I agree with you on attempting to apply metrics to art: It’s not so cut-and-dried as that. I sometimes try to figure out why my favorite passages of writing work so well for me, and I can come up with a wealth of ideas on how the passage is constructed right down to the level of how the syllables work together, but then there are passages of such stark simplicity that really have nothing special about them, yet I’m a puddly mess on the floor upon reading them.

And I would be inclined to bitch-slap that art critic too. (Okay, I’m a pacifist … I’d have to settle for a stern telling-off. ) I think that what perturbs me the most in this whole debate–and the cynic in my snarks that it is so like fandom–is all the hand-wringing and crying as though people are being chained up and forced to listen to the deconstruction of their stories. It’s eerily close to the similar brouhaha that erupts when *omg* someone writes something that I don’t like, so I have throw a fit like I’m being made to read it. I doubt that most analyis going on in fandom even comes close to the level of deconstruction that you’re talking about, but if people like that sort of thing, go for it. Those who don’t like it don’t have to participate or read it.

I had to chuckle at your observations about Metafandom. There are certain “Metafandomisms” that drive me batty. (Bobby can attest to this; I rant and rave about them sometimes in the privacy of our home, not wanting to attract the sort of shitstorm that outright critique would draw over something so silly.) Yet I keep reading there … I’m something of a Metafandom addict (and it gives me good Heretic Loremaster fodder, if nothing else!).

K.A. Laity: First, thank you for stopping by and for starting the disussion based on the Albacon panel that we’ve all seized upon with such joy. And well said in the comment–I can only nod heartily to each one of your points!

As a genre writer and academic, I don’t see the problem that clearly raises strong emotional welts in others. But I get tired of putting up with the snarkiness of (mostly older) colleagues re: my genre writing (and as you rightly point out, MFA-style writing is just another genre with very clear tenets) on the one hand and the anti-intellectual stance of a sector of genre fans (which unfortunately includes a number of editors).

So much of that point of view does seem to come from having bad experiences with individuals. One of the primary arguers insisted this was unrelated, but at the original Albacon panel which started this round, it was clear that the individual’s unfortunate experiences were both vivid and traumatic — and the source of a lot of this anger at not being validated. As you point out, there’s no human arena free from assholes. So it goes. But I reiterate, consigning academia to the dungheap because you’ve had a couple of bad experiences is akin to refusing ever to eat out again because you once had bad service. It happens.

Right now, I am wearing a white shirt and gold trousers, so no black-and-white for me either. Thank you for vouching for the fact that it is possible to both read for analysis and read for fun.

For example, in my Tolkien class, we had to read Terry Brooks’ The Sword of Shannara. It was a class assignment, so I went into it fully in analytical mode. I loathed the book. The writing was terrible, and the ideas (which were patterned after Tolkien’s) were weak and, sometimes, contradictory.

At the same time, when I was finished with it and had catalogued all that I thought was wrong with the book, I realized that if I’d taken it to the beach for fun reading and hadn’t made a point to notice all the adverb atrocities and rather flimsy philosophizing, it was an entertaining story, and I probably would have liked it a lot more. I almost wish I’d read it that way first. I found reviews from a lot of people indicating that they loved the book because it was fun and entertaining.

On vivisection, as someone who has in the past identified strongly as an “anti-vivisectionist” (even though, in my “old age,” the complexities of these sorts of issues bely such tidy titles), I found this comparison almost offensive. The anti-vivisection movement largely focuses on the suffering of sentient beings. No matter how “alive” a story or its characters may feel, taking it apart in no way compares to some of the more atrocious vivisections, where sentient beings suffer terribly. It’s an awful comparison.

Also: as far as I know there are no super-sekkritt ninja-acafens running around and forcing the un-analytically inclined fen to read such awful academic interpretations and examinations of genres and stories!

Well, that’s a relief! But I agree with your point in this: Just like with choosing a story, it’s incredibly easy to just click away if you don’t like the direction a particular reviewer is taking. I’ve seen comments on some of the ensuing posts on Metafandom from authors who don’t read the discussions that evolve around their stories at all, even if they take place in the authors’ own journals. So, yes, it is possible.

I’m also baffled as to why it seems so difficult for people to figure out what groups and sites tend to attract certain kinds of writings (and, by writings, I mean both fiction and analysis/review of that fiction).

I mean, it’s not a mystery to me that if I want a really deep and involved discussion about writing, then I go to the Henneth-Annun list. If I don’t like that sort of thing, I don’t go there. There are plenty of other sites that focus “on the squee,” to borrow that fannish phrase.

