Cross-posted to my Dreamwidth, Livejournal, and Insanejournal accounts.

Suppose there was a community co-moderated by at least three, but preferrably six or seven, people who held different views in the current warnings debate. Suppose the purpose of this community was to create a directory of the individual labeling policies of fanworks creators, with links to their work and any public policy statements. Suppose this information was gathered strictly from creators who volunteered it themselves, using their exact phrasing. The community would not attempt to enforce any kind of labeling format or standard, and would not pass judgment on any policy. Suppose that, along with the above, the directory included information on whether or not the fanworks creator was reachable for questions about a particular work, and the preferred method of contact if so.

As proposed, would such a community be useful to you? As proposed, would such a community be hurtful or offensive to you? What concerns would you have about such a community? What suggestions would you have to address those concerns (note that you absolutely do NOT have to offer suggestions in order to voice concerns)? What might you think was a good name for such a community?

If you are not comfortable voicing your concerns in public, I am reachable at ranalore at gmail dot com. I'm sorry, but I do not and do not ever plan to allow anonymous comments.

Title: In Living Memory
Author: Rana Eros
Fandom: Dark Angel
Summary: "What is precious is never to forget."
Author's Notes: Written as a coda to the episode "Two." Betaed by Eliza. Summary from the poem "The Truly Great" by Stephen Spender.

( In Living Memory )

The great thing about writing a meta essay in response to fannish discussions, and then submitting it somewhere like ffsymposium is that, when the topic inevitably rolls around again (and again and again), rather than having to write up your thoughts all over again, you can just link to said essay, then expand on it or say how your views have changed since then. Saves some typing time.

Thus, I give you my take on fannish criticism, in its several forms, and what I consider to be the appropriate and "civil" response from an author. I now co-mod a community in which it's required for an author/artist/vidder to include a "criticism comfort zone" rating in their headers when they post new work to the community. This rating lets other community members know how welcome different types of feedback are, and anyone who doesn't respect the rating on a piece gets a warning, followed by banning if they repeat the offense. However, we also make it explicit in the community rules that, if someone wants to review a piece, what they say may not match the creator's comfort rating, because reviews are not for the benefit of the author. Nor is reviewing limited to pieces actually posted in the community. So everyone has to decide whether she can cope with that before joining the community. If not, she needs to not follow the community, or at least not read any reviews of her work that come up. While we as mods make certain reviews stick to the work and not the creator, it's the creator's job to recognize whether or not she can separate herself from her work. Authors who try to shut down discussion of their work that is not aimed at them get a warning, followed by banning if they repeat the offense.

We haven't had to ban anyone so far, in part because members are very hesitant to post either reviews or concrit, even when the author's explicitly requested it in her comfort rating. I have no doubt part of the reason for this is because you get nonsensical tantrums thrown by authors who can't differentiate between concrit and reviews, authors who say they're okay with concrit when they aren't, and authors who can't separate themselves from their work. You get these authors attacking people for anything other than unalloyed praise, and this can make fans hesitant about saying anything remotely critical even when there's evidence it would be welcome. My fellow mod and I, both seasoned veterans of many a fandom kerfuffle, do our best to make critical comments when we can, in part to help out the creators who ask for criticism to help them improve, but also in part to demonstrate that said creators aren't going to bite people's heads off when they do give the level of criticism requested. I've been considering including my crit rating in the work I post to my own journal, because there are a lot of people who read my journal who already know I welcome concrit, have no problem with reviews, and so on, but there are a lot of people who don't. And maybe, just maybe, if enough fannish creators speak up about welcoming constructive criticism and reviews, those creators who don't think criticism should be allowed (as opposed to those who just aren't comfortable with criticism in their own space) will stop thinking they have any right to speak for all of us.

Title: A Ghostly Galleon
Author: Rana Eros
Fandom: PotC
Author's Notes: A double drabble for Brigdh, who requested: PotC, any character, "I shall be back with the yellow gold/ Before the morning light"? Gibbs decided a bit of a maritime ghost story was in order, to get us in the mood for Halloween coming. Eliza agreed. Title from "The Highwayman."

A Ghostly Galleon

She comes with the full moon beaming through the clouds, her ship riding its light on the water like a highwayman in the old country. 'Twas no highwayman ever as fierce as Bloody Bess, though; the woman King of the pirates, whose husband is Death.

Bad luck to have a woman aboard, I see you thinking it. You don't know the half of it. Bad luck for merchants indeed, for 'twas a merchant company cost her her love. Your gold will not buy mercy from her. She might leave you a rowboat and the coat on your back, if you do not speak her ill.

Do not speak her fair, either, for all her fine-edged beauty. Bess has her lover. Remember his name. And remember who made her King, that mad immortal on his haunted ship. There be none of those three you'd want to cross.

So, good merchantmen, take care, when you ship your pretty trinkets, your spices and your coin. Keep a sharp eye on the moon, on its path across the water. If it leads to you, tack your sails to take you straight home, and pray she has not already caught the scent of your gold.

END

For those interested: when I say, "We're done here," or that I'm not interested in engaging in a slapfight, I mean it. You may respond as much as you like, you may insult me until you're blue in the face, but the only time you'll be wasting is yours. I'll probably have killfiled you already.

Of course, the only people foolish enough to try such tactics are those who don't read this journal, but maybe word will spread.

So Dorian, Phoebe, and Brigdh have all posted what's been named "The OTP Meme," though it's actually more of a "the 'shipping paradigm I look for and write" meme in practice. And I replied to all three mentioning that, as an OTCer, I don't really have an archetypal OTP dynamic, but in the course of the resultant discussions, I've realized I do have an archetypal 'shipping dynamic. The manifestations are different, but the core is the same, and it's this:

Love is a choice the characters keep making.

( Breaking it down. )

Fandom is a meritocracy.

The merit scale isn't always yours. In fact, usually it's not.

