Godawful Star Trek Fan Fiction
The GATF Team
Ever wondered how much worse it could possibly be? You can
quit wondering.
We've tracked down and reviewed the very worst examples of
Star Trek fan fiction ever to crawl onto the web. Be afraid,
be very afraid!
**********************************************
* Godawful Star Trek Fan Fiction *
* http://nettrash.com/users/godawful_trekfic *
* Read them and weep *
**********************************************
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Yahtzee63
deja...@my-deja.com
yaht...@aol.com (Yahtzee63) wrote:
> I hate pages like this.
You know, I did laugh at some of the comments, but I agree with you.
One of the stories in the "Best Smeller" section (ample, *ample* for
anyone who wants to see what the site is about) has a review that goes
on for paragraphs. Think of the time and energy that went into that
pan. And the whole site. The graphics and code alone...
The reviewer mentions that she teaches composition. Well, I do too, and
I understand how really awful and painful it is to be forced to read a
very badly written piece--and then one has to come up with constructive
commentary, because after all one is paid to do so, and besides, only a
sadist makes people feel bad on purpose and for no reason; only a
person hung up on revenge wants to inflict suffering to exceed the
suffering one has undergone. And it does exceed it, of course. Does
anybody really think that the threat of appearing on a page like this
will make people not write comma splices or tiresome Mary Sue stories?
If only writing well were this kind of easily conditioned response. It
is not.
Giving negative feedback that will actually change people's writing
behavior is the single hardest thing I have to try to do. The
frustrated kid in me does sometimes dream of losing it and saying some
of the stuff that comes to mind, but thank god I haven't yet lost it to
the extent of building a site any more than I have started
spray-painting graffiti on students' lockers. As teaching techniques,
these are roughly similar.
These people need another hobby.
Jane
Wildcat
> The reviewer mentions that she teaches composition. Well, I do too, and
> I understand how really awful and painful it is to be forced to read a
> very badly written piece--and then one has to come up with constructive
> commentary, because after all one is paid to do so, and besides, only a
> sadist makes people feel bad on purpose and for no reason; only a
> person hung up on revenge wants to inflict suffering to exceed the
> suffering one has undergone. And it does exceed it, of course. Does
> anybody really think that the threat of appearing on a page like this
> will make people not write comma splices or tiresome Mary Sue stories?
> If only writing well were this kind of easily conditioned response. It
> is not.
Very well said! I find the Godawful Trek page painful and
mean-spirited, and I can't imagine how anyone could think that it's
cute, clever, or beneficial in any way. I agree with you one hundred
percent.
Wildcat
BJCochran
>Very well said! I find the Godawful Trek page painful and
>mean-spirited, and I can't imagine how anyone could think that it's
>cute, clever, or beneficial in any way. I agree with you one hundred
>percent.
>
>Wildcat
>
Here, here. And to the previous posters.
I have said more than once, that people in glass web sites shouldn't throw
stones.
Not only is it mean spirited, it is cowardly to announce to the world "Be
afraid, be very afraid" when hiding behind anonymity.
I admit to frequently checking the site, hoping against hope to be found
archived there--without permission. I would deem it a badge of honor to be
among those who have begun, and ended a piece of fanfic, and had the guts to
post it before god and everybody.
So have at it.
My work can be found at members.aol.com/bjcochran
Bridget
"listen: there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go."
--e.e. cummings
Jungle Kitty
page is this: Writing fanfic is something we do for fun. None of us get
paid for it. It's a creative endeavor that comes purely out of joy and,
in most cases, the same is returned to the writer via feedback. So I
just don't understand why it is so important to these people (or to
story flamers, in general) to take the fun out of it.
I think the "writing for fun" is what separates fanfic from profic, more
than the idea of pay, editorial restrictions, or quality of product.
Many people use the comments and encouragement they receive to develop
into better writers. So it seems really ridiculous for some jerk(s) with
a webpage to go on a crusade against bad fanfic, since it is so
obviously not intended to be helpful in any way whatsoever. It is a
disgusting attempt to impose the standards of a small group on the
community and to get certain people to stop writing. I don't care if
they call it criticism; protesting the existence of the stories is
censorship.
I also find it interesting that these same folk don't tell us what they
consider to be "good" fanfic. And they won't. Becuase the problem with
being a snob is that the minute you say, "I really liked such-and-such,"
someone else can out-snob you by looking down their nose and sneering,
"You liked that piece of crap?" Their page is not about fanfic; it's
about their own self-important image.
--
Jungle Kitty
http://www.accesscom.com/~jkitty
----------------------------------------------
"May God reword you with joy and grout."
Christmas blessing from the guy who cleans
my house, and no, I don't understand it,
but I'm sure it's good.
----------------------------------------------
Jungle Kitty
page is this: Writing fanfic is something we do for fun. None of us get
paid for it. It's a creative endeavor that comes purely out of joy and,
in most cases, the same is returned to the writer via feedback. So I
just don't understand why it is so important to these people (or to
story flamers, in general) to take the fun out of it.
I think the "writing for fun" is what separates fanfic from profic, more
than the idea of pay, editorial restrictions, or quality of product.
Many people use the comments and encouragement they receive to develop
into better writers. So it seems really ridiculous for some jerk(s) with
a webpage to go on a crusade against bad fanfic, since it is so
obviously not intended to be helpful in any way whatsoever. It is a
disgusting attempt to impose the standards of a small group on the
community and to get certain people to stop writing. I don't care if
they call it criticism; protesting the existence of the stories is
censorship.
I also find it interesting that these same folk don't tell us what they
consider to be "good" fanfic. And they won't. Because the problem with
Cheile
Jungle Kitty wrote:
> What I truly and honestly don't understand about the Godawful FanFic
> page is this: Writing fanfic is something we do for fun. None of us get
> paid for it. It's a creative endeavor that comes purely out of joy and,
> in most cases, the same is returned to the writer via feedback. So I
> just don't understand why it is so important to these people (or to
> story flamers, in general) to take the fun out of it.
>
Thank you, Jungle Kitty, Wildcat, and everyone else who has responded.
You're all right and I would have said some of this--but you all said it
first. Of course, I have more "first-hand" experience with them since a
story I co-wrote was put up and blasted by them. I know how it got
"nominated" in the first place (it's a long story so I won't bore the
newsgroup with it), but suffice it to say it started from a personal
argument that had nothing to do with my story--or my co-author for that
matter.
Bridget writes:
> Not only is it mean spirited, it is cowardly to announce to the world "Be
> afraid, be very afraid" when hiding behind anonymity.
Of course--they think they're being cute when they're not, as Wildcat said.
And (now this is just a guess) they're probably writers who might post here
but might not have as much popularity as some of the authors listed on that
page, so they are striking back in the most childish way possible and
because they're too scared to blast the authors "to their face", they hide
and try to throw their weight around, figuratively speaking of course.
Jungle Kitty continues:
> Many people use the comments and encouragement they receive to develop
> into better writers. So it seems really ridiculous for some jerk(s) with
> a webpage to go on a crusade against bad fanfic, since it is so
> obviously not intended to be helpful in any way whatsoever. It is a
> disgusting attempt to impose the standards of a small group on the
> community and to get certain people to stop writing.
Exactly. And the problem is--some writers may just be starting out and
aren't sure how the fanficsters will react to their POV on P/T, Imzadi,
Kirk, Sisko, whatever/whoever they are inspired to write about. If the
Godawful ppl immediately strike out and list them on their page, they may
get intimidated and stop writing. And a potential talent could be lost.
> Their page is not about fanfic; it's about their own self-important image.
Well said, Jungle Kitty. I completely agree with the lot of you.
Cheile
Lori
>I think the "writing for fun" is what separates fanfic from profic, more
>than the idea of pay, editorial restrictions, or quality of product.
I think writing is a disease, for which there is no cure. Only the
one-in-a-million people with connections or with a magic formula like
Stephen King really make money at it, unless you're on staff somewhere as a
tech writer, script writer, or a journalist. Those of us who struggle along
doing freelance fiction are doomed to midlist, mediocre sales, with short
stories appearing in magazines that pay minimal amounts. You can literally
count on one hand the magazines that pay more than $100 for a story. If you
break down the hours spent slaving over multiple drafts, proofreading,
copies made at five cents a page at Kinko's, postage, paper, toner, etc for
one short story that runs twelve printed pages double spaced, that $35 check
that *might* come back with an acceptance letter disappears, and the writer
has actually paid to have their story published. And when you have to wait
months to hear back from a magazine, and you may or may not be accepted,
most often not -- no, we aren't making any money.
Fiction writers, regardless of pro or fan, write because there is an urge to
do so. It's not a hobby. It gets in the blood. It's like breathing, eating
and sleeping.
>Many people use the comments and encouragement they receive to develop
>into better writers. So it seems really ridiculous for some jerk(s) with
>a webpage to go on a crusade against bad fanfic, since it is so
>obviously not intended to be helpful in any way whatsoever. It is a
>disgusting attempt to impose the standards of a small group on the
>community and to get certain people to stop writing. I don't care if
>they call it criticism; protesting the existence of the stories is
>censorship.
Anyone who pretends that what that site does is constructive is a few bricks
short.
>Their page is not about fanfic; it's
>about their own self-important image.
Absolutely. I am disgusted with people who not only don't encourage, but
discourage, writers who actually have a spark of talent but are just
starting and don't know all the 'rules' yet.
Lori
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Without a strong cup to carry the emotion, it is only a curiosity. Great art
can come to us only in strong cups. Without emotion, there is nothing to
carry. --Nadia Boulanger
Make everybody fall out of the plane first, and then explain who they were
and why they were in the plane to begin with. --Nancy Ann Dibble
Laura Jacquez Valentine
See, my feeling is that every world needs a little mean-spiritedness in
it.
Unfortunately, in the Trekifanficiverse, *I* am the mean-spiritedness,
and those jerks at Godawful shall feel my wrath.
Well, if I had time to actually exercise my wrath, which I don't.
Instead, they shall suffer the wrath of Alanis Morrisette. It's like
RAAAAAAAAAAYYAYAYAYAYAYIIIINNNNNN on your wedding DAAYYYYY. It's a free
RIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIIIIIIDE when you've already paid. It's like good
ADVIIIIYIYIYIYIYICE that you just didn't take. Who would have thought;
it figgurs.
I figure that ought to keep them clutching their ears in pain for a
while.
--laura
Laura Jacquez Valentine
I've occasionally had the urge to deliberately write something very
bad, and see if it makes it up there.
I'm sure I could do it.
--laura
wolfen
just a little too touchy, feely, politically correct sometimes. And as
for the 'let's be nice' nazi's...come on all, it's just for fun. It may
not be your type of fun, but hey, they never promised you it would be.
If you don't like what GATF stands for, don't read it.
IMO, GATF fill a niche in our little corner of the fanfic world. It may
be benthic in nature, but necessary none the less. And I, for one, am
glad it's there.
Casual Lurker of GATF
wolfen
Wildcat
> The other reason I post there is because when I have a problem with a fan
> fiction, whining to the author or even being extremely polite and commenting on
> a typo has blown up in my face. I wrote on author and went on for pages about
> what I liked about a story and mentioned one or two minor grammar things that
> didn't work. I got that shoved back in my face. When this happens and when
> some one reads crap, well we all need to vent. GATF provides a forum for like
> minded indivudals to vent.
Sorry, but this doesn't work for me. The last thing I want to do is
start an argument, especially since you've been very reasonable with
your reply, but I want to comment on this. If you tried to offer
constructive criticism and the writer didn't like it, that's the
writer's loss and the writer's problem. You took the high road
originally; why did you let some ungrateful clod drag you down? It
boggles my mind that a writer would react like that. I'm not saying
that he or she didn't--actually, from what I've heard, it happens far
too often. But what I don't understand is how you see this as an
alternate way to offer feedback. Do you think that a writer is going to
like it any better, this way? It almost makes it sound as if you're out
for revenge, but from your tone I don't think that's true.
> If you arewriting
> for fun, then leave it on your hard drive and don't let GATF see it.
What? I write for fun. Jungle Kitty, don't you write for fun? Laura
JV? What about you other writers who are participating in this thread?
Who *doesn't* write for fun? Why write if it's not fun? And isn't it
much *more* fun to share it with others? I don't understand this at
all.
> Let the
> GATF reviewers have their fun too. Don't deny one group their right too. Both
> parties can have fun.
Sorry, I just don't see the point. Belittling and embarrassing people
doesn't sound like much fun to me, unless you're still in grade school.
And even then, it's mostly the bullies who think it's fun.
> Bsides, lots of cool people post to GATF and lurk their. Check it out. Tara
> from the PTC and Dangermom... Even they get sick of crap and the normal means
> of helping people write better just don't work.
So, are those writers being "helped" appreciative of your efforts?
I really hope that it isn't a mistake to post this. I'm getting ready
to go out of town for a few days, so I probably won't even have a chance
to participate much in this e-discussion. And, to be very honest, after
the last time I found myself in the middle of a "debate" here, I swore
that I would just keep my mouth shut from then on. But because you seem
like a well-intentioned person, I'm hoping this won't blow up in my
face. I just find it hard to accept that there is any merit in GATF.
Wildcat
Laura
>"nominated" in the first place (it's a long story so I won't bore the
>newsgroup with it), but suffice it to say it started from a personal
>argument that had nothing to do with my story--or my co-author for that
>matter.
>
Oh and for the record, even if I had nominated, what the heck does it matter?
The story needed work. The plot wasn't all that great and the holes in it
large. What's wrong with thinking that an expressing that?
Laura
Laura Michelle Hale -- http://babylon5.acmecity.com/brown/159/index.html
pdre...@aol.com lmhale1980 on AIM
"I'm normal. That's precisely the problem." -- button
Laura
>"nominated" in the first place (it's a long story so I won't bore the
>newsgroup with it)
Hey since we are airing this out for public consumption ;-) Let me tell you
what, I have been contacted by GATF regarding this because at the time it
appeared I had nominated a story but it wasn't this. I believe the ship of
sreams author had threatened to cause me personal harm if I did....
But this story was nominated by no less then four people. And suffice to say,
I only knew one of those parties.
One of the reasons I support GATF and why several others post there is that
they hope that one author, JUST ONE, will look at GATF and learn something from
it and better there writing. If ONE person can be reached and learned
something, then all the better. Being an active poster there, I have got to
say, bickering on the board aside, I have learned a lot about writing because
on GATF they have problem on the board disecting a story and saying what they
feel which I've learned from previous accidents isn't tolerated here well.
The other reason I post there is because when I have a problem with a fan
fiction, whining to the author or even being extremely polite and commenting on
a typo has blown up in my face. I wrote on author and went on for pages about
what I liked about a story and mentioned one or two minor grammar things that
didn't work. I got that shoved back in my face. When this happens and when
some one reads crap, well we all need to vent. GATF provides a forum for like
minded indivudals to vent.
Because of GATF, I've strengthened two of my on-line aquantneces to geniune
real life friendship and I've learned a lot. In fact, hell, most of the time on
the board we don't trash fic at all. I rarely see the page itself. I would
really love to, if I had the time, start one for fic in general and for
published stuff because man, I've read some real stinkers.
On the issue of "we all right for fun", erm, no. I know of a couple of authors
who write not for fun but to gain attention. That conflicts. Besides, even if
you are writing for fun, you should still be able to write basic plots, spell
check a story and use proper grammar. If you are writing Mary Sue fun, then
write for fun. GATF isn't advocating that you stop writing. If you arewriting
for fun, then leave it on your hard drive and don't let GATF see it. Let the
GATF reviewers have their fun too. Don't deny one group their right too. Both
parties can have fun. If the writers don't find GATF, then they can ignore it.
