What happened to Sharon?

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Blair Kennedy

unread,
Oct 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/7/98
to

MadiHolmes wrote in message
<19981007233040...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
>
>I mean I go on a month long vacation, and bam, my favorite writer is like
>splitsville, man. What happened to her voilatile deranged mind?

She was flamed off the internet. It seems a lot of people objected to her
particular brand of Blair torture so she packed up her dollies and went
home. Too bad. She was one of my favourite writers as well.

--Blair Kennedy

MadiHolmes

unread,
Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98
to

Mick

unread,
Oct 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/10/98
to

Blair Kennedy wrote:

> MadiHolmes wrote in message
> <19981007233040...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
> >

> >I mean I go on a month long vacation, and bam, my favorite writer is like
> >splitsville, man. What happened to her voilatile deranged mind?
>

> She was flamed off the internet. It seems a lot of people objected to her
> particular brand of Blair torture so she packed up her dollies and went
> home. Too bad. She was one of my favourite writers as well.
>

Not just flames, but *hate* mail.

Really, I don't understand such things. If you don't like her style or her
stories, all you have to do is not read them.

But then again, I don't understand how how someone could be tied to a fence
and set on fire because of their sexual orientation (with the local police
insisting the motive of such an heinous act was robbery, simply because the
young man's wallet was gone).

Sharon's stories might have been hard to read, but RL can be even more
horrific.

Mick C.

P. S. - IMHO Sharon's "Ellipsis" was one of the best death stories ever done
for The Sentinel"


Mick

unread,
Oct 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/10/98
to

Mick wrote:

> Blair Kennedy wrote:
>
> > MadiHolmes wrote in message
> > <19981007233040...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
> > >
> > >I mean I go on a month long vacation, and bam, my favorite writer is like
> > >splitsville, man. What happened to her voilatile deranged mind?
> >
> > She was flamed off the internet. It seems a lot of people objected to her
> > particular brand of Blair torture so she packed up her dollies and went
> > home. Too bad. She was one of my favourite writers as well.
> >
>
> Not just flames, but *hate* mail.
>
> Really, I don't understand such things. If you don't like her style or her
> stories, all you have to do is not read them.
>
> But then again, I don't understand how how someone could be tied to a fence
> and set on fire

Oh good grief! That was NOT was I meant to type. :( I had just been reading
about a local attack - gang violence - where someone had been doused with a
flamable liquid and set on fire, and both incidents were on my mind. The young
man in question was savagely beaten. Matthew Sheppard's attack was horrible
enough without adding that beastial act to it.

My heart goes out to Mr. Sheppard and his family.

Mick C.

StarGem

unread,
Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98
to
MadiHolmes wrote:
>
> I mean I go on a month long vacation, and bam, my favorite writer is like
> splitsville, man. What happened to her voilatile deranged mind?

She pulled her stuff off the 'Net for some reason.

I guess nobody gave her much respect. Not to mention that her stuff
*was* volatile and deranged.

The only reason I checked her pile of stories was to see what new
atrocities she would visit apon (spelling?) poor Blair.

And believe me, she could a do enough stuff to make Blair go back to the
therapist a thousand times over.

Her first series of stories I liked, but anything after that was utterly
gross.

Well, that's my opinion about why Sharon pulled her stories of the 'Net.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu

unread,
Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98
to
Mick <maha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Not just flames, but *hate* mail.
>
> Really, I don't understand such things. If you don't like her style or her
> stories, all you have to do is not read them.
>

Don't worry, most of us are just as lost as you are. Poor Sharon. Is there
any chance of showing her that we're not all ogres and trolls? I've been
fortunate enough not to have been flamed very often (a good thing considering
my ego's a lot fragiler than I make it out to be :) but I have great sympathy
for those who have. Especially for something like fic--a lot of work goes
into writing, and to be rewarded so negatively for your troubles...All the
worse when it affects those of us who *do* like it, denies us the opportunity
to tell her so and her opportunity to hear it...for me, this obsession is
fun, a way to relax and enjoy and entertain. I left X-files fandom in part
because it could be vicious, mean to people because of random opinions, and
that's not fun as far as I'm concerned; how can you take your pleasure from
destroying someone else's?

Which is why I'm still enjoying TS so much...the show's diverting, and the
chars are amusing to play with, and GM especially is great to watch--but most
of all the people here (that I've encountered) are friendly, fun folk. I wuv
you guys! =) It's sad Sharon ran into different crowd. Any way we make it
up to her?

Pity she left before she found the ng...

XmagicalX

> P. S. - IMHO Sharon's "Ellipsis" was one of the best death stories ever done
> for The Sentinel
>

Argh! okay, I admit to having my own nefarious purpose...Sharon pulled her
stuff before I had a chance to more than glimpse them, and I never got to
this one. Does anyone have a copy of it? I promise if I don't like it my
lips are sealed, no one will ever know...but I have a feeling I might enjoy
it. Any angst fans out there willing or able to help a fellow follower of
angst?

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Blair Kennedy

unread,
Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98
to
ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote in message

>Argh! okay, I admit to having my own nefarious purpose...Sharon pulled her
>stuff before I had a chance to more than glimpse them, and I never got to
>this one. Does anyone have a copy of it? I promise if I don't like it my
>lips are sealed, no one will ever know...but I have a feeling I might enjoy
>it. Any angst fans out there willing or able to help a fellow follower of
>angst?

"I have all of Sharon's stories. I made sure to get them before they were
pulled," Blair gloated as she poured another glass of slivovitz and settled
in to read 'Spatial Properties' one more time.

--Blair Kennedy

Sally

unread,
Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98
to
Mick wrote:
>

> Really, I don't understand such things. If you don't like her style or her
> stories, all you have to do is not read them.
>

I agree.

I wrote Sharon an e-mail about a month ago asking her why she was no
longer writing fanfic. She replied that it was more from the lack of
positive feedback than from flames. I'm not sure if I believe that
though, since it doesn't explain why she removed her existing stories.

Her stories were very dark and violent, but they all contained warnings
at the beginning, so noone was being taken by surprise here. I enjoy a
dark, angsty story sometimes; and, believe me, I've read novels that
were much worst than anything Sharon has written.

I wish I had saved her stories, but, unfortunately I didn't. She told
me that she was going to be away for a couple of months, but when she
got back, she might start writing again. Maybe we can talk her into
e-mailing her stories to us.

Sally

wolf...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to
In article <36214D...@worldnet.att.net>,
sese...@worldnet.att.net wrote:

> I wrote Sharon an e-mail about a month ago asking her why she was no
> longer writing fanfic. She replied that it was more from the lack of
> positive feedback than from flames. I'm not sure if I believe that
> though, since it doesn't explain why she removed her existing stories.

Not meaning to be nasty about this--I consider Sharon an excellent writer,
though her stories were too twisted for me to continue reading--but there is
a segment of fanfic writers out there who regularly threaten to stop writing,
or even to do themselves injury, if they receive the slightest negative
comment or just don't receive the amount of praise they think their writing
deserves. What happens is, these writers complain and threaten in some public
way, they immediately receive dozens of pleas not to stop and lots of
sympathy over the bad treatment they have endured, and they withdraw the
threat. After a while, people get tired of seeing the same threats and they
stop responding. The writers then either start behaving like adults, or more
often, take their toys and go home. To the best of my knowledge, Sharon has
chosen to do the latter. If I'm wrong, and she really did take her stories
down because of hate mail, then I apologize for misjudging her in this
instance. But knowing what I do of her behavior in the past, I am inclined
to think my interpretation is correct. She's still a damn good writer,
though. And she'd be even better if she'd stop giving Blair those
impossible-to-survive bodily and/or psychological injuries. Just MHO, of
course.

Wolfguide

Dawn

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to
I agree totally. I read a lot of Sharon's work, and enjoyed it, for the most part
(except when she gave Blair permanent injuries that significantly altered his
character). I did, however, have to take her in doses :-) Her stories were
intense, and always held my interest, but I like Blair too much to see him
permanently changed for the worse. But, that's my choice - to read or not to read
<grin> I was saddened to see her go, though, because now I can't read the
remaining stories at my leisure when I'm feeling particularly morbid :-)

On the note of praise to ff writers, I can't imagine people sending hate mail b/c
they don't like something. I mean, come on, these are done for free - with
substantial expenditure of time and effort. If you don't like the story, just
don't say anything. :-)

However, if you do like, WRITE!!! <big grin> Fan fiction writers are a curious
bunch, and I myself, a few months ago, never would have thought I'd be into fan
fiction. I steered clear of it intentionally. But this darn Sentinel world drew
me in :-) Anyway, back to the point. FF writers spend all this time and energy
doing what is basically a completely economically inefficient activity. They get
no pay for it, and usually have to put off RL stuff to finish :-) The only
compensation received is praise. So, I think the equation is simple enough - you
want to see more fanfiction, you've gotta pay the dues, and that means e-mailing
the author to let him or her know that you liked the story. It took the author
hours to write, it takes you maybe a minute to e-mail her/him and say "good job!"

I have to chastise myself here b/c, for the longest time, I would just read the
stories and never even think to e-mail the author... no matter how much pleasure
I derived from the story. Even now I occasionally still do that... but I do make
an effort to at least drop a line when I finish a story... and I make a point to
give sincere comments, b/c, as I know first-hand, those are the most valuable
kind :-)

Okay, I'm stepping down from the podium now! <grin>

-Dawn-

wolf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

--
-Dawn-
The Chako Rescue Assoc. for the American Pit Bull Terrier
http://home.att.net/~DawnCapp
Visit our site for lots of great dog books!

Blair Kennedy

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to

wolf...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>

> there is a segment of fanfic writers out there who regularly threaten to
stop writing,
>or even to do themselves injury, if they receive the slightest negative
>comment or just don't receive the amount of praise they think their writing
>deserves. What happens is, these writers complain and threaten in some
public
>way, they immediately receive dozens of pleas not to stop and lots of
>sympathy over the bad treatment they have endured, and they withdraw the
>threat. After a while, people get tired of seeing the same threats and
they
>stop responding. The writers then either start behaving like adults, or
more
>often, take their toys and go home.