You learn to cope. A lot of stories get recced that aren't your cup of tea at all. Authors you don't think can write a grocery list get pages and pages of feedback. Pairings you don't get are popular. Characters you loathe become fandom darlings. Your favorite authors get involved in fandoms that leave you cold. Your delete, backspace, and scroll buttons get a lot of use.

Sometimes, you get tetchy. You get tetchy enough to exclaim to your pet/SO/resident poltergeist, "What is with everyone writing all this donutfic? Don't they know ice creamfic suits the source so much better? Where's my ice creamfic? And why is everybody reccing Jane Doe? Her characterization's flat, her dialogue's clunky, and her plots are hackneyed. And she writes A/B! Those two would so not work together!" You get tetchy enough to say these things in comments and chat and maybe even make a post about them. Or someone specifically recs donutfic to you and you make a post about that. "Dear fandom, please to not be reccing me the donutfic. I'm just not interested kthxbai."

Some people will disagree with you. Some people will try to talk you into liking it. And some people will say, "Oh, me too! That's why I like Dorothy Smith instead of Jane Doe. She writes ice creamfic!" Dorothy Smith writes ice creamfic! Who is Dorothy Smith? So you ask for a link and you go read Dorothy's stuff and see it's cross-posted to an entire comm devoted to ice creamfic. And you leave Dorothy feedback about her story and she says, "Yeah, I wrote that for last year's ice creamfic challenge and finally got around to posting it here." An ice creamfic challenge! Is there one this year? "Oh, yeah, it's an annual thing. Susan Jones mods it." And you get a URL and Susan's LJ handle and off you go to friend her and check out her friends, and you find an entire community of cool fans who dig the ice creamfic.

Encouraged by group support, you try your own hand at ice creamfic. People like it. They leave you feedback. You write more, and get more feedback. You post, "Squee, ice creamfic!" and other people post back, "Word!" You realize six months have passed since you first lamented about donutfic and now you hardly see any donutfic because you're in a community of ice creamficcers, and you love it. Fandom's a great place!

Or you don't learn to cope. You sit and seethe as Jane Doe gets feedback, as donutfic gets recced, as all the meta circles around A/B and what a great couple they are. You get tetchy. You gripe about character X and the people who love him in chat, comments, maybe even a post. People disagree with you. People try to get you to like the character. And some people say, "Me too! That's why I like Dorothy Smith's work. She doesn't like character X, so she doesn't write him." "Yeah," you say, "that character X just sucks, and anybody who likes him clearly has no taste." "That's a little harsh," says the fan who mentioned Dorothy Smith, and away she goes.

In the meantime, people are still loving on character X and Jane Doe, who writes him in donutfic. It's driving you crazy. You want to say, "Jane Doe isn't all that," but you worry, because where you're sitting, Jane Doe seems to have control of the fandom. I mean, everybody is writing/reading/reccing donutfic and character X, and Jane Doe is the most popular one of all, so it must be she's in charge. Therefore, taking her down a few notches will be sure to make people wake up and realize character X and donutfic are just not that cool.

So you get this idea, and you post, "Somebody in this fandom isn't half the writer she thinks she is, and people who like her stuff are just suckups." There, now you've got people wondering without attacking Jane Doe directly. And people might guess it's Jane Doe, because you're known to not like the type of fic she writes or her favorite character, but nobody can defend her or themselves, because it's not like you said who it was, right? In fact, you have Jane Doe on your friendslist, and you may not comment to her fic, but you're always nice when you comment to her other posts (because hey, she's the BNF and you have to pretend to like her so nobody ostracizes you). Of course, that doesn't stop people from connecting certain of the dots. That doesn't stop people from accusing you of being passive-aggressive, or defriending you, or griping about you in turn. And boy, isn't that just proof you were right? Jane Doe and her minions don't even know for sure it's her you were talking about, and here they are oppressing you!

Even people you thought were okay say, "Hey, what's with the cryptic bashing? Own your opinions, dude," so clearly they're minions too. And everybody's still reading and reccing donutfic and loving on character X, so clearly nobody cares what you think. They just want to stay on Jane Doe's good side. So you post a few more times about how you hate character X and donutfic, and people comment with, "There's an entire comm of ice creamfic, here's the URL." But it's not about ice creamfic anymore. It's about making that Jane Doe pay for ruining your fandom experience.

Then you find an anonymous hate meme, and it's perfect for your purposes. Now you can show that Jane Doe without fear her minions will all jump on you! And yeah, it won't change what she writes, and it won't get you more of what you like, but you're pretty sure Jane or one of her minions will read it, and it'll probably hurt her feelings, and oh! She posted her real name in a locked entry! You could repost that in the hate meme. She might have to delete her LJ, which means she won't write anymore. No more donutfic about character X from Jane Doe!

And she does delete her LJ, and yeah, her minions figured out it was you and you had to delete your own LJ, but at least you got the satisfaction of running her off. So you create a new username, follow up those links pointing to ice creamfic, and prepare to finally enjoy fandom.

Except somebody finds out it's you, and they know what you did in that hate meme, so even people who write ice creamfic and don't like character X aren't exactly welcoming, and you hear that Jane Doe has also created a new, locked LJ, and people still love her fic, and donutfic and character X are still popular in that segment of the fandom. So, six months later, you have a bad rep in the fandom and Jane is still loved and even people who don't like her won't friend you, so when the next hate meme comes along, boy, have you got a lot to say about that Jane Doe and the way she's ruined fandom for you. Fandom sucks!

So does fandom suck or is it great? The answer is yes. What you get out of fandom depends on what you put into it. Because fandom is a meritocracy, and the merit scale isn't always yours, and usually it isn't, but there are certain constants. If you contribute a lot, you're going to get more interaction than if you lurk. If you write a character or pairing and pimp it, eventually you're going to find at least one other person who digs it. If you're open, honest, and diplomatic with your opinions, most people are going to be more open, honest, and diplomatic in return. Don't base your fandom interaction on fear of the crazies; that's a surefire way to become one yourself.

