I apologize if, when I was really angry, I had the poor judgement to be rude to anyone on the forum. I should have taken a step back and calmed down before saying anything like that.
To clarify, I'm not arguing that the event shouldn't be allowed to run at Gen Con. I'm taking issue with what I'm assuming is their selection process based on my reading of the event description, which admittedly may be off base.
B) If there are concerns that people are going to be abused at your event, the correct response isn't "we'll keep that in mind for next year." There is still time to fix it THIS year.
That thinking seems to be how your Bill Willingham debacle happened last year.
Not. Okay.
I actually e-mailed the event organizer and the event is essentially what I suspect; it is showcasing the literally, offensively bad fan fiction that are probably either crackfics or trollfics. They aren't naming authors or trying to make anyone feel bad, they just want to laugh at some completely absurd things. And by absurd, they mean stuff like Lara Croft making love to a raptor, not someone's Spirk or a Harry Potter wish fullfilment fic or a Dr Who AU. One of the stories they have was disowned by the author, who also put up disclaimers/warnings along with the fic. Hope this sheds some light on what the spirit of this event is.
Yes and people will boo and make noise in the back to disrupt without ever finding out what it's all about...
First, I already warned everyone to be polite.
Second, anything starting with "SJW" is unlikely to go anywhere nice.
There are plenty of other places on the internet to whistle that tune, so take that particular song elsewhere.
Finally, it's absolutely reasonable to be worried about any event and ask about it, pointing out the ways that it could be (or become) a problem. Even if other people (however many) don't agree with or share your concerns.
- Derek Guder Event Manager Gen Con LLC
Marian McBrine Event Coordinator Gen Con LLC
Now the rest of this post is for the thread as a whole.
I'll admit I don't read any fanfiction. But I've heard the stories about the worst examples out there (which is the big reason I don't read it - trying to pinpoint a signal among all the noise would be a chore I'm not willing to do), and I've heard my share of things about the writing in Fifty Shades of Grey (which, for those who don't know, started out as Twilight fanfiction) that make me glad I've never read those books.
But even if the quality of a given fanfic story were so abysmal as to leave me rolling on the floor in laughter, I would still have to give the author some credit. Why? Because whether you think it's hack work or not, whatever you think of its quality, it took time, energy and a whole lot of guts to write that story and post it online for the whole world to see. And as a writer myself (a freelancer in the RPG industry), I do respect that.
And you know what? EVERYONE who is a writer has produced utter crap at some point in their lives. It's just a law of nature. Legendary animator Chuck Jones once quoted an art school instructor of his as saying, "You birds have a hundred thousand bad drawings in you; start getting rid of them now." Well, it's like that with writing too - in fact, I imagine it's like that with any creative endeavor. It's something we all suffer through, and only by having the courage (or something else) to forge ahead anyways and learning from our mistakes after the fact do we improve.
Now criticism is a legitimate means of teaching someone what mistakes they're making. But only if it's constructive. And that's not what this event looks like to me. This looks like nothing less than public ridicule. If this were the authors themselves doing dramatic readings of god-awful fanfiction they've written and laughing along with the audience, it would be different. But that's not what it sounds like.
I'm not saying every single fanfiction writer on the internet is going to go on to be the next great novelist. But doesn't it strike anyone here as rather mean-spirited to use the up-and-coming writers of the world (which are disproportionately women, as several in this thread have pointed out) as target practice just to get our kicks? Wouldn't it be better to call a halt to stuff like this, and to give constructive criticism if we have to say anything at all in a public forum?
Let's stop being jackasses to each other and start supporting each other instead.
EDIT: Let it be known that I hadn't seen joltess' post until after I wrote and posted this comment. I'm still leaving it up though, because I feel it still needs to be said.
Good post Bloodlust. And it's nice to see that the event is *intended* to not be as much of a tearing down of people as it might be. But the concern was warranted given the description.
My concern is with reactions here. The people here claiming that this is all just overworked political correctness are just naive about the issue. That's not an attack, I'm not questioning intelligence or ethics. Just info about a topic.
Something isn't bullying because it's critical and negative. It isn't bullying because it 'makes someone feel bad'. Bullying involves an attack against the powerless or relatively powerless. That's the key. Bullying is an abuse of power.
Criticism by superiors in the military is intended to build up, not tear down. It's not bullying when done as intended and approved. Even literary criticism at heart is not meant to tear down. But both certainly can turn into abuse. The first act of Full Metal Jacket is not legitimate criticism of a soldier, at least not according to the folks I know who teach ethics to Marine officer candidates. That's abuse.
The powerlessness of the authors in what it was worried would be the case here comes from a combination of their amateur status (that room of people really cannot bully George Lucas--Lucas has more social power than that room combined) and the fact that a room of people will have gathered together to attack them as a group.
It is harder for a lone book critic to bully a published author for those reasons. One person versus one person, and an author who already has some power. (One person can bully one person, but it's easier with a group.) No one is saying that we shouldn't be critical of anyone. No one is saying we need to turn all our kids into precious little snowflakes.
But at my 20th high school reunion, there were a couple of people, successful people in life, who didnt show up because of lasting psychological trauma caused by the rest of us twenty years ago. People in power attacking those without power.
