Talk: FAQ: For Other People/historic

Stuff That Could Be Better

I'll try to get the ball rolling here, though I don't think I'm necessarily the best person for the job—I'm rather fond of this FAQ. Still, changing with the times and all.

• I did see a complaint from a non-PPCer about the heading "The Gender Card" being an immediate turn-off, meaning they were unwilling to take the section seriously just because of that. I'm not sure what else to call it myself, but maybe someone else can think of something? See my response to Aster's comment.
• There's "you" language abounding, which is always more confrontational than other kinds of phrasing. That sort of thing can probably be changed around to be more about what we think and less about what we think they think. This line is pretty bad:
  • And if, as I suspect, your "sugar high" has more to do with hormones and lack of self-discipline, you should write for the drawer until you're mature enough to go public without embarrassing yourself. Yes, that is pretty bad, isn't it? Still funny, though. I can definitely comb through and see how to tone down the second person. But I think there are a couple of things to take into account: using "you" when we're trying to get the badficcers to relate to us (e.g. the text under the "What's so wrong about my fic that you get this upset?" heading), and the "you" general that I talk about below under Aster's comments. We also need to make sure a sudden change to the third/second person isn't too jarring as the reader jumps from one heading to the next.

I think I may need to clarify what I mean by "you" language. The headings are directed at us, not the reader, so they're exempt; I'm only talking about our responses. It's not any use of the word "you" at all—as you and Aster have pointed out, there are times when it's okay—but rather, specifically the argumentative kind; putting words in the other person's mouth, addressing them instead of the issue, that sort of thing. It's the difference between "You're an idiot!" and "I don't understand."

"I" language is usually preferable in a persuasive argument, because it's less likely to get the other person's back up. The "What's so wrong?" section generally works because it's in the form of questions; it's hypothetical, not accusative. The last line, however, is different: "One really has to wonder how much of a FAN you are when you demonstrate zero knowledge about the canon characters." I realize that demonstrating zero knowledge isn't the same as having zero knowledge, but I doubt if the non-PPC reader of that line will make the distinction, especially when the implication is that any alternative interpretation of a character automatically means we get to question the writer's worth as a fan. Again, I know that isn't the intent, and that we're really only talking about egregious and unjustified mischaracterizations, but with the accusative tone of that line, I don't think others will. It's not much good to try getting them to sympathize with us only to kick them in the knee at the last second.

• Much as it pains me to say so, someone has to: I've seen people call us on our writing skills, and frankly, even the Original Series wasn't perfect SPaG-wise. (So many ellipses with more or less than three dots. So many ellipses, period.) Some of us over the years have not been above-average writers. What I was talking about (and how I can rephrase this) is that we do not have a reputation for bad writing skills--especially on the level of the fics we mock. I wasn't trying to say that we haven't had a few bad apples over the course of a decade of spin-off writing. And I would still say that, considering the sheer volume of PPC work, the overall quality is still very high, not only compared to the badfic we PPC, but to the rest of fandom in general. What we are, though, are writers who are all willing to make an effort to improve. These bits might have to go, or at least be modified to account for that:
  • Furthermore, if we didn't write our PPC fics well, we would long ago have been called on the fact that we bash poor writing while writing horribly ourselves. We do not. Sorry to burst your bubble. I also suggest that we beef up our credentials a bit, namely instead of saying, "Yeah, we're good writers," we should give examples of PPCers winning various fanfiction awards. So instead the focus becomes, "Here are other people who think we're good writers."
  • Our only claim to superiority is this: if you are a badfic author, then we are better writers than you. The reasoning behind this whole paragraph is not as relevant to the quality of the writing itself, as it is to the intent behind it. I can still rephrase to avoid confusion.

That's all I've got for now. Hopefully people more worried about it than I am can point out some more specific things.

~Neshomeh 02:47, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Some Proposals:

Overall: A Focus on Critical Thinking vs Outright Superiority

I would add in a section about what criticism is. It seems a lot of this FAQ is basically defining that we are critics and satirists and not flamers, however defensively. It would save a lot of 'but we are better than you' talk not to focus on the fact that we are more experienced writers and therefore better than less experienced writers, but to focus on the fact that the PPC is a bunch of critical thinkers.