You've probably figured out by now (though you should already know this if you read this LJ with any regularity) that my approach to fandom is one of do it yourself enlightened self-interest. If you notice a vacuum, fill it. Want ice creamfic? Write it! Can't write it? Meta it! Can't meta? Run an ice creamfic challenge! Ask for ice creamfic recs! Then read those recs, and leave feedback on the stories you like. Many, many authors are far more inclined to keep writing the types of stories that get them feedback. Which means, after you leave feedback, rec the stories yourself. Spread the word. Make yourself a fannish hub for the types of things you like by looking for them, spotlighting them, generating them. In fandom as it is in life, be the change you want to see.

And always, always remember, fandom is also an anarchy. Ain't nobody in charge. Ain't nothing says you have to hang out with Jane Doe and her fans if their style's just not doing it for you. Ask for recs for ice creamfic, and go hang out with those people. Leave Jane and those who like it to their donutfic with character X. You've got too much ice cream work to do to be wasting energy on resenting them.

In conclusion, I could really go for some ice creamfic.

And Then Some

"Here."

Ban cracks one eye open to see Ginji looming over him, grinning and holding out an ice cream cone. "Where did you--"

There's a tinkle of bells. Ban angles his head enough to see the threadspool at the edge of the park, holding court with his two watchdogs next to an ice cream vendor.

"Eat it before it melts. Oops." And Ban feels something cold and wet hit his forearm.

He looks down at the ice cream on his skin, frowns; can't do more than that before Ginji takes his wrist, raises his arm and licks.

"Watermelon. My favorite."

END

I love feedback that says, "I liked it!" I adore feedback that says, "Squee!" I dig feedback that says, "This was my favorite section and I really like what you did with Character X and the parallels with the Orphean myth were really cool." I'm down with feedback that says, "This bit didn't quite work for me because X."

There are, in fact, only three kinds of feedback I don't like. The first is feedback that has nothing to do with my story (stuff about my icon, about my Current Music, or another commenter's icon). The second is feedback that demands I write more (as opposed to requesting I write more) or bitches that I'm not writing a different pairing/fandom (or a different story format, i. e. not drabbles). The third, the one I most dislike, is the feedback that never gets sent because the feedbacker is stressed about sending feedback that's just one word or just one line. Dude, if I made you squee? That makes my day. But you've got to let me know about it.

Snarky, stubborn, hot blond with weapon is how I tend to describe my primary character archetype. It's mostly accurate (blond is optional, for instance), but I'm going to see if I can expand on the concept a bit.

First, there's the scenario: in one way or another, this character must save the world. The values of "save" and "world" vary wildly, with "save" running the gamut from "preserve the status quo" to "lead the rebellion" and "world" ranging from "best friend's life" to "valuable work of art" to "galaxy far, far away." The character may be part of a group with this task, or going it alone. If part of a group, there will always be one part of the task the character will have to accomplish alone. That part is always risky.

Those who will benefit from the world-saving aren't terribly supportive. The character and companions have insufficient information, insufficient backup, insufficient weaponry. Terrible things are done to them by their own mentors (teachers, deities, masters, the Force, etc.) in the name of better preparing them for their task (Patricia McKillip, in her classic trilogy The Riddle of Stars, used the wonderful phrase "harrowed into power"). They will not necessarily survive ("survive" again having different values), and they are made to understand that this is an acceptable risk to those who have charged them with the task, so long as saving the world is accomplished.

So, we have the scenario. Next is the character reaction, and this is where archetype really comes into play. Some characters, faced with this scenario, are going to brood. Some will mope. Some will whine. Some will angst. Some will bury the fear and worry under an optimistic, upbeat facade. Some will be genuinely optimistic. Some will accept everything with serenity. Some will withdraw into coldness, distance. Some will indulge in cynicism. Some will rage. Because these are archetypes and not fully-fleshed characters, their reactions are pure. Characters, however, are usually an amalgamation of several archetypes. Which archetypes you prefer, and how well you regard a particular character fulfilling those archetypes, is going to determine how much you like/relate to that character.

Myself, I dig a blend of rage issues, withdrawal, and cynicism. The prerequisite, though, is one that actually applies to several archetypes. The prerequisite is that the character has no hope of winning, yet fights anyway, because s/he doesn't know how not to fight. It's not necessarily that they believe in this new cause (in fact, my favorite character types usually don't), it's that they've usually been fighting all their lives just for the right to be. They've had to justify their existence for so long, that saving the world is just one more thing. That, right there, is what gets me where I live. It gets me so deep and so well, in fact, that I'm getting that little catch in the back of my throat just typing it up. Being is a victory. Giving the other side hell is a plus. Destruction is imminent, but don't go down easy. Take as many of them down with you as you can, so that maybe your side will have some breathing room. Because, you see, the coldest, the most distant, the most angry and sarcastic, the ones who push everyone away, are holding on so tight that the grip alone might break them. They need so badly they can't even look at it. Often, they can only hope it's the enemy who gets them, because what they've got invested in their friends, their family, their comrades, their people, scares the hell out of them.

As you can tell, the whole concept renders me incoherent the more I talk about it. Still, I'm trying, because this is essential, this is
vital to how I approach fandom and what characters catch me and what fandoms catch me because they have scenarios and characters like this.

And since Eliza says I can't say something like that without providing examples, examples are provided below.

1. Kurosaki Hisoka, Yami no Matsuei (Descendants of Darkness). Hisoka's got coldness, rage, and snark in spades, but he's already gone into the flames of hell once to save his partner, and I don't think there's any question he'd do it again, for Tsuzuki or any of the other Shinigami to whom he's grown attached. Since Hisoka's already dead, survival mostly translates as avoiding utter destruction (and helping his partner avoid same) and maintaining some vague grip on sanity. How good a job he does on that last is arguable, but that's just part of the appeal. Another part of the appeal is that he has no idea how strong he is, yet he keeps facing what he thinks are insurmountable odds, because the alternative is unacceptable.

