Response to Dan

Dan,

Thanks for responding to me, instead of directing ire at my words to Mad Hamlet.

> And as for the self-proclaimed "master of Words"…

Actually, Dan, I am the self-proclaimed 'Mad Dragon'. The 'masterofwords' bit is my e-mail; if you'll look closely at either my profile on Yahoo! or any of my signatures, you'll find I never claim that distinction. And as a note of some interest to me, the e-mail address was chosen by my father when I was in elementary school and we got our very first ISP, somewhere back in the early nineties. Yay us! But, since a great many people knew and used the address, I kept the same name through several ISPs for convenience. I am sorry my e-mail address offended you.

> did I say "ugh", already? Alan, it's really nice you like what MH said. It's great you

> have opinions. Now if you could sound a little less like the Voice of Authority

> raking us all over the coals for not coming up to your lofty standards,

> it'd be even sweller.

There's some truth in what you say. I'm an arrogant punk. I've never claimed 'humility' as an accolade. If it's offended you, or anyone else -- then, I'm sorry. It's a character flaw.

I'm not here to talk about my standards of writing. I'm involved in this discussion to support Mad Hamlet's rant -- which was an _expression_ of his frustration and disappointment with the BWW community as a whole. I believe I said it in one of my earlier statements: if the shoe fits, wear it.

As for being the Voice of Authority -- I am not going to be defend my credentials. If you want to know them, contact me offlist, and I'll be glad to oblige you.

However, I will apologize; I am very used to teaching writing, so often speak of it in that voice.

> Your didactic tone is just as grinding as it was back in

> the halcyon days of (irony!) August '01, when you gave a series of

> harsher and harsher FBs to me

Yes. I did. I came onto this list with false expectations in the Fall 2001; I expected it to be like the other writing and fanfiction groups I had belonged to online. I was wrong -- my experiences with you were one of the things that proved me wrong -- and I withdrew from this list, except when supporting a friend of mine.

I have not been talking about any of my own standards on writing; this really hasn't been about writing. I have been answering the comments made in response to Mad Hamlet's rant. No more. No less.

> and I got more and more upset, and

> savaged a fic you had written (off-list, actually, since I didn't think

> that was something I needed to share with the group)

I appreciate the respect. However, I feel now as I did then: You were responding in anger to what I had written about your fics (which was based on my false expectations) and felt the need to hide what you had to say.

Just as now, you respond out of anger instead of out of reason. Many of your points above, to Mad Hamlet, were good points about the reasons why people join these communities. Maybe Mad Hamlet really is screaming into the wind. But I hope you can at least respect him -- and me -- for standing by what we believe to be true.

> and, as you may recall, upset your co-author (who I believe didn't know about our

> previous correspondence, and who I never intended my critique to be

> read by) so much she stopped writing for two years.

This incident is somewhat fuzzy in my mind; it was a long time ago. Obviously this is still very clear in yours. But my point remains: if the feedback was not given in good faith (eg trying to help someone learn to write better), then why send it? To me - that is a flame. If you did not intend for both writers of a peice to read what you had written about that peice, then why send it?

Then, as now, you are lashing out. You are not arguing or stating a case or responding. You are pointing fingers and name calling and undermining credibility. Ad hominem attacks and mud-slinging. You say 'but he did this!' and wave a blackmail photo in the air, waiting for people to jump on the 'let's attack them because they did stuff someone didn't like in the past' bandwagon.

It's easier to do that than to address any of the points we brought up. In fact, your responses and your attitude (cited as examples, not specific en pointe occurences) are the kind of response and attitude that made me leave the Buffy fanfiction community until very recently.

Why write if there is no discussion? If there is no growth? No change? I personally believe both growth and change are hard. They where hard for the characters Joss Whedon created; and those are the characters that inspired us to write our stories. If we do not respect their hardships and respect the inspirations those characters gave to us by working hard on the stories we write to honor them, then why are we writing fanfiction?

Maybe I'm just dense, and don't get it.

> So yes, people do

> get upset, and yes, this can be counterproductive.

Getting upset is not always couterproductive. It's what we do with those feelings and those reactions that count. We can be upset and we can point fingers and say 'he was mean to me once!'. Or we can talk, as reasonable individuals and people interested in writing stories with a common theme born of a common interest, about what to do the fix the problems that exist or maybe explain why there are no problems at all.

> The entire purpose

> of these lists is NOT to see who's tough enough to take "the truth", it's a

> cooperative setting for people to share what they've written and for

> others to enjoy it.

You rightfully accused me of arrogance. Now I accuse you of the same. The 'entire' purpose of a thing? I thought this list existed because a bunch of people thought it should.

Maybe it's that I'm just dense (again). I don't understand how an entire community built on the idea of sharing writing could not also have a foundation of improving as writers. Why be involved in something you put a part of yourself into and then get nothing back?

Or maybe it's my stupidity again -- maybe not everyone puts a peice of themselves into what they write.

> There's nothing wrong with criticism, but the "I know

> everything and this is why you're a terrible writer and it's not my fault

> if you don't want to hear it, a real writer would welcome the challenge"

> tone is not the best way to get things done. And, four years later, that's

> still what I hear when I read between the lines in your notes.

