Subject: Re: Okay. You're entitled to your opinion.
Author:
Posted on: 2013-07-30 21:36:00 UTC
Two reasons:
First, I needed to get this off my chest, and writing this was in some small way cathartic.
Second...you guys deserve to know that some don't like your work, and more importantly why. Critisism is just as important as praise, and having a message board where only positive opinions are posted would be, well...you get the idea.
I hate you.
No, that's too harsh. It's true that there is bad fanfic on the 'net, and despite me disliking your methods, it does need to be dealt with by SOMEONE. In addition, I can't really go around saying I hate 'you' - that's hating everyone in the PPC, despite never having met you. Besides, we ARE all fans, otherwise I wouldn't read fanfic and you wouldn't want to defend it. So it isn't apples and oranges as much as Protestants and Catholics...bad example, sorry.
I suppose a more accurate message would be:
I hate the PPC organisation.
I hate their methods, of making sarky comments rather than sitting down to review a work (Yes, I am well aware of MST, and hold the same opinion of it. Snarking is fine as part of a review, but when a work is laughed at simply because you can be snarky about it - well, you can do that with ANYTHING, irrespective of quality. The fact that iRiffs of the Dark Knight and The Avengers exist are proof enough of that - just being able to riff on something doesn't make it bad).
I despise their totally rigid view of canon, which refuses to consider any opinion other than the author's to be of any worth. I'm citing Death of the Author on this one, as well as Joss Whedon: "All worthy work is open to interpretations the author did not intend. Art isn't your pet -- it's your kid. It grows up and talks back to you." The fact is that what you you and the author see in their story is never the same - you are your own person, with biases and quirks that affect your interpretation of stories as with all forms of art. If you thought that Snape was an abusive teacher who should have been in prison long ago (for example), and you can defend that adequately by referring to the source material, then you should have a right to believe that no matter what JKR says. Whereas your wiki sums up your position nicely - 'Even stupid canon must be defended'. Yes, no matter how idiotic it may be, just happening to be the guy (or woman) who made it makes your opinion more valid than anyone else's. Hey, some advice - if you want your audience to believe something about your story, put it in the story.
And finally...you dun goofed. I don't know how long ago this was written without anyone catching it, but in a spork of a HP fic called I believe 'Shalt Not Suffer' (I couldn't find it on FF, so the story may have been taken down, and there were too damn many HP sporkings for me to find it on your end), the writers totally misunderstood the fic and I believe persecuted it unfairly. I know that people make mistakes, but that sporking was written years ago and still stands uncorrected.
Also - dudes, you need a better messaging board.
...Sigh. Totally predictable response from posting this somewhere fans and writers of the PPC gather in 3...2...
Just know that I'm not out to personally insult you - I just don't like what you stand for.
As was wisely pointed out by Elcalion, the more recent thread "If you can stomach the Inheritance Cycle..." pertains pretty directly to this discussion, especially on the idea of rigidity. As you can see there, not everyone in the PPC shares the same opinions of badfic, and we aren't so 'rigid' that we'll spork a fic that doesn't truly, truly, truly deserve it just because of canon breaks, SPaG errors, clichés, OOCness, and other elements that could be charges should a fic actually be sporked. In fact, as is also exhibited in that particular thread, we often go by how something makes us feel as opposed to strict, 'rigid' analysis.
The PPC is fun, as many others have already said. It's not a real organization, and it's certainly not rigid- or if it is, it's not meant to be.
-- Len
Hey. I see where you're coming from, I think. If I'm understanding what you're saying, it's that you don't like that we snark at stories rather than just review them.
The thing is though... there really isn't a "PPC Organization". We're a community of writers who enjoy reading fanfiction and writing fanfiction, and just being fans in general.
Bad fanfiction doesn't NEED to be dealt with; we do what we do because we care about the canons, we enjoy good stories, and we just like having fun. By writing missions, we basically combine writing a story and writing a review of a fic while doing it in a way that makes people laugh.
You say you despise 'their' totally rigid view of canon. Who are you referring to? The PPC started in the early 2000s with two writers. Since then, there have been many many spinoffs, each with different writers behind them.
Yes, most of us consider the author of the work's word on their creation to be the final one. If it's up in the air, then we -or at least me, personally- take fanon and fan theories into consideration. Like, a character's motives, for example. If they aren't stated in canon, and it's just guessing on the fanon's part, then we take that into consideration.
Yes, people DO interpret stories differently. But we aren't telling people what to think. If that person thought that Snape was an abusive teacher, then fine. Good on them! But where we draw the line is when Snape stops acting in-character. In the books, Snape never physically attacked a student. If he's doing that in the fic, then we comment on it.
And yeah, we do need a better messaging board. I agree.
So, Polite Dissent, have our responses been what you thought they were going to be?
Finally, thanks for telling us what you think in a respectful manner like you have. To me, the PPC is about writing fun stories with friends and poking fun at bad fan fiction, while improving our own skills as writers.
I really shouldn't even comment on this because I haven't been active in this community for years now, but it seems kind of bizarre to take the PPC so seriously. I mean... it's an 'organization' devoted to getting a laugh out of bad fan fiction. At the end of the day it's fan fiction about fan fiction. It's fun, but not exactly earth-shattering.
Got a chuckle out of your suggestion to get a better message board. We were having that debate here 10 years ago, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Hopefully you can continue to voice your polite dissent on this old shoddy one. ;)
I really shouldn't even comment on this because I haven't been active in this community for years now, but it seems kind of bizarre to take the PPC so seriously. I mean... it's an 'organization' devoted to getting a laugh out of bad fan fiction. At the end of the day it's fan fiction about fan fiction. It's fun, but not exactly earth-shattering.
For one, anyone who reads and likes the PPC will probably judge fanfiction they read according to your standards. So if those standards are skewed (as I believe them to be), you have a problem because it isn't just the PPC with its biases - they've spread to most of your audience, too.
Our audience is, basically, us. We write for our own fellow PPCers to read.
I know your very presence here is proving me wrong, but I very strongly doubt the majority of missions get seen by anyone outside the PPC community. This is especially true in recent years, when posting PPC stories to fanfiction.net has fallen out of favor. Most of our new members nowadays are folks who stumble across the TV Tropes article about us.
So when you say, " . . . anyone who reads and likes the PPC will probably judge fanfiction they read according to your standards," I can only think, "If they read and like a PPC mission, they probably already had similar standards and biases." Just as you read some missions and didn't enjoy them, since they don't fit your view of proper reviews.
Also, if I may expand on the "writing for our own community" theme, part of the reason we write for and post within our own group is because the PPC is its own canon. The creators are also the fans! The fictional organization itself has a history, and individual spinoffs and agents have their own storylines. I can't say this is true for every PPC writer, but many use missions as merely part of the setting for their characters to grow in and advance their plots. All this becomes another stumbling block against non-PPC readers, as the unfamiliar details of the PPC canon would make any given story much harder to follow and understand for anyone outside the community.
To summarize, we're telling our own story to ourselves, and it's not really intended or designed to be easily digested by folks not familiarized with that story's content.
Okay. Here is my polite dissent. I hope you don't mind.
You are taking the PPC too seriously. The PPC is not an academic organization. It is not a political, religious, or lobbying organization. It does not exist to provide any kind of serious critique or analysis. Your entire argument seems to consist of, "I don't like that you're not serious reviewers, and I just don't like you."
And... what? What's the next step here? You don't like the PPC, but the PPC likes itself just fine. Since you dislike everything about the PPC, I can't see any suggestions you might have being terribly useful. Now that you've got this off your chest, maybe you could create a website or blog to get your dissent out there? Otherwise I'm afraid you're just wasting your time here. I still don't understand what you're trying to do, but good luck anyway!
p.s. Anyone who reads the PPC is going to pick up their biases? Like some kind of contagious disease? I know a lot of readers are young, but isn't critical thinking taught in high schools these days? Do you really absorb all the biases of the authors of the works you read? If so, I'm afraid you've got a very confusing life ahead of you!
This leads me to belive that you think the agents' perspective are equal to our own.
You seem to overlook that the reactions agents have to the badfic they PPC are played up for laughs, as well as caused by, you know, actually being in the middle of it.
Also, I think it's been pointed out often enough that our stance on non-canon things isn't as rigid as you assumed it to be.
Also also, where do you take the assumption you're stating here?
(Also also also, do you know what it says about assuming? :D)
This leads me to belive that you think the agents' perspective are equal to our own.
You seem to overlook that the reactions agents have to the badfic they PPC are played up for laughs, as well as caused by, you know, actually being in the middle of it.
No, I don't think that your Agents' reactions are literally yours. However, unless I know otherwise I assume that there is a very large amount of your opinions coming out of your agents' mouths (since as I recall there are portrayed as almost invariably in the right) - such as John Galt and Objectivism, Linkara and comic books, uh, V and the land of Do-As-You-Please, etc.