Bsides, lots of cool people post to GATF and lurk their. Check it out. Tara
from the PTC and Dangermom... Even they get sick of crap and the normal means
of helping people write better just don't work.
Laura
Eliza1701A
for several years. I have come across some real stinkers in my time. I have
also come across some great fanfition here by several authors. I recommend
them to all my friends.
Most of the stories i have read could have used a spell checker and a beta
reader(several as matter a fact.)
i like godawful for the fact that they show you how not to wirte a piece or
crap by the examples that have been posted to their site. Mary Sue runs
rampant their. Also if anyone has check out the best smeller burning thistles
amongst the thorns you would have to agree that it is pretty awful. I had a
headache after reading the first paragraph. it is as though the person
swallowed an entire theasaurus.
I am willing to bet that those authors have gotten feedback telling them how
great their story is and so forth, but never any constructive crictism. And if
they did i am also willing to bet that the author probably flamed the poor
reader for giving constructive feedback to begin with. this is why i refuse to
send feed back to any author because of this.
This is a two way street. An author wants an audience to read their stories
and keep coming back and have them tell their friends and so forth, but if you
threathen and attack that reader for expressing their opinion then in their
eyes the author is a rotten person and the reader will tell their friends how
this person attack them and to not read that particular persons stories. Then
readship drops off for the author and the writer will be left in the dark as to
why no one is reading their stories.
You catch more filies with honey then you do with vinegar.
Which is why there is so much godawful trekficiton out there.
Authors want feedback from their audience but all they want is good feedback.
i have run into this problem on gatf with two frequent posters there.
my thing is if you are going to write then damnit use a spell checker and get a
beta reader. Don't inflict your poor spelling, bad grammar and awful sex
scenes on your audience.
i for one have written several stinkers and mary sues, but i won't inflict them
on other people.
i also learned how to write better, though my grammar sucks. I have met many
friends on gatf and even found a very good beta reader.
maybe you all should drop by the message board to see what goes on there before
you condem everyone on gatf.
we have great conversations on trek, the showsm, how to improve ones writing
style and my favorite of all time, "How to tell if you have a Mary Sue on your
hands."
Going back to lurking, i have said my peace and this is only my opinion though
i know there will be flames from certain factions out there.
Eliza1701A
Boadicea
There is a lot of less than perfect fanfic. As far as I know, one can choose
not to read it.
People who concentrate on the negative fill me with the desire to do the same,
perhaps to comment on things like:
>If ONE person can be reached and learned
>something, then all the better.
>disecting a story
>my on-line aquantneces to geniune
>real life friendship
>airing this out for public consumption
>And suffice to say
>learn something from
>it and better there writing.
>wrote on author
but of course, I wouldn't do that. Unless, of course, the author had asked me
to do so. Or had stated a desire to learn more about writing and a belief in
the salutary effects of criticism.
Boadicea
Shayney
and I feel I've learned a lot from it. The criticism offered there is honest,
but generally not brutal or unkind. I find it very useful.
-- Shayney
This is where I keep my fanfic:
http://member.aol.com/ShayneyL/
TrexPhile
Wolfen, you know how much I love you, hon, but I have to disagree with you
on this. I can't see how making fun of someone's writing efforts
*publicly* can be termed "necessary." And as for ASC being "too touchy,
feely," I prefer civil, mature discussion rather than flame wars. ASC is
like a refuge compared to other newsgroups in this respect.
Yes, I agree. If you don't like GATF, don't visit the site. But just
knowing that it's out there turns my stomach and makes me angry. I was not
blessed with high self-esteem as a child and teen, and when I was young, I
was sometimes targeted by those who were "only having fun" -- at my
expense. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
In *my* opinion, I think those at GATF still have some maturing to do.
TrexPhile
Yahtzee63
said, the appropriate means of delivering most constructive criticism is
privately, in an one-on-one communication. This is partly a matter of not
hurting anyone's feelings, but more importantly, it guarantees that the message
is heard and understood by the author.
This is public ridicule for amusement. If you're going to indulge in it, nobody
can stop you, but don't pretend to be on some crusade for good writing.
Yahtzee
BJCochran
Wolfen writes....
>
>IMO, GATF fill a niche in our little corner of the fanfic world. It may
>be benthic in nature, but necessary none the less. And I, for one, am
>glad it's there.
Please explain your use of 'benthic' here. My dictionary says it's a moral
path to the common good (I paraphrase) as in, 'the greatest happiness of the
greatest number'--which in the case of the asc, isn't the case I'd put forth
for Godawful Trek.
Maybe I've got the wrong word because my 1937 Webster's Collegiate would make
the adjective 'Benthamistic'. Dunno.
Maybe I just need it clarified.
Jungle Kitty
> What? I write for fun. Jungle Kitty, don't you write for fun?
Hell, no. I write because William Shatner pays me $1.00 a word for this
stuff.
I wish.
boro...@my-deja.com
announcement of an update, and _every single time_ we have to have this
big debate on the merits of the site. If you like it, read it. If you
don't, treat it like a troll. I've seen some very effective troll cures
around here.
Okay, everybody, let's stop all this bloody chatter and get back to what
we're really here for--writing!
Brooke
Starfish
>
> For the record, I like the God Awful Trek site. Things here on ASC are
> just a little too touchy, feely, politically correct sometimes. And as
ACK!!! :( Please, be careful with words like these.
<snip>
Starfish
wolf...@my-deja.com
bjco...@aol.com (BJCochran) wrote:
>
> Wolfen writes....
>
> >
> >IMO, GATF fill a niche in our little corner of the fanfic world. It may
> >be benthic in nature, but necessary none the less. And I, for one, am
> >glad it's there.
>
> Please explain your use of 'benthic' here. My dictionary says it's a moral
> path to the common good (I paraphrase) as in, 'the greatest happiness of the
> greatest number'--which in the case of the asc, isn't the case I'd put forth
> for Godawful Trek.
>
> Maybe I've got the wrong word because my 1937 Webster's Collegiate would make
> the adjective 'Benthamistic'. Dunno.
>
> Maybe I just need it clarified.
>
> Bridget
For clarification purposes:
benthic: 1. of, relating to, or occurring on the bottom underlying a
body of water <mud dwelling~mollusks> 2. of, relating to, or occurring
in the depths of the ocean or the bottom underlying these depths.
I was recalling a word from Zoology. Benthic, as in bottom feeders. And
guys at GATF, I mean that in a good way :) Like I said, it's a niche,
and you have filled it.
Does my use of the word make more sense to you now?
wolfen
wolf...@my-deja.com
TrexPhile <trxp...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> wolfen <wol...@together.net> wrote in <383A01...@together.net>:
>
> >just a little too touchy, feely, politically correct sometimes. And as
> >not be your type of fun, but hey, they never promised you it would be.
> >If you don't like what GATF stands for, don't read it.
> >
> >be benthic in nature, but necessary none the less. And I, for one, am
> >glad it's there.
> >
> >
> >wolfen
>
> Wolfen, you know how much I love you, hon, but I have to disagree with you
> on this.
And I wuv you to. But that's the good thing about being friends...we can
disagree without getting all yanked out about it.
I can't see how making fun of someone's writing efforts
> *publicly* can be termed "necessary." And as for ASC being "too touchy,
> feely," I prefer civil, mature discussion rather than flame wars.
I would also prefer civil, mature discussion. But, in all reality, do we
really get that on ASC? I'm not saying GATF is out there as a kindly
service to the writers they have put on their site. I see their site as
a backlash to the stiffling enviroment of ASC. And what I mean by that
is, I do not believe ASC promotes and/or supports 'truth in feedback' no
matter how much they purport to do so.
ASC is
> like a refuge compared to other newsgroups in this respect.
I can see your point here. That is, if you are referring to the feeding
grounds that is ATXC.
>
> Yes, I agree. If you don't like GATF, don't visit the site. But just
> knowing that it's out there turns my stomach and makes me angry. I was not
> blessed with high self-esteem as a child and teen, and when I was young, I
> was sometimes targeted by those who were "only having fun" -- at my
> expense. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Here, I can also see your point. To lambast a writer who is just
beginning could potentially be devastating. I know my first few fanfics
are good candidates for GATF. HAd they roasted me before I had a chance
to get beta readers, and better myself...who knows how I would have
taken it. But knowing me, I probably would have accepted the challenge
to become a better writer. Of course, everyone is not like me.
Anyways, I actually agree with you on some points, but on the whole, I
still like the site.
Laura
>*publicly* can be termed "necessary."
First off, GATF is nessary not for the writer. It is nessary for the fustrated
reader. You have to realize that the intention of the site isn't for the
author be helped. It's for the reader who reads another bad story (Come one,
why must everyone write a Janeway/Chakotay turbolift story? Why must the
readers tolerate stuff that isn't spell check? Why must the writers out there
pump out more pulpy crap otherwise known as another P/T song fic based on that
Celine Dione song?) If the reader doesn't vent, and they can't vent at the
author because they may hurt the poor author's feeling who take "There are a
couple of typos in her" to mean "You suck! I hate you!", then they may just
give it up all together. That, IMHO, would really hurt the good authors out
there.
>And as for ASC being "too touchy,
>feely," I prefer civil, mature discussion rather than flame wars. ASC is
>like a refuge compared to other newsgroups in this respect.
Have you been to the message board? Aside from the self righteous folks, who
also we should note tried to shut down Satan Trek, who don't want GATF to
exsist, the message board has very few flames. We disagree civily. The
reviews aren't intended for the writer and I've seen harsher reviews for other
fandoms and for printed stuff. A bad review comes with the territory so I can
hardly see how the reviews on the page can actually be *gasp* considered a
flame. If you write, not everyone will like it. It isn't making fun of the
author.
ASC, from what I have been told my others, used to be a place where a writer
could come in and get honest feedback and get help and actually improve. Hell,
that type of atmosphere, I'd give my right eye for. Instead though, there is
an air of non productivity. You rarely get an honest view or information that
wil help you. Unless you're an established author or have a clique here, you
won't get feedback or anythign constructive. I'd prefer for ASC to be like it
sued to be, before the feedback of "you rock" or "Hey I liked your story and in
the my next, I'll have that promised sex story out for you ;-)"
Tell me, who benefits there?
> But just
>knowing that it's out there turns my stomach and makes me angry. I was not
>blessed with high self-esteem as a child and teen, and when I was young, I
>was sometimes targeted by those who were "only having fun" -- at my
>expense. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Would you prefer that myself and my friends who read this stuff gossip about
the story behind the scenes? *Laura picks up the phone* "Donna, man, I read
the worst fic today. Mary Sue Whipple wrote it and it had this sex scene in it
that made me want to gag. I couldn't finish it. I'd just as soon put a knife
through my chest. Lord but it sucked. And it had such an interesting premise
but the author ruined it all. Oh and to top it off, the thing had spellind
errors and formatting errors. I wonder what they were smoking when they wrote
it? Who ever their english teacher was, they should be shot. Hell, give me a
gun and I'd do it myself." Yeah, okay. I see your point now. You'd much
prefer for attitudes like that to (this is based on the assumption that not
every piece is good and that some are truely god awful) be taken to the phone
or private e-mail. Yes. Much more productive then say, should some one
actually TELL the author that with a little work, they could improve.
And if you have a low self esteem, then don't post. Really, don't post. If
you need only positive feedback, then send it to your friends via e-mail
because not everyone likes everything. If you are that insecure that a little
thing like that can't be used as a growing experince, then you aren't ready to
post. Really. Don't post. I don't wish a GATf review upon any one either
but if I see a piece on the internet, I will naturally assume that the author
has the self esteem to post it and that they can deal with it because anyone
with a brain knows that YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
TrexPhile
ch1.aol.com>:
>First off, GATF is nessary not for the writer. It is nessary for the
fustrated
>reader. You have to realize that the intention of the site isn't for the
>author be helped. It's for the reader who reads another bad story (Come
one,
>why must everyone write a Janeway/Chakotay turbolift story? Why must the
>readers tolerate stuff that isn't spell check? Why must the writers out
there
>pump out more pulpy crap otherwise known as another P/T song fic based on
that
>Celine Dione song?) If the reader doesn't vent, and they can't vent at
the
>author because they may hurt the poor author's feeling who take "There are
a
>couple of typos in her" to mean "You suck! I hate you!", then they may
just
>give it up all together. That, IMHO, would really hurt the good authors
out
>there.
So what you're saying is that the whole point of GATF is to provide a
public forum to blast fiction written by others. Your purpose is *not* to
help the writers, to show them the error of their ways as you interpret it.
If there is indeed a group of readers who feel the need to "vent" about
what they consider atrocious writing, then why not set up an email list
since the comments aren't intended for the writers anyway.
>
>
>ASC, from what I have been told my others, used to be a place where a
writer
>could come in and get honest feedback and get help and actually improve.
Hell,
>that type of atmosphere, I'd give my right eye for. Instead though, there
is
>an air of non productivity. You rarely get an honest view or information
that
>wil help you. Unless you're an established author or have a clique here,
you
>won't get feedback or anythign constructive. I'd prefer for ASC to be
like it
>sued to be, before the feedback of "you rock" or "Hey I liked your story
and in
>the my next, I'll have that promised sex story out for you ;-)"
>
>Tell me, who benefits there?
And who benefits from GATF? You've said yourself that it's not for the
*writer*, it's for the *reader.*
As for feedback and honest constructive critique, *if a writer really wants
it,* feedback received after posting to a newsgroup is not the way to get
it. Not anymore. I get the best critique from my beta readers *before* I
post. These women are honest; they don't mince words. They tell me what
works and what doesn't.
>
>Would you prefer that myself and my friends who read this stuff gossip
about
>the story behind the scenes?
<snippage>
Yeah, okay. I see your point now. You'd much
>prefer for attitudes like that to (this is based on the assumption that
not
>every piece is good and that some are truely god awful) be taken to the
phone
>or private e-mail. Yes. Much more productive then say, should some one
>actually TELL the author that with a little work, they could improve.
But as you've said already, that's not the point of GATF: providing
constructive, productive critique for the authors. Yes, I do think
"gossiping" (a loaded word) about these stories should be done privately.
And if you really want to help the authors, send them some honest feedback
that doesn't belittle their efforts. If they respond in a way that you
construe as meaning they didn't want to hear what you had to say, then
shrug and go on and don't bother with reading their stories again.
>
>And if you have a low self esteem, then don't post. Really, don't post.
If
>you need only positive feedback, then send it to your friends via e-mail
>because not everyone likes everything. If you are that insecure that a
little
>thing like that can't be used as a growing experince, then you aren't
ready to
>post. Really. Don't post. I don't wish a GATf review upon any one
either
>but if I see a piece on the internet, I will naturally assume that the
author
>has the self esteem to post it and that they can deal with it because
anyone
>with a brain knows that YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
For the record, my self-esteem is rock-solid. As a 38-year-old mother of
five who has lived a life of exhilarating highs and devastating lows, I've
seen a lot and grown a lot since my childhood. The real world offers us
enough cruelty and mean-spiritedness without us adding to it. I prefer to
promote a more positive spirit.
TrexPhile
Jungle Kitty
> Okay, everybody, let's stop all this bloody chatter and get back to
> what
> we're really here for--writing!
I really don't want to start anything here, but I dislike it when
someone posts something like this. My solution to threads I'm bored with
or not interested in--don't read 'em. But please don't tell the rest of
us to drop this or any topic. It will die on its own when it's run its
course.