Not 'critical' as in 'we say things are bad.' Critical as in 'we examine the work carefully and determine if it makes sense or not.' We may not always have been better writers. We may not always have been superior in any way at all, actually. But we always have been critical thinkers that have deeply examined the facts of fic we encounter, match them up with the canon, and think about their implications. You don't have to be 'superior' to be a critical thinker.

Criticism itself has gotten such a bad rap: on par with being a 'naysayer,' a flamer, or a bully. Being told 'It's bad' or 'No,' is dreaded and hated nearly everywhere... when critics don't exist to tell people they suck (even if sometimes, it has to be said). Critics exist to point out where things went wrong: which we do, in our missions, our charge lists, and in nearly everything we do. In a perfect world, I'd like anybody who read a PPC mission and was offended, to be able to step back and then read it as a satire and then laugh at it, "Oh boy, that thing in the story is kind of silly, isn't it?" This probably can't happen; many writers have attachments to their work that prevent objectivity in that way... but we at least try and make enjoyable criticism. I think we should focus on that more than 'we all are better writers than some less good writers.' Aster, what you're saying here is so important that I think, with some re-tooling, it could be added to the FAQ, or as it will be known soon, the 'Frequently Addressed complaints.' Our critical thinking is important to who we are as writers.

Agreed. Also, a lot of the questions currently under "Miscellaneous" seem to have to do with us being bullies. Would a separate section for those questions, addressing the difference between attack and critique, be helpful? "You're mean!" probably properly belongs there, too, if so.

Renaming 'The Gender Card'

I would call it 'Misogyny Complaints.' Although I wish I could just call it 'ism' complaints, because there are probably more 'isms' that could be complained about... I do see Misogyny brought up in Mary Sue discussions a lot. Though I would say that for all complaints about Misogyny, there should be equal address for homophobia or other stuff... I KNOW there are slash writers that complain that badslash is empowering for the GLBT community and shouldn't be criticised, either...(we all know at the PPC that strong male characters being weakened for the sake of badslash/badyaoi isn't empowering at all, though.) If we are truly addressing this FAQ to the Suethors and badfic writers whose work we PPC, I would question whether the vast majority of them know what the term 'misogyny' is, to the point that they might skip this heading altogether. Maybe 'Complains About Sexism'?

I think the people making these specific accusations know what misogyny means. Also, bad writing does not equal not intelligent. That's one of the ideas we're trying to get away from here.

I agree addressing the complaints of homophobia would be good, too. I know Calista and Laburnum have been the target of that sort of accusation, and it would also help make the article less Sue-centric.

A rebuttal to the so-called empowerment of Bad Slash is that oftentimes Bad Slash involves making gay/lesbian couples conform to heteronormative roles (foisting Seme/uke dynamic onto a relationship portrayed in Canon as equal is problematic). It's like getting a set of chopsticks and asking someone which chopstick is the fork. Bad Slash also fetishises LGBTQI people, objectifying their struggles and concerns into LOOK AT MY HAWT YAOIS AREN'T I PROGRESSIVE?

But back to Sues. Nesh, you said you'd like to stick a reference to the Araen Sue's reasons for joining the Fellowship under this (for those of you who don't know, this one Sue said she should join the Fellowship because they needed 'women to do the cooking and cleaning and stuff'. Yeah, I'm not kidding), and I think that'd be a good one. I'd also like to suggest the Time Lord Hermione fic that I recently sporked to be mentioned - Hermione, the classic well-developed strong female character who values books over looks, is distorted in that fanfic into nothing more than the Tenth Doctor's sex toy. If anyone finds that empowering, I believe Agent Christianne has some curses to send their way.