Also, I think it's been pointed out often enough that our stance on non-canon things isn't as rigid as you assumed it to be.
I know that the boarders here don't take it as seriously as I earlier believed, no. But I still see it in sporkings - when I have time, I'll try to pick out examples.
Being portrayed as being in the right and sharing an opinion with the author is not the same.
Also, most agents are not self insert characters. Some are, sure, but not all of them. So using Linkara (who is just himself up to eleven) in that comparison doesn't work.
Do you think he shares 90ies Kid's opinions? Or Harvey's? Or Linksano's?
"I know that the boarders here don't take it as seriously as I earlier believed, no."
Since we're on the topic of TGWTG comparisons, do you assume that Doug Walker curses loudly at movies he doesn't like and rants at them to no end because the Critic does?
Being portrayed as being in the right and sharing an opinion with the author is not the same.
Also, most agents are not self insert characters. Some are, sure, but not all of them. So using Linkara (who is just himself up to eleven) in that comparison doesn't work.
Do you think he shares 90ies Kid's opinions? Or Harvey's? Or Linksano's?
First, none of those personas are the ones reviewing comic books. Second, as you've just said, Linkara espouses Lewis Lovhaug's opinions in his reviews, so why would I presume otherwise for the PPC?
"I know that the boarders here don't take it as seriously as I earlier believed, no."
Since we're on the topic of TGWTG comparisons, do you assume that Doug Walker curses loudly at movies he doesn't like and rants at them to no end because the Critic does?
I just said that I know that reviews are not word-for-word the reactions of the writer/actor, but that I believe the critisisms they level at a work are genuinely theirs.
"Second, as you've just said, Linkara espouses Lewis Lovhaug's opinions in his reviews, so why would I presume otherwise for the PPC?"
Perhaps because the PPC is not Atop the Fourth Wall. Or, at least, not last I checked.
(Let me just quietly squee to see you on here again! Also your comment made me laugh aloud.)
Yeah, I still come 'round these parts every now and then, peaking in to see if anything's happening. ;)
'Tis rather cool of you to do so. ^^
I think that what you're missing, as Lenore said below, is that not every AU and crossover are bad. Take "Game Theory" for example. It's an AU - there's no doubting that - but it's such a well-written, engrossing AU that I doubt that any of the resident Nanoha fans (me, Sergio Turbo and firemagic, IIRC) would ever dare to mission it. Or, for example, "Faker of the Rings", which is a Fate/stay night x Lord of the Rings crossover. It's crack, and it exaggerates the characters quite a lot, but, again, I doubt anyone would spork it, because it's well-written and funny.
That said, kudos for being reasonable and listening to what Nesh had to say.
I don't exactly enjoy Faker of the Rings. It's just too ... strange for me.
Game Theory on the other hand, I love.
Possibly because it's Aleph and EarthScorpion.
Having not written any missions myself, my feedback doesn't really hold a whole lot of weight experience-wise, but I can see why you'd think that PPC methods are a little caustic. I've thought it, too. The point of the snarky sporking missions, I believe, is simply to make elimination of badfic more entertaining than writing review after review that the author won't listen to nine times out of ten. And in fact I've seen PPCers leave long, detailed, and cheerful critical reviews on stories, before or after sporking. We do that too.
You have a point about canon. The rigidity doesn't really allow for things like AUs, but then again, the PPC wouldn't spork a well-written AU. I think that breaking canon as a charge is used more to show that a Mary Sue (or similar offender) is disproportionately warping the plot, which is often what makes a character a Sue. (Since that didn't make much sense right there, I wrote an article explaining that theory. It's on my blog.)
So I suppose what I'm saying here is that I can perfectly sympathize with you, and I'm glad that you openly criticized the PPC if you had an issue with it. I think it was brave, and I admire you for being able to say "I hate you." and then proceed to offer reprimand that was not a flame. But in general I think the reasoning on our side can be explained- if not by me, because I'm not the best at explaining these things.
Yes, the methods are a little harsh. Maybe too harsh. That I can agree on, to an extent.
-- Len :D
This is very strange. I did find what I thought was the fic that was sporked here on FF.net: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5176787/Thou-Shalt-Not-Suffer .
However, the paragraphs that were misinterpreted are missing, suggesting that it was either edited afterwards, or I am thinking of a different fic. I'll describe what I remember anyway:
There is a Christian who gets her letter to Hogwarts. Obviously she is conflicted over this with the titular quote. Anyway, the important bit is that after she gets her books, her dad comes in to her room, and asks her not to read such things, which she agrees to. Later at Platform 9 3/4, she displays knowledge of the Wizarding World - I think the barrier. Her dad asks her how she knows what with her supposedly not reading the books, and -this is important- she replies "Magic?", innocently. Key word there, innocently. The Agents went NUTS. They immediately and incorrectly assumed that she literally meant that magic reached out and put the knowledge into her head, screaming "MAGIC DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!". I on the other hand got a totally different message - she read the books anyway and lied, hence the fic specifically noting the adjective 'innocently'.
Anyway that's the fic I hold a grudge over, and it's why only now am I thinking of the PPC again. From what I recall, she went on to get a telling-off from McGonagall on diversity (pointing out that the Patil twins follow Hinduism, for example),and after agreeing that that was the best bit the agents tossed the protagonist into a volcano.
And thanks to Storme Hawk, I did find the fic I was thinking of. And...MY GOD IS THIS FIC BAD - I had it confused for a better one. Still, there was a misinterpretation. Here is a quote from the sporking (http://www.keldale.f9.co.uk/tabularasa/mission2.htm):
""then how do you get to it?" Stephen pressed.
"The Barrier" Ariana pointed to the barrier separating platforms nine and ten.
"And just how do you know this, young lady?" Patricia pressed, cocking an eyebrow at her Daughter.
"Magic?" Ariana Smiled innocently.
“Wrong, wrong, WRONG!” Foxglove hissed. “If it worked like that, why the hell did Harry have to ask Mrs Weasley? Did this author pay any attention at all?”
“If she had, she would know that Potterverse magic is a talent, not a religion, and therefore one cannot be converted out of it!” Laburnum growled through gritted teeth."
And here is the missing context (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1485826/3/The-Christian-at-Hogwarts):
"Ariana sat in her bedroom, reading the extra books she'd picked up. among the extras were "Hogwarts, a History", "a wizards guide to muggles", "a muggleborns guide to wizardry" and "coming out of the closet to your muggle family"
"Ariana?" Stephen knocked softly on the door as he walked in.
"yeah dad?" Ariana looked up from the third chapter of "coming out of the closet to your muggle family": 'When mom refuses to accept.'
"Your Mother and I have been talking...about...School." he began slowly.
"Yeah?" Ariana asked, wanting him to get over whatever he was about to say so she could go back to her book.
"we think it would be best if your wand, books and other...School Supplies are put away until term starts.
Cocking an eyebrow at her father, Ariana said nothing, but quietly put the books away.
"Good Girl.""
If you just see the sporking, you THINK that a huge canon break has being committed, when in reality it was an unexpected moment of subtlety. Badly spelt subtlety, but subtlety all the same.
We're not, and don't claim to be, perfect. Your willingness to give feedback - be it positive or negative - is appreciated. It's always good to have criticism.
considering that the PPC tries to uphold canon.
I remember
- agents charging for “inventing tickets for the Hogwarts Express”. (Hagrid gave Harry his ticket in the first book.)
- agents saying that Hermione wasn’t fifteen years old at the Yule ball. (Her fifteenth birthday was in September of that year.)
- agents saying that there are four beds in a “standard-sized” dormitory at Hogwarts. (The only dormitory we have ever seen in canon had five beds, and we just don’t know whether there is a “standard size”.)
Nevertheless, I like the PPC, and I may join some day. (Please keep your welcome gifts until I introduce myself properly.)
The "four beds to a room" comment is from one of mine. Having done some research, it turns out that you are right. Apparently, I forgot that Dean Thomas was in there with Harry, Ron, Neville, and Seamus. I'll talk to my tech person and see about getting that fixed.
Thanks for pointing that out.
-Phobos
After a sleepless night, I just tried to check whether it was justified to blame "agents" for this one, and found it corrected.
From what I remembered, non-agent Phobos, who doesn’t need to know everything about a canon he was dropped into quite unexpectedly, might have been accountable, and "Decima knew better, but didn’t comment on Phobos’ small mistake, because she was more concerned with the big offense of Ginny inexplicably getting a room on her own" might have been a valid interpretation of your words. I would have spared me a lot of worry if I had looked it up before I posted.