Wildcat
> Would you prefer that myself and my friends who read this stuff gossip about
> the story behind the scenes? *Laura picks up the phone* "Donna, man, I read
> the worst fic today. Mary Sue Whipple wrote it and it had this sex scene in it
> that made me want to gag. I couldn't finish it. I'd just as soon put a knife
> through my chest. Lord but it sucked. And it had such an interesting premise
> but the author ruined it all. Oh and to top it off, the thing had spellind
> errors and formatting errors. I wonder what they were smoking when they wrote
> it? Who ever their english teacher was, they should be shot. Hell, give me a
> gun and I'd do it myself." Yeah, okay. I see your point now. You'd much
> prefer for attitudes like that to (this is based on the assumption that not
> every piece is good and that some are truely god awful) be taken to the phone
> or private e-mail. Yes. Much more productive then say, should some one
> actually TELL the author that with a little work, they could improve.
But don't you see how destructive it would be to actually tell the
writer what you said on the phone? I see nothing there indicating that
you think "with a little work, they could improve." As a matter of
fact, if that's what you thought of *my* stories, then I'd darn sure
rather that you kept it private. I'm not frail or in need of stroking,
but only the most thick-skinned person is completely immune to something
that is intended to knock them down.
Instead, let's say that you sat down at your keyboard and sent me
something that looked like this:
***
Dear Mary Sue,
I read your latest story. It had an interesting premise.
Unfortunately, the mechanics of the writing made it hard for me to enjoy
it. Have you considered using a beta reader? If you're not willing to
do that, then at least try using a spellchecker. It might help you
catch some of your errors. I also had problems with the plot and
characterizations, such as <list concrete examples here>. With a little
work, you could improve. I hope to see something from you in the
future.
Sincerely,
A reader
***
From what you've said, I know that not every writer accepts that sort of
criticism, but I sure would. As a matter of fact, I'd thank you and
most likely ask for more.
Wildcat
Stephen Ratliff
You know, I've been trying to resist chiming in on this. I failed.
Before I go into direct response, I'd like to say that I'm really getting
tired of these debates following GATF's update notices, and the decrease in
feedback that occurs after each of them.
Laura respectfully stated:
>>I can't see how making fun of someone's writing efforts
>>*publicly* can be termed "necessary."
I agree with the above statement.
>First off, GATF is nessary not for the writer. It is nessary for the fustrated
>reader. You have to realize that the intention of the site isn't for the
>author be helped. It's for the reader who reads another bad story (Come one,
>why must everyone write a Janeway/Chakotay turbolift story?
Because they feel the need to. And there aren't that many of them.
>Why must the
>readers tolerate stuff that isn't spell check?
spell checked. Well, I didn't have one when I started ('93) but I do agree
that that should be done.
>Why must the writers out there
>pump out more pulpy crap otherwise known as another P/T song fic based on that
>Celine Dione song?)
Hmmm, haven't seen too many of those. Plus filks are a Trek Tradition.
>If the reader doesn't vent, and they can't vent at the
>author because they may hurt the poor author's feeling who take "There are a
>couple of typos in her" to mean "You suck! I hate you!", then they may just
>give it up all together. That, IMHO, would really hurt the good authors out
>there.
Well, I hardly think that a list of GATF is going to help the recovery of a
reader who has had too much. If they need to vent, well, there is the time
honored tradition of writing out ones complaints and then consigning them
to file 13.
>>And as for ASC being "too touchy,
>>feely," I prefer civil, mature discussion rather than flame wars. ASC is
>>like a refuge compared to other newsgroups in this respect.
Here Here!
>Have you been to the message board? Aside from the self righteous folks, who
>also we should note tried to shut down Satan Trek, who don't want GATF to
>exsist, the message board has very few flames. We disagree civily. The
>reviews aren't intended for the writer and I've seen harsher reviews for other
>fandoms and for printed stuff. A bad review comes with the territory so I can
>hardly see how the reviews on the page can actually be *gasp* considered a
>flame. If you write, not everyone will like it. It isn't making fun of the
>author.
I've read GATF, and while the Message board seems quite calm with the
exception of a few hot heads, I have a couple statements reguarding the
reviewers.
Reviews should not be made in order to make the reviewer seem 'smart' The
reviews I read at GATF are short jabs with very little help in them, which
only reflect the general hostile nature of the site.
>ASC, from what I have been told my others, used to be a place where a writer
>could come in and get honest feedback and get help and actually improve. Hell,
>that type of atmosphere, I'd give my right eye for.
And you know what, that atmosphere existed until just about the time people
started flaming authors and creating sites like GATF
>Instead though, there is
>an air of non productivity. You rarely get an honest view or information that
>wil help you. Unless you're an established author or have a clique here, you
>won't get feedback or anythign constructive.
I'd like to think that isn't true. At least during the Awards Voting and
shortly after it isn't.
>I'd prefer for ASC to be like it
>sued to be, before the feedback of "you rock" or "Hey I liked your story and in
>the my next, I'll have that promised sex story out for you ;-)"
There is a place for those comments, and this is it. There is a place for
critical feedback, done right, and this is also it. The two are not
mutually exclusive.
>Tell me, who benefits there?
The reader and the community.
>> But just
>>knowing that it's out there turns my stomach and makes me angry. I was not
>>blessed with high self-esteem as a child and teen, and when I was young, I
>>was sometimes targeted by those who were "only having fun" -- at my
>>expense. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
>
>Would you prefer that myself and my friends who read this stuff gossip about
>the story behind the scenes? *Laura picks up the phone* "Donna, man, I read
>the worst fic today. Mary Sue Whipple wrote it and it had this sex scene in it
>that made me want to gag. I couldn't finish it. I'd just as soon put a knife
>through my chest. Lord but it sucked. And it had such an interesting premise
>but the author ruined it all. Oh and to top it off, the thing had spellind
>errors and formatting errors. I wonder what they were smoking when they wrote
>it? Who ever their english teacher was, they should be shot. Hell, give me a
>gun and I'd do it myself." Yeah, okay. I see your point now. You'd much
>prefer for attitudes like that to (this is based on the assumption that not
>every piece is good and that some are truely god awful) be taken to the phone
>or private e-mail. Yes. Much more productive then say, should some one
>actually TELL the author that with a little work, they could improve.
There is a proper way to tell people, and this is not it (Quote from actual
GATF review):
I don't even know where to start with this nasty little piece of work. You
see, there's this horrible Mary Sue who happens to be
a nymphomaniac, and she's dating an android called Data (who bears no
resemblance to the Data you might know from that
show called "Star Trek"). The plot itself cowers helplessly behind random
tense changes and bizarre sentence structures. So
well camouflaged is it that I dare you to find it.
...
This, ladies and gentlemen is not a review, it's an attack. A review would
read something like this:
This peice suffers from a Mary Sue problem. The plot would be seen better
with the tense changes and sentence structures were improved. Data also
seems to be entirely different than the Data we see in TNG.
...
My version tells the author and reader what is wrong, however, the author
is more likely to take my version and fix it than the GATF version. Why?
Because GATF is more interested in being insulting than improving the work.
>And if you have a low self esteem, then don't post. Really, don't post. If
>you need only positive feedback, then send it to your friends via e-mail
>because not everyone likes everything. If you are that insecure that a little
>thing like that can't be used as a growing experince, then you aren't ready to
>post. Really. Don't post.
I hope NO ONE listens to this one. I do not call a site dedicated to
insulting works a 'little thing' And I invite everyone to post. I'm
especially looking for people willing to comment on works to post. It's
been six months since I got public feedback.
>I don't wish a GATf review upon any one either
>but if I see a piece on the internet, I will naturally assume that the author
>has the self esteem to post it and that they can deal with it because anyone
>with a brain knows that YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
True, however there is something called acting gentlemenly when you have
problems. GATF does not.
I have two objections to GATF:
1) Their review style is one that only hurts, and does not explain why.
The langauge chosen in their reviews only causes anger, leading to any good
advice they may have being lost in it's haze.
2) They've been told not to link directly to the ASC Archive stories, and
are still doing so.
Stephen
--
Stephen Ratliff FAQ Maintainer:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~stephenratliff/FAQs/
Just the FAQs, ma'am, just the FAQs.
Laura Taylor
>
> I would also prefer civil, mature discussion. But, in all reality, do we
> really get that on ASC? I'm not saying GATF is out there as a kindly
> service to the writers they have put on their site. I see their site as
> a backlash to the stiffling enviroment of ASC. And what I mean by that
> is, I do not believe ASC promotes and/or supports 'truth in feedback' no
> matter how much they purport to do so.
"They"? Pardon my language, but just who the fuck is "they"? Sorry, but
ASC is a community of "us"--if you think it's stifling, open a window
and let some fresh air in! If you think there's not enough truth in
feedback, then for God's sake write some truthful feedback and post it!
But don't fob the blame off on some indeterminate "they". ASC succeeds,
or fails, on the merits and efforts of those who contribute to it--not
"them", whoever the hell "they" are.
<end rant>
Laura
--
=====
To reply via e-mail, replace "spamBgone" with "roanoke"
Cheile
> Before I go into direct response, I'd like to say that I'm really
getting tired of these debates following GATF's update notices, and the
decrease in feedback that occurs after each of them.
Actually this is the first time I've seen one of these debates--the last
time I remember seeing GATF post an update notice there was no response.
Can't say on the decrease in feedback, since the last thing I completed
and posted here was "Kira's Prayer", which I got plenty of
feedback on--good feedback, I might add, and this is because my four
beta readers caught all the mistakes, occasional grammar problems and
"this isn't Kira to me" things BEFORE I put it/sent it anywhere. As
Trexphile stated earlier, my beta readers catch the mistakes before I
send it out. And they have no problem with telling me in a POLITE way
what is wrong and/or needs to be corrected.
> Laura respectfully stated:
> >>I can't see how making fun of someone's writing efforts
> >>*publicly* can be termed "necessary."
>
> I agree with the above statement.
So do I. You want to bash someone/something--don't humiliate them in
front of God and everybody. That's middle school behavior and in the
case of some I went to school with, they dragged it into high school.
> Because they feel the need to. And there aren't that many of them.
And if you don't LIKE J/C-get-it-on-in-a-lift fics, then don't read 'em!
As for why, most any JetCer will tell you it's a "tradition", just like
I'm sure there are other "traditions" in other fandoms for this type of
Kirk story or that type of Jean-Luc/Bev plotline. It's for fun--that's
it.
> >Why must the writers out there pump out more pulpy crap otherwise
known as another P/T song fic based on that Celine Dione song?)
>
> Hmmm, haven't seen too many of those. Plus filks are a Trek
Tradition.
And who are any of us to dictate what any writer should or
should not write? Again, the above applies. If you don't like Celine
Dion (and spell her name right please) fanfics or whatever, then *don't
read it*! Find another type of story you like.
> Well, I hardly think that a list of GATF is going to help the recovery
of a reader who has had too much. If they need to vent, well, there is
the time honored tradition of writing out ones complaints and then
consigning them to file 13.
And if your friends agree with you on you didn't like a certain story,
have a private vent session with them. I've done that plenty of times.
> >It isn't making fun of the author.
It is with reviews like they have.
> Reviews should not be made in order to make the reviewer seem 'smart'
The reviews I read at GATF are short jabs with very little help in
them, which only reflect the general hostile nature of the site.
Or like with other stories, they're long, nonsensical speeches that pick
at every sentence. Even if the author wanted to listen to all that, how
would they ever figure out how they're supposed to start?
> >Unless you're an established author or have a clique here, you won't
get feedback or anythign constructive.
Define clique. Just because some authors (i.e. Jungle Kitty,
Trexphile and those who have been writing since probably pre-Internet
days, plus a few new people here and there) have a long standing
at ASC and in the Trek fandom world and might have a circle of fans, are
you saying that said fans would not point out mistakes to the author if
they saw them?
> >> But just knowing that it's out there turns my stomach and makes me
angry. I was not
> >>blessed with high self-esteem as a child and teen, and when I was
young, I was sometimes targeted by those who were "only having fun" --
at my expense. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
And I have seen the same thing happen to people I know--it's not pretty,
in any case.
> >Yes. Much more productive then say, should some
one actually TELL the author that with a little work, they could
improve.
well that depends on how you tell them. GATF's so called "reviews"
aren't the way, as Stephen pointed out. His rewritten "example" is more
like it.
> I hope NO ONE listens to this one. I do not call a site dedicated to
> insulting works a 'little thing'.
Bravo, Stephen. I think this applies to anyone who has had the
misfortune to be targeted by GATF and its supporters simply because
their fanfic didn't suit one or two readers and they haven't the manners
to attempt to be tactful and email the author privately.
> 1) Their review style is one that only hurts, and does not explain
why.
And therefore, IMO, is useless. If reviews with criticism aren't
helpful and *constructive*, then how can the writer improve?
--
~Cheile
AIM - MaelenMS
thebe...@my-deja.com
pdre...@aol.comMSW (Laura) wrote:
>Why must the
> readers tolerate stuff that isn't spell check?
Um, I wouldn't be throwing stones about spell checking if I were you!
>If the reader doesn't vent, and they can't vent at the
> author because they may hurt the poor author's feeling who take "There
are a
> couple of typos in her" to mean "You suck! I hate you!", then they may
just
> give it up all together. That, IMHO, would really hurt the good
authors out
> there.
If authors are "really good" they are highly unlikely to take "there are
a couple of typos in here" to mean "You suck!" Even if they are new to
writing, I hardly think most would be inclined to take that kind of
comment as something really harsh. I could, however, be wrong about
SOME writers. They ARE likely, however, to take "The title alone is our
first red flag. The fact that the very first word of the very first
sentence isn't capitalized is our second.
You'll be happy to note that appalling grammar and punctuation continue
unabated for the rest of this saga (as far as I read
anyway)." as an unadulterated insult and be a bit
annoyed/hurt/resentful.
My personal opinion of the site is: if my stories were to appear there
(which they may already, I only read so far until I caught the gist of
the site), it would be akin to Nancy Reagan telling me my decor sucked.
Who gives a rat's ass? I, however, am not like everyone and there are
probably people who WOULD be offended by having their stories snidely
commented upon on this page.
> It isn't making fun of the
> author.
Ah, but it IS making fun of the author. And if the people who put this
page up would simply ADMIT as much, this discussion would've ended a
long time ago. It DOES make fun of the author. That is apparently its
sole purpose. That and some deep seated need of the authors of the page
to make jokes at other peoples' expense.
>You rarely get an honest view or information that
> wil help you. Unless you're an established author or have a clique
here, you
> won't get feedback or anythign constructive. I'd prefer for ASC to be
like it
> sued to be, before the feedback of "you rock" or "Hey I liked your
story and in
> the my next, I'll have that promised sex story out for you ;-)
Um, where, exactly in the GATF page is the CONSTRUCTIVE criticism? As
you stated before, this is NOT a page for the WRITER, but a page for
frustrated READERS who apparently cannot find contstructive outlets for
their irritation. It is a page for those who would point and laugh at
someone who injured themselves without bothering to try to assist that
person.
>And it had such an interesting premise
> but the author ruined it all. Oh and to top it off, the thing had
spellind errors and formatting errors. I wonder what they were smoking
when they wrote
> it? Who ever their english teacher was, they should be shot. Hell,
give me a
> gun and I'd do it myself." Yeah, okay. I see your point now. You'd
much
> prefer for attitudes like that to (this is based on the assumption
that not
> every piece is good and that some are truely god awful) be taken to
the phone
> or private e-mail. Yes. Much more productive then say, should some
one
> actually TELL the author that with a little work, they could improve.