I've seen this syndrome, most recently on Senfic during that "Beach"
debacle. I never understood this. Sure, I like it when someone writes to me
just to say "good story" or offers some constructive criticism, but I'm not
going to get the vapours if someone writes and says the story sucked.

I had one gal write to me saying she didn't normally send only negative
feedback, but she'd make an exception for me. She thought I had Blair acting
out of character. I thought this was funny coming from a slash perspective
because how much more out of character can you get than slash? But, I didn't
pack up toys and head home. I turned that particular story into a series. So
there. = p

I guess that's the difference between me and other writers. I do it for fun.
As soon as my next obsession takes over, I'm liable to give TS the boot
without a second thought. Yeah, right. = )

--Blair "My karma just ran over your dogma"Kennedy

maha...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to
wolf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>...If I'm wrong, and she really did take her stories


> down because of hate mail, then I apologize for misjudging her in this
> instance.

After being unable to find Sharon's stories when coming back online
after an extensive (read lengthy) computer repair process, I asked
around and a list sib on Senad responded that the mail was getting so
bad that *she* had been going though the feedback mail for Sharon.

The term "hate mail" was not used lightly. :(

Mick C.


Caitlin Mackay Shaw

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to
regarding negative feedback and hate mail -- can i just ask how
often this happens? i mean, and please don't take this the wrong
way, but is it a gen thing? because there was a big discussion
on senad a while back where all the slashwriters were complaining
that the feedback was too *nice*. (the lady of shalott even
started up a new list for the purpose of strong critiquing of fic
-- http://www.netspace.org/~shalott/sencrit/ , if anyone is
interested.) ditto the xslash list, althoug i've heard that atxc
can get rough.

i'm just curious (i'm *not* trying to start another slash/gen
war!) why slash seems to inspire a "don't like it? don't read it"
attitude and why anything else could be different... when people
write nasty feedback, what do they *say*?

--cmshaw

now, of course, all the slashers who've gotten nasty letters are
going to prove my sweeping generalizations wrong...


EC Therapy

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to
wolf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Not meaning to be nasty about this--I consider Sharon an excellent writer,
> though her stories were too twisted for me to continue reading--but there is

> a segment of fanfic writers out there who regularly threaten to stop writing,
> or even to do themselves injury, if they receive the slightest negative
> comment or just don't receive the amount of praise they think their writing
> deserves.

I think that would be a very tiny portion of the writing population.
Most of us *want* constructive criticism. But no one wants hate mail.
Personally, I would rather get one piece of mail saying "You screwed up
on this part!! You should have done it this way." than two pieces that
said "This was okay. I liked it." Don't get me wrong, I adore
positive feedback <hint hint> but anytime I get a chance to improve my
writing just thrills me.

Again, I think the percentage of writers who fall into the category you
have described is roughly equal to the number who want to see Taggert in
a gold lame' thong (or Dennis Franz's backside).

What happens is, these writers complain and threaten in some public
> way, they immediately receive dozens of pleas not to stop and lots of
> sympathy over the bad treatment they have endured, and they withdraw the
> threat.

Funny, I don't remember ever seeing this happen.

After a while, people get tired of seeing the same threats and they
> stop responding. The writers then either start behaving like adults, or more

> often, take their toys and go home. To the best of my knowledge, Sharon has
> chosen to do the latter.

Um, do you have a grudge against the woman or what?

If I'm wrong, and she really did take her stories
> down because of hate mail, then I apologize for misjudging her in this

> instance. But knowing what I do of her behavior in the past, I am inclined
> to think my interpretation is correct.

And how well do you know her? Spemd alot of time over coffee chatting
with the lady, do you? Truth is, you can't honestly say you know anyone
on the net. Things written down in black and white, without the visual
cues one is used to in conversation, tend to be taken the wrong way.
Try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

She's still a damn good writer,
> though. And she'd be even better if she'd stop giving Blair those
> impossible-to-survive bodily and/or psychological injuries. Just MHO, of
> course.

Personally, I think it makes for great drama. If we changed the name of
the characters and set it in a slightly different place, you could
probably use one of her stories to make a very dramatic Made-for-TV
Movie... and if nothing life threatening or awful ever happened to the
guys, the series would be pretty dull.

Blair is a pretty popular character because he has been given mostly
positive personality traits. Jim is a bit less likable because he was
given more flaws. This makes the reader more sympathetic when the bad
things happen to Blair-- better drama, if you will.


Why am I sticking my nose into this business? Mostly because I hate to
see people being slammed when they aren't around to defend themselves.
If Sharon were posting to the newsgroup, I probably wouldn't have said a
word. Her stories weren't something I would want to read everyday but no
one was making either. There are one or two authors who still have
stories on the net that write such dark plots that I feel the same about
them. But, again, no one is forcing me to click on those sites.

I hope that Sharon returns to us some day. But I understand if she
decides that she doesn't want to do that.

Angie T.
(who hopes that she even makes sense after a nearly sleepless night
followed by a day subbing in a Kindergarten class)

Blair Kennedy

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to

EC Therapy wrote in message <3623EA...@sunlink.net>...

>Again, I think the percentage of writers who fall into the category you
>have described is roughly equal to the number who want to see Taggert in
>a gold lame' thong (or Dennis Franz's backside).


"You didn't have to take me there," Blair moaned as she began retching in
the nearest rubbish bin.

> What happens is, these writers complain and threaten in some public
>> way, they immediately receive dozens of pleas not to stop and lots of
>> sympathy over the bad treatment they have endured, and they withdraw the
>> threat.
>
>Funny, I don't remember ever seeing this happen.

It happened on Senfic with "Beach." Kitty and Martha weren't getting enough
feedback for their smarm epic so they decided not to post it to the list
anymore. This caused a slew of letters about feedback and how immature Kitty
and Martha were and blah, blah, blah... It was really quite silly. They had
said in the last posting of "Beach" if they didn't get any feedback they
weren't going to continue posting. They got no feedback and discontinued
posting. I don't beleive this was to garner attention for themselves or beg
for pleas of "I'm sorry" from those who done them wrong. In fact, Kitty said
they quit posting it to the list because they didn't want to feel like
spammers by posting a story no one wanted to read anymore. They still write
it. It's on their page for those who want to continue reading it.
>

>
>Personally, I think it makes for great drama. If we changed the name of
>the characters and set it in a slightly different place, you could
>probably use one of her stories to make a very dramatic Made-for-TV
>Movie... and if nothing life threatening or awful ever happened to the
>guys, the series would be pretty dull.

Now ain't that the truth.


>
>>
>Why am I sticking my nose into this business? Mostly because I hate to
>see people being slammed when they aren't around to defend themselves.
>If Sharon were posting to the newsgroup, I probably wouldn't have said a
>word. Her stories weren't something I would want to read everyday but no
>one was making either. There are one or two authors who still have
>stories on the net that write such dark plots that I feel the same about
>them. But, again, no one is forcing me to click on those sites.
>
>I hope that Sharon returns to us some day. But I understand if she
>decides that she doesn't want to do that.

I don't think we've seen the last of Sharon. She was writing a novel. We may
yet revel in her dark world once more.

--Blair Kennedy


Blair Kennedy

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to

Caitlin Mackay Shaw wrote in message <7006ds$ka5$1...@lendl.cc.emory.edu>...

>regarding negative feedback and hate mail -- can i just ask how
>often this happens? i mean, and please don't take this the wrong
>way, but is it a gen thing? >

I don't know if it's a gen thing or not because the only gen list I'm on is
Senfic and people there have always been way supportive, much like on SFX.
However, I understand there is a bit of ire between other gen lists and the
slashers. I don't really understand that. I mean, we all like the same show,
just different facets.

>i'm just curious (i'm *not* trying to start another slash/gen
>war!) why slash seems to inspire a "don't like it? don't read it"
>attitude and why anything else could be different... when people
>write nasty feedback, what do they *say*?

Personally, knock wood, I have not been subjected to any hate mail. I've
received letters from people who have said they were writing because
something I had done so disturbed their friends they could not write me
about it themselves. Those kinds of letters I immediately discount because I
figure if you are so emotionally crippled something *I* do would send you
over the edge, then you need some serious help.

Personally, I would never send hate mail or flames. I mean, what's the
point? I think maybe it's kind of power trip. You can say all kinds of
horrible things to people on the net because chances are you are never going
to meet them face to face. It's the power( and the cowardice) of anonymity.


>now, of course, all the slashers who've gotten nasty letters are
>going to prove my sweeping generalizations wrong...

I've gotten a letters from people who didn't want me to write "Cascade
Place." Of course, I've gotten letters from people who were patiently
waiting for the next episode. Oh well, there's just no pleasing everyone.
That's why I always think of myself first. ; )

--Blair Kennedy

EC Therapy

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to
ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
>
>(okay, and I admit to a little devil
> inside me wondering, "if you dropped out of the fic circle, would anybody
> miss you?" I'll face up to it...I'm an ego-hound ;)

Yes! Yes!... a thousand times YES!! Stick around, please! I promise to
keep writing feedback, just please don't go!

Angie T.

Shelley Knepley

unread,
Oct 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/13/98
to
I don't think it's just a gen thing, more a personality thing. If I like an
author and the story, I try to contact them and say so. If I have
constructive criticism I phrase it as such. Personally, I would never flame
an author. Anyone, who has the courage to post a piece of their soul to the
world for consumption does not need or deserve such treatment. All of you
authors out there have far more courage than I, and I thank you for the
chance to read some truly awesome writing.
JMHO

Shelley


Caitlin Mackay Shaw wrote in message <7006ds$ka5$1...@lendl.cc.emory.edu>...
>regarding negative feedback and hate mail -- can i just ask how
>often this happens? i mean, and please don't take this the wrong

>way, but is it a gen thing? because there was a big discussion
>on senad a while back where all the slashwriters were complaining
>that the feedback was too *nice*. (the lady of shalott even
>started up a new list for the purpose of strong critiquing of fic
>-- http://www.netspace.org/~shalott/sencrit/ , if anyone is
>interested.) ditto the xslash list, althoug i've heard that atxc
>can get rough.
>

>i'm just curious (i'm *not* trying to start another slash/gen
>war!) why slash seems to inspire a "don't like it? don't read it"
>attitude and why anything else could be different... when people
>write nasty feedback, what do they *say*?
>

>--cmshaw

ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Hope y'all don't mind a (long) "me too" post--but yes, yes! on just about
every count....