On the ff.net/stupid people comment … no, I certainly didn’t mean it that way. I’ve gotten brilliant comment and feedback on ff.net as I have on SWG, HASA, and my own LJ. But the lowest common denominator there, because of a lack of mod oversight, is also really low. These are people whose narrow views and lazy writing (like reviews critiquing grammar that are barely legible themselves) would not be tolerated on the other archives where I post.

Intelligence is a difficult topic because it’s not as easily pinned down as people think. It is much more than test scores or the ability to dissect Shakespearean sonnets. There are multiple forms of intelligence according to some theories, including emotional intelligence, which often seems to lack in the most precocious possessors of intelligence’s more traditional forms. Psychologists still argue over how to measure it (or if it can be measured at all).

I sometimes think that people allow themselves to be made to feel unintelligent by boors like some of those quoted in both the “anti-aca” posts and the Slate articles who wish to pigeonhole intelligence as possessing their particular set of assets. None of the writers who proudly claim to be “anti-intellectuals” appear to be unintelligent; they are all well above average as writers, certainly, and can reason their halves of an argument and certainly appear to be well-read. I’d even identify all of them as intellectuals (*gasp!*) in that they do seem to enjoy analysis, even if it is analyzing why analysis is bad.

On the appropriateness of public, unasked-for concrit (or analysis), I think the example about coworkers criticizing colleagues really makes the point for me. I think that reading published novels, readers assume authors to be on a level removed from them (usually above). But, in fandom, everyone is on the same level, so it seems that someone who is providing criticism or analysis of a peer is assuming a place above that peer. Which, of course, results in resentment and so on.

I think it’s also much harder to remove personal feelings from a discussion of the work of someone known personally. I would find it hard to publicly critique the work of my fannish friends. Even when they ask for it, I find it hard; I usually email them privately. I think it would also be hard to watch a friend’s story publicly critiqued as in a book club; it’s harder to separate the story from the person.

I do agree somewhat with your feelings on fandom inclusiveness (or the illusion thereof). I do think that fandom is, in general, more inclusive and accepting than the world at large. At the same time, there are plenty of people who preach acceptance who aren’t themselves accepting. I’m recalling, for example, an incident on the HA list some years ago when a slash writer made a big deal about inclusiveness for slash and then turned around to bash “Mary Sue.” And people manifest their intolerance in fandom as well as elsewhere, they just tend to be subtler. Running into a room and introducing oneself with, “I DON’T READ SLASH NEVER EVER EVER EVER!!!” is one such example of this; on the surface, it is nothing but a personal preference, but when half of fandom is doing it, it quickly becomes a way to discourage and cheapen the authors of a certain kind of fiction.

I jumped into a few of the metafandom links and then some to get a feel for the issue at hand. My readings raised a couple of questions.

1) With regard to analysis of literature, classic, genre or otherwise, what are the metrics applied and are these metrics applied evenly across all academic institutions?

2) Why does “the community” insist on coming up with such blithering cutesy jargon as “acafan” or “aca/fen?” and in the same breath describe themselves as “intellectual?”

I’m sitting on the fence with regard to this one. I’m all for knowledge and digging past the surface for new insight. I think that can be applied to literature of all sorts — from classic literature to contemporary novels on the NYT best seller list to genre to fan fic. It’s all fair game. I will shamelessly quote myself: “he who does not seek to discover the order of a thing will never comprehend it.”

However, as I noted in a comment to your essay under separate cover, such analysis is not rocket science. That is to say, it strikes me as extremely difficult to apply objective measures to the subjective like art and literature. It seems to me that academicians do not (and perhaps cannot) apply a universal standard of metrics to the subjective which confounds the issue even more.

For example, I like contemporary abstract art and sculpture. When I look at such works of art, I have enough training to note use of space, color balance, etc., but then I let my perceptions take over and appreciate the whole without articulating specifics. If a “post-modern deconstructionist” art critic were to stand at my shoulder and delve into excruciating minutiae and explain what I was (or should be) perceiving, I would likely turn and bitch-slap said boor and then advise the person to take up analytical chemistry in which measurement is meaningful.

So what my sideways brain is attempting to say is that analysis of literature is fine, and it’s fair and even desirable that fan fic is subjected to such scrutiny. However, a critic must be aware that her deconstruction is also subjective and is also fair game for push-back. “Academicians” (whatever the hell that means) must realize their limitations in enforcing sometimes nebulous metrics on subjects of perception versus true measurement.