Can I also add that Suefics like to claim they're being progressive by sticking women into the Fellowship and into other stories with a paucity of female roles, but most still miserably fail the Bechdel test by having the Sues and their bit character besties talk about nothing else but the Fellowship and/or Legolas and/or Aragorn? If someone's going to put a female into a male-dominated work of literature and call it feminism, shouldn't they have the females talking about more than just the males? In that case, I'd have to say that Suefics can claim progressiveness and feminism and empowering women all they like, but they can't ignore the fact that their ladies are still tied to the menfolk whereas a lot of PPC missions out there regularly pass the Bechdel test.

"Complaints about Sexism" sounds good to me.

'You' Language

Most of the best points in the FAQ are sensible ones, ones that don't rely on insulting the person. However, there are some examples that require some 'you' not as an insult, but as an example. I likethe stage analogy under the 'if you don't have something nice to say' point, even though it uses 'you' language to put the recipient on the stage, in the place of what's being critqued. The difference is, I think, between the use of "you" general vs. "you" specific. If we were speaking Spanish, we could just use the "se" impersonal, but as it is, I agree that it's far too cumbersome to use the "If one were to to walk up on a stage...", etc., form of writing.

It's true, not all yous are created equal. See above.

Aster Corbett 04:02, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, guys. See my responses above in blue. Araeph 12:46, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Whee, colors! ~Neshomeh 17:16, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Popping in to suggest my stuff? Lily Winterwood (talk) 07:26, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

The learning disability section

(Feel free to move this where it seems relevant - I'm not sure it's as related to everything else discussed.)

I've had a problem with the section since I first read the FAQ. It seems very accusatory and unsympathetic, specifically that part that is titled "[This rant is courtesy of Tviokh.]" I particularly have a problem with this line "I really don't care if you have ADHD, your parents were killed in a fiery wreck, your dog bit off your right arm and a cat pissed in the still bleeding wound. Your. Story. Needs. Work.". To be blunt, who exactly thought that was a good idea to put into a FAQ intending to, among other things, prove we're not bullies?

I think the best thing to do for this section would be to cut out Tviokh's rant completely, leaving the less vitriolic Anonymous Fanfiction Writer's points. Also helpful, I think, would be some testimony from PPC-ers with learning disabilities about how they overcame them. If no one feels comfortable, perhaps something about professional writers like Mary Jo Putney, a romance author who is dyslexic and admits that she wouldn't have been able to be published before spell check, or Haley Riordan (son of Rick Riordan, author of Percy Jackson and the Olympians), also dyslexic, who contributed an excellent short story to the Percy Jackson supplement The Demigod Diaries.

Thoughts?

~ Hermione of vulcan (talk) 16:04, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

I like that! Yeah, I kinda had an issue with that part of the FAQ. The Anon Fanfic Writer's point works much better and so much more sympathetically. Lily Winterwood (talk) 23:25, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to take everyone else's lack of response as tacit agreement. I'd make the changes, but it says the page has been locked to prevent anonymous edits. Can someone with authority help here? It's bothering me that it's still up, since I posted this topic a week ago and got agreement. ~ Hermione of vulcan (talk) 18:09, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

I actually had not seen this latest round of discussion before—it got buried under other edits. I'm in favor of making some changes, but may I suggest bringing it up on the Board before anything else happens? I think it's an everyone sort of issue, and that way, people who don't normally frequent the wiki can have a chance to comment and make suggestions. Remember, not everyone watches the Recent Edits page.

~Neshomeh 19:52, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that Tviokh's rant needs to be cut, but I suppose the other things can be brought up on the Board. I'll start a new thread.

~ Hermione of vulcan (talk) 13:51, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Possible new additions to this page

First off, I'll go delete the Tvikoh rant since no one's done it yet and we've all overwhelmingly agreed that it just needs to go.

Secondly, I'm proposing to add this bit, courtesy of DawnFire, onto this page:

Why do people write Mary Sues?

Because people like to feel needed.