I can understand ff writers who stop writing because the reader response
dies. Authors in the "real world" write for a living, or at least make a
little side money (or try to) Definitely it's partly for the pleasure of it;
why does any artist produce work, after all, if not for that? But what is
written is meant to be read--it increases my pleasure in what I've done that
much more to know that someone else enjoyed it too, that I'd made that
contact. Face it, we all have at least a little ego; it's nice to be
acknowledged. I start most of my fics because I have an idea that won't
leave me alone, but especially with these long multi-parters I wouldn't ever
finish them if I didn't have the encouragement of knowing someone out there
wanted more!

I can also understand how this can be twisted, how getting hate mail would
stop me from writing (or at least from sharing). I've never really been
flamed myself (ah! hope I don't start something here ;) but if I write a
story that doesn't get much response, I'm not as likely to start the sequel I
might have planned or write another story like it.

I admit to having less patience with people who try to incite readers by
threatening to pull their stuff or stop writing altogether, etc. I can
understand the drive for reader response (okay, and I admit to a little devil


inside me wondering, "if you dropped out of the fic circle, would anybody

miss you?" I'll face up to it...I'm an ego-hound ;) but I haven't actually
done it...) but trying to force it is a bit childish. Although I don't know
the story, I'm tempted to think it was something different in Sharon's case,
because she didn't make a fuss over it, and she pulled her fic entirely
without leaving a way to contact her to get it back. That indicates she was
either completely tired with the show and wanted to abandon it
altogether--which I can see, though I haven't pulled my own TXF stuff--or
more likely that she was burned pretty bad and doesn't want to continue being
hurt for something she did out of love of a show's chars and for enjoyment.
In which case I have only sympathy for her (and for all us reader denied her
stories!)

My own private confession: I never e'd a single ff writer until I wrote
something myself and realized how great it really was to hear somebody liked
it! now I make it a point to drop a quick note whenever I like
something...ff's a moneyless economy; the only goods are fic and the only
payment's the response; it's up to us to keep it in circulation! =)

XmagicalX, trying to incite readers? Never..! ;)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
EC Therapy <doc...@sunlink.net> wrote:
> wolf...@my-dejanews.com wrote (w/ the double > >) :

> > What happens is, these writers complain and threaten in some public
> > way, they immediately receive dozens of pleas not to stop and lots of
> > sympathy over the bad treatment they have endured, and they withdraw the
> > threat.
>
> Funny, I don't remember ever seeing this happen.
>

In defense of wg, BlairK's already mentioned the recent Beach dilemma, and I
know of a couple of other similar, if less extreme incidents...the ng's
avoided them, but it happens on senfic now and then. Can't speak for the
slashlists; they actually sound friendlier (not that Senfic isn't friendly!
anyhow, compared to atxc the worse senflame isn't even a worth a match, let
alone a cigarette lighter...)

> Truth is, you can't honestly say you know anyone
> on the net. Things written down in black and white, without the visual
> cues one is used to in conversation, tend to be taken the wrong way.
> Try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
>

[doesn't deal with the main theme o' this, but I thought it a good statement;
it's one I try to surf by, happy to see it echoed! :) ]

> > She's still a damn good writer,
> > though. And she'd be even better if she'd stop giving Blair those
> > impossible-to-survive bodily and/or psychological injuries. Just MHO, of
> > course.
>

> Personally, I think it makes for great drama. If we changed the name of
> the characters and set it in a slightly different place, you could
> probably use one of her stories to make a very dramatic Made-for-TV
> Movie... and if nothing life threatening or awful ever happened to the
> guys, the series would be pretty dull.
>

a dramatic made-for-TV movie is a *good* thing? sorry, sorry! I think I've
glimpsed too many disease-of-the-week things at my grandmother's house, plus
though I go easy on television I'm an irritatingly intense
movie-reviewer...I'm sure there are good MfTV things, it's just so many of
'em are pointless, exploitive melodrama... </RANT> okay, off the soapbox now
;)

> Blair is a pretty popular character because he has been given mostly
> positive personality traits. Jim is a bit less likable because he was
> given more flaws. This makes the reader more sympathetic when the bad
> things happen to Blair-- better drama, if you will.
>

Verra true, though given this I find it intriguing how many writers make it a
point to give Blair flaws, often ones I myself don't perceive in him.

> Why am I sticking my nose into this business? Mostly because I hate to
> see people being slammed when they aren't around to defend themselves.
> If Sharon were posting to the newsgroup, I probably wouldn't have said a
> word. Her stories weren't something I would want to read everyday but no
> one was making either. There are one or two authors who still have
> stories on the net that write such dark plots that I feel the same about
> them. But, again, no one is forcing me to click on those sites.
>

In wolfguide's defense I wouldn't term her post as "slamming". I disagree
with her take on the issue; that Sharon actually removed her stories entirely
indicates to me at least that more was going on than simply a writer sulking
over lack of feedback. But I'm also willing to concede that I don't know
anything 'bout Sharon or how she might have behaved previously on lists or
elsewhere.

At any rate, however, though wg admitted to not caring for Sharon's style, she
still said she was "a damn good writer". Far from a slam, in the spirit of
constructive criticism I would myself take this as a very high compliment
indeed, that though it may not be to everyone's taste it's well-written
nonetheless. And personally I think her suggestion is on target--I too
found what little I read of Sharon's stories to be on the extreme side,
pushing past the grounds of believability.

But hey, it's fic, and at least she added some variety to sen drama!

> I hope that Sharon returns to us some day. But I understand if she
> decides that she doesn't want to do that.
>

I second the motion on both counts :)

> Angie T.
> (who hopes that she even makes sense after a nearly sleepless night
> followed by a day subbing in a Kindergarten class)
>

ack, my sympathies! given the circumstances you're amazingly coherent!

as opposed to XmagicalX, who is running on midterm stress and shouldn't be
here at all, let alone popping in constantly to spew her special brand of
nonsense...

Sally

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
>
>
> > Blair is a pretty popular character because he has been given mostly
> > positive personality traits. Jim is a bit less likable because he was
> > given more flaws. This makes the reader more sympathetic when the bad
> > things happen to Blair-- better drama, if you will.
> >
> Verra true, though given this I find it intriguing how many writers make it a
> point to give Blair flaws, often ones I myself don't perceive in him.

I don't think it's because Jim has more flaws. I think it's because Jim
is perceived as being the emotionally stronger of the two. At least on
the outside. His life as a Ranger and a detective has hardened him to
where he would not reacted as emotionally to trauma and the bad things
they encounter as Blair would, so having Blair doing the suffering
provides the story with more angst. I think that's why many fanfic
writer make Blair behave much younger that he really is. I makes him
appear more innocent and vulnerable, so when evil things happen to him,
they have a greater emotional impact. And, of course, it makes for good
smarm. JMHO.



>
> At any rate, however, though wg admitted to not caring for Sharon's style, she
> still said she was "a damn good writer". Far from a slam, in the spirit of
> constructive criticism I would myself take this as a very high compliment
> indeed, that though it may not be to everyone's taste it's well-written
> nonetheless. And personally I think her suggestion is on target--I too
> found what little I read of Sharon's stories to be on the extreme side,
> pushing past the grounds of believability.
>

That's true, but I think most of the fanfic out there does the same
thing. We have TS in outer space, TS in the wild west, TS in the
medieval period, Jim and Blair as vampires, Jim and Blair with psychic
powers, Jim and Blair as lovers. I'm sure there are others that I can't
recall at the moment. Even the smarm, as much as I love it, tends to
stretch the boundaries of believability at times. Of course, being a
big science fiction and horror fan, extreme and unbelievable is just my
cup of tea <g>.

Sally

ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
EC Therapy <doc...@sunlink.net> wrote:

> ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
> >
> >(okay, and I admit to a little devil
> > inside me wondering, "if you dropped out of the fic circle, would anybody
> > miss you?" I'll face up to it...I'm an ego-hound ;)
>
> Yes! Yes!... a thousand times YES!! Stick around, please! I promise to
> keep writing feedback, just please don't go!
>
> Angie T.
>
I won't! I won't! (I don't need to now--you just made my day! =)

XmagX, who desperately needed a pick-me-up...crawling back to the psych now...

ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
sese...@worldnet.att.net (Sally) wrote:

> I don't think it's because Jim has more flaws. I think it's because Jim
> is perceived as being the emotionally stronger of the two. At least on
> the outside. His life as a Ranger and a detective has hardened him to
> where he would not reacted as emotionally to trauma and the bad things
> they encounter as Blair would, so having Blair doing the suffering
> provides the story with more angst. I think that's why many fanfic
> writer make Blair behave much younger that he really is. I makes him
> appear more innocent and vulnerable, so when evil things happen to him,
> they have a greater emotional impact. And, of course, it makes for good
> smarm. JMHO.
>

The other reason folks are more inclined to go after Blair (at least how my
sister tells it) is because Blair is more emotional--if he's worried about Jim
or whatever he's more likely to show it (at least that's how he's perceived)
While as Jim is more likely to show their friendship when he's pushed into it,
i.e. when Blair's on his deathbed sort of thing...

There's also something about the older, (either actually or just in terms of
relation, experience, ability, etc...) worrying about the younger that's
sweeter, though I have yet to understand the exact mechanics of it. All I
know is sis keeps insisting that I hurt Blair, and shoot Guss, and now sis
herself is tormenting RayK, all in the interests of getting a reaction out of
the stiff-upper-lip partner...