Since we were talking about interpretations of authors’ words, may I point out that getting a room on her own isn’t really inexplicable in Ginny’s case? It was called "the sixth years girls dormitory", not "Ginny’s room", so the author may have expected all readers to understand that "This is just a standard Hogwarts dormitory magically adapted to the number of Gryffindor girls in Ginny’s year," and this wouldn’t be a less valid interpretation of JKR’s words than "There are other Gryffindor girls in Ginny’s year, we just didn’t ever see them," or "Being the only Gryffindor girl in her year, Ginny was forced to share a dormitory with Hermione, Lavender and Parvati".
Of course "Hermiones room" would be much harder to explain.
We really need to know this stuff. I mean, not much we can do about missions by people who aren't around anymore, but if I made a mistake like that, I'd really want someone to tell me. Preferably my beta-reader, before I publish the mission, but I'll take correction after the fact, too. I'm happy to edit my work to fix stupid brain farts.
~Neshomeh
This wasn't some random, ill-spelt-and-grammared flame, and wasn't a passing troll. It was someone who took the time to write up a well thought out message to the lot of us. I have tremendous respect for that.
As for the community...stick around, eh? Visit the Board from time to time, come on the IRC and say hi. We're fairly personable, and we hardly ever bite, we swear.
OK, so I'm new (relatively) and I may not speak for anyone else with what I'm going to say but this is how I feel.
My main problem with your post (if problem is the right word) is your fourth paragraph (the one starting with "I despise their totally rigid view of canon") As a RPer and a writer I use AU's and OC's on a daily basis, yet my stories haven't appeared on the PPC, nor have several of my favorite stories that are severely AU and breach Canon in way too many places to take count. Why? Because there are pieces of good fanfiction on the internet, stories that you can read and enjoy, stories that have a clear well defined plot, use Canon as enough of a basis to keep people happy and have decent SPaG. To be honest the majority of fanfiction breaches away from canon at some point or another, for whatever reason. You can't blame a fanfic for not complying with a canon Seventh Year and Epilogue for Harry Potter if it was written before the book came out can you? Nor can you really blame a writer if they want to explore a specific What If? question that could change all of Canon.
I personally think that as the Authors have finished each book they've let us the readers play around with Canon as we want. But with this and posting your stories on the internet comes the responsibility to make sure that the stories are good enough for the internet, to be read as a whole. If it's good then that's fine, however it's only if it's quality is subpar that means the PPC get involved. I think you've forgotten that, that the PPC does not restrict fanfictions from moving off of Canon in anyway, what it does is merely raises awareness of the bad fanfiction of the internet, and along with the OFU's gives those who have written the bad fanfics every chance to redeem themselves and tidy it up. OK so not everyone agrees and not everything will always work out, that's the way of life.
The other thing you've got to remember is that the PPC Missions aren't deadly serious they're meant to be humourous parodies of the fanfiction, no matter how bad the fanfic is, take it with a pinch of salt and laugh if it's your sort of thing or turn away if it isn't.
I think I've rambled on enough and possibly gone slightly off topic but anyway.
Two additional points.
1) Looked for 'Shalt Not Suffer' on the wiki, couldn't find a fanfic with that name, but there was a Mission title with those words in it, it was for a fic named 'A Christian At Hogwarts' didn't read the mission, but is that the one you were meaning?
2)I've seen a lot worse discussion boards than this. Besides it does what it needs to do. I think the quote is "If it ain't broke don't fix it" which funnily enough pretty much sums up my base point (and makes the previous two paragraphs look silly in hindsight). The PPC isn't broken, people may not like it, but you're unlikely to find anything in the world that everyone likes. What matters is that something continues doing the job that the PPC is doing, so why change it?
As I said at the top, this is my opinion and whilst it may not be shared by anyone else it doesn't matter to me, because as has been repeated, everyone has their own opinion. If I do turn out to be a loner amongst Boarders then so be it, and if people want me off of here ASAP then fair enough.
Final point before I shut up (and everyone starts celebrating) I don't mean to offend anyone with my above post, if I have I'm sorry and if alerted I won't do it again.
Storme Hawk
"1) Looked for 'Shalt Not Suffer' on the wiki, couldn't find a fanfic with that name, but there was a Mission title with those words in it, it was for a fic named 'A Christian At Hogwarts' didn't read the mission, but is that the one you were meaning?"
That WAS it! I saw it earlier, but I had it confused for a different fic. Now to find and quote the source text...
(Wow, this reply took a while to write. If anybody else has said this, don't mind me.)
Um... Yeah, I think you'll forgive us if we don't take your assertion that this is "polite dissent" at your word, sir. Even if you meant the organization rather than the people in the PPC, it's still rude as hell to open an argument with "I hate you".
Also, I'm pretty sure that "you dun goofed" is only used in an ironically back-talking sense that is in no way meant to be polite.
Oh, and that "expect the typical whiny response in 3, 2, 1"? Also very rude, and almost kind of elitist in a way.
Oh, and the "message board" comment? Totally uncalled for. (By the way, we have had many debates about moving it. Many, many, MANY debates, some of which have caused blood to be shed and tears to be cried. Honestly, I don't care either way, as it's actually not a horrible message board.)
Yeah, you come in here saying you're "polite dissent" and then you go on to insult certain facets of the organization in a passive-aggresive manner. That's honestly not polite at all.
Just saying.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the argument you're postulating here, so we'll leave your wording choice at the door. So let's go down your points, shall we?
"I hate their methods, of making sarky comments rather than sitting down to review a work. (...just being able to riff on something doesn't make it bad)."
Roger Ebert would oftentimes review a bad movie by dealing snark at its general direction. You make the point of "snark is independent from criticism", which is a valid point.
However, what you seem to miss in your point is an important distinction about quality: even when the work as a whole is good, there are sometimes still things about it that aren't really that great. You're arguing that making snarky comments about a work that is of overall high quality is the same as making snarky comments about a work that is of overall low quality.
To that end, let me ask you this: when some people make snark at something that's good, why is it that they generally go after the bits of the whole piece that don't work? Is making fun of the flaws of a good work fundamentally different from making fun of the flaws of a bad work? It's exactly your point, I know, but that's just the problem: when you snark at the flaws of a fundamentally bad work, there's much more to work with than there would be in something of higher quality.
I wonder what your opinion of stuff like the Nostalgia Critic and the Angry Video Game Nerd is. By the argument you present here, I get the feeling you don't like anything from those kinds of people.
"I despise their totally rigid view of canon, which refuses to consider any opinion other than the author's to be of any worth."
This whole paragraph ignores one simple issue: while it is true that art does "grow up and talk back to you", there is a limit to which you can stretch that quote. That point comes when the author produces information that points to a certain interpretation of anything relating to that canon. Hell, you even acknowledge this point when you say "if you want your audience to believe something about your story, put it in the story".
The problem is that most authors of bad fanfiction choose to ignore when an author puts something into their story to steer an interpretation of a part of canon, whether it be conscious or not. That is the kind of interpretation we normally go after here at the PPC. Is it possible to come up with a fanfic that has good alternate interpretations of things found in the canon? Of course, and I have yet to see a fic that was sporked here in the negative because it just violated the canon. (Hell, we've even had a mission that highlighted goodfic that involves an AU (and also MPreg) when the mission writers initially thought they found badfic. See here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K33i4NbxNThKEdfmacAA8pY04qPmENbAT0lBLaJoSXs/edit ) But that doesn't always happen with fanfiction, and it almost never happens in bad fanfiction.
Hence, our position of sticking mainly to what the author intended with that. Oftentimes, the fic authors will spend so little time justifying in-story decisions that contradict information the original author explicitly spelled out in the canon (that is, if they don't completely disrespect it entirely) that it will get to the point where the fic and the canon from which the fic derives inspiration don't seem to fit within the same universe. And when that happens, it's more like the kid that murders the parents rather than the kid who talks back to the parents.
"I don't know how long ago this was written without anyone catching it, but in a spork of a HP fic called I believe 'Shalt Not Suffer' (I couldn't find it on FF, so the story may have been taken down, and there were too damn many HP sporkings for me to find it on your end), the writers totally misunderstood the fic and I believe persecuted it unfairly. I know that people make mistakes, but that sporking was written years ago and still stands uncorrected."
For that spork... I take it you're referring to this Foxglove and Laburnum mission, of which the full title is "Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Sue To Live": http://www.keldale.f9.co.uk/tabularasa/mission2.htm (The fic being sporked is actually still up on FF.net, by the way: you can find it here: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1485826/1/The-Christian-at-Hogwarts The reason you couldn't find it is probably because it's hard to find Harry Potter fics that were published in 2003, so I won't dock you for that.) If this isn't actually the mission that you're referring to, you can skip this next part as it only applies to that. So to that end... cue the scene change things I use in my missions!
