![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I need a life, part 495,746
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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 likestargateficrec 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.)
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.)
no subject
That's why I tend to be torn about in-depth critiques. I want them, I do, then I recieve them and either go on the defensive or suddenly think my work is crap. A lot of times, though, it's because of the way the critique is handle - pointing out more bad than good, and offering no suggestions for making things better. I once had a critique where the person chastized me for not doing more with a particular character. I apologized, thought they had a point, then later learned from another writer that this person is never satisfied with the way writers handle her favorite character. She wasn't critiquing my work, she was trying to steer me in the direction "she" wanted me to go.
I think the best critiques, IMO, are one-on-one - with betas, over e-mails, etc - so that the issues can be talked out and, therefore, worked out. The best writing class I took was a one-on-one seminar with a published author, and it was very insightful and a heck of a lot less daunting than having a group critique my work.