> > I too
> > found what little I read of Sharon's stories to be on the extreme side,
> > pushing past the grounds of believability.
> >
> That's true, but I think most of the fanfic out there does the same
> thing. We have TS in outer space, TS in the wild west, TS in the
> medieval period, Jim and Blair as vampires, Jim and Blair with psychic
> powers, Jim and Blair as lovers. I'm sure there are others that I can't
> recall at the moment. Even the smarm, as much as I love it, tends to
> stretch the boundaries of believability at times. Of course, being a
> big science fiction and horror fan, extreme and unbelievable is just my
> cup of tea <g>.
>

I'm right with you in that! ;)

Though that might be part of it...I'm a scifi/fantasy fan bigtime (one reason
I started watching TS was a clip in a commercial of the panther leaping into
Jim--UPN gets it right once in a looooooooong while...) but despite this I
don't often read AUs (and I never intend to write them, it's just that
everything always seems to deviate from the norm...)(actually I might start
reading them, YMcCool's Upgrade series just loox so interesting, in a sort of
"ratz, why didn't I think of that?!" kinda way)

When reading Sharon my believability problem wasn't in what was happening;
horrific as it was, I concede that in this sadly screwed-up world practically
anything can happen and more often than not does--it was that Blair could
survive it at all, even if generally he was broken by it. (And the odds
against so much happening to one individual, but if you read ff at all you've
gotta make that mental leap anyway ;) did make for awesome angst, though...

and I agree, quite a lot of smarm pushes way past the bounds of "realism" as
well!

XmagicalX (who has been known to perhaps shove gently over the boundary
herself...a couple of times...)

maha...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
Sally wrote:
>
> ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:

> > At any rate, however, though wg admitted to not caring for Sharon's style, she
> > still said she was "a damn good writer". Far from a slam, in the spirit of
> > constructive criticism I would myself take this as a very high compliment
> > indeed, that though it may not be to everyone's taste it's well-written

> > nonetheless. And personally I think her suggestion is on target--I too


> > found what little I read of Sharon's stories to be on the extreme side,
> > pushing past the grounds of believability.
> >
> That's true, but I think most of the fanfic out there does the same
> thing.

I probably should let this go, but always I feel I have to respond when
the believablity of Sharon's stories is used to illustrate a point.

Yes, they are extreme, but reality based. I didn't find that her
stories stretched the bounds of believability one bit. They illustrated
a part of human existence that a lot of people don't see or turn away
from, or if they do see it, don't realize how horribly commonplace these
incidents are in some environments.

Some people, like those in law enforcement, medicine, the legal and
penal systems and, sadly, our schools see the things Sharon wrote about.
See them with depressing regularity. I work for a large urban school
system and know first hand the horrific things people do, and allow
others to, to their children. :\

Take this for instance; a female teacher seduces a boy in his early
teens, supplying him with the material things his impoverished family
can't afford. The relationship goes on for *years*, then the teacher
gets him a job at the school when he graduates seeking to continue the
relationship. The young man (18 now) by this time detests her and won't
let her touch him. But he doesn't want the money and gifts to stop, so
he gives over his 13yr old brother to the woman. The boy's mother
finally figures out just how this teacher is *helping* her sons, but the
older boy, by now a street savvy young man, convinces his mother that
the woman owes them. They end up blackmailing the teacher (with video
tapes the older son made of the young brother and teacher), who
mortgaged her home three times to keep up with the demands, and she
winds up being forced to live in her own attic as the older boy takes
over her house and car for his own use. The neighbors, seeing the older
boy driving the car almost exclusively, finally report suspicions to the
police.

Everyone went to jail on this one, with the young boy being place in the
foster care system.

The sad part was the boy weeping at the loss of the teacher. See, he'd
turned to her for comfort. He was terrified of his brother, his mother
had failed him and the teacher was the one who gave him love and
comfort. In their fear, and shame and guilt they only had each other to
share the burden of the secret with.

Farfetched? Yes. Unbelievable? Yes. But, sadly, very true.

To me, Sharon's stories were a glimpse into the dark corners of the real
world, which is for some a real horror story with no happy ending in
sight. The stories were violent, depressing and unfailingly horrifying,
and maybe beyond personal experience but please don't say they were
beyond believability.

Mick C.


zul...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
EC Therapy <doc...@sunlink.net> wrote:
>> Blair is a pretty popular character because he has
>> been given mostly positive personality traits. Jim
>> is a bit less likable because he was given more
>> flaws. This makes the reader more sympathetic when
>> the bad things happen to Blair-- better drama, if
>> you will.

and ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu replied:


> Verra true, though given this I find it intriguing
> how many writers make it a point to give Blair flaws,
> often ones I myself don't perceive in him.

Actually, I'm one of the rare fans who likes Jim better
than Blair. It's similar to the reason why I like cats
better than dogs (and given their respective animal
guides, I find that very appropriate). (If you're really
interested, ask, and I'll elaborate.) Blair *does* have
flaws. He's hyper and overeager and lies a lot. He can
get so caught up in theory that he loses track of
reality. He whines. It's not that I don't find Blair a
sympathetic character -- I'm just pointing out that he
does so have flaws. And I think that is a good thing,
because perfect people are boring.

I think the fact that people like to hurt Blair has as
much to do with genre convention as anything else. As
the sidekick, he's simply the "designated victim". He's
a lead character, so people care about him, but he's not
the hero, whose job it is to save the day with his
heroness.

There's also a certain amount of logic to enemies
targeting Blair. I mean, think of Blair, Jim, and Simon
-- if you were a villain, and saw two large men carrying
guns who look like they've been militarily trained, and
one small slight guy who looks like an academic, who
would you feel safest picking a fight with? Remember,
villains are a cowardly and superstitious lot (10 points
to anyone who catches the reference).

-S


S A Rudy http://www.eclipse.net/~srudy
+----------------------------------------------------------+
|"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what |
| feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist |
| whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from |
| a doormat or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West, 1913 |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

Blair Kennedy

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to

zul...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message

>Remember, villains are a cowardly and superstitious lot (10 points
>to anyone who catches the reference).
>
I get the 10 points.

--Blair "Just Call Me Batgirl"Kennedy

EC Therapy

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
zul...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm one of the rare fans who likes Jim better
> than Blair. It's similar to the reason why I like cats
> better than dogs (and given their respective animal
> guides, I find that very appropriate). (If you're really
> interested, ask, and I'll elaborate.)

I think I understand this. I actually relate to Jim alot better (and I
am a cat person... your theory seems to work).

Blair *does* have
> flaws. He's hyper and overeager and lies a lot.

Okay, the lying thing I can understand, he does have to skirt around the
truth alot. But the hyperactivity is something I just don't see. We
often see him sitting quietly, studying, meditating or just observing
the people around him. I really don't think I have ever seen him
*bounce* the way writers often depict him doing non-stop. Sure, he gets
pretty expressive when he is excited, but its not a perpetual state.


> He can
> get so caught up in theory that he loses track of
> reality.

I disagree here. I think he just has a wider perspective than most
people.

He whines.

Again, I disagree. I have yet to see the famous puppy dog eyes. He
uses words to persuade people and if necessary he uses the words to
wear the other person down. But I can't say he whines. (Can you give
me an ep based example so I can see what you mean?)

>It's not that I don't find Blair a
> sympathetic character -- I'm just pointing out that he
> does so have flaws. And I think that is a good thing,
> because perfect people are boring.
>

I must be pretty interesting then... <<grin>> You are right here.


> I think the fact that people like to hurt Blair has as
> much to do with genre convention as anything else. As
> the sidekick, he's simply the "designated victim". He's
> a lead character, so people care about him, but he's not
> the hero, whose job it is to save the day with his
> heroness.

Thats true. It's also very cliche'. I like to read stories that have
Blair pulling Jim's (nice wonderful) butt out of the fire, just for a
change of pace. It's one reason I enjoyed The Girl Next Door. He
escaped how many times?? Not his fault he kept getting recaptured.
<<grin>>

>
> There's also a certain amount of logic to enemies
> targeting Blair. I mean, think of Blair, Jim, and Simon
> -- if you were a villain, and saw two large men carrying
> guns who look like they've been militarily trained, and
> one small slight guy who looks like an academic, who

> would you feel safest picking a fight with? Remember,


> villains are a cowardly and superstitious lot (10 points
> to anyone who catches the reference).

Oh, sure... hit me with an obscure reference NOW!! <<slaps forehead
repeatedly>> I *know* this one, I just can't come up with it now. Blame
it on two sick kids and no sleep for the past few nights.

All that said, I meant it when I said I relate to Jim better. I
actually have alot in common with the character (no, not THAT) and so
many of his reactions are spot-on, IMHO.
What? you ask? I was in the military, have been estranged from my
father for many years, tend not to show emotions, etc etc... I don't
look good in Kevlar though.

Blair, I think, would drive me insane to have as a roommate. Fun to be
around in small doses but slow death in the long haul.

Angie T.

Blair Kennedy

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to

Sally wrote in message <362444...@worldnet.att.net>...

>That's true, but I think most of the fanfic out there does the same

>thing. We have TS in outer space, TS in the wild west, TS in the
>medieval period, Jim and Blair as vampires, Jim and Blair with psychic
>powers, Jim and Blair as lovers. I'm sure there are others that I can't
>recall at the moment. Even the smarm, as much as I love it, tends to
>stretch the boundaries of believability at times. Of course, being a
>big science fiction and horror fan, extreme and unbelievable is just my
>cup of tea <g>.


As one who sends Jim, Blair and the gang to the far reaches of the universe,
I have to say I have no problem stretching the bounds of reality. If I did,
I wouldn't read smarm or slash or AUs or crossovers. In that event, I would
be missing out on a lot of great stories. No Yvonne, no TAE, no Legion no
Lois Balzer.