Excuse me, but WHERE EXACTLY do you tell ANY author this on the GATF
page?? You DON'T, you simply point, laugh, snicker and guffaw at things
YOU find abhorrent in the fanfic, this is not helpful in the LEAST and
you don't INTEND it to be helpful as you have already stated. You could
care less if the authors improve or not. That's not your point in
producing and updating this page. Why perpetuate the myth that it IS
your point?
And I MUST point out once more that people with atrocious spelling
should not be criticizing those who also cannot spell!
>YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
No, one cannot please everyone all the time and to try is to make a
ridiculous attempt to alter ones writing to serve the public. Yet you
seem to EXPECT this from anyone whose fic is sited on GATF. So you
don't like Mary Sue stories, so DON'T READ THEM. If you don't like J/C
turbolift sex, MOVE ON TO A DIFFERENT STORY!
There are people out there who DO like these things and there are people
who enjoy writing them as well. Should they stop simply because GATF
thinks it's awful? No, they shouldn't, they should continue to produce
what they enjoy writing regardless of whether GATF thinks it's bad or
not.
Who the hell died and made GATF the Trek Fic Police?
I happen to get constructive criticism from the people I know who are
honest with me about what works and what doesn't in my stories. I
appreciate their candor in telling me "JLP would never act that way." or
"Your Bev is far too hysterical, her character is much more in control
than that." This is what helps me to improve, not someone screeching on
a webpage "THIS SUCKS!!!!!!!!!"
Bottom line here is: don't pretend to be something which you are
OBVIOUSLY not. If you intended the page to make fun of and ridicule
authors whose fic you find ridiculous and stupid, simply admit it and
move on. Don't try to justify the existence of such a page with "it
helps the frustrated reader" or that it might actually be constructive
in some way for the authors.
And just for the record, I don't post my constructive criticisms to
authors on this site, I send them a private e-mail with details of what
I think needs work and that is how I receive criticism from those I ask
to beta read my stories.
Bevster
thebe...@my-deja.com
pdre...@aol.comMSW (Laura) wrote:
> One of the reasons I support GATF and why several others post there is
that
> they hope that one author, JUST ONE, will look at GATF and learn
something from
> it and better there writing. If ONE person can be reached and learned
> something, then all the better.
I'm sorry, but you have GOT to be joking! You think anyone who writes a
story that ends up on GATF is going to have ANY desire to wade through
the catty remarks, snide comments and rude observations and THEN write
another story because they took these comments to heart???? What planet
are you on??
GATF doesn't care about the authors improving, it cares about being as
snidely amusing as it possibly can and giving its regular readers a good
laugh at someone else's expense.
> The other reason I post there is because when I have a problem with a
fan
> fiction, whining to the author or even being extremely polite and
commenting on
> a typo has blown up in my face. I wrote on author and went on for
pages about
> what I liked about a story and mentioned one or two minor grammar
things that
> didn't work. I got that shoved back in my face.
I see, so because you had ONE bad experience with sending an author
feedback, you think it is now appropriate to ridicule authors publically
instead because this way you are not personally singled out? Sad
really.
> Because of GATF, I've strengthened two of my on-line aquantneces to
geniune
> real life friendship and I've learned a lot. In fact, hell, most of
the time on
> the board we don't trash fic at all.
I'm very happy that your personal relationships are thriving and growing
but quite frankly, who cares? We have ALL met and bonded with people on
the internet via various groups. It's hardly a justification for being
rude and trying to pass it off as constructive criticism.
>I rarely see the page itself.
Well THAT'S a ringing endorsement! So basically it's a hit and run
thing, is that it? Instead of "gossiping" about these "horrible"
stories via e-mail and over the phone with your friends, you make it a
public lambasting. Yes, I can see where that would be preferrable (but
only for YOU).
>I would
> really love to, if I had the time, start one for fic in general and
for
> published stuff because man, I've read some real stinkers.
And haven't we all? My solution, however, is to either not read anymore
of that author's work or, in the case of fanfic, try to start a dialogue
with the author to find out if there is any desire for constructive
criticism. Otherwise, I move on!
> On the issue of "we all right for fun", erm, no. I know of a couple
of authors
> who write not for fun but to gain attention. That conflicts.
Besides, even if
> you are writing for fun, you should still be able to write basic
plots, spell
> check a story and use proper grammar. If you are writing Mary Sue
fun, then
> write for fun. GATF isn't advocating that you stop writing. If you
arewriting
> for fun, then leave it on your hard drive and don't let GATF see it.
Um, and how exactly is one supposed to accomplish that? If one posts to
ASC, presumably that story can be sent to GATF by anyone who reads it.
How, exactly, is one supposed to keep it from GATF's eyes? Post a
message as part of the author's notes saying: if you really hate this
story, please don't send it to GATF, send me an e-mail with your venting
instead? Um, I'm sorry, but that seems a bit ridiculous, don't you
think?
>Let the
> GATF reviewers have their fun too. Don't deny one group their right
too.
I have no wish to deny you your constitutional rights. You have as much
right to dislike, ridicule and post that opinion as I do or anyone else
who is a citizen of the United States (an assumption I am making since
you made the above statement first).
My problem is with your perpetuating this MYTH that it is some sort of
fabulous boon to authors whose stories appear on GATF as if you are
providing them some sort of service for which you should be thanked.
You aren't. You are providing yourselves with a venue to make fun of
stories you dislike intensely, that's it. If you truly wished to assist
these authors in improving their works, you would not be nearly as
obnoxious about it. Simply admit to what it is the page represents and
stop trying to behave as if you're being harrassed for no reason!
> Both
> parties can have fun.
Only if one of the writers sited on GATF is a masochist. Otherwise, my
guess would be that the people who contribute to GATF are the only ones
who are actually having fun.
>If the writers don't find GATF, then they can ignore it.
This is very true. And I do.
> Bsides, lots of cool people post to GATF and lurk their. Check it
out.
Oh, well, THERE'S some incentive! I'm desperate to be where the "cool"
people are!
Thanks! I think I'll pass.
Bevster (and yes, I WAS being snotty on purpose, perhaps giving you a
small taste of your own medicine - but all in FUN!!!!!)
Marlissa Campbell
>First off, GATF is nessary not for the writer. It is nessary for the fustrated
>reader. You have to realize that the intention of the site isn't for the
>author be helped. It's for the reader who reads another bad story
I have trouble with this argument too. I don't bother reading bad
stories. It's usually pretty obvious from the first few lines if a
story is a hopeless Mary Sue, or the writer can't put together a
complete sentence. I move on to something else. No frustration, and
hence no need to vent. I sure don't need a website to tell me about
all the bad stories so I can go and read them, and then...get
frustrated by all the bad stories.
Why are you spending so much time reading and reviewing stuff that
makes you gag? If there are other readers out there who love the
stories you think are trash, why shouldn't they enjoy them?
[snipped]
>ASC, from what I have been told my others, used to be a place where a writer
>could come in and get honest feedback and get help and actually improve. Hell,
>that type of atmosphere, I'd give my right eye for. Instead though, there is
>an air of non productivity. You rarely get an honest view or information that
>wil help you. Unless you're an established author or have a clique here, you
>won't get feedback or anythign constructive.
My impression is that most of the people who have posted a request for
beta readers--*before* posting the story--have been able to get the
help they asked for. I know it works at least some of the time,
because I've participated on both sides of the equation. Posting a
story and *then* whining about the lack of detailed, critical feedback
pouring in, OTOH, doesn't seem to work very well at all.
>Would you prefer that myself and my friends who read this stuff gossip about
>the story behind the scenes? *Laura picks up the phone* "Donna, man, I read
>the worst fic today. Mary Sue Whipple wrote it and it had this sex scene in it
>that made me want to gag. I couldn't finish it. I'd just as soon put a knife
>through my chest. Lord but it sucked. And it had such an interesting premise
>but the author ruined it all. Oh and to top it off, the thing had spellind
>errors and formatting errors. I wonder what they were smoking when they wrote
>it? Who ever their english teacher was, they should be shot. Hell, give me a
>gun and I'd do it myself."
Hmm, well, *yes*, IMHO--if the above is an accurate sample of what
you have to say, then it would be better to keep it as private
"gossip" among your like-minded friends.
> Yeah, okay. I see your point now. You'd much
>prefer for attitudes like that to (this is based on the assumption that not
>every piece is good and that some are truely god awful) be taken to the phone
>or private e-mail. Yes. Much more productive then say, should some one
>actually TELL the author that with a little work, they could improve.
Your comments above don't "tell the author that with a little work,
they could improve." Even the thickest-skinned writer appreciates
tact--not flattering lies, but _tact_.
>And if you have a low self esteem, then don't post. Really, don't post. If
>you need only positive feedback, then send it to your friends via e-mail
>because not everyone likes everything. If you are that insecure that a little
>thing like that can't be used as a growing experince, then you aren't ready to
>post. Really. Don't post. I don't wish a GATf review upon any one either
>but if I see a piece on the internet, I will naturally assume that the author
>has the self esteem to post it and that they can deal with it because anyone
>with a brain knows that YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
Of course, like everyone else, the GATF site can post whatever it
wants. But, as you say, not everyone will be pleased.
Marlissa
PythonTrek;Trek parodies; Trek humor links
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Network/6011/
DS9 fanfiction:
http://idt.net/~cpaddo19/denorios.html
Mary Sue Whipple
Jungle Kitty wrote in message <3839E5C5...@accesscom.com>...
>What I truly and honestly don't understand about the Godawful FanFic
>page is this: Writing fanfic is something we do for fun. None of us get
>paid for it. It's a creative endeavor that comes purely out of joy and,
>in most cases, the same is returned to the writer via feedback.
Oh I totally like agree and so does my sister Julie. I mean, my last story,
well my little fan fic beta reading group gave me 100 notes of feedback. I
could like e-mail them all like to you. I mean cause I've like scene your
feedback and you and um... like what my boy friend fiance Marcsays you might
like actually write like good stuff and like so do a bunch other thing sbut
I kindaa doubt that because I mean like like if the system worked like you
said ti should you should eb having fun with all the feedback but like I
don't read your stuff or BJCohcrana or any of those other readers... because
you get ZERO feedback. (this means to mean you are a loser writer and are
like you having fun? I wouldn't think so. ) I mean there are authors out
there that well, you know that bitch Laura says about them that they suck
air and shouldn't be allowed a pen and she goes around threatening to off
their english teachers because I know cause Julie told me so and she heard
from Cornith who heard from some one. Anyway, they are the best writers and
the only ones I read cause they get oodles of feedback like me! I bet they
have like lots of fun.
I'm gettign my name in a book cause I wrote a beautioful piece. no money but
my name in the printed press. in a year, look out! oh and if you could
count putting a zine together as getting paid... well I'm doing that.
> So I
>just don't understand why it is so important to these people (or to
>story flamers, in general) to take the fun out of it.
Oh you know those GATF bastards. They can't let me have my fun. How rotten
of them. I mean here they are like you know trashing work of my sister fan
fiction writers when they should really be trashing you cause you get no
feedback and are having no fun. ;-) NOT! But you know, they are probably
just lameos who have no lives and hate everything except nice long baths in
milk which I love too. I take baths in milk because the are so nice. Thjen
I have sex in a bath with Marc. It's so nice.
>I think the "writing for fun" is what separates fanfic from profic, more
>than the idea of pay, editorial restrictions, or quality of product.
Yeah dude! Totally agree! I don't give a shit what those GATf people say
about because like they are lameos and they wouldn't know good writing if it
bit them in the ass. in fact they wrote that slash shit./ I went
searching for that once and one of those idiots wrote a garak bashir slash.
That stuff is so morally repupsulive. Maybe that's why they only list het
stories.
Besides you have restrictions. I meabn if I sent my fan zine when I get it
done to braga I'm sure he'd happily shut down the whole fan fiction world
except for me becaus eI'm cute and I'd sleep with him.
>Many people use the comments and encouragement they receive to develop
>into better writers.
Oh yeah, like I totally forgot! KORI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WROTE THAT SEX
SCENE FOR YOU AND I LOVE DYOUR LATEST STORY! Write sex I haven't fingered
myself in a while.
Erm... improve? I don't think so. I get so much gobby good feedback
praising me to heaven why the heck would I wanna improve? I am like the
bestest writer in the world write now. I don't need to improve. If I
bneded to improve theb I am sure some onw ould tell me but no one ever does.
You're like living in a pipe dream doll face cause we don't need to improve.
>So it seems really ridiculous for some jerk(s) with
BUIRN THOSE FUCKERS LIKE THEY BURNED THE GREATEST FAN FCITION WRITERS IN THE
WRODL! TPRCH THEM! On aside note just ignore them cause like doll, you like
write slash and they are promtoing a slah agrenda and on top of it, you
sound bitchier then them but guess what? I still agree with you *hugs and
kisses*
>a webpage to go on a crusade against bad fanfic,
Gotta dmit though, the x-files page that's similar I've rolled in laughter .
laughed to tears.
> since it is so
>obviously not intended to be helpful in any way whatsoever.
I know! Let's go out there and slay them! End the bad philosphy! Silence
them.... *grumble*
> It is a
>disgusting attempt to impose the standards of a small group on the
>community and to get certain people to stop writing.
I'm with you sister!
> I don't care if
>they call it criticism; protesting the existence of the stories is
>censorship.
Dude, are you reading thesame thuin I am? They meerly say they suck. I
want to slay them for having an opinion that's different them mine and who
ever is louder wins!
>I also find it interesting that these same folk don't tell us what they
>consider to be "good" fanfic. And they won't. Because the problem with
>being a snob is that the minute you say, "I really liked such-and-such,"
>someone else can out-snob you by looking down their nose and sneering,
>"You liked that piece of crap?" Their page is not about fanfic; it's
>about their own self-important image.
I e-mailed them and like asked them and they told me that my fan fiction was
the only good fan fiction. :-) They have good tastes. did I tell you they
are the leader of my fan club? I have one. It cost $20 to join. Erm.. oh
yeah... that's kinda or.... but really, I e-mailed them and they said that
I was the best fan fiction writer and told me that they would help me to win
the ASC AWRDS! Dude, isn't that like the coolest? So there you go, I
defined good fan fiction for you. Just e-mail those pro-slash idiots and
ask (I forgive them for their moral error cause dude, they love me!
Mary Sue Whipple
Soon to sweep the ASC AWARDS IN EVERY CATEROGRY I AM ELGIBLE!
Mary Sue Whipple
Jungle Kitty wrote in message <383AC502...@accesscom.com>...
>boro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Okay, everybody, let's stop all this bloody chatter and get back to
>> what we're really here for--writing!
>
>I really don't want to start anything here, but I dislike it when
>someone posts something like this. My solution to threads I'm bored with
>or not interested in--don't read 'em. But please don't tell the rest of
>us to drop this or any topic. It will die on its own when it's run its
>course.
Me neither. Cause I agree with you. GATF has to go! and we need to launch
a campaign to do that because the minority is trying to say the sytem works
and the other minority is like... erm... em... well they are just saying I
suck and that HURTS MY FEELINGS! But I don't care what those iditos on GATF
say because Iw ill continue to put out fan fiction of all sorts.
Currently I am writing a sex story where chaskoty takes a wiz and htis the
wall cause he ain't got no self control in the morning in my quarters.
