Look, kids.
Dec. 26th, 2002 01:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I called a spade a spade here because that's what I saw. It wasn't a case of well-intentioned but ultimately bad fanfiction - the way I saw it, it was a deliberately bad-faith and half-hearted (if that) effort to do something that was supposed to bring another person joy while keeping in mind that the same was being done for you. It was ill-intentioned and it *hurt* people and I don't feel unjustified for having said something about it, nor do I feel any of what I said has been in error, considering the source material.
That's as succinct as I can make it.
That's as succinct as I can make it.
no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 11:30 am (UTC)Good. Dude, Happy Holidays, and many cookies to you (a few extra for the ego, and can I maybe fold out that couch for you both...), because wow. Wow. My eyes have lodged themselves in the back of my head at this point. I may be Grinchy, but clearly Christmas left people long on overseriousness and short on things to use as a shady excuse to launch flimsy personal attacks, because I haven't seen that sort of unexpectedly negative mudslinging on such a teeny tiny pretense in ages. Even if I disagreed with you/denied your right to complain about it (which clearly I don't, and the incredible prescient talents that lead me to predict such occurrences as the ones that upset you are what keep me far, far away from Santa projects in any fandom [well, that and their innate Christiassumptivity], but that's my personal choice and doesn't make the occurrences themselves any less comment-worthy), I let people screw up in my estimation four, five times before I start insulting their mamas! Or, you know. Start making sweeping -- and, based upon my mo' bigger experience with you than they have, very wrong -- generalizations about their personalities.
PS - calling something a kerfuffle does so make it cute. Try it! "Kerfufflers! Aww, wook at da wittle kerfufflers..."
no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 11:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 12:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 01:02 pm (UTC)So much for the latter, eh?
no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 01:20 pm (UTC)Also, it has the bonus side effect of making lots of people totally paranoid that we're talking about them, oh my god, now they're going to have to never write again because of our opinions and then they'll tumble down the abyss of writelessness that as we all know causes total creative malaise leading to deep personal despair, followed by depression, substance abuse, and ultimately suicide -- for which we will be directly responsible. And to think, it could all have been cleared up if someone'd just said, "No, honey, we were talking about that other awful story." And I enjoy a good power trip ending in a needless death as much as the next girl.
no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 02:06 pm (UTC)Why yes, that did make me sing. Guess which part. ;)
no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 02:10 pm (UTC)I am, in fact, quite sure this is not the case. I, too, am a paragon of tact, apparently.
no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 12:00 pm (UTC)Heh. Me and my ego, we're okay. Merriest of a holiday season to you, even if it's been (but isn't this a perennial fact) unjustifiably rollercoaster-esque so far.
Christiassumptivity. I am *so* writing Merriam-Webster as we speak.
Seriously though, *thank you.* I didn't think what I said warranted mud, but apparently I should go back for a refresher course to hone my diplomacy skills. You and the aforementioned friend put it ever so much better in a few paragraphs than the myriad comments I've spent eight hours or so formulating.
"Kerfufflers! Aww, wook at da wittle kerfufflers..."
LMAO here. I like your attitude. I think I'll get over this 'seriousness' streak of mine for the New Year and actively find everything amusing first, then try and see if it has actual merit.
*hugs you more* Mmm, cookies...
no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 01:12 pm (UTC)Sure, but you're a journalist...so I know it must be factual!
Seriously though, *thank you.* I didn't think what I said warranted mud, but apparently I should go back for a refresher course to hone my diplomacy skills. You and the aforementioned friend put it ever so much better in a few paragraphs than the myriad comments I've spent eight hours or so formulating.
As you found (I wasn't sure that you had), I sincerely doubt it was a matter of warranted mud so much as a group of people who undertake to study other people's mud as past-time or profession (mudology -- make no mistake, I do think it's all very well and good on its own) and then from time to time cock their heads at the indigenous people they're observing, say, "Aye, Marge, d'you suppose it's against ethics if we contaminate the field with our own, much muddier mud? Surely not!" and just heap piles of the stuff all over before wandering away in search of some other natives to hassle. The group dynamics involved are of particular interest to mudologistologists such as myself.
LMAO here. I like your attitude. I think I'll get over this 'seriousness' streak of mine for the New Year and actively find everything amusing first, then try and see if it has actual merit.
Nothing wrong with a little seriousity. It's the overseriousness that's fatal, and I've seen that before. You are not it.
no subject
Date: December 26th, 2002 02:46 pm (UTC)Fifty-point fact error otherwise. Them's the rules of the game. Though you'd think with all this, I'd have it easier there.
Glad to provide your "mudologistologist" side with something to muse and ponder over. So long as all of this big, convoluted mess had a point somewhere.