2. Harry Potter, Harry Potter. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Harry has one of the biggest hearts in all of fandom. He's repeatedly been victim to the worst side of humanity, muggle and wizard, and still he wants to save people, still he does his best to protect those around him. He's a rulebreaker, a troublemaker, a short-tempered teenage boy with the entire fate of the world on his shoulders. And I don't think he really expects to survive another encounter with Voldemort, but he'll go through with it anyway, because there is nobody else.

3. Lucas Wolenczak, seaQuest DSV. Lucas is a teen genius surrounded by adults, dumped on the seaQuest by parents who didn't know how to handle him. He's smart and sarcastic and passionate and terrified of messing up and losing this home too. And since this is the first one he's actually wanted, that's a very big thing for him. He's not as physically violent as most of the rest on this list, but he knows how to make life hell for anyone who messes with his people. He's also, thanks to all the information he carries around in that brain of his, intimately aware of the mortality of his people, and the fragility of the world they inhabit. The seaQuest is a research vessel, but it's also the UEO's number one peacekeeper in a world still recovering from a near world war. And while bigger threats aren't really a problem, it's not always the big stuff you have to worry about. Lucas knows that too.

4. Genjo Sanzo, Saiyuki. Dude, where to start? Sanzo's had a hell of a life, seems destined for an early grave, is on a mission from gods he doesn't exactly respect, and still he keeps going. Because that's what he does, because he doesn't trust anyone else to do it, because he knows the gods don't trust anyone else to do it, and because he's got three idiots who are his, dammit, and nobody else is touching them. And if the world is out to get him, he'll return the favor with interest, because it's the world's fault he's there in the first place.

5. Fujimiya Aya (Ran), Weiss Kreuz. Ran's world literally came crashing down around him when he was eighteen, and he didn't survive it. Instead, a vengeance-ridden revenant by the name of Aya rose up, and now he's out to make those responsible for his loss pay. And pay. And pay. It's apt he took his sister's name, since he's made himself her appendage, and that appendage really knows how to wield a sword. Aya is both remote and furious, but there's enough of Ran left in him to get attached to his teammates, and that terrifies him enough that he overcompensates, pushing them away harder. He didn't rise up from that wreckage unscathed, after all, and he's already bleeding in enough empty places.

There are others, of course, and I'll get specific if people want to know, but I think you can see the pattern at work in those five. Individual personalities vary a fair bit, but they've all got those archetypal characteristics that grab me by the heart and squeeze.

And that's what I'm here for.

ETA: Unlocked, because I meant to do that originally and forgot.

MPAA ratings on fanfic, to be specific. I'll be upfront, I don't really grok them. I mean, I kind of get why some think it's a good idea to use the rating system used in the originating media of many of our sources; but the ratings are problematic in said media, and they're more problematic when it comes to fanfic, because there don't seem to be any real universal standards.

So I'm going to ask: Do you use ratings when writing? Do you search for fic by ratings in archives? How useful do you find ratings? How do you define and differentiate a G-rated story from a PG-rated story from a PG-rated story? What takes a story from R to NC-17, in your purview?

If you use ratings, is it because that's the standard in your fandom? Is it the standard in your fandom? Do you agree with the rating definitions used in your fandom, or do you see things slightly differently from the standard? Do you use ratings only when posting to a comm or submitting to an archive, and drop them when posting to your own space? If you don't use MPAA ratings, have you come up with your own rating system, and on what is it based?

The floor is open.

I told Renet I'd do it if she did. She did it a while ago, so here I am playing catch-up. Also, cheating, because Renet built a soundtrack for a drabble someone else wrote. I thought it would be easier to use one of my own drabbles.

If all I had was one hundred words to tell you what Saiyuki is to me, those one hundred words would be "Here Be." It was a natural choice when this challenge came up. Some of this music, I got from other people who associated it with Saiyuki. A lot of it, I've pimped before. This soundtrack was play-tested and given the thumbs up by Rune. Enjoy.





1. Passenger Seat

"When you need directions I'll be the guide for all time."

2. Fugitive

"Now it's coming to you the lessons I've learned won't do you any good you've got to get burned."

3. Life Beyond the Minimum Safe Distance

"And moving on somewhere that always stays miles away."

4. Dare You to Move

"Maybe forgiveness is right where you fell."

5. A Thousand Years

"I've kept this single faith, I have but one belief."

6. Karma Slave

"Who's at the center of the wheel, the master of the wheel or another spinning servant?"

7. Digging in the Dirt

"Don't talk back, just drive the car."

8. Arriving Somewhere (But Not Here)

"Ever had the feeling you've been here before?"

9. South Side

"Where there's love and darkness and my sidearm."

10. Where the Streets Have No Name

"We're still building then burning down love."

11. Mystery

"You like to stand in the line of fire just to show you can shoot straight from your hip."

12. Life Is a Highway

"You're in my blood I'm not a lonely man."

13. Did I Say

"Take me there no you don't have to travel alone."

14. Changeless

"What are the odds this ends and we don't meet again?"

Here's the zip file, which includes the cover art and track listing I made with my mad Photoshop skillz. *koff*

A recent batch of links at metafandom really stirred some people up. I'm no exception, though it appears what most irritated me wasn't what irritated anybody else. While other fans seem upset about some of the opinions expressed in the links, I'm more torqued by the lack of cohesive argument in most of the links I followed. In each case, the piece would start out with what I felt was a clearly-stated premise, and then wander away from it, often devolving into simple axe-grinding by the end. I'm not entirely sure why I'm seeing more and more such cases cropping up, but I thought a review of the basics of debate and essay might be timely.