But really, when thet GATF people get bored.... they'll take dowm the site,
so you know... maybe we best shut up about the thing in hopes that they will
get the hint that we don't care and will shut up. I mean, aren't we like
totally givign those idiots what they want by feeding their massive egos?
Justa thought but I'm only... well for PTF I'm 29 but Marc knows I am 16
(cause that's legally how old you have to be to have sex) but I'm 13.
Mary Sue Whipple
The WHIPPLENATOR!
Mary Sue Whipple
Yahtzee63 wrote in message <19991122120359...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
>I hate pages like this.
OH MY GOD! I CHECKED YOUR IP ADDRESS and your from GATF!
TROLL!
Mary Sue Whipple
Mary Sue Whipple
Boadicea wrote in message <19991122220804...@ng-fn1.aol.com>...
>I too thought the criticism of GATF was very well put. Thank you.
>People who concentrate on the negative fill me with the desire to do the
same,
>perhaps to comment on things like:
>
But dudeliness, bodiecia dudeess, like dude, doesn't that make us hypocrits?
cause like we all hate GATF....
oph dear.....
I'm afraid my moral (or is that is imortal... you decide) soul is at
risk.... because dude... I feel I like a hypocrit...
DUDE! DAMNED YOU!
you've hurt my immoral imooral soul.
We hate people who hate people so doesn't that make us hypcroits?
OH... my 13 year old mind can't decide....
HELP!
MARY SUE WHIPPLE
Crying in england
off to have sex to make herself feel better
Mary Sue Whipple
Cheile wrote in message <3839EEA0...@cc.cc.ca.us>...
>Of course, I have more "first-hand" experience with them since a
>story I co-wrote was put up and blasted by them. I know how it got
>"nominated" in the first place (it's a long story so I won't bore the
>newsgroup with it), but suffice it to say it started from a personal
>argument that had nothing to do with my story--or my co-author for that
>matter.
Dude like I have never been in that postion because they love my stuff.
Though I gotta dmit, that bitch Laura did submit ALL my work. *grumble* She
hates me cause i got more feedback then her. It's not my fault I write good
stuff. *rolls eyes*
As for your personal problem, I know how to fix her. I have her phone
number and dad's e-mail address. All I have to do is show it to her.
Hey, e-mail me and I'll tell you how to get her back. I want her head to
because she got me in trouble with my school PS 69 by senidng my fan fic to
all the school system.
Besides, any one who worships the ground that David Weber, Peter David,
Pierce Brosnan and Gillian Anderson walk on.... well that just speaks
freak.... How could any one be so mean to you? *hugs*
Mary Sue Whipple
Lori
>>I'd prefer for ASC to be like it
>>sued to be, before the feedback of "you rock" or "Hey I liked your story
and in
>>the my next, I'll have that promised sex story out for you ;-)"
>
>There is a place for those comments, and this is it. There is a place for
>critical feedback, done right, and this is also it. The two are not
>mutually exclusive.
>
No, they aren't.
As a veteran of many, many online critique forums/lists, I offer the
following observations.
Nicely-put critiques are hard to take. It's tough to listen to someone
pointing out mistakes in a finished 'artwork', and writing is a labor of
love. Harsh, careless critiques crush a new writer like a bug.
It's not fair, but it's really easy to whip out a careless critique and
takes effort to create a really useful one. And I'd say a majority of the
folks in any given group will not understand how to critique. This is the
primary concern of most people who join my writer's group. They're afraid of
critiquing because they're afraid of a negative reaction, and don't think
about how nervous the writer was in just putting their work out for review.
Read Stephen's FAQ on the mannerly art of critique. Read
http://www.sfwa.org/writing/hc_critique.htm which is directed toward those
critiquing with publishing as a goal. Fanfic is different in that it will
never be published, but some fanfic authors would love to receive a critique
as though they were writing for publication.
If anyone who is writing G - R rated non-slash wishes such a critique as I
mention above, and indicates it in their headers, I shall endeavor to do so.
As for the Godawful Trek Fic site -- the name says it all. They don't intend
to give useful critiques to anyone. The name in itself is insulting and
demeaning to the authors who see their work torn apart at that site. As
others have pointed out, there are ways of giving brutally-honest critiques
without being insulting, snobbish or rude.
Lori
Laura
>There is a lot of less than perfect fanfic. As far as I know, one can choose
>not to read it.
>
This logic fails me to a degree. I have read a lot of things, pro and novice,
internet published and paper published.
Not everything I have read has been great and a lot of it, I really would
rather not have read but for various reasons I have.
Among the things I have read that are not what I would normal by their
defintion quailfy as good are slash stories, accounting text books, unfamiliar
authors, moby dick and other selected classics.
By being forced to read them through obligations to upkeep my grades, at the
pressure of friends, out of a geniune desire to increase my exposure to a more
ecletic selection of material, to find out what all the hoopla, I've grown
personally. I've learned a great deal more about the world that I would not
have known otherwise. Heck, I even enjoy reading certain slash stories. I've
aquired a greater apprecation for accountants. My horizons have broadened
exponetially because I didn't set a bad piece of work, something that conflicts
with my tastes, to the side and only read stuff I was known an familiar with.
To say that you should pass on things that you don't like... well, in my
opinion that's stifling yourself and making your world smaller. I would not be
the person I am if I hadn;t sludged through Moby Dick, read War and Peace, read
my 6th grade history book.
So, really, by saying that should just pass on stuff that you view as bad,
seems to me to be asking the person to narrow their world view and not be
willing to accept different ideas.
>
>but of course, I wouldn't do that. Unless, of course, the author had asked me
>to do so. Or had stated a desire to learn more about writing and a belief in
>the salutary effects of criticism.
Yes, but some authors do ask for feedback on ASC. "Feedback please, be
constructive" can be interpretted as on open ended soliciation on the part of
the author to recieve some kind of note from the general reading public as how
they regard their piece. The fact that many authors do ask for that sort of
thing and then act our of righteous indigation when they get that, well it's
why no one gives feedback.
Joyce Harmon
Laura wrote:
> >
> >There is a lot of less than perfect fanfic. As far as I know, one can choose
> >not to read it.
> >
>
> To say that you should pass on things that you don't like... well, in my
> opinion that's stifling yourself and making your world smaller. I would not be
> the person I am if I hadn;t sludged through Moby Dick, read War and Peace, read
> my 6th grade history book.
>
> So, really, by saying that should just pass on stuff that you view as bad,
> seems to me to be asking the person to narrow their world view and not be
> willing to accept different ideas.
>
Sorry, I couldn't let this pass unremarked. I've read Moby Dick. Moby Dick was a
friend of mine. And lousy fanfic is *not* Moby Dick!
I just have trouble with the concept that by not reading poorly written fanfic, or
fanfic in a genre that we dislike, we're somehow 'narrowing our world view'.
Would it also be true that we're narrowing our world view if we fail to read every
book in the bookstore and library, and see every movie ever made?
I support people's right to write and post fanfic, any fanfic, even the worst and
lousiest fanfic in the world. But to make the claim that I'm a narrow-minded
person if I don't *read* it all is really taking it too far. You have the right to
write and to post. You do *not* have the right to insist that I *read* what you
wrote, or to cast aspersions on me if I choose not to.
Life is too short to read bad fanfic.
Joyce
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:50:45 -0500
> From: wolfen <wol...@together.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Organization: Together Networks - Burlington, VT.
>
> For the record, I like the God Awful Trek site. Things here on ASC are
> just a little too touchy, feely, politically correct sometimes. And as
> for the 'let's be nice' nazi's...come on all, it's just for fun. It may
> not be your type of fun, but hey, they never promised you it would be.
> If you don't like what GATF stands for, don't read it.
>
> IMO, GATF fill a niche in our little corner of the fanfic world. It may
> be benthic in nature, but necessary none the less. And I, for one, am
> glad it's there.
>
> Casual Lurker of GATF
>
> wolfen
>
I invoke Godwin.
--laura
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: Wildcat <wildc...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:05:00 -0500
> Organization: InfiNet
>
> Laura wrote:
>
> > The other reason I post there is because when I have a problem with a fan
> > fiction, whining to the author or even being extremely polite and commenting on
> > a typo has blown up in my face. I wrote on author and went on for pages about
> > what I liked about a story and mentioned one or two minor grammar things that
> > some one reads crap, well we all need to vent. GATF provides a forum for like
> > minded indivudals to vent.
>
> Sorry, but this doesn't work for me. The last thing I want to do is
> start an argument, especially since you've been very reasonable with
> your reply, but I want to comment on this. If you tried to offer
> constructive criticism and the writer didn't like it, that's the
> writer's loss and the writer's problem. You took the high road
> originally; why did you let some ungrateful clod drag you down? It
> boggles my mind that a writer would react like that. I'm not saying
> that he or she didn't--actually, from what I've heard, it happens far
> too often. But what I don't understand is how you see this as an
> alternate way to offer feedback. Do you think that a writer is going to
> like it any better, this way? It almost makes it sound as if you're out
> for revenge, but from your tone I don't think that's true.
>
>
> > If you arewriting
> > for fun, then leave it on your hard drive and don't let GATF see it.
>
> JV? What about you other writers who are participating in this thread?
> Who *doesn't* write for fun? Why write if it's not fun? And isn't it
> much *more* fun to share it with others? I don't understand this at
> all.
Man, I would come across this reply *after* I invoked Godwin.
Since I was invoking a corollary to the Law that I don't really like,
I'll just ignore my invocation...
Sure, I write for fun. I also write when I get writer's block on my
original fiction (I get a lot of writer's block). I just happen to be
so chock-full of talent that...
Nevermind, that was my ego getting in the way.
Let me put it this way.
I rarely use betas, and I don't spellcheck. I also am very hard to bend
out of shape with criticism. Well-intentioned crit is taken seriously;
mean-spirited crit is giggled at. (You should see some of the LOCs I
get for JarJar Binks slash. Hey, it's not *my* fault these people are
totally squicked by long tongues.) I also happen to realize that I'm a
much better speller than most people, and that I happen to have a knack
for voice--I mostly write in first-person--and that I have a reasonably
thick hide and a very keen awareness of the difference between myself
and my work.
I'm well aware that I'm abnormally detached from my work. (Well, except
"Remembrance" and "To Live and Die Honorably", both of which mean an
awful lot to me--and for the same reasons, incidentally, which is
slightly odd.)
I'm also well aware that betas are invaluable. I use them when I think
I need them, and they're the most helpful, wonderful things on the
planet. I should use them more often, but I'm kind of arrogant. (Also,
they always try to interfere with my dreamlike fugue-states. For most
of what I write, I *want* the dreamlike fugue state. I'm all about
dreamlike fugue states. I can fugue in my slee...er, sorry.)
And I still think the GATF folks are out of line and mean. It's much
more useful to write a serious essay on the subject, rather than ripping
poor little innocent writers--who may just be getting their sea legs,
for God's sake--to pieces.
Just because *I* am rhino-hided doesn't mean that I'm insensitive to the
needs of people who aren't.
Just because I happen to write reasonably well doesn't mean that I'm
insensitive to those who don't.
(And, for pity's sake, we don't even know if the GATF folks can write;
we have only their word on it.)
--laura
BJCochran
>
>benthic: 1. of, relating to, or occurring on the bottom underlying a
>body of water <mud dwelling~mollusks> 2. of, relating to, or occurring
>in the depths of the ocean or the bottom underlying these depths.
>
>I was recalling a word from Zoology. Benthic, as in bottom feeders. And
>guys at GATF, I mean that in a good way :) Like I said, it's a niche,
>and you have filled it.
>
>Does my use of the word make more sense to you now?
>
>wolfen
Yes, it does.
Bridget
"listen: there's a hell of a good universe next door; let's go."
--e.e. cummings
Wildcat
> One of the things that Wildcat emphasized in her post that one of the fun
> things about writing was getting feedback.
Whoops! That isn't what I meant, and since it's an important
distinction, I'll try to make myself more clear.
What I meant was that *writing* is fun. Feedback is just a very nice
bonus.
Wildcat
wolfen
Next time I'll just use the word fascist instead of nazi.
wolfen
Micaela Harris
folks are doing here. I can speak from experience.
I wrote my first Trek fic earlier this year. I had no writing
experience whatsoever, had no idea what a beta reader was - so
neededless to say COMMAND DECISIONS left a lot to be desired. But I
received no flames, only encouragement. It was that encouragement that
inspired me to keep writing and improving my craft.
Instead of being critical of my mistakes and inexperience, a very
special and kind person here read my story and contacted me privately
concerning it. This person commended my efforts and my ideas and very
tactfully showed me the errors that are common with new writers. The
same person offered their valuable time to help me learn the mechanics
of good writing and I hungrily accepted.
At first, my ego was deflated when I saw how pitiful my writing
structure really was (I came to this conclusion myself - the friend
would have never said so). But I decided to learn from the mistakes,
listen to the counsel and improve where I could. I realize that I still
have a long way to go, but I and others can see the improvement in my
writing.
I still work with my mentor on each story and now have the best beta
reader around (IMHO). In fact we are doing a complete revision of that
first story and I will be posting it soon. I would apprecite feedback
on it as well.
My point here is that if I had been put down or found my stories on the
web site in question, I would have been hurt and discouraged beyond
belief and probably would have never written again. Instead, I am now
going back to college at age 30 to study creative writing in hopes of
becoming a professional author in the future. I owe this all to the
thoughtful people who encouraged me instead of being critical. I owe
the most thanks to the dear person who came to my rescue and has become
a great friend.
So I am not 'coming down' on those that have the GATF site. That is
their personal business, but I do hope they re-think what they are doing
to people's lives. It isn't just a game or a joke. There are real
people and real feelings behind the stories here. Please think about
how you would feel if the situation was reversed. Maybe you could give
these folks some much needed writing assistance like someone did for me
instead of making fun and putting them down. Your time and efforts
would be much better spent and you might just be blessed in return.
Thanks for your time,
Micaela Harris
Seth E. Cartwright
criticism, and mine has always been met well. I'm sorry if there are
those of you who've had the few bad apples in the bunch. :)
Sethro/Shomizu
Julie Whipple
heaven. how could you write those things about your stories? Ever
heard of a spell checker. a dictionary??
every time you give me your stories to beta read and i tell you what's
wrong and how to fix them you blow me off. And you are still repeating
the same mistakes.
I don't beleive in any of that crap you are spouting and none of it
makes sense.
Tsk, Tsk, shame on you, lying about your age, i know you are only 10
years old and having sex?? Wait till i tell mom.
Goes to find her insane sister to beat some sense in her.
Laura
I perchance mistook what you said.
Interpreation two.
You said pass on all the fan fic that I know, as a general rule of thumb I
hate. As a rule, I generally read j/7, j, and p/t fan fiction. I know, as a
rule of thumb that 2/3 of the stuff in those batches I will hate because of
poor plot, insipid characterizations, Mary Sues and other things.
So, knowing I really dislike 2/3 of that but love 1/3 of what I read... I'll
pass on EVERY p/t, j, j/7 fan fiction I read because there is a chance of
greater then 50% that I'll hate it.
One of the things that Wildcat emphasized in her post that one of the fun
things about writing was getting feedback.
But the problem is, I've realized I am not reading any fan fiction. Others
dong the same thing as me following the logic of if there is a greater then 50%
chance it will be bad, then why read it... well... that means no one is reading
the stories put out by authors. That reduces the fun. No feedback.
So... The question is should I risk reading stuff and committing to reading
bad stuff all the way through in hopes of running across that 33% that rules or
just not read it any fan fic at all?
Eliza1701A
i have one thing to say to this. Most news readers don't have a spell check.