Twoo Wuv shall change him, yes--and that will prove that he needs me, and loves me, and will never leave me. Deep, dark, and brooding? I'm the only one who can bring him out of it, who can help him be more and feel better, which, again, means that he needs me, and loves me, and will never leave me because of all that. Yes, Batman's been through a lot of girls--but if you can manage to be The One...then that's it, you're set for life. You'll always be needed; more than that, you'll always be wanted. And for people who don't mind bending canon a little (or a lot), that's worth putting up with some brooding, or even changing the character so that he can come out of it a bit. Or a lot. I don't know how many people who write this stuff would be willing to put up with it in real life, though.

Part of the reason people write Mary-Sues is because they want to be admired and wanted and needed. It just...doesn't always translate well, for many reasons: messing with canon and thereby throwing people out of the story, not having a main character that other people can relate to (add to that 'overdoing it and making the character ridiculously powerful and unreasonable and flawless'), showcasing the worst parts of modern society (women and men in the media, racism, sexism, etc)...I could go on. But a lot of Suethors are teenagers; they're going through a point in their lives where their bodies are changing, their minds are expanding, and they're often becoming very concerned with what their peers and society think of them. And most people want to be accepted, or admired, or loved, or wanted, or needed, or all of that, and sometimes the only way to be sure of getting that is to write yourself into your stories. I don't know to what extent I've done that myself; my full-blown Sue knew everyone, defeated villains, and gave moderate-to-evil bad guys snarky talking-tos. I'm no psychologist, but I think part of that was wanting to make the canon characters' lives turn out better, part was wanting to tell a dramatic story, and part was that whole pesky wanting-to-be-admired bit sneaking in subconsciously. (She didn't date anyone, if you're curious).

The reason the PPC works is that we're here to point out flaws in writing. We're here to point out how to write better, we're here to analyse bad writing and explain how it could be good. We're not here to stomp on people's daydreams, just...bring them down to earth a little, and teach how to couch them in such a way that they're relateable, enjoyable to read, and (preferably) teach/perpetuate worthwhile values. We're here, in a way, to coach the next generation of writers...if they're prepared to listen to our critiques. And it works because we're writers ourselves, and we've been through bad writing and Mary Sues and a lot of what goes into writing them--and because we understand why we could be better and how we could improve, and we did it. Some of us (a lot of us?) have even gone into Real World jobs that require writing skills or critiquing skills, and I'd like to think we're doing well.

At the moment, I feel like this could fall under the "I'm only Twelve!" range because it mentions that a lot of Suethors are teenagers, etc. And in that same vein, I'd like to offer up a story of my own:

I found fanfiction when I was ten, in the form of Harry Potter fics. I found OFUM when I was eleven. I joined the PPC when I was twelve, going on thirteen.

Even at seventeen, I can look back at what I thought was good for thirteen and cringe, and I will assure you that you will, too. I was one of those who managed to learn the difference between good and bad fanfiction at an early age, and not (as I thought back then) in the hard way. If you are here, you may have learnt the difference because of me.

Even after joining the PPC, I still found myself writing a Mary Sue. I was thirteen. I had no idea how a twenty-something-year-old woman would handle being stuck in Middle-earth. I was conflicted over whether or not I actually did like Legolas as a character. The woman I had based the Sue on was already so high on a pedestal on my mind that she could not do wrong even in real life. By falling into the trap that I had sought to avoid, I, too, found myself at this fork in the road.

Should I continue writing, or should I give up?

If you aspire to become a bestselling author, if you aspire to have your stories turned into films and million-dollar francishes - if you even just want to be known as a good writer in general - then I suggest you take the route I did, and take a harder look at your character. Take a more objective look at yourself. Write a list of your positive and negative traits (hint: you've more positive traits than you might think. If your character is meant to be you, then delete every superfluous, artificed trait that you've added to yourself because you don't think you're worth it. Believe me, you are), and take a good hard look at how others might treat you based on that list. Then step out, and take a good hard look at how you might view the world in the mindset of another.

Once you figure out how to see the world through a set of eyes that aren't your own, you might find yourself writing better. And the best way to do that is to gain experience.

I know, you're only thirteen. You don't have much experience.