However, as much fun as all those are, they still border on the unreal. For
a heavy shot of gritty realism, you couldn't top Sharon. Perhaps that is why
some misguided souls felt the need to hate her. I think one of the big draws
of fanfic, much like the TV shows it is written about, is need to escape the
ugliness, the bitterness and the disappointment of the work-a-day world. You
just couldn't do this with Sharon. In her work, as in life, Jim couldn't
always save the day. I guess some people just couldn't handle that and
wanted to make her suffer for their disappointment.

How much simpler life would be if we had a Jim to protect us from its
horrors. Sadly, as evidenced by the slaying of Matthew Shepard, too often we
don't.

The only consolation here is Sharon is still alive and may yet write again.

--Blair Kennedy, who still has her rose coloured glasses even though they
are a bit smudged.

ZAguilera

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
>zul...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I'm one of the rare fans who likes Jim better
>> than Blair. It's similar to the reason why I like cats
>> better than dogs (and given their respective animal
>> guides, I find that very appropriate). (If you're really
>> interested, ask, and I'll elaborate.)

Then Angie T said:

>I think I understand this. I actually relate to Jim alot better (and I
>am a cat person... your theory seems to >work)

Not quite. I'm a Jim person, major Burgi-babe and I can't stand cats (no
offense to cat people).


>> He can
>> get so caught up in theory that he loses track of
>> reality.
>
>I disagree here. I think he just has a wider perspective than most
>people.
>

Yeah but sometimes in those wider perspectives he forgets there are real people
involved. People with feelings, emotions, fears. He did it with Jim at their
first meeting, and couple other times. I realize that it's just enthusasim
and/or coping mechanisms. But sometimes he really should think before
speaking.

>He whines.

>Again, I disagree. I have yet to see the famous puppy dog eyes. He
>uses words to persuade people and if necessary he uses the words to
>wear the other person down. But I can't say he whines. (Can you give
>me an ep based example so I can see what >you mean?)

Try "The Debt", you know the one where he moves in with Jim. Major puppy dog
eyes going there. No real whining, but major pleading going on.

Zenia

ZAguilera

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
>(Sally) wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's because Jim has more flaws. I think it's because Jim
>> is perceived as being the emotionally stronger of the two. At least on
>> the outside. His life as a Ranger and a detective has hardened him to
>> where he would not reacted as emotionally to trauma and the bad things
>> they encounter as Blair would, so having Blair doing the suffering
>> provides the story with more angst. I think that's why many fanfic
>> writer make Blair behave much younger that he really is. I makes him
>> appear more innocent and vulnerable, so when evil things happen to him,
>> they have a greater emotional impact. And, of course, it makes for good
>> smarm. JMHO.
>>

XmagX then said:
>The other reason folks are more inclined to go after Blair (at least how my
>sister tells it) is because Blair is more emotional--if he's worried about
>Jim
>or whatever he's more likely to show it (at least that's how he's perceived)
>While as Jim is more likely to show their friendship when he's pushed into
>it,
>i.e. when Blair's on his deathbed sort of thing...

But do people really think that Jim is more emotionally stronger than Blair. I
mean from what I've perceived I would think that the opposite is true. Blair
seems more emotionally solid and together than Jim. Just because he freaks out
at a dead body doesn't make him emotionally stronger. I love Jim, love his
character, and one of those reasons is cuz he's all screwed up. He's had all
these tramatic experiences in his life that are boiling inside of him, they
make him vulnerable. And despite what he says, I find that he takes all of his
cases very seriously. And I also find that he is more prone to emotional
outbursts, so much more than Blair. Think about it, how many people were
shocked at Blair outbursts in "Sweet Science". If it had been Jim would we
have been that shocked.

And as for the whole friendship thing, well I know a lot of guys like Jim, you
know on that macho trip. Anyway, none of them go up to their friends and
actually say, "I love you man, you're my best friend. I need you in my life."
It's just not a guy thing to do.

Well this is, of course, JMHO
Zenia

Dawn

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
> >(Sally) wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think it's because Jim has more flaws. I think it's because Jim
> >> is perceived as being the emotionally stronger of the two.
>
> XmagX then said:
> >The other reason folks are more inclined to go after Blair (at least how my
> >sister tells it) is because Blair is more emotional--*snip*

>
> But do people really think that Jim is more emotionally stronger than Blair.
> *snip*

> Think about it, how many people were
> shocked at Blair outbursts in "Sweet Science". If it had been Jim would we
> have been that shocked.

> Zenia

I don't think either one is more emotional. I think they're emotionally different.
Jim has more of a temper. He gets angry easier, though he doesn't always show it
blatantly on the outside. Blair doesn't get angry very easily, but he does get
excited easily. He smiles and laughs easily, and it doesn't take a whole lot to
make him happy. So, in that respect, they are different. Jim tends to lean toward
the "darker" emotions whereas Blair tends to lean toward the "lighter" ones... I'm
not saying Jim doesn't joke around or smile, just that he's not as affectionate or
"happy-go-lucky" as Blair is, and Blair, on the other hand, doesn't tend to lose
his temper.

As for the "dead body" thing. Jim is simply more "hardened" than Blair. Again, the
contrast between the two. Would anybody really want a "hard" Blair (get your mind
out of the gutter!) *grin* No, I don't think so. IT just wouldn't be interesting to
have two "hard, rough, macho" characters.

EC Therapy

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to
ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
>
> And good pt otherwise...actually, though, how many times in the show--not the
> fic but the cannon eps--has Blair actually been targetted with the specific
> purpose of getting to Jim and/or the Cascade PD? I mean Blair specifically,
> not like the Golden incident in BMB, that could have been anyone. Lash is
> partly that but I always got the impression it was mostly just because he was
> in contact w/ Blair, he wanted to get on Ellison's nerves but his prime
> purpose was getting Blair for the sake of Blair...
>

Ummm... off the top of my head?? and not necessarily getting the episode
names right?

* The Lee Brackett episode -- Brackett uses Blair to keep Jim
cooperative

* The Cassie Wells does Silence of the Lambs episode -- Cassie and Blair
held prisoner in the loft to draw Jim

Any others??

Angie T.

Blair Kennedy

unread,
Oct 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/14/98
to

EC Therapy wrote in message <36258F...@sunlink.net>...

>ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>
>Ummm... off the top of my head?? and not necessarily getting the episode
>names right?
>
>* The Lee Brackett episode -- Brackett uses Blair to keep Jim
>cooperative
>
>* The Cassie Wells does Silence of the Lambs episode -- Cassie and Blair
>held prisoner in the loft to draw Jim
>
>Any others??


I would almost say "Nightshift," but I don't believe that guy knew who Blair
was, just a convenient hostage.

--Blair Kennedy

ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
zul...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Actually, I'm one of the rare fans who likes Jim better
> than Blair. It's similar to the reason why I like cats
> better than dogs (and given their respective animal
> guides, I find that very appropriate).

Not to throw a monkey wrench into things (me? perish the thought! ;) but I
am most definitely a Blair-girl myself, and as anyone who knows me in RL
knows, I'm also a major cat person (have my beloved cat as a kitten on my
mousepad...and a photo of kittens on my desk...and another pic of my cat
adult...er, need I go on? ;)

Though I concede Blair has more puppy-dog traits and Jim more cat ones. Oh
well. What I love in cats I don't necessarily love in people...

> I think the fact that people like to hurt Blair has as
> much to do with genre convention as anything else. As
> the sidekick, he's simply the "designated victim". He's
> a lead character, so people care about him, but he's not
> the hero, whose job it is to save the day with his
> heroness.
>

verra true...apologies to all Jim-lovers, but I am just about DYING for an ep
that Blair for once gets to be the hero and saves the day, more or less all
on his own...one of the reasons I love DeadDrop, he does save himself and the
other 3 folks with his smarts... Ah well, I'm still waiting for Jim to get
'napped and Blair gets to kick down the door, wielding the gun, his hair held
back in a headband...mmm.....er, sorry, back now ;)

I do try to balance my BlairTorture with my JimTorture, though I must concede
that Blair still gets the short end of the stick...except that putting one
through physical angst basically guarantees the other mental/emotional
angst--ah, I betta go write something before this turns into a snipfic here
and now! ;)

> There's also a certain amount of logic to enemies
> targeting Blair. I mean, think of Blair, Jim, and Simon
> -- if you were a villain, and saw two large men carrying
> guns who look like they've been militarily trained, and
> one small slight guy who looks like an academic, who
> would you feel safest picking a fight with? Remember,
> villains are a cowardly and superstitious lot (10 points
> to anyone who catches the reference).
>

Blair K already caught it, to our great gratitude, as it was just 'bout
driving me batty there =)

And good pt otherwise...actually, though, how many times in the show--not the
fic but the cannon eps--has Blair actually been targetted with the specific
purpose of getting to Jim and/or the Cascade PD? I mean Blair specifically,
not like the Golden incident in BMB, that could have been anyone. Lash is
partly that but I always got the impression it was mostly just because he was
in contact w/ Blair, he wanted to get on Ellison's nerves but his prime
purpose was getting Blair for the sake of Blair...

hmm, am I making any sense here? better get back to the books before I lose my
own train of thought...

XmagicalX
too late, it's gone!

Sally

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
ZAguilera wrote:
>
> >Again, I disagree. I have yet to see the famous puppy dog eyes. He
> >uses words to persuade people and if necessary he uses the words to
> >wear the other person down. But I can't say he whines. (Can you give
> >me an ep based example so I can see what >you mean?)
>
> Try "The Debt", you know the one where he moves in with Jim. Major puppy dog
> eyes going there. No real whining, but major pleading going on.
>

There is also the scene where he's trying to get Jim to go out with one
of his overbooked girlfriends. Can't remember the name of the episode.
This is about the only Blair characteristic that bothers me. His
romantic obfuscations may be amusing to him, but they probably aren't
very funny to the women who get stood up. I know because I've been
there.