Nor are a lot of people good typists.
There is a big difference between posting a message on a board and posting a
story.
If you are going to post a story please do a spell check and a grammar check.
this is something that you have worked hard on and want everyone to see your
labor of love and be proud of it.
Sometimes when i post a message i may not get all the mistakes but i do try.
But if it is only a quick line to a friend or and opinion i sometimes don't
bother because it is understood by most people that you will make typos
especially when one tries to type fast.
Stephen Ratliff
Hmmm, Godwin's Law hasn't been envolked on ASC since 1997. Godwin's Law,
for those that don't know, says that any time Hitler or Nazis are mentioned
on a thread, the thread immediately dies, because it's no longer possible
to have meaningful discussion on that topic.
Marlissa Campbell
>>
>>There is a lot of less than perfect fanfic. As far as I know, one can choose
>>not to read it.
>>
>
>This logic fails me to a degree. I have read a lot of things, pro and novice,
>internet published and paper published.
>
>Not everything I have read has been great and a lot of it, I really would
>rather not have read but for various reasons I have.
>
>Among the things I have read that are not what I would normal by their
>defintion quailfy as good are slash stories, accounting text books, unfamiliar
>authors, moby dick and other selected classics.
>
>By being forced to read them through obligations to upkeep my grades, at the
>pressure of friends, out of a geniune desire to increase my exposure to a more
>ecletic selection of material, to find out what all the hoopla, I've grown
>personally. I've learned a great deal more about the world that I would not
>have known otherwise. Heck, I even enjoy reading certain slash stories. I've
>aquired a greater apprecation for accountants. My horizons have broadened
>exponetially because I didn't set a bad piece of work, something that conflicts
>with my tastes, to the side and only read stuff I was known an familiar with.
>
>To say that you should pass on things that you don't like... well, in my
>opinion that's stifling yourself and making your world smaller. I would not be
>the person I am if I hadn;t sludged through Moby Dick, read War and Peace, read
>my 6th grade history book.
>
>So, really, by saying that should just pass on stuff that you view as bad,
>seems to me to be asking the person to narrow their world view and not be
>willing to accept different ideas.
You seem to be equating objective criteria for evaluating a work as
good or bad with whether or not you found it to your personal taste.
Not the same thing at all. Disliking _Moby Dick_ or _War and Peace_
(or slash fanfic, for that matter) is your prerogative. Concluding
that they are "bad" because *you* didn't like them, is...laughable.
If they were really bad, your horizons would not have been broadened
by reading them.
>>but of course, I wouldn't do that. Unless, of course, the author had asked me
>>to do so. Or had stated a desire to learn more about writing and a belief in
>>the salutary effects of criticism.
>
>Yes, but some authors do ask for feedback on ASC. "Feedback please, be
>constructive" can be interpretted as on open ended soliciation on the part of
>the author to recieve some kind of note from the general reading public as how
>they regard their piece. The fact that many authors do ask for that sort of
>thing and then act our of righteous indigation when they get that, well it's
>why no one gives feedback.
Agreed--or at least agreed that that's a big part of why public
feedback, or rather public attempts to offer constructive criticism,
are so rare.
Ronda
So do I. I let them know how much I hate their page at their message
board every chance I get.
Ronda
--
List Mom to Spockand...@onelist.com
Visit our webpage at:
http://home.talkcity.com/ChaplinCt/spockandchristine/index.html
Ronda
wildc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Very well said! I find the Godawful Trek page painful and
> mean-spirited, and I can't imagine how anyone could think that it's
> cute, clever, or beneficial in any way. I agree with you one hundred
> percent.
>
> Wildcat
>
I agree with you 100%, Wildcat!!!
Let them know what you think more directly by visiting their message
board at:
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb521215&TL=927104
255
Ronda
Ronda
pdre...@aol.comMSW (Laura) wrote:
> > I know how it got
> >"nominated" in the first place (it's a long story so I won't bore the
> >newsgroup with it), but suffice it to say it started from a personal
> >argument that had nothing to do with my story--or my co-author for
that
> >matter.
> >
>
matter?
> The story needed work. The plot wasn't all that great and the holes
in it
> large. What's wrong with thinking that an expressing that?
>
> Laura
> Laura Michelle Hale --
Your so called opinion of Cheile's story is severely colored by your
feelings towards her. Your ability to judge stories is questionable at
best. Anyone who writes an entire story based on Tom Paris' nose, which
by the way was posted here to ASC, needs to work on her own skills prior
to putting down others. In fact the story to which Cheile refers to was
a good story. I am definitely not a Titantic fan, and I enjoyed it.
I did an author search of your postings to ASC. The majority of your
posts consisted of attacks on other people.
Ronda
pdre...@aol.comMSW (Laura) wrote:
With 11 spelling errors in this post you have no room to talk about NOT
using spell check.
There were also errors with grammar.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Shattered
glass is hard to clean up.
Ronda
stephen...@crosswinds.net (Stephen Ratliff) wrote:
>
Sniped some.........
> I have two objections to GATF:
>
> 1) Their review style is one that only hurts, and does not explain
why.
> The langauge chosen in their reviews only causes anger, leading to any
good
> advice they may have being lost in it's haze.
>
> 2) They've been told not to link directly to the ASC Archive stories,
and
> are still doing so.
>
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen Ratliff
Wonderfully well written, Stephen. I think you stated the case
perfectly!
***Ronda high fives Stephen!!!!****
Stephen Ratliff
>> > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:50:45 -0500
>> > From: wolfen <wol...@together.net>
>> > Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
>> > Organization: Together Networks - Burlington, VT.
>> >
>> > For the record, I like the God Awful Trek site. Things here on ASC are
>> > just a little too touchy, feely, politically correct sometimes. And as
>> > for the 'let's be nice' nazi's...come on all, it's just for fun. It may
>> > not be your type of fun, but hey, they never promised you it would be.
>> > If you don't like what GATF stands for, don't read it.
>> >
>> > IMO, GATF fill a niche in our little corner of the fanfic world. It may
>> > be benthic in nature, but necessary none the less. And I, for one, am
>> > glad it's there.
>> >
>> > Casual Lurker of GATF
>> >
>> > wolfen
>> >
>>
>> I invoke Godwin.
>>
>
>
>Next time I'll just use the word fascist instead of nazi.
>
Trying to avoid Godwin doesn't help. You'll just run into the "fascist"
extension.
Stephen
--
Stephen Ratliff Alt.StarTrek.Creative's Very Busy Man.
FAQ Maintainer http://www.crosswinds.net/~stephenratliff/FAQs
Index Maintainer: http://www.crosswinds.net/~stephenratliff/ascindex
Personal Works: http://www.crosswinds.net/~stephenratliff/works
Ronda
"Mary Sue Whipple" <ms_we...@hotmail.com> wrote:
For those of you who may be unaware, Mary Sue Whipple is actually Laura
Michelle Hale and some of her "clique" that hang out at GAF Message
Board.
As I stated previously, I let GAF know what I think of them at their
message board.
Funny thing is when Laura posted a very rude, vulgar post to the GAF
Board, it "mysteriously" disappeared. Seems it was in violation of
Inside the Web's TOS to post in such a manner on ITW boards.
Ronda
yaht...@aol.com (Yahtzee63) wrote:
> I agree that there is too little genuine criticism in the fanfic
world. That
> said, the appropriate means of delivering most constructive criticism
is
> privately, in an one-on-one communication. This is partly a matter of
not
> hurting anyone's feelings, but more importantly, it guarantees that
the message
> is heard and understood by the author.
>
> This is public ridicule for amusement. If you're going to indulge in
it, nobody
> can stop you, but don't pretend to be on some crusade for good
writing.
>
> Yahtzee
>
A very valid point, Yahtzee. GAF seeks only to ridicule and put down
others. We have yet to see them display the courage of their
convictions by revealing their true identities. I would not be
surprised to learn that they have written no fan fic at all.
And, Laura, before you begin your assertions of how do we know it is
not............and begin naming names of some of the "fan fic greats,"
you've said it before, and no one gives any credence to your rumors.
Gamin Davis
<8E86E0499trxph...@news.mindspring.com>:
>Wolfen, you know how much I love you, hon, but I have to disagree with
>you on this. I can't see how making fun of someone's writing efforts
>*publicly* can be termed "necessary." And as for ASC being "too touchy,
>feely," I prefer civil, mature discussion rather than flame wars. ASC
>is like a refuge compared to other newsgroups in this respect.
Same here. Holding up someone's story to public humiliation is, I
assure you, only "fun" for the person doing the humiliating, and IMO an
entire website devoted just to that is in very bad taste. But some people
do find bad taste fun <shrug>. I don't.
>Yes, I agree. If you don't like GATF, don't visit the site. But just
>knowing that it's out there turns my stomach and makes me angry. I was
>not blessed with high self-esteem as a child and teen, and when I was
>young, I was sometimes targeted by those who were "only having fun" --
>at my expense. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I've had the same experiences and I can sympathize.
>In *my* opinion, I think those at GATF still have some maturing to do.
I haven't been there, but I think the premise for the website is
completely misguided, at best; at worst, it comes dangerously close to what
I would consider hate-mongering. Otherwise why would it be necessary to
post this "real criticism" publicly? Do they somehow think it's more
effective than E-mailing it privately?
I may go there just to make sure nothing of mine is posted there, but
I don't like the idea of such a website existing at all.
Gamin
eliz...@my-deja.com
Ronda <rond...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <19991123105236...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> pdre...@aol.comMSW (Laura) wrote:
>
> With 11 spelling errors in this post you have no room to talk about
NOT
> using spell check.
Who cares? Most newsreaders don't have spell checkers or grammar
checkers.
The thing most people should be concerned about is when they go to post
a story for public consumption that it is gramatically and spelled
correctly.
i ususally try to check my posts before i send them, but then again i
am a lousy typist.
> People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Shattered
> glass is hard to clean up.
And we know all about that don't we Ronda??
eliz...@my-deja.com
Feedback and it had nothing to do with laura hating cheile and telling
everyone her story wasn't good.
The simple fact it wasn't. The plot holes are big enough to fly
Voyager and several of the enterprises through it.
You wouldn't know good fanfiction if it bit you in the ass. Perfect
example one of your stories that i read was awful. Though you didn't
like my opinion of it and then called me names and insulted my
intelligence. of course i had to retaliate but then you had pissed me
off. Most likley you think because i hate you or something,but this
was even before i got to know you, it was a stinker.
Oh and i know my grammar sucks, i will freely admit to it. That is why
i have several beta readers.
In article <81fr2e$3uo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
eliz...@my-deja.com
Ronda <rond...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <81ets1$ffb$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu>,
> "Mary Sue Whipple" <ms_we...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> For those of you who may be unaware, Mary Sue Whipple is actually
Laura
> Michelle Hale and some of her "clique" that hang out at GAF Message
> Board.
Why must you always point out the obvious??? everyone knew that in the
beginning. Besides it isn't just Laura who writes MSW stories everyone
on that board has contributed to those stories in some way. This has
been pointed out to you on GATF several times. Are you dense??
if anyone wants to know what i am talking about i suggest that you
visit the message board and read the threads before they disappear.
> As I stated previously, I let GAF know what I think of them at their
> message board.
>
> Funny thing is when Laura posted a very rude, vulgar post to the GAF
> Board, it "mysteriously" disappeared. Seems it was in violation of
> Inside the Web's TOS to post in such a manner on ITW boards.
And we are sick of you coming there and harrasing everyone with your
short sightness.
acutally gatf has said they will never remove any posts no matter what
the content. Everyone there is allowed to express them selves freely.
It was a computer glitch, i have seen posts disappear and sometimes
reappear.
The best is when you click to send the message and it comes up several
times.
eliz...@my-deja.com
> A very valid point, Yahtzee. GAF seeks only to ridicule and put down
> others.
Well then i think we better start a posse and go after movie, tv and
play critics, not to mention the news media and the newspapers and any
other form of media that critizes a persons work.
Thanks to gatf i have avoided many stinkers along the way, though had i
known about them sooner i could of avoided the ones that i did read.
I equate GaTf to a book and movie critic, though most times i won't
listen to the critc and go see for myslef. usually nine times out of
ten they are on the money. And i wished i had saved mine.
We have yet to see them display the courage of their
> convictions by revealing their true identities.
Excuse me?? Ummm...... I seem to remember several months back that you
were posting anonymously and insulting everyone on that board. Until
they outed you. You didn;t seem to have the courage back then. i think
if no one had found out who you were, you would still be posting nasty
messages the board.
Why should they reveal themselves so people like you can flame them to
death and the report them to theri isps for being rude and linking to
other sites?
You also made a fool of yourself about a couple of weeks ago when you
posted a message about the gaf identities.
I pulled this off of Gatf message board. If anyone is interested you
should check out the thread so you know i am not making this up.
http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?
acct=mb521215&MyNum=940993561&P=No&TL=940993561
>>With some qiuck lessons from a computer tech, I did a little research.
I used the IP numerical code from GAF's post to trace it. They
use Anonmizer http://www.anonymizer.com/3.0/index.shtml to cover
themselves.
Interestingly enough, so do some posters here. A coincidence??
Perhaps it is. But, it is also strong circumstancial evidence.
Many of us have wondered who these people are, as well as what
their qualifications are.
I will not reveal the names on the board who use the service,
other than the offical GAF posts. That information is easily found with
the proper computer
commands. <<
wow you are such a genius. i also had told you in another post that a
lot of people use those services to keep their privacy and prevent
spam. i thought about using one of those services my self becasue i am
tired of all the junk mail and blocking it doesn't help.
You have no evidence of any sort. Even if you find out their identies
one day you may be surprised as to who they are.
Don't get the impression that i know who they are becasue i don't. I
am a bit curious my self, but i won't go digging about to find out who
they are.
>I would not be
> surprised to learn that they have written no fan fic at all.
And if they have do you really think they would advertise it? So what
you can say nasty things about there stories and flame that to becasue
you don't like what they stand for??
I think people need to develop a thick skin because in the real world
you need to. Not everyone you meet will kiss the ground that you walk
on.
I also beleive that everyone has the right to freely expressly
themselves how ever they want. You seem not to follow that rule,
though you have stated that several times on the message board that you
do believe in it. You couldn;t prove that to me, because if you did
you wouldn't be trying to shut down gatf and blast everyone who likes
that site for what they stand for.
eliz...@my-deja.com
Ronda <rond...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I agree with you 100%, Wildcat!!!
>
> Let them know what you think more directly by visiting their message
> board at:
>
> http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?
acct=mb521215&TL=927104
> 255
Thanks for the advertisement, the board has been very quiet lately. i
am up for a good debate. i do hope everyone drops by, we need some
fresh meat.
eliz...@my-deja.com
Ronda <rfse...@computron.net> wrote:
> In article <19991122120359...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
> yaht...@aol.com (Yahtzee63) wrote:
> > I hate pages like this.
> >
>
> So do I. I let them know how much I hate their page at their message
> board every chance I get.
>
BJCochran
>Michelle Hale and some of her "clique" that hang out at GAF Message
>Board.
Thanks, but I think we figured it out.
>As I stated previously, I let GAF know what I think of them at their
>message board.
>
Frankly, I wouldn't bother going to the message board, if this whole ordeal is
any evidence of what one would find there.
This whole episode, as someone put it to me *privately*, has the ear marks of
a very spoiled 2 year old throwing a tantrum in a grocery store --so people
will watch.
Sad really.
But fun to watch her self-destruct.