----**----
If you do say that the mission missed the point of the story, I can see why you might say that: the mission does show a scene later in the fic that actually isn't that bad. In fact, it involves something that could've been interesting to explore: the identity crisis a Christian might undergo if sent to Hogwarts. I will admit, that is a very interesting concept to explore, and it could've made for a great fanfic if handled right.
I say, "if handled right". Unfortunately, the fic bungled the execution in a few critical ways. The mission mentions that the scene that brings up those ideas doesn't really make sense with anything that came before it. If McGonagall says that the students that fill the halls of Hogwarts are Christians, why did the Sorting Hat flip out about that when it was put on the head of the main Sue? If there are in fact other Christians in Hogwarts that the Sorting Hat would've sorted by the time Ariana comes around, why did it single her out? If Ariana was having an identity crisis with herself, why would the Sorting Hat say that she had "a thirst to impress"? From what we read of the rest of the fic, there was inadequate and/or no actual build-up to that scene, not to mention that the scene itself goes against the implied logic that the story runs on. So that's a sign of bad storytelling in and of itself.
And that doesn't mention the other canon violations that occur that are explicitly spelled-out facts from JK Rowling.
Like, you know, Potterverse spells suddenly being incantable in German (they're only incanted in Latin). Or some girl from Portugal being able to go to a school in England, when it has been established by the canon that there are schools in other parts of the world and that there thus might be a school she could go to closer to home. And having a judgmental Gryffindor student. And having Ariana feel the location of Platform Nine and Three Quarters. And having Hagrid freak out about Muggle parents when he was fine with Hermoine's.
And let's not forget the inconsistencies within the story, such as Ariana suddenly becoming a pureblooded witch when she was formerly Muggle-born earlier in the story. And then there were all the grammatical errors involved.
So, to reiterate, the idea wasn't bad itself. It was just a badly-told story that did not meet up to the author's admittedly admirable intent.
----**----
Of course, if this isn't the mission or the fic you're referring to, feel free to disregard the above two paragraphs.
The PPC isn't about attacking stories that don't follow the canon with funny comments: it's about pointing out the flows in badly-told fanfiction. And I think that, at least on some level, you have missed the point of the PPC.
Take a deep breath.
That was polite dissent. "I disagree with the way you do things, and thought you should know, and here's why," is pretty danged polite, and definitely dissent. "YOU'RE ALL FLAMING IDIOTS JUST JEALOUS" is impolite dissent. And if I stepped into a forum I believed to be hostile and told them I disagreed with what they did, I'd expect typical "HEY SHUT UP YOU'RE THE JERK" responses immediately. A bit rude, but not unrealistic.
(Yes, some people think we need a new message board - myself among them, at this point - and some don't. An outsider's comment on this, during a message telling us we're collectively wrong, is going to get mostly ignored; it's a community decision, thanks all the same.)
The dude is free to disagree with our whole mission and philosophy and what-have-you. And we are free to disagree with them. But let's not be jerks to each other unnecessarily, aye? I'd like to keep this one above-board as well.
...it doesn't change the fact that half of the post in question wasn't exactly the most polite thing in the world. The points themselves weren't delivered passive-aggressively (and I'm pretty sure I didn't attack the points he made in the actual post I made; rather, I tried to engage him on 'em), but the fact that there were rude comments peppered in throughout needs to be addressed. As far as I'm concerned, you can still be impolitely dissenting even without that whole "YOUR ALL FRAMING IDOTS JUST GELOUS" thing.
"And if I stepped into a forum I believed to be hostile and told them I disagreed with what they did, I'd expect typical "HEY SHUT UP YOU'RE THE JERK" responses immediately."
Except that he didn't really have to say that he was expecting it in the manner that he did. Which is my whole point: for being "polite" dissent, at least half the post is needlessly worded in a mean-spirited way. The points themselves were worded fine: it was the stuff around those points that could've used polit-ifying. Which isn't a word, but still.
Let us not start shouting about the mote in the eye of our critics - need I bring up the multiple times we've had to stop and remind ourselves and each other not to bash authors? We have had people say stuff that was outright deliberately mean-spirited about 'badfic authors,' specific and general, no two ways about it. A critique of us that is written snarkily, rather than ingratiatingly, is not something I'm going to be upset about. I've written far ruder messages to people I disagree with, and I suspect you have as well, if only because we're both humans with notable tempers.
I'm not saying rude comments can't be made. I'm just saying that you can't make rude comments in the middle of something and expect to dress it up as "polite" dissent.
And no, I don't care how politely worded the actual argument is in this case: the fact that the remarks I highlighted were said at all means that, at least on some level, it was not completely polite dissent. If it's not completely polite dissent, it's not polite dissent. That's just how I see it.
Herr Wozzeck
At least we make no illusions when we're not polite.
I'm not saying rude comments can't be made. I'm just saying that you can't make rude comments in the middle of something and expect to dress it up as "polite" dissent.
And no, I don't care how politely worded the actual argument is in this case: the fact that the remarks I highlighted were said at all means that, at least on some level, it was not completely polite dissent. If it's not completely polite dissent, it's not polite dissent. That's just how I see it.
That's a very black & white view of the world, isn't it? "They're called Polite dissent, so he must totally and rigidly adhere to the rules of etiquitte!". This, despite me saying quite plainly that this is a subject I feel very strongly about, in which losing control of your emotions is usually forgivable in light of such. And by the standards of the Internet, I was polite. I didn't insult any of you personally. I maintained a calm tone. I never, ever uttered a curse or started ranting. And all the while I genuinely and sincerely hated and despised the subject and the views of the recipients of my message.7
I wished that all you stood for would die.
I never wished that you would.
...Okay, that's melodramatic. I know that people enjoy your site and would be sad if it died. I just wish that they -and you- could read fics the way I do.
Except that this is exactly what you did when you made this statement:
"...Sigh. Totally predictable response from posting this somewhere fans and writers of the PPC gather in 3...2..."
You know, since it's a statement that dismisses everyone in the PPC as little more than whiny fanbrats who just nitpick and complain about the non-canonicity of fanfics and can't be reasoned with in any capacity at all.
You can disagree with us all you want, but you best not insult our intelligence while you shell out that disagreement and try to make it seem polite.
Urgh, I need to get to sleep. Here's a partial response, which I may complete later. It's not very polished and I'm sure I made mistakes, but sleep is more important.
"Um... Yeah, I think you'll forgive us if we don't take your assertion that this is "polite dissent" at your word, sir. Even if you meant the organization rather than the people in the PPC, it's still rude as hell to open an argument with "I hate you"."
It's not like I immediately apologised or anything.
"Also, I'm pretty sure that "you dun goofed" is only used in an ironically back-talking sense that is in no way meant to be polite."
*shrugs* Feel free to interpret in in that light if you want. I merely wanted to say 'you made a mistake' in a suitably light-hearted manner.
"Oh, and that "expect the typical whiny response in 3, 2, 1"? Also very rude, and almost kind of elitist in a way."
Also not what I said. Really, this is a fine strawman you're making. Looking at this, you'd almost forget that I stated -twice, no doubt- that I was attacking your positions on canon and Authorial authority rather than you. Just, in fact, as the PPC attacks fanfictions, not fanfiction writers.
"Oh, and the "message board" comment? Totally uncalled for. (By the way, we have had many debates about moving it. Many, many, MANY debates, some of which have caused blood to be shed and tears to be cried. Honestly, I don't care either way, as it's actually not a horrible message board.)"
For one, it's making the parts I'm quoting very difficult for readers to tell apart from my responses - usually, I'd have BBCode [quote], [bold], and [italics] tags to work with. As it is, I have to work with quotations marks and ALL CAPS for emphasis.
For second, I can't correct mistakes made after posting or update my first post with information about the Christian fic.
"Yeah, you come in here saying you're "polite dissent" and then you go on to insult certain facets of the organization in a passive-aggresive manner. That's honestly not polite at all."
Just saying."
Hey, if you see passive-agressiveness in my posts you have every right to interpret them in that way just as every reader does, though I didn't intend you to. I certainly won't order you conform to my views about what I wrote.
""I hate their methods, of making sarky comments rather than sitting down to review a work. (...just being able to riff on something doesn't make it bad)."
Roger Ebert would oftentimes review a bad movie by dealing snark at its general direction. You make the point of "snark is independent from criticism", which is a valid point.
However, what you seem to miss in your point is an important distinction about quality: even when the work as a whole is good, there are sometimes still things about it that aren't really that great. You're arguing that making snarky comments about a work that is of overall high quality is the same as making snarky comments about a work that is of overall low quality.
To that end, let me ask you this: when some people make snark at something that's good, why is it that they generally go after the bits of the whole piece that don't work? Is making fun of the flaws of a good work fundamentally different from making fun of the flaws of a bad work? It's exactly your point, I know, but that's just the problem: when you snark at the flaws of a fundamentally bad work, there's much more to work with than there would be in something of higher quality."