No one, not a one, has said there is anything 'wrong' with criticism. I have heard many ardent supports for it, a few saying they choose not to provide it, but nothing at all to say there is anything 'wrong' with it.

Excepting that criticism points out the negative. No one is a terrible writer. Ever. Anyone -- absolutely anyone -- can be a good writer.

The problem with criticism that I've been reading about has been the 'how'. Or, rather, the approach taken and the techniques applied. Which is something I have learned a great deal about in four years of professional experience and college education.

(and if commenting that I have learned more in four years while saying where I learned it from is arrogance, then I'm in real trouble. One would hope I've learned in four years.)

I've written a great deal on the subject of what being a writer means, and who writers are, and I think I've come up with a definition. A writer is someone who wants to write, and then does so. Someone who writes for their job but doesn't enjoy it isn't a writer -- they are someone who writes. The distinction is in the word 'want'.

Some writers have a desire to learn and grow; some don't. Some have this desire to greater or lesser extent. I am such a writer who wants as much of that opportunity as he can get. Those are the kinds of people I work with and deal with, train with and teach.

> And if it's

> not what you intended, then you're not communicating well enough.

> And if it IS what you intended, then please dial it back. In the words of

> one of those eps that Jin so loftily dismisses as "pretty much crap":

> other people's opinions may be valid, you know.

If other people's opinion's didn't matter, why would I take the time to read the responses and respond back? I have learned a lot about how others view writing and critiquing, revising and the process of being a writer -- knowledge I don't think I would have gained elsewhere.

At the risk of being arrogant once again: I have a lot on my plate. I have a lot of things I am responsible for, and I am sufficiently egotistic that I do not need to spend my time rending the arguments of people who don't like Mad Hamlet's rants.

In fact, were I that petty, I would have continued 'savaging' fanfics on this list until I were the terror others accuse Mad Hamlet of being instead of leaving it to find other avenues where people were more interested in being open, honest and blunt instead of sugar-coating or passing out blue ribbons simply for showing up.

> Please DON'T act like you're the ultimate authority on writers and

> writing, tossing in irrelevant quotes from Shakespeare to suggest that

> all the good writers do things your way.

Though I am not THE authority, and I am AN authority.

AS IS EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER WRITTEN SO MUCH AS A PARAGRAPH OF FICTION.

Every writer I know is an authority on writers and writing. Every friend or spouse of a writer is an authority on writers and writing.

It is such a set of concepts and subjects that no one will ever be THE authority.

I stated my opinion; clearly, firmly and with authority. I backed it up with my interpretation of the Bard. I welcome anyone here to do that same.

> There is NO One True Way to

> write, nothing that's pleasing to everybody. Talk about what you AND

> only you didn't like, and also talk about what you DID like, and let the

> author know that it's only your opinion. It's not hard, and it is

> constructive, rather than destructive. Yeah, maybe YOU wouldn't mind it

> if someone wrote a lofty/snotty carping about everything you did

> "wrong" in the fic,

Please note, on the above. My particular brand of comment and critique is not welcome here. No hard feelings. I haven't C&C'ed here in years. For exactly the reasons you mentioned.

I'm here to talk about what Hamlet said. However, I do believe there are certain rules to all writing that apply. If you give a damn, contact me off list. I'm more than happy to discuss it with you.

> but—newsflash!—not everyone is you. A little

> awareness of and tolerance for people's differences and differing

> psyches wouldn't hurt.

I congratulate you, Dan, on being the first to ever accuse me of such...narrow-minded stupidity. I haven't accused you of any such, despite some of what you have written to me and now about me.

Because I don't know you as a person and it is outside of the realm of the discussion.

Thanks for bringing me back to middle school, my man. Feels great to be back. Only not.

> A nd here I'm contradicting myself, because I'm getting ranty and

> personal and that's most likely a bad thing. Which is the sort of thing

> that I try to steer clear of, and which IMO it's all too easy for

Ranty - that's good. I enjoyed that part of your response. You made a lot of good points, which Mad Hamlet has responded to.

> "Criticism Is

> Great! Wimps Shouldn't Write!" crusade to descend into. But I'll let it

> stand, because it's late and I just wanted to make my larger

> point—there are other motivators besides unbridled negativity.

You write for your audience. Be prepared for your audience not to like. People who cannot deal with people not liking their writing should not post it to a public forum -- because people a lot worse than Mad Hamlet or Alan M Rogers are out there.

> (But, you say, "Dan's responding! It worked!" IMO that's a false

> challenge; you can get a response by shouting "fire" in a crowded

> theater. Venom for the sake of venom is not productive, even if it

> "stimulates" people to respond; it hijacks the focus away from where it

> ought to be.)

I didn't stand in a crowded theater and shout 'fire'. A friend of mine stood up in front of an assembly and said: "Let us go forth and DO!" And I stood up with a hearty 'amen!'. Now I support his position as best I can.

And it's not a false argument when the purpose of the rant was to generate a response. So -- Yes! Dan's respoinding! It worked!

Thanks, Dan.

And if you really still have a beef with me about something that happened four years ago:

AIM: Riycte

masterofwords@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

~alan m rogers