Subject: Is this canon?
Author:
Posted on: 2017-02-09 16:11:00 UTC
I remember reading somewhere that only one person was interested in Despatch. Is it part of the ppc, or is it another one of those things in the wiki that contradict what is proper?
Would it be fair to say that Despatch is a defunct department?
"There use to be a department where the characters were considered avatars of their authors," Kelly said. "Now we just assume that they're a realistic character."
Can the wiki be updated to have Despatch be defunct?
I intend to be kind to the characters. They're practically built off the OFU template.
In "The Adventure of the Misplaced Musical Miscreant," I treated the local Sue as both the author of the fic, and as a modern-day inhabitant of Sherlock Holmes's universe. I also wrote a brief "happy ending" for her at the end of the mission. This allowed me to (technically) write a Despatch mission without involving the real world author, and still treating the Sue as more "normal human" than usual. Of course, not every SI-fic in every fandom would lend itself to a similar premise easily.
—doctorlit isn't against RPF missions conceptually, but plays by the community's rules
The sort of fics that were missioned by the Despatch authors (Meg & Will, I think) are this close to being clearly unacceptable mission material. Namely, these "I plothole characters in for a sleepover" sorts of plots are either RPF or very similar to RPF (depending on who you ask), and missions to them would be very likely to turn into author-bashing. And we don't author-bash. We also don't mission RPF anymore.
Furthermore, over time, we as a community have decided that walking right up to the border of unacceptability isn't acceptable either. This is a reason we don't go after religious fics (like Hogwarts School of Prayer and Miracles). The same reasoning effectively bars writing Despatch missions.
This means that writing Despatch missions is no longer proper. It's not that we've explicitly forbidden it, it's just not something we think anyone should do. This (and the fact that it probably didn't come up before) explains why the wiki's not updated.
Since you're here, there are a few other matters I'd like to continue on the front page. As you are certainly aware, there are noticeable issues with some of the missions you have previously published and your response to constructive criticism, as pointed out in an older thread (and in this reply to that post). I would like to know what your plans are for improving in the future and how you plan to act on the feedback you have received on your previous writing. As a specific point, what are your plans for making edits and revisions to your missions, especially your first one?
If you would prefer not to continue that conversation on the Board, my email is clickable.
- Tomash
I do have an idea for improving "It's not a Blender" I just haven't gotten to it yet. The Hogwarts one and the Tresure Planet one are beyond my ability to fix. I would have liked to have had a beta on the Hogwarts one, maybe its badness would have been caught.
I'm feeling harassed that this conversation keeps popping up.
Hey Bram,
I beta read for you once, right before you got Permission. Now, I've become pretty enthusiastic about beta reading, so since then I've done a lot of research on how good editors work, and I realized I did a pretty shoddy, unhelpful job on yours. Instead of helping it become a better version of itself, I tried to make it into something it wasn't. I'm sorry for that -- I do think your ability to work with a beta leaves something to be desired, but let's not forget that Jay couldn't "deal with criticism (even good criticism)".
Basically, I'd like to have another shot at working with you; email me if you're interested. If you aren't, I understand.
--Key
I've got a Sherlock Holmes 2009 movie fic that I'm working on. I'll forward it to you when it's ready.
I have drawn your attention to problematic aspects of your interactions with the PPC community, and you have ignored me (and others) instead of responding to these concerns in a reasonable way. Your lack of significant responses has led me to provide further clarifications in the hope of reaching an understanding, which were not intended to harass you.
To go into more detail, I will summarize my views on this conversation:
- I observed that you were not behaving in an acceptable way, and that you were confused about why people were telling you this
- I wrote a post explaining what you were expected to do (especially with regards to constructive criticism and interactions with beta readers) so that you would better understand the norms of this group.
- You ignored my post and chose to shout at me instead
- I clarified my post further, telling you that promises of future reform were not enough, and that you needed to take action to repair your previous transgressions
- Instead of engaging with my points, you ignored them (again) in favor of expressing your feeling of being under attack.
- The thread fell off of the front page, so, when you made a new post, I replied to you, hoping that you would address my concerns, which you had been ignoring
- In this latest reply, you have again failed to demonstrate an understanding of what I (and others here) have a problem with, and what you need to do about it.