Except that a bit doesn't have to be bad for snarking to work. You could take any line provided you remove enough context and snark at it. You need no knowledge of plot or anything else, just the line and delivery.
"I wonder what your opinion of stuff like the Nostalgia Critic and the Angry Video Game Nerd is. By the argument you present here, I get the feeling you don't like anything from those kinds of people."
I own Kickassia, Suburban Knights, To Boldly Flee, and NC Reloaded on DVD. The difference between Mr. Walker and the PPC is that his time isn't soley spent snarking - I know this bit is subjective, but I get sick of sarcasm if it takes up most of the humour, and the Critic mixes it with legitimate criticisms and more complex humour. If I want a more analytical (but still entertaining) review, I watch SF Debris. As for the Nerd...I have nothing against him, I just don't play (or haven't ever played) old video games or like his voice much.
"It's not like I immediately apologised or anything."
Yeah. Because you didn't. Not explicitly, anyway.
""Oh, and that "expect the typical whiny response in 3, 2, 1"? Also very rude, and almost kind of elitist in a way."
Also not what I said. Really, this is a fine strawman you're making. Looking at this, you'd almost forget that I stated -twice, no doubt- that I was attacking your positions on canon and Authorial authority rather than you. Just, in fact, as the PPC attacks fanfictions, not fanfiction writers."
Well, let's look at what you actually said, shall we?
"...Sigh. Totally predictable response from posting this somewhere fans and writers of the PPC gather in 3...2..."
...
Yes. Yes, it is what you said. It is what you said, and I resent the fact that you think I am making a strawman out of you for making remarks that are passive-aggresive.
Aside from that, I'm pretty sure I said something to the effect of "it's not important to the point, so let's just leave it at the door". I felt that, apart from some passive-aggressive stuff you said, you actually didn't have a terrible argument. I think you're wrong on many counts, but it wasn't a terrible argument, and it was at least well-reasoned.
"For one, it's making the parts I'm quoting very difficult for readers to tell apart from my responses - usually, I'd have BBCode [quote], [bold], and [italics] tags to work with. As it is, I have to work with quotations marks and ALL CAPS for emphasis."
Hm... For the italics/bold tags, it is essentially and and . Just omit the spaces, and you've got that covered. Trust me, it takes us all a bit to figure that out. Hell, I didn't know for the longest time. As for the editing option... I hear it exists, but I'll concede your point there since I still have no idea where it is.
Still, you can reply to messages individually, and you can actually reply to messages within a certain message tree. (If what I'm saying makes any sense.) It's actually really helpful to keep people from having eight conversations at once, so it's actually not as horrible as you might think.
"Except that a bit doesn't have to be bad for snarking to work. You could take any line provided you remove enough context and snark at it. You need no knowledge of plot or anything else, just the line and delivery."
Except that the examples you cited on "you can still snark things with higher quality" do rely on the context in which the things are said. Same within your average PPC mission: those almost always operate within the context of the fic itself, and that you almost always provide context for things if you know what you're doing with the missions.
I say "if you know what you're doing". I'll... get to that in a bit.
"I own Kickassia, Suburban Knights, To Boldly Flee, and NC Reloaded on DVD."
Huh... Well, that's certainly more dedicated than I am, LOL. I have yet to see NC Reloaded, actually, and I don't have any of the anniversary specials on DVD.
"The difference between Mr. Walker and the PPC is that his time isn't soley spent snarking - I know this bit is subjective, but I get sick of sarcasm if it takes up most of the humour, and the Critic mixes it with legitimate criticisms and more complex humour."
Hm... Out of curiosity, can I just ask you how many PPC spin-offs you've read? 'Cause the PPC I know doesn't always operate within sarcasm (and only sarcasm). I've seen plenty of PPC missions with absurdist humor, I've seen some with gross-out humor, and I also know plenty of missions that take the time to do concritty stuff as well (as Nesh pointed out). It changes within each spin-off, sure, but if you have a more limited experience with spin-offs, it can skew your perspective a bit. You are also referring to Laburnum's spin-off, and within the PPC those spin-offs are considered on the fringe, so it's not totally representative of the whole PPC.
On a side note, I did read your post about the fic. Honestly... I can kind of see your point about the misrepresentation there.
I personally am here for the setting that is being used itself and the concepts behind it, which I find have an unusual appeal to them.
My opinion is no more valid than anyone else's except when it comes to my own characters and other things I create myself, and I admit this. Trust me when I say that I don't see myself as any higher or better than any other writer out there, because I've seen things in both perspectives.
I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve here, though. Do you want to have a conversation, or did you just want us to know some people don't like us, or are you actively seeking that "totally predictable response" you mentioned? I'm confused.
I applaud you for being coherent in your dissent and not insulting us as people, though. I don't hate you or any of the authors whose writing I've PPCed, either, just for the record.
~Neshomeh
Two reasons:
First, I needed to get this off my chest, and writing this was in some small way cathartic.
Second...you guys deserve to know that some don't like your work, and more importantly why. Critisism is just as important as praise, and having a message board where only positive opinions are posted would be, well...you get the idea.
I think we'd have to be pretty daft not to realize that not everyone is going to like us, but we should definitely be able to tolerate it said politely to our faces, too. {= )
In the spirit of constructive criticism, then, I'd like to dispute some of the points you made.
First, it seems to me like one of your complaints is that we snark instead of reviewing. While that's true in some cases, in others it's not. Many of us, myself included, feel that concrit is important and make an effort to leave reviews in cases where it looks like they'll do some good. Some writers are actively hostile to any criticism, though, and in those cases I think most of us feel pretty justified in not bothering. (We could definitely do more concrit, though, fellow-Boarders. Seriously.)
Also, it's true that it's possible to riff something irrespective of quality, but that doesn't mean that's what we're about. I think you agree that there is such a thing as objectively bad writing, and PPC missions employ charge lists specifically to delineate those qualities that make the fic in question objectively bad. And besides, it's a lot easier to riff things that are terrible. I'm not trying to say there haven't been errors in judgement in our history, or cases of passion carried too far, but as a group we really do try not to spork stuff just because of content. Objective quality is a very important determining factor.
Second, our view of canon. Here I'd like to point out that we do believe in good fanfiction, which can indeed take a different interpretation of the canon and do it in an interesting way. That requires good writing, though.
Also, I at least actually feel the same way you do about putting what you want people to think about the story in the story. I believe the reverse is true, too, though: if it's not in the story, there's probably a reason for that, and if you're writing fanfic you have to work a lot harder to justify an interpretation that really does not appear anywhere in the source material.
To take your example, I believe you could write an interesting fanfic about what would happen to the Potterverse if Snape got tossed into Azkaban for being abusive. You'd have to take into account his relationships with Dumbledore and Voldemort, both extremely powerful people who have an interest in keeping him free, but it could be done. His cruel nature is certainly supported in his treatment of Neville and Harry in the books.
You could also write an absolutely awful fic where Severus Snape gets tossed into Azkaban (which looks weirdly like an American prison for unexplained reasons), takes on the nickname "Baybeshoes," and goes around alternatively beating up anyone who gets in his way and crying about his terrible fate when he's alone at night—but then he falls in love with Bellatrix Lestrange, and their love is so powerful that it confounds the Dementors and they make their escape and go have beautiful children together, and Sirius Black comes, too, because he's hott and then Baybe and Bella Snape can have a dog for their kids to play with.
I'm not exaggerating the degree of illogic I've seen in fanfic. Did you know there's a fic where the Giant Squid sexually pleasures Hogwarts Castle? Pretty sure that's a big heaping helping of "nope" in the books.
... Anyway. My point, I think, is that if the writer of Baybeshoes has a right to believe what they believe and put it in a fanfic, I have a right to believe what I believe and put it in a PPC mission. It's certainly a point...
Just to clarify what we mean by "even stupid canon must be defended"—this is simply to say that we don't go around PPCing original fiction, published or otherwise, even if we dislike it. We only take issue if you're not playing nicely (i.e. with logic and good spelling, punctuation, and grammar) in someone else's backyard. Also, we don't force anyone to PPC in a continuum they don't like.
Third... I don't know what you want us to do about that. If you can't find the mission or the story in question, there's no way for us to know what actually happened there or fix it at this time. That said, if you spot other cases where you think someone got it wrong, I think it would be good if you told the person in question and explained why you think that.
I hope that made sense toward the end. Coming up with Baybeshoes Snape kinda hurt my brain. >.
~Neshomeh
I'll respond to this point-by-point with lots of quoting- hope you can read it okay.
"I think we'd have to be pretty daft not to realize that not everyone is going to like us, but we should definitely be able to tolerate it said politely to our faces, too. {= )"
Thank you very much - I expected worse, believe me.
"In the spirit of constructive criticism, then, I'd like to dispute some of the points you made."
Fire away.