BJCochran
jat_sa...@my-deja.com
> Your so called opinion ... Your ability to judge stories ... Anyone
who writes an entire story ... needs to work on her own skills
prior
> to putting down others. ... The majority of your
> posts consisted of ...
Oh boy. I'm beginning to get why it's called "Godwin's *Law*."
Breathe deeply, Ronda. Count to some very high number. Stop posting ad
hominem attacks.
Jane
(I'm not even a doctor; I just play one when I delurk.)
Starmei
>Michelle Hale and some of her "clique" that hang out at GAF Message
>Board.
I was going to stay out of this but am I wrong to think this is troll
behaviour. Come on!!! The site sounds pretty stupid. Never been there and don't
intend to. If I don't like a story I don't continue reading it. Pretty simple.
Don't need anyone telling me what to do about it.
What I really enjoyed reading concerning this thread is what feedback writers
would like. I was reading a story where the writer posted she was new to this
and please be easy on the criticism. That made a lot of sense to me.
Hey I know...before each story is posted why not have a confidence level posted
or at least a rating as to how tough your skin is <BG> That way we the readers
know how honest you want us to be. Or cruel or devasting or ....well can it be
gushing feedback once in a while? <VBG>
Hopefully not stepping into some doodoo
Monica
Arthur Kraft
have ever run across on the net. I once posted a trekfic here in ASC
long time ago and even though I gotten one or two positive feedbacks,
the majority were negative and one downright hostile.
I'm a person with mulitiple disabilities and has Learning Comphrension
Difficulty (LCD). Negative feedback tends to discourage me from
participating in writing/posting online. After seeing this site, I did
not want to take the risk if my new trekfic should end up on this
site. Hence my discision to revert back to lurker mode and forget
about posting to ASC.
(Even though my confidence level is back up, I do not want to take the
risk of having someone calling my trekfic "a god-awful trekfic").
TTYL
>On 24 Nov 1999 07:10:32 GMT, sta...@aol.com (Starmei) wrote:
> >For those of you who may be unaware, Mary Sue Whipple is actually Laura
>>Michelle Hale and some of her "clique" that hang out at GAF Message
>>Board.
>
>I was going to stay out of this but am I wrong to think this is troll
>behaviour. Come on!!! The site sounds pretty stupid. Never been there and don't
>intend to. If I don't like a story I don't continue reading it. Pretty simple.
>Don't need anyone telling me what to do about it.
>
>What I really enjoyed reading concerning this thread is what feedback writers
>would like. I was reading a story where the writer posted she was new to this
>and please be easy on the criticism. That made a lot of sense to me.
>
------
Arthur Kraft
AKraft's Information Systems
Homepage: http://users.intermediatn.net/akraftsinfosys/akraftsinfosys.htm
My Yahoo Profile: http://profiles.yahoo.com/EArthurK_III
Yahoo Instant Messenger Screen/User Name: EArthurK_III
Mark Stanley
>
> > A very valid point, Yahtzee. GAF seeks only to ridicule and put down
> > others.
>
> Well then i think we better start a posse and go after movie, tv and
> play critics, not to mention the news media and the newspapers and any
> other form of media that critizes a persons work.
>
*Good* professional critics can give a negative review without
ridiculing their subject. The critics at GATF are neither good nor
professional. (The same can be said about some of the work they review,
but there's a respectful and insightful way to say so.)
> Thanks to gatf i have avoided many stinkers along the way, though had i
> known about them sooner i could of avoided the ones that i did read.
>
So you can't tell a story's bad unless someone insults it? I'm very
sorry. (I'm not being sarcastic there -- I *am* sorry.)
> I equate GaTf to a book and movie critic, though most times i won't
> listen to the critc and go see for myslef. usually nine times out of
> ten they are on the money. And i wished i had saved mine.
>
I might agree with you if their reviews spent less time insulting the
work (and the author) and more time analysing what's wrong with it.
However, as it stands I would compare them to the movie reviewer at my
local cable access station, not Siskel (God rest) and Ebert.
>
> Why should they reveal themselves so people like you can flame them to
> death and the report them to theri isps for being rude and linking to
> other sites?
>
Personally, I don't care who they are. Lots of people who write fiction
use pseudonyms too, and it doesn't affect the quality of their art.
One does have to remember, though, that just as writing is an art, so is
criticism. People have just as much right to object to the quality of
the GATF reviews as the GATF reviewers do to object to the quality of a
given piece of fan fiction.
>
> >I would not be
> > surprised to learn that they have written no fan fic at all.
>
Once again, I don't really care whether they've written anything, or how
good it is. Roger Ebert wrote a screenplay once -- it was a piece of
tripe, and he freely acknowledges that. But if you've ever bought a book
of his collected essay-length reviews, you'll know that he deserved his
Pulitzer. He is insightful and interesting, and thought I do not agree
with many of his reviews, he always makes me think about something
different, and he has even changed my mind about a film more than once.
There's a feedbacker on this very group who does something similar. Her
name is Pamela, and AFAIK she's never written anything but her crit.
(We're working on her, though.) However, her insight and professionalism
has led (I'm not sure whether here or on ASCEM) to a call for a 'Best
Feedbacker' category in the annual awards. I believe she comments on
everything she reads, good or bad. When she has something negative to
say she is tactful and helpful. Her comments frequently encourage others
to read the story she comments on.
She does not feedback 'friends' within a clique, though responding to
her excellent comments can lead to a friendship with her.
She *thinks* about how negative comments will affect an author, and
tries her best to construct, not destruct.
In my opinion, this is how feedback should be. Even negative feedback.
*Especially* negative feedback. I know it's frustrating to send crit
only to get no response, or a hurt/angry response. But is lowering
oneself to anger really better?
It might be fine in private. I've done my share of "Oh God, that was
execrable!" in private email. But if GATF wants to do public criticism
of stories, they leave themselves as open to the evaluation of their art
as fiction writers do.
Mark
--
mrs...@sk.sympatico.ca
ICQ# 51278836
NightShadow
>I hate pages like this.
I'd like to finally come out of the wood-work and say a few things
that have been eating at me.
First, keeping this discussion up does all kinds of things for a wide
variety of people. Most certainly, it serves as free advertising for
the site in question. From what I can tell, the general concensus is
that the site is considerably frowned upon and is therefore not
recommended to the majority of people who use this newsgroup. A good
way to insure that further agitation doesn't arise is to either stop
talking about the site itself or focus on the real topic at heart
here.
And that brings me to a second point: what's at the bottom line? In my
honest opinion, it's not that there is a group of people expressing
their distaste for bad fanfic. It's that people's toes (readers and
writers alike) are being stepped upon like grapes and people are being
forced to question their own taste in comparison to others. Us human
beings, we don't very much like others telling us what we do and don't
like... for that matter, we get downright snitty when people tell us
what we SHOULD and shouldn't like.
Another point to be made here is that most of the "examples" of bad
fic that's being presented to the public is stuff that was done by a
writer a) a long time ago and who has since learned how to write
better fanfic or b) fairly recently, who has yet to understand how to
write effectively. It's been said time and again that experience is
the best teacher. If someone ends up having the misfortune of writing
bad fanfic, and then they get blasted for it and ridiculed, experience
will teach them that writing fanfic poorly is all they're capable of.
If the goal truly is to help inexperienced writers write better, then
the best thing to do is to lead them by the hand through each step of
their work and say, "Here is where you went wrong in purely technical
terms of writing. If you need a beta reader, here are some people who
can help or even I might proof some stuff for you." At the very least,
if the story itself is poorly written, but the idea seems interesting,
then say so honestly and add something like, "Your idea is intriguing,
but I personally think that you might do better to have a co-writer.
Some people are good at dreaming up stuff, but it's a whole different
ball game to actually bring the dream to reality. Your work still
seems like it's in the dream stage. Find someone to help your dream
come true. Ask around."
The whole basis of constructive criticism is to BUILD people up (hence
the use of "construct"). To rag on a person about their work only
serves to tear them down. There's no honor or kindness in the effort,
either. Malice is at the heart of criticism that has no positive
direction.
If fanfic that's written poorly is really that annoying to a person,
it's in THAT PERSON'S best interest, as a reader, to let the writer
know personally instead of airing their grievances out to the world.
Opening a personal dialogue with that writer can do wonders both for
future stories by that author and the reader. The writer gets insight
to what works and what doesn't and the reader might glean some ideas
about where the writer wanted to go with the story in the first place.
And you never know... if the reader knows what was intended, they
might be able to suggest some alternative ways to convey the author's
intent that the author hadn't thought of.
It's very easy and simple to tear someone to shreds. Taking the time
and energy out to build a person up and teach them what they need to
know is hard. But the old addage is very apt in this kind of
situation: anything that comes easy is rarely worth it. If the
identities of the people responsible for the site in question are
discovered, imagine how much flack they're going to get. How have they
served themselves by hurting others? They haven't. They've only opened
themselves up to attack. It's wonderful that someone had the idea to
create such a site, but the execution of it is horrible. Their
intentions, while purportedly honorable, fell flat as soon as
unconstructive criticisms were tendered.
I've said it a hundred times at least that nearly every writer's
ultimate goal is to get a response from the audience. If it's a poor
response, so be it. If it's a good response, great. But a writer
doesn't submit something for public consumption without realizing that
there are going to be consequences, either good or bad. It's a given
that a writer is writing FOR an audience. It's the writer's goal to
make the audience happy. If the writer misses that mark and no one
says anything about it, that writer is left in the dark and might very
well continue to write poorly. No one likes to read bad fiction
(except, maybe, someone like Ed Wood... who is no longer with us and
would probably do things with Trekfic that could easily make ALL of us
shiver with dread if he were still alive).
The best way to prevent more bad fanfic is to go to the source
directly and educate the author- it might make the author flinch at
first, but it more often than not helps in the long run. But what's
even more devastating is to publicly decry a writer's work in view of
his audience. As crazy as it sounds, there might be a few souls out
there who like the work for any number of reasons. As soon as a story
is branded as "crap", the hypothetical few audience members who liked
the story might feel just as bad as the writer simply for reading and
liking it. And those who didn't like the story, but realize that the
writer IS inexperienced could be just as easily put off from ever
reading that author's work again because it's been publicy denounced
(people, as a general rule, don't like to submit to material that is
considered by the masses to be "not worth the trouble"... they feel
somehow socially inferior to do so sometimes).
The most amusing thing in all of this, to me anyways, is that some
people are taking this very personally. Writing is a very visceral,
integral part of some people's lives. Exploiting some us as poor
examples hurts those of us who have learned the ropes. Let's face it,
EVERYONE who has ever written a story wasn't Hemmingway from the
get-go. Every writer has gone through the baby steps of writing
without experience, but if they keep at it and are encouraged over
time, they learn more about themselves as writers and as people. I see
relatively little REAL encouragement here in the way of "Nice work so
far, but I noticed some things that don't quite work well in general."
Instead I see people wanting to hurt each other more- sometimes
without even meaning to.
Respect is a wonderful thing if it's meted out with wisdom. Whether
others believe it or not, I believe that words possess a very real
power. To use that power irresponsibly or without forethought is both
a travesty and a disappointment. The ideal of Trek is adventure in new
frontiers. With such adventures come some unexpected views and ideas.
The success of Trek is to treat those views, ideas, worlds,
philosophies, cultures and beliefs with respect. I see less and less
of that in this thread and on this newsgroup in general.
As some of you may or may not have noticed, I have quit posting my
work up here. It's not because I wasn't getting feedback. I was
getting enough of that to keep my ego happy for months to come. The
thing I wasn't getting, which I felt I needed most, was constructive
criticism. If you truly respect the work someone has done, and thereby
respect that person, let them know what you honestly think. You never
know.... they might actually heed your words if you deliver them
wisely.
NightShadow (A.K.A. Jay Seals)
http://members.home.net/nightshadow
If you don't hear from me soon, I'm probably dead or I've gotten a life.
Either way you're in luck.
Katie Redshoes
Taylor <dre...@spamBgone.infi.net> wrote:
>wolf...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> I would also prefer civil, mature discussion. But, in all reality, do we
>> really get that on ASC? I'm not saying GATF is out there as a kindly
>> service to the writers they have put on their site. I see their site as
>> a backlash to the stiffling enviroment of ASC. And what I mean by that
>> is, I do not believe ASC promotes and/or supports 'truth in feedback' no
>> matter how much they purport to do so.
>
>"They"? Pardon my language, but just who the fuck is "they"? Sorry, but
>ASC is a community of "us"--if you think it's stifling, open a window
>and let some fresh air in! If you think there's not enough truth in
>feedback, then for God's sake write some truthful feedback and post it!
>But don't fob the blame off on some indeterminate "they". ASC succeeds,
>or fails, on the merits and efforts of those who contribute to it--not
>"them", whoever the hell "they" are.
>
><end rant>
Hey, Laura --
You took the words right out of my mouth.
--
Constable Katie Collecter/Formatter, ASC* Archive team
ASC* archive: http://archive.nu or http://www.crosswinds.net/~stephenratliff/ascindex
ASC FAQs: http://www.crosswinds.net/~stephenratliff/FAQs/
Submissions: submissions# webamused.com
Corrections: redina# mindspring.com Remove "NOJUNK" or replace # to reply
For archive updates: ASC-Archive-a...@onelist.com
"Birds don't have pockets." -- 5-year-old Andrew
Laura
>Feedback and it had nothing to do with laura hating cheile and telling
>everyone her story wasn't good.
*Rolls eyes*
First off, can we work under the assumption that Trek fic really isn't
important? I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't. It doesn't mean
anything and other then provide you with a means of diversion, it has no real
importance. Nada, none, no meaning.
On the issue of not liking her story, that's all that it is. I don't like her
story. I think the plot could have been a little more solid. Frankly, I'm
sick of having pissed into the wind, given it nice feedback for it in a forum
that it was okay, with the author having giving permission for me to have done
so and having thanked me for it. Why must my piss on the story result in the
author pissing on me?
Feedback isn't personal. It is about the story. That attitude is why no one
gets ant serious feedback which I have noticed,m espically from when I ran TIF
there is a serious out cry for. The audience though, it is too scared to give
it because to piddle on a story or even coat it with chocolate to emphasize how
much was liked results in the reader being pissed on.
And since i have been told not to read stuff I hate, then I just don't plain
read it. Others refuse to read it.
The readers in some cases have been so conditioned by authors and reading this,
their conditioning (since this seems to have turned into case against me) is
just being reaffirmed. Comment on a story, get burned. Burned is bad. Don't
want to be burned again. Oh just once, burned again.
Raise your hand, support of GATF or not, if you have run across the author from
hell.
*Laura raises hand* and it was in another fandom recently where the only
comment was on a page full of praise "one or two of the typos were rather
distracting to my reading pleasure but over all, well done!"
And the more constructive you get with some authors, the more you get hurt.
Laura Michelle Hale -- http://babylon5.acmecity.com/brown/159/index.html
pdre...@aol.com lmhale1980 on AIM
"I'm normal. That's precisely the problem." -- button
Laura
>The thing most people should be concerned about is when they go to post
>a story for public consumption that it is gramatically and spelled
>correctly.
Bingo. Authors should realize that when they post a fan fiction what they are
doing is tantamount to professionally publishing and have an attitude that
reflects that.
Laura
Laura
>Whoops! That isn't what I meant, and since it's an important
>distinction, I'll try to make myself more clear.
No problem. I may have misinterpretted what you said. It happens. Get into
big long discussions and the finer points start blurring until it really does
become one big puddle.
>What I meant was that *writing* is fun. Feedback is just a very nice
>bonus.
Okay. Gotcha.