NOTE: The following assumes that the fannish essayist wishes to present her views clearly and concisely, to persuade other fans as to the logic of her points, and to engage other fans in reasoned debate. If all you wish to do is write an ode to your favorite character, or preach to the converted about a particular point, or get your rant on, then these guidelines aren't going to do you much good. Other forms have other guidelines (squees and rants, in particular, rely on the emotional tide that interferes with a successful essay, though every form does require knowing your point and making it).

Most of the following are things I learned in high school while working on the school literary magazine and newspaper, and crafting oral presentations. College refines these rules and adds new ones, but the foundation remains the same, and it's the foundation I'm concerned with. So I'll start with the things that appear to be hardest for fannish essayists, some with good reason. I'll start with:

1. Determine your point and stick to it. Determine where you stand, and what you want to say about it. Figure out your point before you start writing, and build up to it from your very first word. Don't allow yourself to be sidelined or distracted; only make brief diversions if they're going to end up feeding back into and strengthening your main point. Resist the urge to get off-topic. If another point you want to make occurs to you, note it somewhere else as the topic of a future essay, and get back to this one. Unless you decide the new point that occurred to you is actually the one you really want to make, in which case, restructure what you have so far so it leads naturally to your new point.

2. Check your passion at the door. This is a tough one. Fandom is driven by passion and, indeed, most essays/rants/debates begin with passion, so let me unpack this a little. The fire that drives you to write up that first draft of your argument is similar to the thought of "they'd look so hot together" that starts you on the path of your latest crossover. They're both excellent starting points. Just like the thought, though, the passion is only the catalyst; you're going to need more than that initial push to make both story and essay work, and often the initial push gets in the way of building that more. Why? Because you're now working at a level and an angle where passion and hotness are both irrelevant. What you need now is a foundation, supporting arguments, logic. You need to connect the dots so that, even if they end up not agreeing with you, at least your readers can see how you got to where you are.

3. Resist the urge to grind axes. Again, the wish to grind a particular favorite axe is what often prompts the first draft of an essay, but if your aim is to point out an issue to people who don't share said axe, it's best to take a more reasoned approach. If the particular issue connected to the axe is not your main point, but feeds into your main point, touch on it as objectively as possible. If it doesn't feed into your main point, don't touch on it. I repeat, don't touch on it. It doesn't matter how much you want to, it's going to undermine what you're saying and put people off, not just of this essay, but likely off of you as a reasoned individual. If you wish to be seen as reasoned, don't be unreasonable.

4. Be aware of your assumptions. Whether you're assuming, "of course all authors want to improve," or, "critics aren't authors," or, "anyone who likes this pairing must dislike that pairing," or, "anyone who dislikes/doesn't write this character is sexist/racist/ageist," or, "anyone who reads/writes this subgenre is young/shallow/elitist/perverted," or, "anything under 1000 words was dashed off by a lazy author," or, "anything over 10000 words is in desperate need of an editor." We make assumptions every day about other people and the way the world works, but you can't bring your assumptions unexamined to an argument and expect to be taken seriously. It's best to state any assumptions you're consciously making at the beginning of your essay, and be prepared to be called on them, especially if they are assumptions based on gross generalizations.

5. Own your biases. Perhaps one of the things I like best about fandom in terms of debate is that we are all well aware we are viewing our shared interests through subjective lenses. The wise essayist acknowledges this upfront, and the wisest is self-aware enough to know the shape of her tunnel vision, and lay it out so her readers are also aware of it. This does not mean one should not attempt to move outside one's comfort zone, or see the other viewpoint; it is not an excuse to become more firmly entrenched in a myopic outlook. To be blunt, if one has such a desire, one is not likely to succeed as an essayist.

6. Know the difference between opinion and fact. The order of this list is based on ease of topic flow, otherwise I would place this guideline much higher. This is a huge problem in fandom, and indeed, a huge problem in the world at large. Without the proper training, most people seem inclined to believe that what they like and what is good are of course one and the same. It's often a great shock when they first encounter the idea that this is not the case, and kneejerk violently defensive reactions are the usual order of the day. Such reactions have led to a number of fannish essays, and of course the situation is only exacerbated when readers do not react to such essays with reassurances that of course the essayist's preferences match up to objective standards of taste (as if there is such a thing). This actually feeds back into guideline #4, "Be aware of your assumptions," as well as guideline #5. In order to recognize the assumptions one makes and the biases one has, it's necessary to realize what opinions one holds and to recognize that they are opinions. It's also necessary to review the definition of fact so that one is less likely to commit the absurdity of claiming, "That's your opinion," when presented with a fact one finds unsavory.

7. Cite your sources. This one can be tricky in fandom, since a locked post or personal email is as likely to spark the desire for discussion as an unlocked comment. However, the fact remains that if you are responding to a specific statement, or refuting a specific assertion, referencing said statement or assertion is most useful for presenting your point in context. Along with this, trying to convince your readers that a whole group of people support what you say is far more likely to work if you can point said readers to where said supporters are, in fact, supporting you. It should be a given by now that "the lurkers support me in email" is not going to convince anybody of anything except that you don't have enough investment in your own convictions to admit you stand alone.

8. Be certain you know the full meaning of every word you use. It may be tempting to grab words from the dictionary to make yourself look more erudite, but such an approach will inevitably bite you on the ass. If your aim is to present your view on something, and to present it clearly, you're only getting in your own way by using vocabulary on which you are wobbly. Yes, there are readers who are impressed by the use of words with which they themselves are only passingly familiar, but impressing people is not the same as getting them to understand what you're saying. As I mentioned above, these guidelines are about aiding comprehension of your point, so I'm assuming you'd rather people understand you than be impressed by you. Even if you'd rather they were impressed, it would behoove you to keep in mind that for every reader impressed by your use of a word you're not entirely clear on, there is another reader for whom you've lost all credibility because they do know the full meaning of that word, and the way you used it was inappropriate.

