How to respond to fanfiction you don't like:

I thought I had said everything I had to say about fan fiction in my previous blog post, but Sherlock pointed out that I should probably say more about negative feedback. On a high-traffic blog a certain amount of negative feedback can be expected, particularly if the author is writing about controversial issues (which I try not to do most of the time unless it directly relates to a case).

I think the case is different with fan-fiction, for several reasons:

Firstly, fan-fiction is always a creative process, as indeed are all fan works. The creator makes something which they are using to hone their skills of writing, drawing, vid-making or whatever form of creative expression suits them. I have recently tried my hand at a little bit of art therapy (long story) and though the pieces I have produced are far from professional, they are pleasing and meaningful to me. I created them for myself and have no intention of sharing them publicly, but if I did, it would mean revealing part of myself to the world. This is taking a creative risk, and I would hope that people would respect that and refrain from purely negative criticism, which essentially amounts to "I don't like you".

Secondly, constructive criticism is a part of the fan-fiction milieu. However, this is quite different from mere "I don't like that" comments. I think we all know it when we see it, but ConCrit must by its very nature point the way to improvements - usually by suggesting the author reconsider a particular scene, word or spelling, or by pointing out that something appears out of character or is inconsistent with canonical facts in a way which disrupts the willing suspension of disbelief.

(I might digress here a moment to mention "crack" which is fiction which is intentionally not taking itself seriously. Crack is often shown by breaking the fourth wall (having characters deliberately be aware of themselves as characters or speaking directly to the audience) or by characters being deliberately wildly out of character or inconsistent with canon. Leaving a comment saying "this is nothing but crack" is stating the obvious and one saying "I don't like crack" is equally unhelpful.)

Thirdly, both authors and audience have a duty of care to one another, by which I mostly mean indicating openly on the front of a work what the likely content will be. The most obvious example of this is tagging or using author's notes in a way which allows people to avoid "spoilers" for future events if they have not yet seen a later series. I am myself only up to Season Three of "Game of Thrones" - due to Mary's intense dislike of the series I can only watch it when she is at work - so I am trying to avoid spoilers for Season Four. Similarly, works which contain very dark or disturbing content either of a violent or sexual nature should always be clearly tagged so that people with particular trigger points (again such as myself with PTSD) can be informed in a way that allows us to protect our mental balance.

This duty of care runs both ways, though. I would regard it as being quite a bit not good to lambast an author for writing (for example as in the Supernatural fandom) sibling incest fan-fiction if the piece was already tagged as containing that and you chose to read it anyway! If a piece is inappropriately tagged or missing a tag, a simple comment to the author will usually correct this. I do not think most fan-fiction authors are deliberately trying to suck people into reading things that will upset or offend them.

Fourthly, taste and opinion. These vary, obviously. Some people like to read social commentary others hate allegory. I think it was Hemingway who said "if you have a message, call Western Union." In other words, art is for its own sake and not a platform for the author to lecture the audience. J.R.R. Tolkien would agree, C.S. Lewis and Robert Heinlein would disagree. Some people (apparently) love to read sex scenes with very little narrative content, others don't. Some people like to read certain kinds of sex scenes but not others.

I came across a rather useful concept recently on LiveJournal (I don't post there, but I do read sometimes). I think it was on a Kink Meme site (and no, I'm not going to tell you which fandom it was). The idea is very simple: no kinkshaming.

If I understand it correctly, it means no criticising someone else's taste, after all, to coin a phrase: there is no accounting for taste! So if someone else likes watersports and wants to read about water polo* and you find that boring or distasteful, then you are free to close the window and go read something else. What you are not free to do, is say that water polo is horrible, how could anyone like water polo? Or that water polo is not nearly as good as field hockey, why don't we re-write this piece with field hockey instead of water polo? Or that water polo is morally wrong and only people with no conscience like water polo because everyone knows that good Christians only ever read about athletics, and so on. Or to send messages or leave reviews/comments for the author saying that water polo is evil, if you claim to be a decent person you shouldn't write about water polo and all water athletes should never be allowed to marry or reproduce.

Similarly a useful phrase I found: YKINMKATO. It stands for "Your Kink Is Not My Kink And That's OK". I like this phrase, and I think it applies to many aspects of life! For example, if Sherlock would leave me to watch GOT without endlessly criticising the fantasy elements as "pointless" or "impossible", we would all live happier lives - Sherlock, if you are reading this, see me afterwards.

So, to all my readers, I invite you to live kindly and if you don't like something, to leave quietly. I've brushed past many fan works which are not my cup of tea. As an adult, I view it as my job to know where the "back" button on my browser is, and not to let the door hit my arse on the way out. I don't agree with leaving author comments such as "I don't like this" or "water polo is icky". Opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one and thinks theirs doesn't stink.

Mary told me that in the last paragraph the language was getting a bit strong for the average reader. I disagree, but I'll up the rating of this blog to "T" for language - I reckon teens these days have seen the word "arse" before. So I'm leading by example, and adjusting my rating to "community expectations" (since that's what Mary reckons she is these days).

I hear people objecting: but what about the truth? Shouldn't I leave reviews that are honest?

To which my reply is: no. Or rather, not necessarily. My mother used to say, "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all." I agree. Truth is not the only measure of the worth of a comment. Remember that on most sites comments and replies are delivered directly to the originator - before you post, think! Would you say this directly to the artist's face? Being online and anonymous is, in my opinion, no defence. If you wouldn't say it to the author in person at a book launch, or in an art gallery, then don't post it online either. Before you post: THINK.

Is it True?

Is it Helpful?

Is it Inspiring?

Is it Necessary?

Is it Kind?

So my final comment on the subject is to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and to comment thoughtfully on what people have created and offered of themselves. A very wise man once said "do to others as you would have them do to you" and I think this Golden Rule is embodied in pretty much every religion and moral code - so none of us have any excuse!

Human-kind. Be Both.

John H. Watson


*It has subsequently been drawn to my attention that "watersports" doesn't actually refer to water polo, but I say the example is still valid so I'm leaving it.