Laura
>For those of you who may be unaware, Mary Sue Whipple is actually Laura
>Michelle Hale and some of her "clique" that hang out at GAF Message
>Board.
No no no. don't go insulting these fine people's intelligence.
They all should know that Mary Sue Whipple is me. In fact, she's been posting
some spledoferous fan fiction to ASC that everyone has been reading.
It is kinda obvious that it is.
Nice to see you and your clique showed ep. Can I ride on your hog? *Laura
slaps Espressivo and Tamara and Alice around* ME FIRST! ME FIRST! I GET TO
RIDE IT FIRST!
>As I stated previously, I let GAF know what I think of them at their
>message board.
Erm, yes. Your point is that you are taking our views as a personal attack on
yourself when we are commenting on the nature of fic in general and have never
once attacked you in the degree to which you continually attack oursevles?
>Funny thing is when Laura posted a very rude, vulgar post to the GAF
>Board, it "mysteriously" disappeared. Seems it was in violation of
>Inside the Web's TOS to post in such a manner on ITW boards.
Sorry.Let's sum up this rude post.
Oh yes, I said that non listening, non thinking people who were more consumed
with quanitity then quality and ego petting were going to cause the down fall
of society. I have since revised that view to a degree.
Mary Sue Whipple
>
> My dear sister Mary Sue get a clue. The stuff you write sucks to high
> heaven. how could you write those things about your stories? Ever
> heard of a spell checker. a dictionary??
Julie you suck. And ew.
No!!!!!
I WRITE GOOD STUFF! DAMN YOU! I HOPE YOU DIE SISTER!
You have challanged my honor. when I get home, I am gonna chase you
around the house with the batleth I bought at the convention and you'll
regret it cause you like totlly suck!
I have a dictionary you freak of nature and I don';t sleep with the girl
next door....
and you gave me the frekaing dictinary you twit!
> every time you give me your stories to beta read and i tell you what's
> wrong and how to fix them you blow me off. And you are still repeating
> the same mistakes.
HA! HA! HA! I DO NOT! I fxed all up dem erros. Last one, in the sex
story.... oh hell, the one I wrote fer... marc *sigh* erm. yeah, anyway
I fixed the eror where you said i spelt Chakotay wrong.
but like saying that Chakotay and janeway wouldn't get preggos well suck
my CLITORIS!
> I don't beleive in any of that crap you are spouting and none of it
> makes sense.
Neither do you. I am refusing to have sex with you any more.
> Tsk, Tsk, shame on you, lying about your age, i know you are only 10
> years old and having sex?? Wait till i tell mom.
So? What's wrong wid being 1o0? There are lots of famous ten year
old. You're just jealous cause you're my twin too.
Tell mom and you can just bugger off. I'll have your internet access
cut off!
> Goes to find her insane sister to beat some sense in her.
not if I find youl. Look for Kadern the enforcer! He'll get you in the
hallway!
an stop spouting garbage about him oly bieng scene theour Kornith! HE
DOES SO EXSIST!
MAry Sue Whipple
pissed off in antartica
.
Laura
>
> All I can say to this fact is that it is a very hurtful thing that these
> folks are doing here. I can speak from experience.
Their site is not hurtful. Your reactions to the site are that it
causes you pain. They haven't reviewed you. The folks who have the
site haven't shown up out side your door dressed all in black with a
baseball bat.
> I wrote my first Trek fic earlier this year. I had no writing
> experience whatsoever, had no idea what a beta reader was - so
> neededless to say COMMAND DECISIONS left a lot to be desired. But I
> received no flames, only encouragement. It was that encouragement that
> inspired me to keep writing and improving my craft.
That's great! You got feedback and you made an effort to improve.
Flame is how you take it though.
Case in point:
"You suck! Your story was fer crap!" I would think as a flame.
"Your plot had some holes in it. I think you could improve it by
inserting a paragraph here." I don't view as a flame but others do.
So really, define flame because I am completely lost as to what the heck
a flame is defined as here.
It seems to me that often, a flame is emotionally (not intelectually)
defined as any opinion that conflicts with your own.
> Instead of being critical of my mistakes and inexperience, a very
> special and kind person here read my story and contacted me privately
> concerning it. This person commended my efforts and my ideas and very
> tactfully showed me the errors that are common with new writers. The
> same person offered their valuable time to help me learn the mechanics
> of good writing and I hungrily accepted.
Yes but you know what? Look around ASC. Look at the number of stories
that get no feedback of any sorts. Before I stopped reading anything I
might potentially hate, I noticed one really odd pattern, most of the
really good authors and the beginning authors had no feedback.
> At first, my ego was deflated when I saw how pitiful my writing
> structure really was (I came to this conclusion myself - the friend
> would have never said so). But I decided to learn from the mistakes,
> listen to the counsel and improve where I could. I realize that I still
> have a long way to go, but I and others can see the improvement in my
> writing.
Which is good. I commend you. Others do not have a desire to improve
and won't have the same experince you have had.
> So I am not 'coming down' on those that have the GATF site. That is
> their personal business, but I do hope they re-think what they are doing
> to people's lives. It isn't just a game or a joke.
No but in the grand scheme of thing, none of this matters. Trek fic
doesn't matter. It doesn't get money, shouldn't impact your real life
much and if fun, well that can be done off-line or with select friends
on-line. It won't net you personal gain. It just doesn't.
Because Trek fic doesn't matter, then GATF really doesn't matter either.
And if you're really that concerned about how the feelings of potential
authors who may be critqued would feel (and note, none of them with the
exception of Cheile, are here to condemn the site.), well consider the
opposite. How would you feel if you were GATF? You an't just be
concerned about one party when something affects more people.
> There are real
> people and real feelings behind the stories here.
And maybe people should realize before posting that they are opening
themselves up to this by posting. It is a risk that an author takes.
If the risk isn't worth it, then they shouldn't go for it.
Beides, the attack isn't on the author. It is an attack on their work
and people should realize that. The author (and please note that
besides Cheile, none of the others seem to give a shit. They aren't
here lamenting the site.) isn't being attacked.
And if that doesn't work we can fall back on an oldie but good: "Sticks
and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
> Please think about
> how you would feel if the situation was reversed.
Actually, my stories have been nominated. If the situation was
reversed, I would find it humourous and flattering. HEll, these people
would have spent the time and put in the effort to tell me how much they
like me. They are bringing attention that otherwise would not be given
to my piece. Hell, my feelings wouldn't be hurt in the least. I'd be
flattered. (I sense that my sense of humor is different then others who
post here.)
> Maybe you could give
> these folks some much needed writing assistance like someone did for me
> instead of making fun and putting them down.
If that ws the purpose of their site, to help the writer, I'd be all for
it.
On a personal note though, that trying to do that is about as useful as
drilling a hole in your head. Not every author wants to improve (given)
and so they won't take any help offered and might just might be as nasty
to the reader in return.
> Your time and efforts
> would be much better spent and you might just be blessed in return.
If that was their purpose... Really.... and it isn't. It's why a bunch
of us write MSW stories because we really are sick of it.
And the other reason is that maybe some writer will go "Ug, that's bad."
and strive to resemble MSW's fan fiction less.
> Thanks for your time,
No problem. I think you have some valid points but I just disagree with
some of your points on a fundamental level which is why I don't think
we'll be able to ever see eye to eye on the topic.
> Micaela Harris
Laura
.
VoyagerLady
> In article <81fsb9$4vf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Ronda <rond...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <19991123105236...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> > pdre...@aol.comMSW (Laura) wrote:
> >
>
Posted by Tamara, one of Laura's cohorts from the GAF Board.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
VoyagerLady
> Though you
> didn't
> like my opinion of it and then called me names and insulted my
> intelligence. of course i had to retaliate but then you had
> pissed me
> off.
I note, Tamara, that you don't mention the name of the story, "The
Dilemma," which was well received by several people here.
So in light of the positive feedback I got here and other places, your
opinion of it was worth very little to me.
Ronda
VoyagerLady
> In article <81fvsk$767$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Ronda <rond...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <81ets1$ffb$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu>,
> > "Mary Sue Whipple" <ms_we...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> acutally gatf has said they will never remove any posts no matter
> what
> the content. Everyone there is allowed to express them selves
> freely.
> It was a computer glitch, i have seen posts disappear and sometimes
> reappear.
> The best is when you click to send the message and it comes up
> several
> times.
>
I would not be too sure it was not a computer glitch. I know GAF won't
remove messages, but ITW will.
TrexPhile
>
>
>As some of you may or may not have noticed, I have quit posting my
>work up here. It's not because I wasn't getting feedback. I was
>getting enough of that to keep my ego happy for months to come. The
>thing I wasn't getting, which I felt I needed most, was constructive
>criticism.
Um.... please don't tell me that we're never going to see the rest of
"Reserved Memories."
TrexPhile
laur...@my-deja.com
043.remarq.com>,
VoyagerLady
<voyagerlad...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Posted by Tamara, one of Laura's cohorts from
the GAF Board.
>
>Posted by Tamara, one of Laura's cohorts from
the GAF Board.
And that makes her opinion let valid?
My god. When did this thread to being about the
site and start becoming about me?
Really. Tell me... What do you think of the
site? What's wrong with the site? How would you
improve the site? What is good feedback? Is it
okay for the reader to vent and how so if yes?
Let's discuss and stop taking pot shots.
Laura
laur...@my-deja.com
VoyagerLady <voyagerlad...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> I would not be too sure it was not a computer glitch. I know GAF
won't
> remove messages, but ITW will.
>
> Ronda
>
Out of morbid curoisty, how is this relevant to the thread discussing
the actions of GATF and if it is appropaite for them to post?
If you have a problem with me on a personal note not related to this,
then my e-mail is pdre...@aol.com or you can check out the GATF MB
since this post discusses mb posters (which is not relvant to this
thread) rather then the nessicity for GATF to exsist.
Laura
dazed and confused
pdre...@aol.com
VoyagerLady <voyagerlad...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> I note, Tamara, that you don't mention the name of the story, "The
> Dilemma," which was well received by several people here.
>
> So in light of the positive feedback I got here and other places, your
> opinion of it was worth very little to me.
>
> Ronda
Popular does not equate with good. Full House was on for what? Eight
Years? And Eazy Streets 8 episodes?
I don't think that if you hear of negative comments and positive
comments you should totally throw out either side. Each side probably
has some valid points. The negative feedback she may have given you on
her story shouldn't be tossed out as the opinion of some one in a
vaccum. The I love you notes shouldn't be the only thing you hear.
Really, look at the feedback (well except GATF because that's not
feedback. That's readers venting), no matter the source, as a whole.
You can gain some wonderful insights from people whose views differ
from yours.
Friend of mine is writing story about Sam Wildman and we've discussed
in depth what didn't and did work on the story and our differing view
on who she was and because the opinions differed, when and if she
finishes her story (*Loud nag*) it will be better for it.
Laura
Jungle Kitty
<snip>
Mark, thanks for saving me all that typing. I agree with you point for
point.
--
Jungle Kitty
http://www.accesscom.com/~jkitty
----------------------------------------------
"May God reword you with joy and grout."
Christmas blessing from the guy who cleans
my house, and no, I don't understand it,
but I'm sure it's good.
----------------------------------------------
Cheile
> I equate GaTf to a book and movie critic, though most times i won't
> listen to the critc and go see for myslef. usually nine times out of
> ten they are on the money. And i wished i had saved mine.
Yes but while the professional critics such as Roger Ebert are critical,
they don't use nasty terms and call the actors/producer(s)/director
names, etc. i.e. Ebert may give a movie two thumbs down but he does
not sit there and make insults about the actors in the movie or say
things like "the storyline will make you sick". I believe that is what
Ronda and some of the others are trying to point out.
Cheile
Cheile
> Mark, thanks for saving me all that typing. I agree with you point for
> point.
And so do I.
A side note - Laura, are you saying I don't have the right to be
offended that certain people who know very well who they are got my
story put up there (and dragged an innocent party aka my co-author into
a fight she had nothing to do with)? You often tell me that everyone
has a right to their opinion. If you do, then so do the rest of us.
--
~Cheile
AIM - MaelenMS
Cheile
> The whole basis of constructive criticism is to BUILD people up (hence
> the use of "construct"). To rag on a person about their work only
> serves to tear them down. There's no honor or kindness in the effort,
> either. Malice is at the heart of criticism that has no positive
> direction.
Well said, Nightshadow. A lot of people I know could take lessons from
you. Hey Laura--you paying attention?
> If fanfic that's written poorly is really that annoying to a person,
> it's in THAT PERSON'S best interest, as a reader, to let the writer
> know personally instead of airing their grievances out to the world.
Exactly. There's no call for public humilation like that just because
someone doesn't like a story. Approach the writer and tell them
TACTFULLY where their mistakes are, and you'll probably get somewhere.
Approach them like GATF or Laura does, and you'll get nowhere.
> Opening a personal dialogue with that writer can do wonders both for
> future stories by that author and the reader.
And in some cases, opens up new friendships like Micaela's example and
you'll have a trusted beta reader for "life" (or as long as they read
fanfic anyway).
> How have they
> served themselves by hurting others? They haven't. They've only opened
> themselves up to attack. It's wonderful that someone had the idea to
> create such a site, but the execution of it is horrible. Their
> intentions, while purportedly honorable, fell flat as soon as
> unconstructive criticisms were tendered.
Plus from their "FAQ", "why are we so mean?" a) "Because we can" is no
excuse for humiliating writers.
Cheile
> >Um, I wouldn't be throwing stones about spell checking if I were you!
>
> i have one thing to say to this. Most news readers don't have a spell
check. Nor are a lot of people good typists.
Sorry but I beg to differ - Deja has a spell check and so do most mail
systems. I thought I'd also add that when said person who is throwing
stones about spelling used to write fanfic, her spelling and grammar
weren't that great. So Bevster's right in this case.
Maud Freifelder
Ronda.. quit yer bitchin' ...
If you don't like the site, don't go there and don't post there if you go.
Your posts there and here are getting *old* , it's the same line over and
over with nothing constructive being said. You rehash old points and
start new ones that don't say much . Frankly I"m tired of it.
I'm sorry that last year I didn't know better and co-wrote my first
attempt at fic with you . The idea for The Wild Ride was mine but I"m
sorry that I got involved. Even with sending you spelling corrections it was
still posted with errors that I cringe at today .I like GATF site . I
don't know who runs it and I don't care. You put fic out, you stand to
get feedback. How many times have I read stories with incorrect tlhIngan
Hol and incorrect Klingon culture ,written to the authors with chapter
and verse of where they can find the info to correct and improve their
story , only to get a flame back for writing. If you're going to post,
get it right the first time, spelling, grammer and facts.
========================================================================
Ronda (rfse...@computron.net) wrote:
: So do I. I let them know how much I hate their page at their message
: board every chance I get.
: Ronda
=====================================================================: --
submitted by
--
Lt.Commander Maud Freifelder/Lt.Commander malqa matoq tuq
Chief Security Officer/Chief of Cadet Corps.
USS Triumph NCC-2 6228/R2/Starfleet (Triumph Against All Odds)
jIjatlhpa' jatlh Hovmey (The stars will talk before I will)
*Learn the Klingon language on IRC at klingon.dhs.org (/join #tlhIngan)*
*join the VoyagerChat mailing list at Onelist.com*
Joyce Harmon
Cheile wrote:
You should read Tom Shales in the Washington Post. His review of Roswell
was headlined "The Morons Who Fell To Earth", and the headline was the most
flattering remark in the entire piece.
Joyce