"First, it seems to me like one of your complaints is that we snark instead of reviewing. While that's true in some cases, in others it's not. Many of us, myself included, feel that concrit is important and make an effort to leave reviews in cases where it looks like they'll do some good. Some writers are actively hostile to any criticism, though, and in those cases I think most of us feel pretty justified in not bothering. (We could definitely do more concrit, though, fellow-Boarders. Seriously.)"
> Acknowledges that they don't do enough constructive critisism - okay, good start. But off-screen reviews don't count - they're not mentioned in the sporkings, as far as I know, so they're not part of the PPC universe. Anyone reading a PPC story would have no idea that these existed, so the the most common interpretation would be that they don't.
"Also, it's true that it's possible to riff something irrespective of quality, but that doesn't mean that's what we're about. I think you agree that there is such a thing as objectively bad writing, and PPC missions employ charge lists specifically to delineate those qualities that make the fic in question objectively bad. And besides, it's a lot easier to riff things that are terrible. I'm not trying to say there haven't been errors in judgement in our history, or cases of passion carried too far, but as a group we really do try not to spork stuff just because of content. Objective quality is a very important determining factor."
Objective badness does exist, yes, but I think that calling every charge 'objective' is a stretch to say the least. Objective badness is such that anyone looking at a fic would see the flaw - very basic stuff, such as spelling and grammar. Lacking descriptions, mischaracterisations, and the presence of overpowered characters are more abstract and I contend more subjective. And speaking of charge lists, I find it incredibly annoying when they, the part where an ultimate opinion is given of the fic, includes stuff like "Made Agent X sick; made Agent X stick his/her/N/A head down a toilet; made Agent X drink ever-more Bleeprin, etc.".
"Second, our view of canon. Here I'd like to point out that we do believe in good fanfiction, which can indeed take a different interpretation of the canon and do it in an interesting way. That requires good writing, though."
So you reaffirm that you like AUs, as in the FAQ. Again, so far so good.
"Also, I at least actually feel the same way you do about putting what you want people to think about the story in the story. I believe the reverse is true, too, though: if it's not in the story, there's probably a reason for that, and if you're writing fanfic you have to work a lot harder to justify an interpretation that really does not appear anywhere in the source material.
To take your example, I believe you could write an interesting fanfic about what would happen to the Potterverse if Snape got tossed into Azkaban for being abusive. You'd have to take into account his relationships with Dumbledore and Voldemort, both extremely powerful people who have an interest in keeping him free, but it could be done. His cruel nature is certainly supported in his treatment of Neville and Harry in the books.
You could also write an absolutely awful fic where Severus Snape gets tossed into Azkaban (which looks weirdly like an American prison for unexplained reasons), takes on the nickname "Baybeshoes," and goes around alternatively beating up anyone who gets in his way and crying about his terrible fate when he's alone at night—but then he falls in love with Bellatrix Lestrange, and their love is so powerful that it confounds the Dementors and they make their escape and go have beautiful children together, and Sirius Black comes, too, because he's hott and then Baybe and Bella Snape can have a dog for their kids to play with."
So you're saying that the further you get from canon, the harder you must work to justify your AU. Well, yeah, you have to justify yourself with every fic - it's just that in close-to-canon works, the justification is 'built-in' because you're using the same one canon does, so your letting JKR write it for you. Further away, it's a DIY job.
"I'm not exaggerating the degree of illogic I've seen in fanfic. Did you know there's a fic where the Giant Squid sexually pleasures Hogwarts Castle? Pretty sure that's a big heaping helping of "nope" in the books."
Read and enjoyed. I'm a sucker for crack fics and alien POVs.
"... Anyway. My point, I think, is that if the writer of Baybeshoes has a right to believe what they believe and put it in a fanfic, I have a right to believe what I believe and put it in a PPC mission. It's certainly a point..."
*shrugs* Not much I can say to this.
"Just to clarify what we mean by "even stupid canon must be defended"—this is simply to say that we don't go around PPCing original fiction, published or otherwise, even if we dislike it. We only take issue if you're not playing nicely (i.e. with logic and good spelling, punctuation, and grammar) in someone else's backyard. Also, we don't force anyone to PPC in a continuum they don't like."
That may be what you MEAN, but it certainly isn't what you SAY. On reading, I (and I assume that this is the most common interpretation for anyone who doesn't ask about this, eg most of your audience who read but don't comment) see this:
"Fanon can't contradict Canon. Ever. You can't get rid of Midi-Chlorians. You can't get rid of Tom Paris and his captain's salamander babies. The Ewoks are right out, and the Crystal Skull aliens? Pah, not a chance! If you try to correct ANY of that, you are going against the Official View and must be PUNISHED!" A...slight exaggeration, maybe, but that's the rub of it.
"Third... I don't know what you want us to do about that. If you can't find the mission or the story in question, there's no way for us to know what actually happened there or fix it at this time. That said, if you spot other cases where you think someone got it wrong, I think it would be good if you told the person in question and explained why you think that."
I've made a separate post about that. It wasn't as bad as I remembered, but it was still a mistake.
In conclusion, thanks for replying. I'd also like to reiterate (to you and anyone reading) that again, I hold nothing personal against you. I just don't like your views.
- "Off-screen reviews don't count"
... So, the issue is that my (or anyone's) PPC agents, who are fictional, are not written as leaving fictional reviews? Even if I, a real person, do give real reviews, which the fic's author is far more likely to see than my missions? Please clarify if that's not what you meant, because I don't understand where you're coming from with this at all.
Because in universe the reviews aren't given - anyone reading the PPC would think that you don't give reviews, because you don't say you do, so they aren't a part of the PPC 'canon' (or meta-canon, I guess). And hey, I got tags working!
- Subjective charges
I think Storme Hawk covered this pretty well. Because humor is subjective, though, I'll just add that subjective charges alone do not a charge list make. It's stated that they may not be used to justify an assassination or exorcism and are just there for catharsis—at least on the agents' part, but potentially on the PPCer's and the reader's, too. It's always nice to find that people are irritated by the same things that irritate you, right?
But those irritations are subjective - as I said, some people aren't bothered by a PPC author's pet peeves, so having the agents go on about how something is SO evil and sickness-inducing is plain annoying.
- "Even stupid canon must be defended"
I'd be interested in clearing up that language, since your interpretation is indeed not what we mean. Where did you see it, exactly?
Okay, so maybe I exaggerated. A little. Maybe. But, well, it really is how I interpreted it, especially since it's on the Fanon page - a concept which is all about fixing canon mistakes by modifying it. In fact, I'll quote the entire paragraph for context:
"In some cases of the canon being really stupid or terrible (...) there are times when some fanon can be said to be 'better' than canon, or 'more canon than the new canon'-- usually in the case of goodfic juxtaposed with a really terrible canon release or a brand-new Canon Sue. Unfortunately, it is the PPC's duty to protect ALL canon, even stupid canon, no matter the opinion of the agents in question."
So there you have it. No matter how well written fanon is and no matter how stupid, dim-witted, and asinine the canon is (again, I'll refer you to midi-chlorians and the Crystal Skull aliens), canon comes first, no matter what. If you see it in a fic, it's chargable.
First, I'd like to say, look up, try and identify where the surface is, realize just how big a hole you've dug yourself.
Across this topic you've gone back on your 'Polite Dissent' it seems to me, and whilst by no means are you raging or flaming it certainly isn't as polite as it was at first.
Anyway...
"Because in universe the reviews aren't given - anyone reading the PPC would think that you don't give reviews, because you don't say you do, so they aren't a part of the PPC 'canon' (or meta-canon, I guess). And hey, I got tags working!"
So what you want us to do is instead of writing missions write in-verse reviews? That makes about zero sense, plus you've got to remember that the Agents are the characters of us, so for them to comment on the reviews we've written would be like Harry Potter commenting on how bad JK Rowling made his relatives, it'd be breaking the fourth wall and generally not making a good story (unless Deadpool's involved).
"But those irritations are subjective - as I said, some people aren't bothered by a PPC author's pet peeves, so having the agents go on about how something is SO evil and sickness-inducing is plain annoying."
OK, let's take some examples from Canon. Do you hate Jim Butcher because he made Harry Dresden say 'Black wizards don't just grow up like toadstools, you know. Someone has to teach them complicated things like summoning demons, ritual magic, and clichéd villain dialogue.' or do you hate Rick Riordan because as Typhon is marching on New York he makes Dionysus say 'The world will fall, the gods will die, and I will never get a perfect score on this stupid machine' in reference to Pacman. Seriously, look through the Trope page I said about, here I'll even give you the link http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking Look through it and see that what we do is done my so many others, yet do people hate those author's or script writers for putting it in? No, because in the end it's only what a line or two out of the whole story. If you don't get that sort of humour don't complain about it and try and get us to stop it, let us carry on with it and accept that we're not making missions tailor made to your standards.
