Comments on LJ events you're already bored with

[resonant]

1. Love memes (like the one going on at queenofthorns right now) are much easier these days now that LJ introduced its little thumbtack icon! You can track the entire discussion (to see if anyone you know comments asking for love), or you can track your anonymous comment (so you can see if the person replies to it). It's very cool.

2. Some of the discussion on helenish's Take Clothes Off As Directed seems to be implying that it's a brand-new (and unfair) thing to comment on/criticize a piece of literature by writing another piece of literature in response to it.

But this sort of conversation between two literary works is at least as old as when Christopher Marlowe wrote The Passionate Shepherd to His Love ("Come live with me and be my love/And we will all the pleasures prove") and Sir Walter Raleigh replied with The Nymph's Reply to the Shepherd ("If all the world and love were young/And truth on every shepherd's tongue ...").

Comments

[september1967.livejournal.com]

I have had so many different things hurled at me just because I responded differently to the story than others that its way beyond disregard. Believe me, I won't be ashamed, but I will wonder at how all this could have been avoided if someone had just wrote more than one line of notes before posting a story that was this controversial at the least.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I've seen your discussions with others in a number of venues, and I have to say that I think part of the problem has been how you express yourself--often, what you say isn't very clear or seems to stray from the point. In this instance, I don't understand what things that have been 'hurled' at you have to do with disregarding the comments people made at the end of Helen's story (which you say is what changed your like to dislike), what you would be ashamed of and who should have written more notes--do you mean Helen? Are you saying that if Helen had written something more in her author notes, no one would have compared the stories? I don't think that's true. I don't think there's any way this series of stories wouldn't have engendered discussion, but a lot of us think that that discussion hasn't been a bad thing.

[september1967.livejournal.com]

I certainly would have known more about what I was going to read or might not have chosen to read it at all. I'm all for discussion, but I don't consider people saying how much they dislike Xanthe's stories discussion.

I have been called an idiot because I didn't see the allegory of feminism at first, though what really occured was I saw it when I read it but had real issues with putting a sub in that mindset. I am highly uncomfortable with saying that a sub is being abused or not given choices. Color me sensitive, but I was uncomfortable with that in the story. Not because I have I dislike dark scenarios in stories because of the potential of others to say 'well, see, that's what I've always thought D/s was all about.' I have come across people who say this all the time, in fact one of my closest friends always tells me she equates D/s as abusive.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I don't think that Helen could have written anything in her author notes that would have prepared you for the negative responses of the readers in the following comments, comments that Helen was not responsible for. If you're saying that Helen should have said, "This is a slam against Xanthe and I invite you all to join me in slamming Xanthe in the comments to this story!" so you could have known that was what it was about and what you were going to see in the comments, then you're barking up entirely the wrong tree. That was NOT the intended purpose of this story. Commenters saying that they thought it was, if there were any, do not make that so. I don't know what you think Helen should have said that would have made everything okay for you if you're convinced that the purpose behind the story was nefarious to begin with. It wasn't, so there was no reason that she should have included disclaimers saying that it was, regardless of what the commenters had to say. Period.

In discussion, it would have made your stance much easier to understand if you had said, up front, that it wasn't that you couldn't see the discussed themes in the story but that you didn't want to because you couldn't get past your discomfort with certain elements in the story. You didn't like thinking the story was written to slam Xanthe, and you didn't like the portrayal of D/s in Helen's imaginary society. If you had said that instead of repeating "I don't see it" when you really meant "I don't care about those themes because these issues have invalidated the story for me", then people would have understood that. You didn't, and people were confused. Be upfront about your biases and express them as clearly as you can and people will know how to engage with you and not become so frustrated. You have valid and interesting points, but you weren't making them in a way anyone could understand, so people were becoming annoyed, and so were you.

[september1967.livejournal.com]

Icarus described the story as a dark version of Xanthe's series. That might have made me stop or at least been aware of the direction if Helen put that in her notes.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

But that's only what Icarus said, not Helen. Just because that's what Icarus thinks doesn't make it true. That's what I'm trying to explain to you--what people said in the comments has nothing to do with Helen's intent. They don't know Helen's intent any more than anyone else does. Helen couldn't and didn't disclaim for reader reaction because she didn't know what that reaction was going to be. You aren't going to find a definitive explanation of what the story was about in the comments to the story, or in the Cuttingboard discussion, or in any other discussion on the net unless it comes directly from Helen. Remember how you said that people kept hurling contrary explanations at you, and you were becoming confused? That's because all a reader has to go on is her own reaction to the story, her own ideas about what it might be about, and those are all going to differ. Your own interpretation of the story's purpose as a slam against Xanthe will be as valid to you as my interpretation of the story as a feminist allegory is to me, but neither of us may be right when it comes to what was actually in Helen's head. Neither of us can know that, and none of the commenters can know that--no one can, unless Helen tells us, herself. Until that happens, it's all interpretation. We'll discuss whose interpretation we feel is the most likely to be true, and why, share our impressions, but NO ONE knows Helen meant but Helen. So disregard what Icarus had to say about the story, because it's only her interpretation, and don't expect Helen to disclaim for things that other people think. There's no reason for her to.

[september1967.livejournal.com]

Interestingly enough, the story was always about the relationship between Dom and sub to me. It only became more than that when others were telling me what I should think about the story.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

Story discussion is supposed to be about hearing others' thoughts on a story and either dismissing or incorporating them into our own views based on how valid we think their arguments are. (And, sometimes, also about shared squee. *g*) Other people can tell you what they think, even forcefully, but no one can MAKE you think something you don't agree with. You say you saw the feminist allegory originally, but then decided you couldn't see the story as feminist if it was about one female writer bashing another female writer's work. You've said that your main focus then shifted to the D/s relationship, but that was soured for you by what you saw as an unflattering and untrue portrayal of the D/s lifestyle. Those are all valid thoughts, and the only reason you should change them would be if you read arguments for other areas of focus or interpretation that you thought had merit and made you rethink your own. People will disagree with you in discussion because there are as many ways to interpret a story as there are people reading it. It doesn't mean that you should let anyone tell you what you should think about a story. They'll express their views, and you'll express yours, and you and they will either change your views based on those arguments, or you won't. No one can tell you what to think, and they aren't trying to, if they're really discussing and not just trying to browbeat others into seeing things their way. Sift through the arguments and see if any impress you as being valid. Change your views or not, based on that. It's about learning through discussion, being informed by others' opinions, not absorbing and internalizing without thought. Keep to your own views if you still find, after discussion and consideration, they're still the most logical ones, in your opinion.

[september1967.livejournal.com]

I've been in fandom since about 1998 and have been many things within several fandoms. LJ is a different beast, but the strangest beast of all have been fans who feel they are the police of it all. Lurking has been the best thing for me because I get to see some of the oddest comments coming from the most unusual sources.

[carolyn-claire.livejournal.com]

I have issues with the 'fannish police' (or the 'kindergarten teachers' of fandom, as I've been known to call them) too, but from the other side--being told "that's not done" or "that's not nice", so I understand the frustration. And I agree that fandom has become a very changeable beast since moving to LJ. I feel like a creaky oldtimer for holding on to some of the views that I do, but there are a number of them I'm going to stand by, regardless of what the youngsters think and do. But you'll usually find me wading (loudly) into the middle of it all, anyway. *g*