diving into the rec
I'm going to say a thing or two about recommendations. How and why one recs is a topic that's come up in discussion a lot the past few weeks, what with all the Secret Santa projects going live, and it remains one of those topics that stirs up a lot of emotion for a lot of people. This is because, I think, most of us are very attached to our stories (yes, even those of us who welcome concrit, and if you haven't figured that out yet, you haven't been paying attention), and because our words (and art and vids) really are the currency through which we both connect to other fans and establish our credentials within fandom. Based on how and what you write, other fans are going to make all kinds of judgments: about your intelligence, about your age, about your level of education and personal tastes and interest in concrit or discussion. About how committed we are to our fandoms and how much attention we paid to the source. In short, about everything that impacts our fannish interaction.

Given that kind of impact, is it any wonder that the system of recommendations is such a fraught topic? Despite every effort on the part of certain reccers, recs lists really do end up becoming some kind of unintended popularity contest. Who recs you, how many people rec you and how often (every time you post something new? Once in a blue moon? Only when you write in a certain fandom?) impacts your fannish street cred and how well-known you are. People who get recced frequently on multi-fandom rec sites are more likely to be recognized fandom-wide, which can come in handy (or not) when weighing in on a meta-fandom issue. People who crop up often on single-fandom rec sites tend to get slapped with the "BNF" label, for good or ill. And people who don't get recced often, for whatever reason, can run into the stigma of being thought of as less than impressive authors by people who haven't read them, even if that's not at all the case.

Now, at the same time you've got an author facing all of the above issues, you've got your average reccer, who isn't really thinking about any of that. She just wants, for various reasons, to point people toward stories she likes/thinks are good. And therein lies the key point that is often forgotten about in these debates: recs lists are, for the most part, nothing more nor less than a reflection of the reccer's tastes. Wait, let me say that again. Recs lists are a reflection of the reccer's tastes. What that means, and this is important, is that recs lists are subjective. Even when maintained by more than one person, recs lists are subjective. Even when specifically intended to adhere to objective standards of good writing, recs lists are subjective. Why? Because there are things people don't read, fandoms with which they are not familiar, stories they don't find. So yeah, you may be able to trust that every story recommended on a certain recs list meets a certain standard of good writing, but you can't trust that every story that meets a certain standard of good writing is going to be on a certain recs list.

"Well, duh, Rana," I hear you say, but you'd be surprised how often that comes as a revelation to someone in the midst of debate about recs lists and whether or not they're purposely exclusionary. Of course they are, but the point is not to snub you or your writing buddy over there. The point is to make up a list of stories this one person or group of people liked. Which segues into my next point, synchronous reccing.

Fandom is made up of little groups, which yes I know is another "duh" comment, but work with me here. Fandom is made up of little groups, and some of those groups overlap, and some don't. So you may be aware that these two people recced the same story, but they may not be aware of it. Then again, they might be, but your average reccer is more concerned with the "individual taste" part of the reccing equation than the "fannish credentials" part. What that means in reccing terms is that I may see a story recced five different places before I go to read it myself, or while I'm reading it myself, but I don't know that anyone else saw it those five different places. I also know that those reccers have slightly different tastes from mine, and that someone who depends on me for recs may not share the tastes of Reccer X, so she may not read a story recced by Reccer X until I also rec it, thereby telling her it's likely to be to her taste as well.

See, I really have no interest in boosting anybody's fannish cred. I just want the stories I like to get read as widely as possible, in the hopes people will leave lots of feedback, which will encourage the author to write more stories I like. When I say my fannish existence is all about enlightened self-interest, I am totally not kidding, and I think that's true of a lot of fans. And yeah, those little groups I mentioned above play a part in recs, in that members of a group are more likely to see, and therefore rec, stories from other members of that same group, but there really is no fannish zeitgeist controlling the recs lists in an attempt to drive you out of the fandom. Really, people. Leave the conspiracy theorizing to Mulder. It's annoying enough when he does it, and he's fictional (which is a whole different topic for a different rant on another day).


So, in conclusion, if you feel certain stories aren't getting the recognition they deserve, maybe you should make your own recs list. Certainly, it's a better idea than laying into other people and their recs lists. And if the stories you feel aren't getting the recognition they deserve are your own, you might consider widening your distribution or doing a bit of judicious self-pimping. Of course, with both of these methods, you run the risk that your widened audience might not love your story, and might be inclined to tell you so, but that's the chance you take. And if you don't want to take that chance, or don't want to make your own recs list? Then frankly, you've got no right to bitch. Period.