.
Basically, yeah. I want to enjoy the story as a whole, not turn a magnifying glass on every detail; the distortion squashes the pleasure. It's why I keep resisting the idea (which, thankfully, seems to be fading) that feedback should offer "valid critique". No, dammit! Critique is work; I come to fanfic for fun.

If it's not fun any more, why do it?

Can't argue with that. But, seeing the way you put words and ideas together in other instances, I'm sorry I wasn't around when you were writing more fanfic. I know an excellent author who moved to another fandom because her original fandom became too aggravating like that. When fandom runs people out of town, I really wish I could sprinkle, "Think before you speak" liberally across everyone's head.
.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Most of my older stories are online at www.twistedchick.org/stories, if you want a look. (I warn you, some of the Highlander stuff is pretty dreadful.) They're in older fandoms, and the site format hasn't been updated in a while. The only things I've written in the last few years are Yuletide stories and some snippets in the small fandoms that have arisen around Synecdochic's Broken Wings series.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

.
::scratched head::

I tried with and w/o the http:// and got "URL not found". I deleted the stories for just www.twistedchick.org/ and got "Sorry, not tonight. I have a headache." That's grin-worthy (and I did), but it doesn't get me anywhere.
.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

argh. Very sorry -- forgot that when there was some nasty RL stuff going on a while back I boosted the archive one level deeper.

Try: www.twistedchick.org/original/index.html

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

.
Thanks; that does it.
.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

*follows URL* You wrote Amanda fanfic? I probably read all this stuff when you first posted it. Er, I'm sorry, I could say things substantive about the main content of your post too, but it's early, and I'm squeeful over Amanda fanfic.

Er. Anyway. The post non-fic related content itself:

There are some acafen who approach fandom in this odd way. It would make me happy if they would, perhaps, not try to put me and my fannish groups under a microscope. I feel odd, and kind of squirmily uncomfortable, because I don't get the feeling that some of them are there to enjoy fandom, so much as to stake their claim on something. If that makes sense?

I come from Forever Knight fandom initially, and there, pretty much everyone dissected the stories and the source material in some way, because we loved it so much we wanted to dig out every detail. The producers don't give us a year this scene takes place? We'll figure it out by the clothing Janette's wearing! Why is Nick acting like that? Oh, he's a medieval Catholic; of course he believes he's irrevocably stained by sin! What's up with Lacroix being such a controlling bastard? He's a Roman general. He's the pater familias, at least in his eyes. How come Nick treats Janette and Natalie differently in the same situations? Oh, yeah, Nick's mired in the virgin/whore dichotomy.

I'm not even close to an acafan. I don't have any kind of a graduate degree, which I think is a requirement to be defined as an "acafan." If it's not, someone tell me, because then I might feel like I have license to go in and start talking about these things. I swear, my personal insecurities, plus the massive amounts of wank that acafen can - SOMETIMES ONLY - generate, it makes me feel like not having a graduate degree means I'm not 'allowed' to do the things I love.

But the other thing I learned in FK fandom was that anyone can look at their fannish source materials and draw from the incredibly rich historical traditions that those stories are based on. All it requires is a quick mind, a love of learning, and the willingness to do things like read a lot of books, listen to the other fen, and talk with them.

(Please don't think I'm slamming all acafen. I have a few of them on my LJ friendslist, and I really enjoy their company. But some of the others do behave, er, shall we say poorly? I think those are the ones you're talking about, and I think they're making a bad name for acafen everywhere.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I remember a little of the FK discussions, and I really liked them. They were adding to the context instead of removing it.

And I'm not slamming all acafen either. There are some who are scholars and gentlepersons. There are also others who are ... not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I'm a grad student (science, so my magnifying glasses are literal). Fair warning.

Anyway, I read for fun. And I enjoy stories as a whole, but I also enjoy looking at the details--of writing style or of characterization, or references in the story to other things. I read author's notes. I love DVD commentaries, both on the DVDs and on stories.

I also like music. And most of the time I listen to it normally, but when I'm really obsessed with a song I'll listen to it over and over, trying in my not-very-music-savvy way to pick out the different instruments and what they're doing and how the rhythms change. It doesn't impair MY overall enjoyment of the song, although I can certainly see why other people would think I'm a nutbar.

So...I suppose I'm a little puzzled. We all relate to and enjoy fiction in different ways. Is there something wrong with that, or with certain modes of enjoyment?

-Carmarthen

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

No, there's not -- as long as nobody's imposing their view of how some fanwork MUST be understood on people who aren't interested in that version of it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)