9. Betas: not just for fiction. Just as when writing stories, it can be hard to truly see the flaws in the essay you've just constructed. A beta can catch those leaps of logic, those areas where you skipped an entire phrase because you were writing so fast, that sentence where you started out making one point and ended contradicting yourself. If you can, get a beta who has less investment in the topic than you; someone who agrees with you might miss an assumption you both make, and someone who disagrees might get too caught up in the debate herself to help you get your essay polished and out to the general public. Better yet, get at least two betas, one who agrees with you and one who disagrees, as they will cover each other's weaknesses as well as your own.

10. Always keep in mind that the internet is a public forum. If you're only looking for a particular kind of interaction, you'd do best to post in a place where you're likely to only get that type of interaction. There has been a great deal of debate about how much one's own LJ or mailing list is a public space and how much a personal one, and that debate is not likely to be settled any time soon. In the meantime, if you consider LJ or a mailing list a personal space, it might be wise to lock both only to members/friends, just as you close the door of your house if you don't wish strangers to wander in. This doesn't mean your friends or members might not still disagree with you, but it's easier to enforce a stated desire for only one kind of interaction if you've limited your audience.

Now, lest you think I'm handing down these guidelines from some kind of lofty position, you should know that I have written many fannish essays in my time, and I have violated nearly all of the above at least once. Were you so inclined, you could doubtless find where I violated some of them in this very essay. Luckily, this is a case where my own fallibility will work in my favor. If you can see where adherence to these guidelines would have strengthened my position, then you can see the point of the guidelines, and I've done my job.

Discussions of OTPs and shipping are perennial favorites in fandom, to the point where I created this icon as a shorthand way of indicating my stance on the topic of pairings. Except I've realized the icon only covers half of it, and not even the first half. You see, my pirate ship is manned when it goes searching for good booty. It's manned with my OTCs, which stands for One True Character.

I don't think I've yet met a fan who doesn't get more attached to one character than the others in any given source. Reasons for the attachment vary widely: the character's just like the fan, the character's nothing like the fan, the character is what the fan wants to be, the character is what the fan wants to date, the character is a prime example of an archetype with which the fan is fascinated, etc. As with OTPs and pairings, though, OTCs are a bit more extreme than character preferences. The OTC is not only the fan's preferred focus, s/he's often the point of the fandom for that fan, and if that character leaves the fandom, or is shoved into the background, or is changed fundamentally, then that fan's reasons for being interested in that source are gone.

Fans with OTCs are often not inclined to read or write stories that don't feature their OTC. This is not a bad thing. Let me repeat that. This is not a bad thing. The reason I'm stressing this is because, like OTPers, OTCers will often get lectured or looked down upon for not reading "really good" stories because their OTC is not in it or is denigrated in it. The thing is, that story is not going to be "really good" to that fan, no matter how well-written it is. It's like reccing Supernatural fic to a diehard Sentinel monofan. Good writing only gets you so far, in fandom and in the prolit world. You've got to be interested in the topic first. Nor is lack of interest in particular pairings, particular characters, or particular fandoms a sign of anti-intellectualism, shallowness, emotional immaturity, or any other such nonsense of which both OTPers and OTCers have been accused, any more than a lack of OTPness or OTCness is a sign of a lack of investment in the fandom, or emotional coldness, or any other such nonsense of which non-OTPers and OTCers have been accused. I mean, come on, people. Let's all pretend that taste is not objective and fandom is a hobby and move on.

Anyway, OTCs impact shipping preferences in interesting ways. For me personally, once I pick up my OTC (usually within the first few episodes/few minutes of the movie/few chapters of the book), I start looking around for what characters I can pair hir with. Because, you see, I'm a shipper at heart. I'm just not a shipper inclined toward OTPs.

At this juncture, I should probably define how I'm using the term OTP. I've seen it primarily used two ways: first, there is the pairing the fan sees and likes and will not break up in reading or writing. Second, there is the pairing for which the fan sees the most canon evidence and/or believes the creator will put together at some point during the course of the source story. Sometimes the two definitions coincide in one OTP for one fan, but not always. In any case, I'm using the first definition here. There are a lot of pairings I view as canon OTPs, but I have no qualms about breaking them up in my reading or writing. In reading and writing, I'm more inclined toward anti-OTPs, as in there are pairings I won't read or write even if they involve my OTC. Two examples off the top of my head: Obi-Wan/Anakin and Sanzo/Hazel. In both cases, the first character listed is an OTC, but their characterization would have to be so changed from how I view it in order for them to take up with the second person listed, that they would no longer be characters I'm interested in.

The above is actually key to my way of shipping due to my inclination toward OTCs. A lot of fans seem to support OTPs because they like that particular dynamic between those particular characters. A lot of other fans seem to eschew OTPs because they like seeing a lot of dynamics between a lot of different characters. I write my OTCs in various pairings because I like to see how each relationship dynamic impacts my OTC. One reason I'm getting into writing threesomes, in fact, is because I love to see how the attention of a second character, along with the first, affects my OTC.

Also, like many OTCers, I believe my OTC should have all the love s/he can possibly get. *G*

One of the scientists in charge of the GELF project is murdered, and his home security shows Dagwood as the culprit. Dagwood says he didn't do it, but he had liberty that day and can't remember where he was or what he was doing. Meanwhile, it's time for the annual psych evaluations of the seaQuest's crew. This episode has all kinds of problems, not least the idea of Dagwood going anywhere on his own, if only for the general population's perception of GELFs and the trouble that would be guaranteed to arise. It also features the major plotpoint that Dagwood has never danced with a woman, so Lonnie volunteers to teach him. Err, okay. You know, the musical montage in "Vapors" wasn't all that long ago. Remember, the one where Lonnie taught Dagwood to dance? Yeah.

Still, I enjoy this episode immensely. Ford plays football with nuns, Tony is actually funny, Brody gets to be rather cutely neurotic, and Lucas is snarky, defiant, gives Wendy Sue exactly the respect she deserves (none), and is, in short, himself. Given that's a rare enough thing in season two, I feel it's worth mentioning.