"Okay, so maybe I exaggerated. A little. Maybe. But, well, it really is how I interpreted it, especially since it's on the Fanon page - a concept which is all about fixing canon mistakes by modifying it. In fact, I'll quote the entire paragraph for context:
"In some cases of the canon being really stupid or terrible (...) there are times when some fanon can be said to be 'better' than canon, or 'more canon than the new canon'-- usually in the case of goodfic juxtaposed with a really terrible canon release or a brand-new Canon Sue. Unfortunately, it is the PPC's duty to protect ALL canon, even stupid canon, no matter the opinion of the agents in question."
So there you have it. No matter how well written fanon is and no matter how stupid, dim-witted, and asinine the canon is (again, I'll refer you to midi-chlorians and the Crystal Skull aliens), canon comes first, no matter what. If you see it in a fic, it's chargable."
Either you exaggerated or you didn't, and I'd go for the former. You're warping what's written on the Wiki to your own means. I can't deny that what you've quoted is incorrect or taken out of context from your first paragraph, but it's that last bit that really annoys me. Yes whilst if it is in a fic it could be chargeable, it doesn't mean it automatically is. You're mixing up charging and sporking really, just because something could be charged doesn't mean it should be sporked. I'll take to one of the stories I like on FF.net, it's called the Dark in Peace, set after the Seventh Book of HP, it's not Epilogue Compliant, and I know there are a few SPaG mistakes in it, but overall it's a decent piece of fanfiction, it's got some charges in there sure, but would I put it up on here to be sporked? No. In fact if you really think about what you're saying, unless it completely fits in to a gap left by the author (say the 19 years between Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and it's epilogue) then every bit of fanfiction could be charged and thereby sporked because in some way or another it doesn't stick completely to Canon (if it did we'd just be re-reading the books after all). One final thing I will point out (coming from your first paragraph of the quote above) is that Fanon isn't just about fixing Canon by modifying it, or rather it is partially fixing canon from the writers point of view, especially as you seem to have forgotten that quite a large amount of fanfiction starts on the simple concept of What If? I'm currently planning a fanfiction based on that concept, it doesn't by any means fix canon from point of view, it merely means I enjoy opening up possibilities.
I'm not trying to be insulting or to upset anyone, these are just my views after all.
Storme Hawk
Oh hey, you're still around. Cool.
- Off-screen reviews
I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's sensible or fair to assume that I don't give reviews because my characters don't. I can understand having a problem with the in-universe policies of the PPC, but it's kinda like having a problem with the policies of the Empire or the Jedi Order in Star Wars in that they're fictional organizations of fictional people. They both have some pretty crappy ideas, and you don't have to like or agree with them, but they probably don't accurately reflect how George Lucas conducts himself in the real world.
(And yeah, HTML is a beautiful thing!)
- Subjective charges
Sure, it can definitely be annoying if X thing doesn't bother you. It's not annoying to the people X thing does bother, though. Subjective works both ways. Don't judge my pet peeves, and I won't judge yours. {; )
- Stupid canon
The Fanon page, huh? Okay, I can totally see how that paragraph gives the wrong impression, and I will see about fixing it when I get a chance.
I think what we should be saying there is that even ignoring stupid canon can be a charge like any other breach of canon if it's a product of shoddy story-telling on the fic's part. Never mentioning midi-chlorians in your fic, fine. The first three movies prove that you can talk about the Force without talking about them. You don't even have to specifically designate the story an AU to make that work.
Not-fine would be writing a fic that explicitly includes midi-chlorians, but has the characters bitch about how stupid they are instead of getting on with the plot; or creating a strawman Jedi Master who believes in them, but is corrected by their Padawan OC who somehow knows better; or interrupting the story already in progress with an in-text author's note explaining that you're not going to be using midi-chlorians because they're stupid and by the way George Lucas is a stupid hack for inventing them. I think those would all be charge-worthy even though I personally agree that midi-chlorians are dumb.
So, again, basically what I'm saying here is that good fanfic is possible, even if it changes or leaves out canon details, particularly if those details are widely agreed to be dumb. It just has to be well-executed and not dumb itself.
~Neshomeh
Oh hey, you're still around. Cool.
It's unfortunate, but I can never let something go if I think I'm right. Bloody bloody-mindedness *shakes fist*.
I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's sensible or fair to assume that I don't give reviews because my characters don't. I can understand having a problem with the in-universe policies of the PPC, but it's kinda like having a problem with the policies of the Empire or the Jedi Order in Star Wars in that they're fictional organizations of fictional people. They both have some pretty crappy ideas, and you don't have to like or agree with them, but they probably don't accurately reflect how George Lucas conducts himself in the real world.
I have not, and never have, attacked you personally, the one writing those reviews. I have attacked your stories and the views espoused therein in the same way that, say, people might draw conlusions about there being no canon gay characters in Star Wars, EU or otherwise, or Ayn Rand for the views she espoused in Atlas Shrugged. Unless you say otherwise, readers are going to assume that your author avatars are just that, because they won't go behind the scenes like I am to ask.
(And yeah, HTML is a beautiful thing!)
Eh, it does the job.
- Subjective charges
Sure, it can definitely be annoying if X thing doesn't bother you. It's not annoying to the people X thing does bother, though. Subjective works both ways. Don't judge my pet peeves, and I won't judge yours. {; )
Not much I can say to this one, except to ask if you're sure that what you find annoying is what the majority of your readership do.
- Stupid canon
The Fanon page, huh? Okay, I can totally see how that paragraph gives the wrong impression, and I will see about fixing it when I get a chance.
I think what we should be saying there is that even ignoring stupid canon can be a charge like any other breach of canon if it's a product of shoddy story-telling on the fic's part. Never mentioning midi-chlorians in your fic, fine. The first three movies prove that you can talk about the Force without talking about them. You don't even have to specifically designate the story an AU to make that work.
Not-fine would be writing a fic that explicitly includes midi-chlorians, but has the characters bitch about how stupid they are instead of getting on with the plot; or creating a strawman Jedi Master who believes in them, but is corrected by their Padawan OC who somehow knows better; or interrupting the story already in progress with an in-text author's note explaining that you're not going to be using midi-chlorians because they're stupid and by the way George Lucas is a stupid hack for inventing them. I think those would all be charge-worthy even though I personally agree that midi-chlorians are dumb.
So, again, basically what I'm saying here is that good fanfic is possible, even if it changes or leaves out canon details, particularly if those details are widely agreed to be dumb. It just has to be well-executed and not dumb itself.
So just to be clear, you're saying that this:
Obi-Wan: So, Midi-Chlorians...
Luke: That's a dumb idea!
is a canon break because it isn't well executed, whereas this:
Anakin: Master? Those 'Midi-Chlorians' Qui-Gon spoke of when we first met, back on Tatooine...can more be gained, to strengthen myself?
Obi-Wan: [puzzled] What do you mean?
Anakin: You said that Midi-Chlorians link us to the Force, allowing it to flow through us. If...if I were to gather more, to put them in me...
Obi-Wan: [shakes head] You misunderstand, padawan. Midi-Chlorians are of the Force - they come to those who can best use them. You already have as many as you require - no more will come until you progress in your training, and can make use of more.
is more acceptable? In which case the charge isn't a canon break, but a badly written canon break? Cause then the problem is the writing, not the canon break, and something I'd be far more accepting of.
On the other hand, what I've read of the PPC doesn't seem to support this. I'll take a different PPC fic this time with two different Agents, to try and avoid No True Scotsman. Namely, Cupcakes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KmcAgo2JEbSFBr6ZFRHUSp3Ey4gXyi384U90HLipCnE/edit?hl=en_US
Yeah, yeah, the fic isn't great (though I don't mind it as a standalone horror fic), but one of the things that stuck with me from the sporking was the charge of creating 'a non-canon space', e.g. a place that wasn't there in canon. Well, for it to break canon this must be serious. A floating castle in the sky? A set of caves below the town that had never been mentioned before? No, it was...a basement. Yes, the existence of a basement below a cafe was sooo implausible that it needed epic amounts of justification for you to get away with it, and the agents were unimpressed with the idea of there just being a basement nobody mentioned before because...it's a basement. I don't know about you, but when I walk into a shop I don't demand to know whether there is a basement or not. Why would I? It's not like anything exciting goes on in there, so it's plausible either way. And there was stuff about the fic suddenly jumping there, but the main character was unconscious, so swapping locations between her fainting and waking up is perfectly justifiable.
Chiming in with a couple of responses...
Other people have commented on the aspect of in-mission reviews before, and that Jay+Acacia did mention reviews in the Original Series.
