.com]

Well--I haven't done any "public" recs (as in, posted to a community and aimed at everyone in the community. I have made recs in, say, a public entry in someone's journal/my own journal, or comments on a public entry in a community) but when I rec things one-on-one, I tend to mention what I think are the flaws. I might say something like, "Author X is a little too fond of deus ex machina endings, but his worldbuilding is fantastic and his writing is engaging". I do this for a couple of reasons... first, I feel like knowing about the flaws beforehand can make it easier to look past them (if I know beforehand that something has a lame ending, I get less invested in the plot and focus more on other aspects, so the lame ending doesn't really upset me when it happens). Sometimes, something's more enjoyable if it's in line with my general expectations. If I'm looking for something serious and I get cheesy fun, I'm going to be a little put out, even if the cheesy fun is something that I might normally enjoy. Second, it seems like it's only fair to warn the person ahead of time, just in case that flaw is something they really hate. Sort of like warning for potential squicks. I mean, the point isn't to get them to read it no matter what--the point is to tell them about something I think they might like.

I won't go into the flaws in too much detail, or dwell on them much, though, if I liked the story. I just try to mention them in passing to give the person a better idea of what to expect.

ETA: Oh, and if the flaws are something minor that I think might be easily overlooked, I might not say what they are specifically... just something along the lines of, "It has some issues with grammar, but overall..." or "It has a few problems/issues, but I think they're relatively minor."

Re: Here from metafandom

[friendshipper.livejournal.com]

Yeah ... I can see your points. It's such a tough call for me to make -- I don't want to predispose a reader not to like a story, because usually, when I'm reccing something, it's because I'm all "Squee! Yay!" about the story and I would like other people to have a chance for Squee! Yay! of their own. On the other hand, especially after reading some of the other comments here, I wonder if people might be MORE likely to give a story a chance if the flaws are mentioned in context, so they don't stop reading immediately when they hit a grammar error or misspelled name. Hmm...