Sally

Sally

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
ZAguilera wrote:
>

> But do people really think that Jim is more emotionally stronger than Blair. I
> mean from what I've perceived I would think that the opposite is true. Blair
> seems more emotionally solid and together than Jim. Just because he freaks out
> at a dead body doesn't make him emotionally stronger. I love Jim, love his
> character, and one of those reasons is cuz he's all screwed up. He's had all
> these tramatic experiences in his life that are boiling inside of him, they
> make him vulnerable. And despite what he says, I find that he takes all of his
> cases very seriously. And I also find that he is more prone to emotional
> outbursts, so much more than Blair. Think about it, how many people were

> shocked at Blair outbursts in "Sweet Science". If it had been Jim would we
> have been that shocked.
>

When I said Jim was emotionally stronger, I really meant that when
placed in the same life threatening situations that the fanfic writers
put Blair in, he doesn't display fear the way Blair does. Sure, he's
emotional, but his emotions usually only show themselves as anger, so
the Jim owies don't have the same emotional impact on the readers. If
we took an angsty episode like Cypher, for instance, and reversed the
characters, the show just would not have been the same. If it had been
Jim who was kidnapped by Lash, I think he would have just sat there,
clenched his jaw, and glared at the guy. If it had been Jim who was
seeing golden fire people, he probably would have been trying to shoot
them, but I just can't picture him bursting into tears. The only time I
remember seeing Jim really show fear was at the end of Sentinel Too.

I just think this may be one of the reasons why the writers pick on
Blair more than they do Jim.

Am I making any sense? You know, for someone who considers herself a
lurker, I've sure been doing a lot of talking lately :).

Sally

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Mick wrote:
>
> Blair Kennedy wrote:
>
> > MadiHolmes wrote in message
> > <19981007233040...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
> > >
> > >I mean I go on a month long vacation, and bam, my favorite writer is like
> > >splitsville, man. What happened to her voilatile deranged mind?
> >
> > She was flamed off the internet. It seems a lot of people objected to her
> > particular brand of Blair torture so she packed up her dollies and went
> > home. Too bad. She was one of my favourite writers as well.
> >
>
> Not just flames, but *hate* mail.
>
> Really, I don't understand such things. If you don't like her style or her
> stories, all you have to do is not read them.

That right there is basically why I stopped. I didn't like her style.
But I agree o Ellipsis, that was one of the better death stories that I
have read as well.


>
> But then again, I don't understand how how someone could be tied to a fence
> and set on fire because of their sexual orientation (with the local police
> insisting the motive of such an heinous act was robbery, simply because the
> young man's wallet was gone).

Yeah, that was heart breaking, and I hope it never happens in that state
ever.

Those people (the one's that killed the student) should at least get
'Murder One'.


>
> Sharon's stories might have been hard to read, but RL can be even more
> horrific.

What's RL? Just thought I'd ask.

Mick, if you want, you (or anyone else) can e-mail me at the mailing
address listed below my name.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> Mick C.
>
> P. S. - IMHO Sharon's "Ellipsis" was one of the best death stories ever done
> for The Sentinel"

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Mick wrote:
>
> Mick wrote:
>
> > Blair Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > > MadiHolmes wrote in message
> > > <19981007233040...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
> > > >
> > > >I mean I go on a month long vacation, and bam, my favorite writer is like
> > > >splitsville, man. What happened to her voilatile deranged mind?
> > >
> > > She was flamed off the internet. It seems a lot of people objected to her
> > > particular brand of Blair torture so she packed up her dollies and went
> > > home. Too bad. She was one of my favourite writers as well.
> > >
> >
> > Not just flames, but *hate* mail.
> >
> > Really, I don't understand such things. If you don't like her style or her
> > stories, all you have to do is not read them.
> >
> > But then again, I don't understand how how someone could be tied to a fence
> > and set on fire
>
> Oh good grief! That was NOT was I meant to type. :( I had just been reading
> about a local attack - gang violence - where someone had been doused with a
> flamable liquid and set on fire, and both incidents were on my mind. The young
> man in question was savagely beaten. Matthew Sheppard's attack was horrible
> enough without adding that beastial act to it.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Nobody should even *have* to go through
what Mr. Sheppard did, just because he was gay. What difference does
that make anyway?


>
> My heart goes out to Mr. Sheppard and his family.

My heart goes out to whoever he may have been dating, I'm sure that
person will be missing him something awful. And his family must be
horrified.

I know mine would be if that had been me.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> Mick C.

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:

>
> Mick <maha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Not just flames, but *hate* mail.
> >
> > Really, I don't understand such things. If you don't like her style or her
> > stories, all you have to do is not read them.
> >
>
> Don't worry, most of us are just as lost as you are. Poor Sharon. Is there
> any chance of showing her that we're not all ogres and trolls? I've been
> fortunate enough not to have been flamed very often (a good thing considering
> my ego's a lot fragiler than I make it out to be :) but I have great sympathy
> for those who have. Especially for something like fic--a lot of work goes
> into writing, and to be rewarded so negatively for your troubles...All the
> worse when it affects those of us who *do* like it, denies us the opportunity
> to tell her so and her opportunity to hear it...for me, this obsession is
> fun, a way to relax and enjoy and entertain. I left X-files fandom in part
> because it could be vicious, mean to people because of random opinions, and
> that's not fun as far as I'm concerned; how can you take your pleasure from
> destroying someone else's?
>
> Which is why I'm still enjoying TS so much...the show's diverting, and the
> chars are amusing to play with, and GM especially is great to watch--but most
> of all the people here (that I've encountered) are friendly, fun folk. I wuv
> you guys! =) It's sad Sharon ran into different crowd. Any way we make it
> up to her?

Maybe invite her to post on the ng?

Well that's all I can come up with right now. I'm sure she would like
to hear what we have to say, and to hear that noone *had* to force of
the 'Net.


>
> Pity she left before she found the ng...

Read my two short sentences. I'm sure you can come up with an idea from
just those two.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> XmagicalX


>
> > P. S. - IMHO Sharon's "Ellipsis" was one of the best death stories ever done
> > for The Sentinel
> >
>

> Argh! okay, I admit to having my own nefarious purpose...Sharon pulled her
> stuff before I had a chance to more than glimpse them, and I never got to
> this one. Does anyone have a copy of it? I promise if I don't like it my
> lips are sealed, no one will ever know...but I have a feeling I might enjoy
> it. Any angst fans out there willing or able to help a fellow follower of
> angst?

Sorka

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
In article <702sfr$b9fc$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Blair Kennedy" <JA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>However, as much fun as all those are, they still border on the unreal. For
>a heavy shot of gritty realism, you couldn't top Sharon. Perhaps that is why
>some misguided souls felt the need to hate her. I think one of the big draws
>of fanfic, much like the TV shows it is written about, is need to escape the
>ugliness, the bitterness and the disappointment of the work-a-day world. You
>just couldn't do this with Sharon. In her work, as in life, Jim couldn't
>always save the day. I guess some people just couldn't handle that and
>wanted to make her suffer for their disappointment.

Hi,

Though I have NEVER sent Sharon negative feed back ever, and initially
encouraged her when she was on Sentries-ff, I must catagorize myself as
one of those people that can not read her stories. Why? Because I find
the amount of pain and suffering that occured in her first series totally
unrealistic. For someone to survive all of that happed in Happy Families
with their sanity intact would take a major miracle.

And while I do know a person in real life that has suffered horribly over the
years, trust me, they are niether whole nor completely sane any more.
With out serious councling, and a sturdy, unwavering support system,
no one could survive what Sharon has Blair go through. And I'm sorry
but in her stories, even though Jim usually is helping Blair at some point
I didn't see anyone as Blair's support.

I realise this has turned into a flame of sorts, but you must understand the
POV of one who cringed every time a new story of her's was posted.

I'll repeat that I never sent her anything negative, I encouraged her in her
first works. And I know there are many that love her work. But with her list
of stories she had a warning that stated she had a very thin skin and didn't
want to hear anything negative. That really isn't a realistic view of the
world of fanfiction, especially considering the nature of what she wrote. I
honestly wish that she had a tougher skin, so that we all could have a lively
debate with her over the merits of the different types of fanfiction out
there.

Thats all from me, If I've offened anyone by my oppinion, I'm terribly sorry.

Sorka

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Blair Kennedy wrote:
>
> ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote in message

> >Argh! okay, I admit to having my own nefarious purpose...Sharon pulled her
> >stuff before I had a chance to more than glimpse them, and I never got to
> >this one. Does anyone have a copy of it? I promise if I don't like it my
> >lips are sealed, no one will ever know...but I have a feeling I might enjoy
> >it. Any angst fans out there willing or able to help a fellow follower of
> >angst?
>
> "I have all of Sharon's stories. I made sure to get them before they were
> pulled," Blair gloated as she poured another glass of slivovitz and settled
> in to read 'Spatial Properties' one more time.

Some how, that's one of the one's I didn't really like all that much, I
somehow can't get into seeing Blair Sandburg tortured.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing Sharon anymore, but in any other
fanfic as well, I can't deal with Blair Abuse.

That's just my opinion.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> --Blair Kennedy

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Sally wrote:

>
> Mick wrote:
> >
>
> > Really, I don't understand such things. If you don't like her style or her
> > stories, all you have to do is not read them.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
> I wrote Sharon an e-mail about a month ago asking her why she was no
> longer writing fanfic. She replied that it was more from the lack of
> positive feedback than from flames. I'm not sure if I believe that
> though, since it doesn't explain why she removed her existing stories.
>
> Her stories were very dark and violent, but they all contained warnings
> at the beginning, so noone was being taken by surprise here. I enjoy a
> dark, angsty story sometimes; and, believe me, I've read novels that
> were much worst than anything Sharon has written.

Yeah, although, most of the Stephen King novels I've read have been tame
compared to some of the torture stories I've read on other websites.

And I'm not talking about Sharon's stories either. But I've read quite
a bit of others that were along the same lines as Sharon's.


>
> I wish I had saved her stories, but, unfortunately I didn't. She told
> me that she was going to be away for a couple of months, but when she
> got back, she might start writing again. Maybe we can talk her into
> e-mailing her stories to us.

