[fandom] Supernatural wank and authorial intent

[escritoireazul]

So there's wank in Supernatural fandom, in which I participate very little, but enjoy the hell out of the show. I'm not going to link to the wank for a couple of reasons. One is that I think it's gotten enough attention, and I have no desire to add to it. Another is that I'm not actually here to talk about the wank, exactly, but a tangent.

I read the original post (hereafter P1) and though I didn't agree with the tone or the structure, I liked quite a few points brought up by the original poster (hereafter OP). OP said some interesting things (it's good to find and rec new or relatively unknown authors, different characterizations can be fun, it's good to seek out new experiences). I could roll with that, though I can see why people are responding to negatively to the P1.

Then, when someone told the OP that those very good points were being lost in the vitriol, the OP said that wasn't what zie meant at all.

This is why I don't believe that authorial intent is all that important to the interpretation of a piece of writing. The actual words used are much more important than what the author did or did not try to do. Also, this is why I would rather not know and draw my own conclusions because any sort of respect I had for the OP's ideas has been lost, especially because P1 is full of subtle, nasty comments about both specific people and general groups of fans. Without those points, it's more an attack than anything else.

I don't see anything wrong with venting about your fandom frustrations (or frandations, as I just typoed), and I am certainly not one to ask why can't we just all get along, but the OP directed it at Supernatural fandom in what looked like an attempt, however flawed, at opening a dialogue. That would benefit fandom. This? Just starts a wank.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

When reviewing or commenting, you can only judge by what is actually said, not by intent. (This is something most politicians have yet to learn.) On the other hand, some people will take offense at anything. A long, long time ago, well before the days of the internet, I had a rep in a small fandom for giving straight criticism. Lots and lots of people asked me to crit stories, but not because they wanted that detailed critique. What they wanted was to be able to say, "Lil thought it was wonderful." If Lil didn't, it was time to climb into their huff.

[escritoireazul.livejournal.com]

When reviewing or commenting, you can only judge by what is actually said, not by intent.

That pretty much sums up my whole point, and much more succinctly. Thank you.

I do agree that a lot of people will take offense at anything, and I don't think you (generic you) can expect to say anything without offending someone. I also think there's a difference between opening a discussion about controversial topics which will draw fire from people on all the sides and trying to verbally attack people, and then trying to protect yourself by saying that's not what you meant.

Of course, I can't say that's what the original poster meant, either side of it, but it seemed to come across negatively to a lot of people. Which is where I'm back to my original point, that it doesn't much matter how the OP meant it if most people take it a different way. (Not that it doesn't matter to the OP how zie meant it, but if that's not how it's being read, something is wrong with the presentation to the assumed audience.)

That must have been frustrating. I don't understand why people, who know that you gave detailed, straight criticism, expected you to just give them a blanket approval. What made them so special that you should change how you did things? People are strange.