Delivered straight to you.

Or not so straight, as is my preference.

So after last week's YSI crapout, finally got this uploaded this weekend. This episode confirms, in case you missed it, that season two has serious Mother Issues. It also involves some patently ridiculous pseudo-science, and the focus once more is on a new crewmember. Namely, the brash and beautiful Brody (alliteration, it's what's for breakfast). Anyway, this episode actually vaguely worked on yours truly, but I was never that averse to Brody. I just wish they'd at least kept Shen around to interact with him.

At any rate, no original crewmembers were harmed in the making of this episode, which will always earn points with me. In fact, Lucas got some downright adorkable moments, Migs primed my later taste for Blair Sandburg with a bizarrely hot worldgeek ensemble, and as I own my character biases, so do my character biases own me.

Check out the rather Oedipal happenings here.

Or here.

This episode features sentient homicidal plants. John Wyndham is doubtless rolling in his grave. Mercifully, I don't remember much about this episode, which at least means it didn't offend me as much as "Playtime." Not that that's saying much.

Pack your garden shears and catch the action here.

Or weedkiller might work with this lot.

This episode takes an old sf chestnut and actually does something interesting with it. A stealth submarine, armed to the teeth and run by an AI modelled after Bridger's thought patterns in his glory days with the UEO, goes haywire and aims its guns at the the homeport of seaQuest II, New Cape Quest. Tony just so happens to have family in the area, and time is divided between his concern for them and the crew's attempts to track down the stealth sub and take it offline. Bridger interacting with his old self via the AI raises some intriguing questions, and Lucas' dilemma over being caught between Bridger's trust in him and Tony's need to warn his family is, to my mind, much more convincing than last week's angst over the machine.

Of course, this is not to say the episode is without its problems. The scenes of people, civilians and military, evacuating in terror are pretty laughable, and while we're told New Cape Quest is a recently-built city, the city we're shown looks anything but new. Tony's forced coolness in the face of Lucas' forced geekiness continues to irk me every time the focus is on Tony, but this episode has a balance that makes it more tolerable, and I always like learning more of Bridger's background (even if it's contradictory).

Check out the action here.

Or here.

So, after taking a look at the answers to the poll, I've created a community for the Roadtrip Fic Challenge. It's called, originally enough, roadtrip_fic. I will add all stories to the community's memories. I will also create a master list post in the community after the close of the challenge. That way, you can still find stories by fandom during those times when memories are unavailable. Other poll-influenced options:

You can post your story to the community, or you can post a link to your story posted elsewhere.

The minimum word-count is 500. However, if you wish to write a series of interconnected drabbles/flashfic, that is also kosher. Your series just needs to total at least 500 words, and should be posted together in one post.

For the rest of the rules, check out my first post at the community.

Mmm, roadtrip fic.

All right, I think I've got this poll thing figured out. I have no doubt I'm leaving off questions and answers. Feel free to point out any blatant oversights in the comments.

Also, the deadline I'm looking at right now is Labor Day in the United States. I figure that'll give people time to write something up if they're so inclined.

ETA: Forgot to mention, this challenge is multi-fictional. Gen, het, and slash are all welcome.

The Roadtrip Fic Challenge Poll
Poll #510322 Roadtrip Fic Poll
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

A good minimum length for roadtrip fic would be:

It would be best to collect roadtrip fic by:

Rana should:

If Rana provides prompts, they should be:

The roadtrip fic challenge is multi-fandom! Will you participate?

Because I promised:

And now we come to that infamous ep which has been mentioned a few times in discussions in the past. Chance finds it a good illumination of Lucas' character. I find it a good illumination of the way Lucas' character was butchered in season two. Now you can judge for yourselves.

The episode starts with the seaQuest receiving a distress signal through a "rift" in the fabric of the space-time continuum (read and watch enough sf and you too will realize the space-time continuum is about the consistency of tissue paper). The boat passes through the rift into the future, where it's discovered the distress signal is coming from a super-computer which begs the crew to "save her babies." Due to a number of improbable events, there are now only two humans left on the planet, a teenage girl and boy (and if you're feeling shades of every bad "Adam & Eve" sf story written since the '40s, you'd be right). These two are isolated in different parts of the same city, hooked up to gaming consoles which they use to control giant robots which attack each other. Yes, you read that right. The crew has to evade the giant robots, get through the force fields surrounding the gaming consoles, and then deal with these kids who have, we are supposed to believe, never dealt with other humans in their lives and also never fed themselves, bathed, or done anything but plug in to the super-computer and played games. Now, this could have been an interesting premise, provided there had been indications the gaming consoles were equipped to both feed the kids intravenously and clean them somehow, but no. The consoles look like a cross between virtual reality visors, ergonomic keyboards, and dentists' chairs. No help there.

I could list other defects of this episode (including the ending, which still makes me laugh with outraged disbelief), but we'd be here all day and my hands aren't up for the task. So I'll tell you the highlight: the seaQuest guys look hot. Seriously, that's it.

Prepare for your suspenders of disbelief to be snapped here.

Or here.

Because what you really need when your show is floundering in the ratings is a Deluise family reunion. It's as sure a cure as...well. Bringing in Michael Ironside. Which seaQuest also tried the following season. The first of many episodes in which the message, "You will like these new characters," is shoved down our throats, "Vapors" features a "romance" between Wendy and Bridger that only appears remotely plausible when compared to Padme Amidala and Anakin Skywalker. It also features a few blatantly transparent attempts to manipulate our sympathies in Wendy's favor. As you can see, the attempts were less than successful on yours truly. This episode also starts the serious campaign on the part of the writers to "geekify" Lucas in order to make Tony appear cooler in comparison. Oh, and to set up Lucas and Tony as best friends. In the meantime, Lonnie and Tim go on an unsurprisingly disastrous date, while Migs, Ford, and Brody cruise around picturesquely underclothed. Migs is cruising women, Ford and Brody are cruising boats. Migs, because he really is that cool and hot, ends up with both women and boat. Really? That's the highlight of this ep.