Set down your pen, then, and go outside and breathe in the world. Live your life to the fullest. Love your friends, forgive your enemies, take a look at the sunset over the mountains or the beach or the city skyline and ask yourself how you would narrate your own autobiography. Volunteer. Do some odd jobs. As you grow older, you get more experience, and that experience will show in your writing - that experience will tell the world that you know it, and you can judge it for what it's worth. How that experience affects you will be your character development, and it will help you write better.

So don't lock yourself into unrealistic fantasies that you cannot fathom into words at this age. Go out there and live a little, and that will enrich your writing. Lily Winterwood (talk) 05:30, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Hm... good thoughts, but as it stands, I think these are an awful lot of text for this FAQ, and are better as personal blog/journal posts. If we can condense the stories down to main points, maybe there can be a place for them, but bear in mind that the idea here is to address questions that people actually ask of/about us. I don't think any fanwriter has ever asked us why they write Mary Sues.

An alternative might be something like "You guys just don't like creative characters! What do you want me to do instead, write boring ones?", to which our answer is, of course, no—because good, relatable characters backed up by solid writing skills are not boring.

~Neshomeh 16:44, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Adding to the sexism section:

There's been (and not even since the So Sue Me incident) a lot of people who claim that Sues are feminist, and I think we have a good response to that. However, I just wanna add this:

The majority of Sues I've seen are white, cisgendered, able-bodied, thin, and heterosexual. If Sues are feminist, then they'd speak for a very thin sliver of feminism that excludes trans* women, women of colour, differently-abled women, queer women, etc. And that is hardly a type of feminism that is progressive to our society. 

Mary Sues represent such a narrow part of the world's population. They invariably come from privileged backgrounds or have no actual understanding of being poor, depressed, a victim of assault/abuse, OCD, socially anxious, bipolar, etc. To say that such characters are good for the media and are feminist completely misportrays women everywhere, and that is Not Okay.

We don't need Mary Sues; we need characters that are PoC, queer, genderqueer, differently-abled, and generally not the mainstream media's idea of what is beautiful and/or feminine. Lily Winterwood (talk) 02:06, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

I support this. What subsection were you thinking of adding this to, or were you thinking of making a new one?

~Neshomeh 18:41, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Eh, either the "empowering", the "anti-feminist", or the "role models" subsection. I'm leaning towards the role models one; the core of the argument is that we need representation of all types of women, not just skinny able-bodied white chicks. Lily Winterwood (talk) 22:28, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

Looking at those three, I think it would be easiest to work it into the "empowerment" section. "Role models" has a certain flow to it that might be tricky to fit into, though it's definitely possible; adding to "anti-feminist" might over-complicate the point being made there.

A mild caution: I think the point will be best made if phrased along the lines of "Sues do not actually empower/serve as role models to all women" rather than "we need fanfic OCs to represent everyone." For one reason, I think it's a bit of a stretch to equate amateur and young writers' attempts to entertain themselves and their friends with the mainstream media. Also, insisting even implicitly that all fanfic writers must take responsibility for equally representing the whole population probably isn't going to cut any ice with anyone. Yes, it would be nice if everyone was that socially conscious and progressive, but it should still be okay to just write stories for fun. Especially since you're probably more likely to get into trouble trying and failing to accurately represent someone with a background, culture, body, or orientation you're not familiar with than you are just sticking to what you know.

That, and the PPC as a whole really isn't a social justice movement. We just seem to attract people who feel strongly about that sort of thing. {= )

~Neshomeh 19:59, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll make the edit when I find the time to get the thoughts squared properly in that direction. :) Lily Winterwood (talk) 07:03, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Online litmus tests

I think a section should be added about litmus tests.  Some badficcers have said that because they passed a litmus test, their character is automatically not a sue.   -- Rider ranger47 (talk) 14:58, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody please provide a rebuttal to this?

"It’s only bad because you think it’s bad, I do not. What’s good or bad is only based on opinion, not facts." N. Harmonik (talk) 17:36, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have one: "The rules of writing are no arbitrary!" by SilvorMoon is linked in the "This is a hobby. It's just for fun" section, and pretty well covers this point, too.