Within fan fic, such critique is dicey for the reasons you gave in one of the comments in “meta,” that is, the personal relationships make full-on critique challenging. Plus,

I have to confess the “intellectual” navel-gazing that some of the metafandom essayists engaged in made me chuckle and roll my eyes in derision. Throw”Foucault” and “post-modernism” around a few times in an essay and you can proclaim yourself an “intellectual.” Bullshit. Just a cursory glance at the essayists’ profiles revealed interests and education that were not exactly expansive. Color me intellectually unimpressed.

Just like you, I found myself scratching my head repeatedly over some of the posts.

I don’t understand how this discussion could turn into a war so quickly. Right now it feels as if you have only one choice “for” or “against”.

The really bizarre thing about the whole discussion is that it is EXACTLY what academics and intellectuals are all about (on BOTH sides of the duelling ground!) — debating a topic and debating the discourse of that topic.

Or, as we call it in fandom: “Meta”.

*sniggers*

What people fail to see is that it’s not a degree that makes an analysis. Any insightful review or recommendation will do that.

Personally…

With two university degrees and a professional qualification, I’m an academic for better or worse.

And I love me my Meta! I LIKE analysing and interpreting — all kinds of things; stories, poems, history, politics.

But that doesn’t mean I do it all the time. Or that I can’t simply enjoy a story. Seriously. I — and most other academics — are not that one-dimensional. We do not dress exclusively in black and white, nor do we see the world that way. Right now I’m wearing a lot of purple.

The comparison with a vivisection is so ridiculous that I laughed out loud.

Just like you said… it’s not as if a story self-destructs as soon as it’s been torn apart by a critical analysis.

Also: as far as I know there are no super-sekkritt ninja-acafens running around and forcing the un-analytically inclined fen to read such awful academic interpretations and examinations of genres and stories!

Seriously. Don’t like, don’t read is applicable to Meta, too!

Hmmm…

You said:

“Can non-academics be assholes? If ff.net proves one thing, it is that stupid people can be jerks too.”

I don’t think you meant it that way, but I think a part of the palpable resentment in this debate is derived from the fact that non-academics have been made to feel way too often that non-academics are stupid people.

They are not.

There are many levels to stupidity and intelligence. In the various discussions I’ve been involved in online and offline, I’ve witnessed academics say unspeakably STUPID things, and non-academics come up with wonderfully poignant observations.

It’s sad when societies and educational systems breed inferiority and superiority complexes. Worse, it makes getting along unnecessarily difficult. :-/

I had to smile when I read the next paragraph about the can of worms of unasked for concrit or worse, unasked for public critical discussion.

I think that’s actually one of the sorest points at the heart of the debate.

Is it okay to have a public, critical discussion of fan fiction without the author’s consent?

My personal impression of the current customs in fandom is that this is NOT okay.

Actually, in the SMUT workshop over at There and Back Again it was only the trick of working with anonymous examples that enabled us to have an open, honest, critical discussion. Later on, someone complained in a comment for the SMUT essay about the quality of such scenes in general and in particular, but when I asked for the titles of the relevant stories and the links, so we could have a constructive discussion, the commenter declined.

Personally, I think that situation is absurd.

Do we need Stephenie Meyer’s permission to trash her newest novel and nitpick it to death? Do we need the permission of Tolkien Estate to interpret ‘The Children of Hurin’?

There’s a difference between criticism addressed directly to the author and a discussion among readers!

“No public critical discussion” strikes me a bit like “wanting to have the cake AND eat it”.

Fanfic writers want the public to read their stories. They want the public to give them feedback. They want the public to recommend their stories. They want the public to nominate their stories for fanfic awards. Etc etc

At the same time they want to control which feedback they get, how their stories are recommended, how their stories are discussed…

*shakes head*

Frankly, I find that bizarre. I always end up imagining how people discussing a published novel would react if the author butted in and told them how to discuss her work…

The PROBLEM is the same as the one in the concrit discussion, I think. In fandom, we’re all on the same level. It’s not a neat divide between author and readers. Many, if not most readers, are also writers. I don’t think I know anyone active in fandom and fanfic debates who hasn’t at least tried to write a drabble. So it may feel not so much like readers discussing an author’s story, but COLLEAGUES dissecting the writing of a CO-WORKER.

And that is much more personal than readers at the local book club discussing the current novel…

I like the point you make about fandom and tolerance/inclusiveness.

“fandom is obsessively tolerant of all sorts of people and ideas”

Meh.

Fandom PRETENDS and CLAIMS.

But truly?

In my experience fandom falls very much in line with the famous Rosa Luxemburg quote: “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently”

…which for her really meant: “–as long as they think the same as I do.”