We also get a musical montage in which Tony demonstrates he can play the piano and Lonnie teaches Dagwood to dance (this will be significant later). Oh, and Lucas looks up Wendy's "qualifications" as a chance for the writers to show us just how very brilliant and wonderful she is. Yes, Virginia, Lana had ancestors. Frankly, I'm inclined to believe Wendy used her telepathy to get both her degrees and her position aboard the seaQuest, simply because she never demonstrates the competence nor the intelligence that would be necessary for her to have earned such things legitimately.

Yes, some episodes do make me more bitter than others. Why do you ask?

See the lovefest here.

Or here.

I know better than to get involved in things like this. The post made it very clear the poster was conflating personal preference with objective standards, and you can't have a rational debate with people who do that, because their reasons for their arguments aren't rational. Except one of my biggest pet peeves is people who state their opinions as facts, who put forward their own favored aesthetic as somehow inherently superior to an aesthetic they don't personally enjoy.

Admittedly, I think one reason this happens is because personal tastes are so devalued. Look at the rants against OTPs, against character preferences, the denigration of people who prefer one kind of story and don't read the kind they don't like, the stigma against simply saying, "I like this," as a form of feedback. In order to feel entitled to have personal preferences, there's a pressure to base those preferences on more than gut reaction, on taste and hardwiring. There's a pressure to make the subjective at least appear objective, because there's a belief you're less likely to be attacked for it that way.

Except, of course, that the subjective is subjective, and there are those of us inclined to call it when we see it. My issue is not that the original poster does not like drabbles. It's that she's trying to present her distaste as something other than it is, a personal preference. And my effrontery at the attempt is certainly based in part on my own personal preference for drabbles, and my belief that not only am I rather good at them, I've written a few I'd put up against an epic any day in terms of "freshness" and "complexity," though obviously such complexity is more implicit than explicit in a drabble. And the belief that drabbles are easy because they're short is like the belief that epics are easy because you can just spew forth the words without editing. I mean, maybe it's just my own lit background, but it seems self-evident that any writing is easy, if you don't care about the quality. Assuming that every practitioner of the drabble form doesn't care about quality because you personally don't get it? Not a sound basis for arguing the form's value.

ETA: All right, then.

Ah, if only the episode were half so witty as the title. Sadly, this is not the case. An old flame of Bridger's who lives in an underwater New Age-y commune dedicated to peace, harmony, and bad taste in clothing contacts the seaQuest with a distress signal. Apparently, some kind of plague has been unleashed in the colony, and the result is that everybody is going batshit insane. The seaQuest comes to the rescue, but of course things are far more complicated and hackneyed than that.

Note I'm very fond of using the word hackneyed in reference to season two.

At any rate, Lucas is pretty and he gets some good moments with various male members of the crew. Truth be told, this is just not an episode that sticks much in my mind. It's not hideous, but it's definitely not great.

Witness the meh here.

Or here.

The second episode to feature extraterrestrials, this is the rather underwhelming followup to first season's "Such Great Patience." We get hackneyed pseudo-Native American mumbo-jumbo, we get Bridger once more duking it out with the UEO bigwigs over Lucas, we get Lucas being frankly adorkable as hell, and we get the second season cast additions being.... Well, let's just say I really missed Kristin, Ben, and Chief Shan and leave it at that. While it can be argued that the episodes of second season which focused on plot elements and characters from first season are proof that someone was paying attention to continuity, it can just as easily be argued that this was not always a good thing, because the plot elements and characters often got warped, mutilated, and spindled.

And yet, I continue to rewatch this episode regularly, because Lucas is, as I said, adorkable as hell.

Check him out here.

Or here.

May is Celiac Awareness Month (among many other Awarenesses, I know, but work with me here). May 12th is CFIDS Awareness Day. Both of these are autoimmune disorders with symptoms that range from mild or non-existent (in the case of Celiac Disease, as CFIDS is still primarily diagnosed based on symptoms) to severe, fluctuating daily and sometimes hourly. I suffer from both conditions with usually moderate symptoms.

It's been an interesting side effect of being involved in fandom that I have encountered a number of other people with these and other autoimmune disorders. As there is still a fair-sized percentage of the medical field who don't even acknowledge the existence of CFIDS and related illnesses, they often become "a disease you don't talk about," unless you're looking to be labelled as hysterical, lazy, oversensitive, an attention seeker, a hypochondriac. And because you don't talk about it, and other people you know don't talk about it, you begin to wonder if the labels aren't true, because nobody else has what you have, and most of them have never even heard of it.

I've made a point of talking about it over the past several years. As a result, people have talked back. We've swapped anecdotes, frustrations, information, ideas, recommendations for things that have worked in alleviating some symptoms, tips, comfort, and support. If you have an autoimmune disorder, or suspect you might have one, I have two things to say to you: You are not imagining things, and you are not alone. Also, you have a long, hard road ahead, but there are people walking it with you.

( Cut for length )

I've linked to a few websites at the beginning of this essay. If any of the above sounds familiar to you, follow those links and read the information provided. If your reading leads you to suspect you have either CFIDS or Celiac, I urge you to print the information, make an appointment with your doctor, and take the information with you. One of the first things you learn as a sufferer of an autoimmune disorder is that your health is in your own hands. You have to educate your health providers, your family members, your friends and co-workers. It's backward, absolutely, and there are organizations working to at least get the health provider part changed, but for the moment it's just another thing you have to deal with. However, ignoring it all is worse. Just remember: You are not imagining things. You are not alone.

I've unlocked this entry. Please feel free to link to it, and to ask questions and tell your own stories of what you have survived in the comments. Because of my CTS, it will take me a few days to get back to any comments, but I will answer any questions you have.