Yeah, I guess we can.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

P.S. I sent a letter to her Geocities e-mail address, but I never got
anything back from her. Not one word. And I was even nice in the
letter.

>
> Sally

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
wolf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <36214D...@worldnet.att.net>,

> sese...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > I wrote Sharon an e-mail about a month ago asking her why she was no
> > longer writing fanfic. She replied that it was more from the lack of
> > positive feedback than from flames. I'm not sure if I believe that
> > though, since it doesn't explain why she removed her existing stories.
>
> Not meaning to be nasty about this--I consider Sharon an excellent writer,
> though her stories were too twisted for me to continue reading--but there is
> a segment of fanfic writers out there who regularly threaten to stop writing,
> or even to do themselves injury, if they receive the slightest negative
> comment or just don't receive the amount of praise they think their writing
> deserves. What happens is, these writers complain and threaten in some public

> way, they immediately receive dozens of pleas not to stop and lots of
> sympathy over the bad treatment they have endured, and they withdraw the
> threat. After a while, people get tired of seeing the same threats and they
> stop responding. The writers then either start behaving like adults, or more
> often, take their toys and go home. To the best of my knowledge, Sharon has
> chosen to do the latter. If I'm wrong, and she really did take her stories
> down because of hate mail, then I apologize for misjudging her in this
> instance. But knowing what I do of her behavior in the past, I am inclined
> to think my interpretation is correct. She's still a damn good writer,

> though. And she'd be even better if she'd stop giving Blair those
> impossible-to-survive bodily and/or psychological injuries. Just MHO, of
> course.

I agree with Wolfguide. Let's just hope Sharon *isn't* the type to go
on a bender and cause *herself* bodily and/or psychological injuries.

I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy if I had a worst enemy.

That's just not like me, I guess.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> Wolfguide

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Dawn wrote:
>
> I agree totally. I read a lot of Sharon's work, and enjoyed it, for the most part
> (except when she gave Blair permanent injuries that significantly altered his
> character). I did, however, have to take her in doses :-) Her stories were
> intense, and always held my interest, but I like Blair too much to see him
> permanently changed for the worse. But, that's my choice - to read or not to read
> <grin> I was saddened to see her go, though, because now I can't read the
> remaining stories at my leisure when I'm feeling particularly morbid :-)

Yeah, especially with Halloween just around the corner. Wouldn't it be
great if someone were to write a good, scary, TS Halloween story.

Sharon could've done it.


>
> On the note of praise to ff writers, I can't imagine people sending hate mail b/c
> they don't like something. I mean, come on, these are done for free - with
> substantial expenditure of time and effort. If you don't like the story, just
> don't say anything. :-)

That's right. Just don't read it.


>
> However, if you do like, WRITE!!! <big grin> Fan fiction writers are a curious
> bunch, and I myself, a few months ago, never would have thought I'd be into fan
> fiction. I steered clear of it intentionally. But this darn Sentinel world drew
> me in :-) Anyway, back to the point. FF writers spend all this time and energy
> doing what is basically a completely economically inefficient activity. They get
> no pay for it, and usually have to put off RL stuff to finish :-) The only
> compensation received is praise. So, I think the equation is simple enough - you
> want to see more fanfiction, you've gotta pay the dues, and that means e-mailing
> the author to let him or her know that you liked the story. It took the author
> hours to write, it takes you maybe a minute to e-mail her/him and say "good job!"

Again, I agree with the fic author's, in this case, Dawn.

When you like something, say 'thanks', and if you don't, then pleasently
say so, but don't flame.

While I didn't like Sharon's stories, I never 'flamed' her.


>
> I have to chastise myself here b/c, for the longest time, I would just read the
> stories and never even think to e-mail the author... no matter how much pleasure
> I derived from the story. Even now I occasionally still do that... but I do make
> an effort to at least drop a line when I finish a story... and I make a point to
> give sincere comments, b/c, as I know first-hand, those are the most valuable
> kind :-)
>
> Okay, I'm stepping down from the podium now! <grin>

You've said enough. At least in my opinion.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> -Dawn-

> > Wolfguide
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
>
> Hope y'all don't mind a (long) "me too" post--but yes, yes! on just about
> every count....
>
> I can understand ff writers who stop writing because the reader response
> dies. Authors in the "real world" write for a living, or at least make a
> little side money (or try to) Definitely it's partly for the pleasure of it;
> why does any artist produce work, after all, if not for that? But what is
> written is meant to be read--it increases my pleasure in what I've done that
> much more to know that someone else enjoyed it too, that I'd made that
> contact. Face it, we all have at least a little ego; it's nice to be
> acknowledged. I start most of my fics because I have an idea that won't
> leave me alone, but especially with these long multi-parters I wouldn't ever
> finish them if I didn't have the encouragement of knowing someone out there
> wanted more!

And you've written quite a bit of good stories also.


>
> I can also understand how this can be twisted, how getting hate mail would
> stop me from writing (or at least from sharing). I've never really been
> flamed myself (ah! hope I don't start something here ;) but if I write a
> story that doesn't get much response, I'm not as likely to start the sequel I
> might have planned or write another story like it.
>
> I admit to having less patience with people who try to incite readers by
> threatening to pull their stuff or stop writing altogether, etc. I can
> understand the drive for reader response (okay, and I admit to a little devil


> inside me wondering, "if you dropped out of the fic circle, would anybody

> miss you?" I'll face up to it...I'm an ego-hound ;) but I haven't actually
> done it...) but trying to force it is a bit childish. Although I don't know
> the story, I'm tempted to think it was something different in Sharon's case,
> because she didn't make a fuss over it, and she pulled her fic entirely
> without leaving a way to contact her to get it back. That indicates she was
> either completely tired with the show and wanted to abandon it
> altogether--which I can see, though I haven't pulled my own TXF stuff--or
> more likely that she was burned pretty bad and doesn't want to continue being
> hurt for something she did out of love of a show's chars and for enjoyment.
> In which case I have only sympathy for her (and for all us reader denied her
> stories!)

Yeah, somehow, I don't go in for ff author's threatening to pull their
stuff just because they're not getting readership. That is pretty
childish, and after a while, the said author might wind up losing
readers that way.

I *am* for author's that are loyal to their readers, and who are honest
with them. Even if that means acknowledging the fact that they aren't
getting good readership.

At least their not acting like children.


>
> My own private confession: I never e'd a single ff writer until I wrote
> something myself and realized how great it really was to hear somebody liked
> it! now I make it a point to drop a quick note whenever I like
> something...ff's a moneyless economy; the only goods are fic and the only
> payment's the response; it's up to us to keep it in circulation! =)

One way to do that is to test it in a setting such as this one. At
least that way you get your feedback from the people that are reading it
for the first time on the ng.

That way, you know whether or not you should make plans for a sequel. I
guess when this ng was formed, Sharon was somehow not notified.

This would've been the place for her to test her stories out on some
kind of an audience.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> XmagicalX, trying to incite readers? Never..! ;)


>
> Dawn <Da...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > I agree totally. I read a lot of Sharon's work, and enjoyed it, for the most
> part
> > (except when she gave Blair permanent injuries that significantly altered his
> > character). I did, however, have to take her in doses :-) Her stories were
> > intense, and always held my interest, but I like Blair too much to see him
> > permanently changed for the worse. But, that's my choice - to read or not to
> read
> > <grin> I was saddened to see her go, though, because now I can't read the
> > remaining stories at my leisure when I'm feeling particularly morbid :-)
> >

> > On the note of praise to ff writers, I can't imagine people sending hate mail
> b/c
> > they don't like something. I mean, come on, these are done for free - with
> > substantial expenditure of time and effort. If you don't like the story, just
> > don't say anything. :-)
> >

> > However, if you do like, WRITE!!! <big grin> Fan fiction writers are a curious
> > bunch, and I myself, a few months ago, never would have thought I'd be into
> fan
> > fiction. I steered clear of it intentionally. But this darn Sentinel world
> drew
> > me in :-) Anyway, back to the point. FF writers spend all this time and energy
> > doing what is basically a completely economically inefficient activity. They
> get
> > no pay for it, and usually have to put off RL stuff to finish :-) The only
> > compensation received is praise. So, I think the equation is simple enough -
> you
> > want to see more fanfiction, you've gotta pay the dues, and that means
> e-mailing
> > the author to let him or her know that you liked the story. It took the author
> > hours to write, it takes you maybe a minute to e-mail her/him and say "good
> job!"
> >

> > I have to chastise myself here b/c, for the longest time, I would just read
> the
> > stories and never even think to e-mail the author... no matter how much
> pleasure
> > I derived from the story. Even now I occasionally still do that... but I do
> make
> > an effort to at least drop a line when I finish a story... and I make a point
> to
> > give sincere comments, b/c, as I know first-hand, those are the most valuable
> > kind :-)
> >
> > Okay, I'm stepping down from the podium now! <grin>
> >

> > -Dawn-

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
EC Therapy wrote:

>
> ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
> >
> >(okay, and I admit to a little devil
> > inside me wondering, "if you dropped out of the fic circle, would anybody
> > miss you?" I'll face up to it...I'm an ego-hound ;)
>
> Yes! Yes!... a thousand times YES!! Stick around, please! I promise to
> keep writing feedback, just please don't go!

I think she knows that Angie, she doesn't need us begging her for mercy.

Plus, she already has a good audience just with the people in the ng.
<g>

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> Angie T.

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:

>
> EC Therapy <doc...@sunlink.net> wrote:
> > ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
> > >
> > >(okay, and I admit to a little devil
> > > inside me wondering, "if you dropped out of the fic circle, would anybody
> > > miss you?" I'll face up to it...I'm an ego-hound ;)
> >
> > Yes! Yes!... a thousand times YES!! Stick around, please! I promise to
> > keep writing feedback, just please don't go!
> >
> > Angie T.
> >
> I won't! I won't! (I don't need to now--you just made my day! =)
>
> XmagX, who desperately needed a pick-me-up...crawling back to the psych now...