Adding to that, there's a bit of context (which the FAQ
hopefully explains): the PPC does not spork fics just because they have one or two little mistakes - we take aim at fics that are undisputedly bad, with little or no hope of improvement. Paraphrasing the FAQ, we're not interested in (ever) working out the dividing line between spork-worthy and not-spork worthy. If you have doubts about whether a fic is bad-enough to be PPC'ed, don't PPC it.
Re: the Fanon issue:
I think the distinction Neshomeh (and others) are trying to get at is that the manner in which the canon is ignored is important.
A story that arrogantly sets the "stupid" part of canon aside ("Worst... plot device... ever") or insists that the JKR was wrong for ever writing Half-Blood Prince and aims to "fix" the canon would be PPC-worthy.
A story that tries to gently-question aspects of "stupid" canon, or just ignores it (where possible: you don't have to mention midichlorians at all in a Star Wars fic), or is a legitimate AU would not be PPC'ed.
As an aside, did you know there are actually gay characters in the Star Wars EU? Only two, and referred-to very obliquely, though. Karen Traviss introduced a gay Mandalorian couple into the Legacy of the Force series (can't remember which book since it's been a few years since I've read them). Other than that, Star Wars is very much a case of Bury your Gays...
It's weird, since there's so much inter-species romance throughout the EU.
Elcalion
You do realise that not all agents are self-inserts, right?
Listen. Despite the fact that things have been uncomfortable between us for some time, and we've had a lot of differences, I do still care about you as a person. I know you lash out because of different reasons, and I have sympathy for that. And the last thing I want to do is start inter-community drama in a thread that involves Community Talking to Outsider.
But. That said...
You really, really need to stop Leaving The PPC Forever amid dramatic insulting of one or more people, telling us the entire organization needs an overhaul, and then showing up a month or two later as if nothing had happened. This is the second time, by my count. I have a thread lower down, which I believe you have seen, that discusses recent issues with threads and the Constitution. This thread sprang, almost directly, out of a recent confrontation which involved you. I would really appreciate it if you could respond down there, and we can maybe have a conversation about this as a community.
It is not my place to say things like "If you apologize," or "What you said is okay," or whatever, because I was not the one who was hurt by what you said, not directly. That's between you and Huinesoron, or you and Neshomeh. But dialogue about this needs to happen, if you are going to stick around. I know you are not a fan of talking directly about this kind of thing, but we can't let this keep happening. It's hurting people, and creating gaps, and if we don't have an honest conversation about it, we are going to wind up with a chasm down the middle of this community, and I will not stand for that.
Hey, I can relate to that. Cheers!
Looks like other folks have beaten me to the punch with some pretty awesome points, so I'm just responding with my own personal feelings here.
- I have not, and never have, attacked you personally, the one writing those reviews. ... Unless you say otherwise, readers are going to assume that your author avatars are just that, because they won't go behind the scenes like I am to ask.
I don't feel I've been attacked. I just feel that it would be a waste of my time and my readers' to go out of my way to make sure that anyone who reads my fiction can make an accurate diagnosis of my personality and habits based on it. I'm not out to write an exposé of myself, I'm out to tell a funny story about people who hop through dimensions to suffer through really bad writing before they get to mop it up.
That said, I would genuinely love to hear what else you (or anyone) think you can tell about me based on my characters. I won't deny they're my avatars in that we share some opinions, likes, and dislikes when it comes to fandoms and writing, but beyond that... this could either hold an enlightening mirror up to my own mind and writing process, or turn out to be an incredibly amusing funhouse of warped images. Go on, I dare you, and anyone else who feels like playing this little game. No reading my wiki bio, either, that's cheating. *g*
- Not much I can say to this one, except to ask if you're sure that what you find annoying is what the majority of your readership do.
Well, broadly, yes. Yes, I am. All of us here are pretty annoyed by bad writing generally and can relate to other people's individual experiences with it.
Do I think the majority of my readers share my pet peeves, though? No. Do I think they should? Nope! That's kinda what defines a pet peeve, after all—something that, for whatever reason, uniquely bugs me to a degree not shared by most other people.
However, I don't have to please everyone with every detail of my writing. I just have to please most people with most of the details. There are always going to be a few things that just plain don't work, since I'm not perfect; and there are always going to be a few things that hit home with some people but not others. I think I can afford to toss a few breadcrumbs to the minority who do share my pet peeves every now and then.
- In which case the charge isn't a canon break, but a badly written canon break?
Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, I'd say "badly written canon break" is redundant. It's a canon break because, like a bone break, it's sudden, sharp, painful, and may damage other systems with the jagged edges. It doesn't have to be one big clean snap, either, it can be a bunch of hairline fractures that weaken the bone so much it just can't support its own weight anymore. Either way, broken = structurally unsound = bad writing.
- No, it was...a basement.
Come now, let's not mince words at this stage. I'm pretty sure it was a torture parlor where Pinkie Pie drugged, maimed, and cannibalized her friends.
~Neshomeh
You don’t need to go behind the scenes to ask. You just shouldn’t judge the whole organization by some stories written about it. (I admit that it may be impossible to read anything ever written about the PPC, but I’m still trying.)
In Chapter Seven of The Original Series, Agent Jay told Agent Acacia that she had reviewed the badfic.
In some other mission reports, like this one, the agents are at least aware of the constructive critic given in reviews, so a natural conclusion would be: either these agents’ authors reviewed the badfic, or they didn’t because there wasn’t anything to add to what already had been said.
It would be stupid to repeat this in every story, but maybe it should be done more often.
Also, I may be wrong, but IMO a really good mission report doesn’t just mock the story (never the author), it is or should be concrit presented in a form more entertaining than a plain review, and it can occasionally be done to good fan fiction, although agents normally wouldn’t be send into a goodfic.
Stupid canon:
Do I sense a misunderstanding here? Again a may be wrong, but I thought the PPC-Wiki is not about “How to write good fan fiction”, it is about “How to write good PPC fan fiction based on the canon defined by The Original Series and additions agreed upon by the Board”.
If I ever join the PPC, and get permission, and decide to send my agents into a specific badfic for good reasons, then I may write my agents feeling terrible and complaining bitterly, because at this point they agree with the badfic’s author, but either they have to charge for breaking stupid canon, or they have to get into trouble with the Flowers That Be for letting it slip.
Now I wonder whether the punishment could be less harsh if even the Flowers agreed that this canon is stupid.
Anyway, this doesn’t say that
- My agents cannot agree with the fan fiction’s author.
- I cannot agree with the fan fiction’s author to a certain extent.
- A story preferring good fanon over stupid canon is always bad.
- Breaking stupid canon is a sufficiently good reason to send my agents into a story when nothing else is wrong with it.
- I should send my agents into a story although I don’t want to do it. (I have a choice, they haven’t.)
Applying this to your example, my agents would probably charge for the badly written dialogue, because they don’t like to be punished. They probably wouldn’t charge for the well written dialogue, not because it is well written, but because they wouldn’t even be there in the first place. Or, if such a well written dialogue could exist in a badfic, and I were a Star Wars fan and knew what these Midi-somethings are, my agents might not charge and suffer the punishment, because they wanted to make a statement.
I don’t know the ponyverse, and I refuse to read more legendary badfic (I already had my deal), so I can not answer to your last paragraph.
That varies by spinoff. I remember reading one where the agents got so angry at every little canon breach, and I literally couldn't finish it because I couldn't relate. The key is not to make sure your audience agrees with you (nigh impossible, given the diversity of opinions in the world), but to make sure it seems plausible for the agent to feel that way, and their pain is conveyed properly. An example would be that Agent X has a crush on canon character Y, because when Agent X went through a tough time, he/she could always think of canon character Y and feel better. Agent X goes through a fic where canon character Y is completely character replaced and loses all the characteristics that made Agent X love them and see them as a source of strength. Then, one of Agent X's subjective charges is "making me drink lots of Bleepka", because the pain of seeing the character like that was so hard. Sure, it's not a charge that seems relatable to everyone, because not everyone cares about canon character Y, but you can understand why Agent X feels that way.
This sort of thing is achieved with varying degrees of success. We all try, but we're not perfect. Don't judge us on the ones that don't do as well. Also, bear in mind that some things are almost guarenteed to be universal, like bad spelling. "Headache from bad spelling" is subjective, but most people would agree upon reading the fic because most, if not all of us, value good spelling and grammar.
I also agree with Nesh in that you also shouldn't judge a writer or an agent for their pet peeves. As long as it's well-written. Always, as long as it's well-written.
"And speaking of charge lists, I find it incredibly annoying when they, the part where an ultimate opinion is given of the fic, includes stuff like "Made Agent X sick; made Agent X stick his/her/N/A head down a toilet; made Agent X drink ever-more Bleeprin, etc."
I believe you'll find that this is mainly meant to be a comedic tool, you have all these serious charges and end with something that seems insignificant can get a laugh out of people. Tvtropes has examples and a better explanation.