If you wanna add a new section for this specifically, though, I suggest bringing it up on the Board, where people will see it.

~Neshomeh 16:38, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

How about this?

[Dear badfic writer, the rules of writing are STILL not arbitrary!

Why is Shakespeare's poetry enjoyed by people everywhere, while someone else's silly doggerel about their cat hasn't even been published in the school paper?

Why is it that people commonly criticize "Twilight" as being poorly written, but not "Dracula"?

Why can your high school literature teacher justify giving you a bad grade for poor writing, even if your grammar and spelling are fine?

The fact is, people judge each others' writing all the time. Book critics make a living from doing it.

If you try to make brownies with rhubarb jelly instead of eggs, we have every right to (a) not eat it, or (b) if we do, say we don't like it. If you try to hold a house together with glue instead of nails, we have every right to laugh at you when it falls apart and point out that nails would have held it together better, so you don't make the same mistake again.

Just like the rules of brownie-making say you need eggs and the rules of house-building say you need nails, the rules of writing say you need SPaG, a coherent plot, and a grasp of characterization. This is for a reason: it makes your story hold together and appeal to more people, just like eggs make brownies hold together and taste good; just like nails make a house hold together and not come crashing down on your head. It is not merely a matter of opinion.

Sure, some of what's good or bad is pretty subjective. If we're targeting your story, though, we're not doing it because it's mostly competent and we just don't like the direction it's heading. We're doing it because it contains glaring problems in the building blocks of the story: characterisation (especially in characters from canon), world-building, sentence structure, plotting and pacing, among others. These aren't subjective; they're objective standards, and to get our attention, you need to have failed them pretty hard.]

At present, probably a bit of a mish-mash.

PS: Which section would this go under? "Excuses, excuses"? N. Harmonik (talk) 23:21, May 21, 2016 (UTC)

Dead link alert!

It's under "You think ANY strong and capable woman in fiction is a Mary Sue!" N. Harmonik (talk) 23:46, May 21, 2016 (UTC)

New sections, possibly?

I've received a few excuses from some at-the-very-most-mediocrefic authors that don't exactly fit the sections in the page, so I'm wondering if these need to become new sections and/or added to old sections.

"I don't need writing help!"

My response:

"There is not a single writer on this earth who does not need writing help. All of us at the PPC need writing help. Some of your friends may need writing help. Even J. K. Rowling needs writing help, and there's visible evidence for that. (Not sure if this is the right article to prove the point - maybe I could find something else critiquing Delphi as a character. I personally think she's a bit Sueish, for various reasons.) If J. K. Rowling needs writing help, you do too. No one is a perfect writer, but you can become better by accepting criticism, which we definitely do."

"I'm a female/LGBTQ+ author! This work empowers me! You're oppressing my community by critiquing the work!"

(I don't know if this would go under the "criticizing many more female authors" section.)

My response:

"Your community is actually represented within the PPC: most of us are female, and there are definitely more than a few LGBTQ+ people here. This diverse group of people is united under one cause: we all like to read, and we all like to write. Reading becomes fun when the story is good. When you post something to the Internet, you are giving something to anyone who finds it. Gifts are meant to be received, to please the person who opens them. When you write a badfic to "empower" yourself, the gift only satisfies the giver. Being part of an oppressed group doesn't give you the power or the right to change the recipients' reactions to your gift, so the least you can do is use their commentary to help you become a better gift-giver. That doesn't mean that to satisfy the recipient, you can't have fun creating and giving the gift; in fact, the best fanfic is written out of both parties being pleased. But keep in mind that above all, you are giving.

That is one of the main things we agree on at the PPC, regardless of our genders or sexual preferences. We aren't going to "stand up" for you just for being part of a certain community, because being part of a community doesn't give you an excuse."

Let me know what everyone thinks!

-Twistey

73.34.109.76 14:18, May 6, 2017 (UTC)