As has been mentioned, it's about kicking people below you. Do you 'have the right' constitutionally to say these things? Perhaps. Does it make you a respectable person to do it? That's the real question.
Do you want to be someone who feels good when you laugh at people below you? Do you want to be someone who takes happiness from making others feel bad?
It's a choice, folks. You can choose what makes you happy and what doesn't. But ignoring power abuse with strawman arguments is naive. There is a difference between criticism and bullying/abuse. A real difference.
Well said, Brotherbock. I can't think of anything more to say, you've put it all on the table... Thank you :)
In short, a 16 year old child wrote a story, then submitted it to a fanzine, and from there it was published and became a phenomena synonymous with awful writing.
The people who catapulted this work into popularity in this mocking context were successful adult, authors, cartoonists and critics.
The authors work was then stolen and reproduced, often without credit, and certainly without consultation or compensation.
The author stated that he was: "hurt that his story was being mocked and said he would never write anything again." Indeed - the author did not write (or publish at any rate) any more fiction.
This is hardly the standard of conduct that should set a precedent that Gen Con should want to emulate.
I sincerely hope that the event host has selected works such that the author is "in on the joke" or of sufficient fame, success, and prominence in writing that having such negative attention directed at them will not likely impact their desire to write (e.g. E L James). I also hope that they have cleared their use of the authors copyrighted material as a courtesy.
Having an affirmative statement that the authors have approved the use of their material in this event would go a long way to resolving any concerns around bullying.
Otherwise - a bunch of people getting in a room to make fun of the creative output of amateurs, some of whom may be Gen Con attendees, seems directly contrary to Gen Con's goal of "providing a harassment-free Event experience for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, or affiliation."
As has been mentioned, it's about kicking people below you. Do you 'have the right' constitutionally to say these things? Perhaps. Does it make you a respectable person to do it? That's the real question. Do you want to be someone who feels good when you laugh at people below you? Do you want to be someone who takes happiness from making others feel bad? It's a choice, folks. You can choose what makes you happy and what doesn't. But ignoring power abuse with strawman arguments is naive. There is a difference between criticism and bullying/abuse. A real difference.
I would argue that yes, you can make fun of something (Plan 9 From Outer Space) without tearing down the creator (Ed Wood). I'm not saying every case of mockery is respectful. If this panel planned on showing pictures of the authors and calling them no-talet hacks, then you would definitely be correct. AFAIK, the panel will only focus on the writing. That means it can serve as constructive criticism for the rest of us — to see what bad writing looks like, so it's easier for us to avoid falling into that kind of writing.
I would also argue that no, mocking a given work is not the same thing as mocking a person. True, it can go too far. If someone wrote a respectful piece of fanfic but failed because they are still learning how to use grammar effectively, then I wouldn't find humor in reading it. But if we're talking about Laura Croft having sex with a dinosaur, I see no problem in mocking that.
I hear your concerns about the power differential. A room full of people is a big difference than one person typing away in her room. But since the panel will NOT be naming anyone or giving contact information, I don't see who is being bullied.
I'm saying you can feel and react however you want in the privacy of your own home. But:
1. Know that it took time, energy and guts to put that out there for the world to see, and respect that. 2. Holding a public forum for the sole purpose of ridiculing a beginning author and/or their work is horrendously mean-spirited.
I have to go cook dinner, so I'll keep this shortish for now :)
Yes, it's possible to criticize the work and not abuse the author. Is the abuse easy to keep from happening in a forum like this? And again, we know now what the intended purpose is. But we're in part just talking theory here. But suppose one work that wasn't intended to be crappy and was an authentic attempt at writing made its way onto the list? Is the crowd signing up for *this* event, a *crowd* of people, really going to be able to stop at just criticism of the writing? Mobs and group-think are real things.
And when you've got potential for abuse of the powerless, what's warranted is an over-cautious approach. The risk and results of abuse happening is worse than the negative effects of restricting the actions of the people in power. In this example, this would mean that not allowing or very carefully monitoring this event is better than running the risk of some poor kid getting crapped on.
Yes, the works will be anonymous. Until someone finds them online afterwards. (And on that thought, did the people running the event get permission for public readings, public performances, of copyrighted material? All of this material is copyrighted.)
So yeah, criticism without abuse is possible. But is it likely, in *this* instance, if something not trollfic ends up on the list? A crowd of bloodthirsty people primed for mocking. That won't stop at just the work. Professional critics often can't stop at just the work. A mob won't do better.
I could offer up a SPA event that consisted of a group of us taking pics of 'bad cosplay' at the con, blur out faces when we show the pics, and say "we're only going to criticize their clothing, not the person themselves." Would that fly?
What ever happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. People made fun of me because I played D&D. Now they make fun of me because they say I'm to old to play video games. Who cares what other people think or say? I do things because I like to do them, not because it's what other people think I should do. What your saying is every movie critic, book critic, restaurant critic and any other critic are bully's!! Yet you are criticizing the Gen Con Staff by saying they don't care and its all about money for them. Doesn't that make you, by your own words, the Bully now?!? (See when you point your finger at someone you have three more fingers pointing at you)
I thing everyone should have a right to share there opinion at home or anywhere else.