I hope this summary has made my perspective more understandable, and that it will help you understand why I am continuing this conversation.
As to your missions, let me be clear: they are poorly written. You are required (Constitution, Article 24) to improve them, paying attention to the constructive feedback you have received. The PPC is a community dedicated to good writing, after all. Your lack of a beta is not an excuse. Not here.
If they are "beyond your ability to fix", you have two choices. You may either retract them from continuity and abandon them, or you may gain the ability to fix them. You have already received broad concrit on your missions, which should help you improve them. I recommend that you read it calmly and carefully.
You also ought to find someone willing to work with you to improve your writing skills. (I do have to warn you that you have a reputation with some of us as a difficult author to work with, and you may need to overcome that.)
I would like to know which of these options you intend to pursue, as taking no action in the face of these requests may cause the community to consider more formal consequences or rebukes. If you do not understand any part of what you have been told or what you need to do, please let us know so that we can help you participate in the PPC.
Again, my inbox is open.
- Tomash
"The Harry Potter Trollfic" and "Kelly Solos 'Little Treasure'" have never been linked on the Wiki, and the links on the Board are so far down that nobody will ever find them again if we just stop pointing, and the Newbies probably don't even know what we are talking about.
As far as I'm concerned, these failed writing exercises have never been part of the PPC continuity – otherwise I would have linked them on the Wiki. Also, to me it looked like Bramandin, as soon as he was made aware that these stories don't fit our quality standards, and then again whenever it was brought up, tried to tell everybody that he did retract these stories, using phrases like "beyond my ability to fix" or "don't intend to work on them further".
So, the only problem here is apparently that Bram doesn't know how to formally retract them to our full bureaucratic satisfaction, and this fits our general knowledge about his condition. Actually, since this doesn't come up often, I don't know either, and I intended to ask Ix and Des when this came up the last time, but then I forgot.
What exactly should Bramandin do?
As far as I'm concerned, the two missions are, to some extent, part of PPC continuity until there is a clear statement to the contrary. They were, after all, missions, written by a person with Permission, that didn't at all imply that they weren't canon. The fact that many of us are acting like those missions were never published doesn't change the fact that, from Bram's perspective and the perspective of the record, they were.
Now, I also did not interpret "beyond my ability to fix" and "don't intend to work on them further" as implicit retractions. I read them as Bram's refusal to improve her writing in the face on concrit or otherwise do something about them.
I've been proposing to Bram that she clearly and unmistakably take her stories out of PPC continuity, since that would be an acceptable resolution to this issue (for me).
I think we have been telling Bram that abandoning stories isn't done here. Have my posts been insufficiently clear on that point?
Tomash
How can I retract without abandoning them, since they are the same thing? Those stories are dead.
Abandoning your story means you stop working on it. It's a reasonable thing to do with writing that didn't turn out well and you can't/won't/don't feel bothered to fix.
Retracting your story means you declare that it isn't part of PPC continuity. You're free to abandon retracted stories (since it's as if they'd never been published), re-work them and post them later, make confetti out of them, whatever you'd like.
I'd just like some clarity on whether you expect us to consider those two stories published, canonical PPC missions or not. If they're canonical and published, they're in pretty serious need of revision. If not, I don't think anyone can complain about them.
- Tomash
Best of luck with your writing in the future! If you need a beta at some point, email me (it's clickable above) and I'll try and give some (hopefully useful) advice (possibly after a few days' delay on account of exams or other such things).
It is concrit, and you are doing a sound job of deflecting it and brushing it off. A lack of betas is not an excuse for writing bad fanfiction, and it's not an excuse for writing bad PPC stories, either.
From the Wiki: "We take pride in the fact that our stories are well-written. If someone asks for permission to PPC, and that person's post is riddled with bad spelling, grammar, and logic, permission will not be granted. What right do we have to mock people's stories if our own writings are just as bad?"
You were given Permission because a PG thought you could contribute to the community. Don't continue to prove that trust was misplaced.
Their roles and responsibilities haven't been looked at in particular detail, since the only person who really wrote for them did so quite early on.
I don't think it would be a very good idea for you to try to change that. It's a department that covers a delicate topic, and I feel it would be best left alone.
hS