I guess psych class isn't going to well huh? Well, I think you've been
coming to the right place.

I guess you didn't need anyone to point out to you either. <g>

Star
sta...@netscape.net

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Blair Kennedy wrote:
>
> wolf...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message

> >
>
> > there is a segment of fanfic writers out there who regularly threaten to
> stop writing,
> >or even to do themselves injury, if they receive the slightest negative
> >comment or just don't receive the amount of praise they think their writing
> >deserves. What happens is, these writers complain and threaten in some
> public
> >way, they immediately receive dozens of pleas not to stop and lots of
> >sympathy over the bad treatment they have endured, and they withdraw the
> >threat. After a while, people get tired of seeing the same threats and
> they
> >stop responding. The writers then either start behaving like adults, or
> more
> >often, take their toys and go home.
>
> I've seen this syndrome, most recently on Senfic during that "Beach"
> debacle. I never understood this. Sure, I like it when someone writes to me
> just to say "good story" or offers some constructive criticism, but I'm not
> going to get the vapours if someone writes and says the story sucked.
>
> I had one gal write to me saying she didn't normally send only negative
> feedback, but she'd make an exception for me. She thought I had Blair acting
> out of character. I thought this was funny coming from a slash perspective
> because how much more out of character can you get than slash? But, I didn't
> pack up toys and head home. I turned that particular story into a series. So
> there. = p

Which of your series of stories are you referring to? Just thought I'd
ask since I haven't been to your page in quite some time, and am
wondering what you have put up since them.

I hope you like the feedback, not just about your stories, but about
your page as well.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> I guess that's the difference between me and other writers. I do it for fun.
> As soon as my next obsession takes over, I'm liable to give TS the boot
> without a second thought. Yeah, right. = )
>
> --Blair "My karma just ran over your dogma"Kennedy

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Blair Kennedy wrote:
>
> Caitlin Mackay Shaw wrote in message <7006ds$ka5$1...@lendl.cc.emory.edu>...
> >regarding negative feedback and hate mail -- can i just ask how
> >often this happens? i mean, and please don't take this the wrong
> >way, but is it a gen thing? >
>
> I don't know if it's a gen thing or not because the only gen list I'm on is
> Senfic and people there have always been way supportive, much like on SFX.
> However, I understand there is a bit of ire between other gen lists and the
> slashers. I don't really understand that. I mean, we all like the same show,
> just different facets.
>
> >i'm just curious (i'm *not* trying to start another slash/gen
> >war!) why slash seems to inspire a "don't like it? don't read it"
> >attitude and why anything else could be different... when people
> >write nasty feedback, what do they *say*?
>
> Personally, knock wood, I have not been subjected to any hate mail. I've
> received letters from people who have said they were writing because
> something I had done so disturbed their friends they could not write me
> about it themselves. Those kinds of letters I immediately discount because I
> figure if you are so emotionally crippled something *I* do would send you
> over the edge, then you need some serious help.

Isn't that the honest truth. <g>

Get that person to a shrink, fast.


>
> Personally, I would never send hate mail or flames. I mean, what's the
> point? I think maybe it's kind of power trip. You can say all kinds of
> horrible things to people on the net because chances are you are never going
> to meet them face to face. It's the power( and the cowardice) of anonymity.

True, but I have never flamed any author. Not even Sharon.


>
> >now, of course, all the slashers who've gotten nasty letters are
> >going to prove my sweeping generalizations wrong...
>
> I've gotten a letters from people who didn't want me to write "Cascade
> Place." Of course, I've gotten letters from people who were patiently
> waiting for the next episode. Oh well, there's just no pleasing everyone.
> That's why I always think of myself first. ; )

Is Cascade Place on your page? And if so, which section is it listed
under.

To everyone* Send e-mail to the mailing address listed below my name.

Thanks.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

>
> --Blair Kennedy

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Sally wrote:

>
> ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Blair is a pretty popular character because he has been given mostly
> > > positive personality traits. Jim is a bit less likable because he was
> > > given more flaws. This makes the reader more sympathetic when the bad
> > > things happen to Blair-- better drama, if you will.
> > >
> > Verra true, though given this I find it intriguing how many writers make it a

> > point to give Blair flaws, often ones I myself don't perceive in him.
>
> I don't think it's because Jim has more flaws. I think it's because Jim
> is perceived as being the emotionally stronger of the two. At least on
> the outside. His life as a Ranger and a detective has hardened him to
> where he would not reacted as emotionally to trauma and the bad things
> they encounter as Blair would, so having Blair doing the suffering
> provides the story with more angst. I think that's why many fanfic
> writer make Blair behave much younger that he really is. I makes him
> appear more innocent and vulnerable, so when evil things happen to him,
> they have a greater emotional impact. And, of course, it makes for good
> smarm. JMHO.
>
> >
> > At any rate, however, though wg admitted to not caring for Sharon's style, she
> > still said she was "a damn good writer". Far from a slam, in the spirit of
> > constructive criticism I would myself take this as a very high compliment
> > indeed, that though it may not be to everyone's taste it's well-written
> > nonetheless. And personally I think her suggestion is on target--I too
> > found what little I read of Sharon's stories to be on the extreme side,
> > pushing past the grounds of believability.

> >
> That's true, but I think most of the fanfic out there does the same
> thing. We have TS in outer space, TS in the wild west, TS in the
> medieval period, Jim and Blair as vampires, Jim and Blair with psychic
> powers, Jim and Blair as lovers. I'm sure there are others that I can't
> recall at the moment. Even the smarm, as much as I love it, tends to
> stretch the boundaries of believability at times. Of course, being a
> big science fiction and horror fan, extreme and unbelievable is just my
> cup of tea <g>.

As per the above paragraph, I think we should thank Em, Klair and BCW,
whoever does the medival stories, Blair, and all the slashers that
currently post to this ng.

Without them, the TS world would be boring.

Star
sta...@netscape.net

P.S. I may not have liked the vampire or werewolf stories, but I liked
all the others, and that's what counts.

>
> Sally

StarGem

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:

>
> sese...@worldnet.att.net (Sally) wrote:
>
> > I don't think it's because Jim has more flaws. I think it's because Jim
> > is perceived as being the emotionally stronger of the two. At least on
> > the outside. His life as a Ranger and a detective has hardened him to
> > where he would not reacted as emotionally to trauma and the bad things
> > they encounter as Blair would, so having Blair doing the suffering
> > provides the story with more angst. I think that's why many fanfic
> > writer make Blair behave much younger that he really is. I makes him
> > appear more innocent and vulnerable, so when evil things happen to him,
> > they have a greater emotional impact. And, of course, it makes for good
> > smarm. JMHO.
> >
> The other reason folks are more inclined to go after Blair (at least how my
> sister tells it) is because Blair is more emotional--if he's worried about Jim
> or whatever he's more likely to show it (at least that's how he's perceived)
> While as Jim is more likely to show their friendship when he's pushed into it,
> i.e. when Blair's on his deathbed sort of thing...

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but that deathbed thing reminds me about
the ending of S2.


>
> There's also something about the older, (either actually or just in terms of
> relation, experience, ability, etc...) worrying about the younger that's
> sweeter, though I have yet to understand the exact mechanics of it. All I
> know is sis keeps insisting that I hurt Blair, and shoot Guss, and now sis
> herself is tormenting RayK, all in the interests of getting a reaction out of
> the stiff-upper-lip partner...

Who is RayK? Is he one of the DS characters? I *still* don't know much
about that series, or the fanfic for it.


>
> > > I too
> > > found what little I read of Sharon's stories to be on the extreme side,
> > > pushing past the grounds of believability.
> > >
> > That's true, but I think most of the fanfic out there does the same
> > thing. We have TS in outer space, TS in the wild west, TS in the
> > medieval period, Jim and Blair as vampires, Jim and Blair with psychic
> > powers, Jim and Blair as lovers. I'm sure there are others that I can't
> > recall at the moment. Even the smarm, as much as I love it, tends to
> > stretch the boundaries of believability at times. Of course, being a
> > big science fiction and horror fan, extreme and unbelievable is just my
> > cup of tea <g>.
> >

> I'm right with you in that! ;)
>
> Though that might be part of it...I'm a scifi/fantasy fan bigtime (one reason
> I started watching TS was a clip in a commercial of the panther leaping into
> Jim--UPN gets it right once in a looooooooong while...) but despite this I
> don't often read AUs (and I never intend to write them, it's just that
> everything always seems to deviate from the norm...)(actually I might start
> reading them, YMcCool's Upgrade series just loox so interesting, in a sort of
> "ratz, why didn't I think of that?!" kinda way)

Her series is good, and others besides you and I ought to start reading,
although, I haven't been to her page in a while.

Can anyone tell me what part she is on now?


>
> When reading Sharon my believability problem wasn't in what was happening;
> horrific as it was, I concede that in this sadly screwed-up world practically
> anything can happen and more often than not does--it was that Blair could
> survive it at all, even if generally he was broken by it. (And the odds
> against so much happening to one individual, but if you read ff at all you've
> gotta make that mental leap anyway ;) did make for awesome angst, though...

Yeah, it sure did.


>
> and I agree, quite a lot of smarm pushes way past the bounds of "realism" as
> well!

Smarm is good. Although, the smarm I've read was well within the realms
of the actual show.

I could really see what was happening as 'real' as far as the writing on
the show went.

And that says a lot about the show, and the ff writers.


>
> XmagicalX (who has been known to perhaps shove gently over the boundary
> herself...a couple of times...)

Ooooh yes, I've read a couple of those stories. <g>

Mrs. Fish

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
EC Therapy wrote:

> Ummm... off the top of my head?? and not necessarily getting the episode
> names right?
>
> * The Lee Brackett episode -- Brackett uses Blair to keep Jim
> cooperative
>
> * The Cassie Wells does Silence of the Lambs episode -- Cassie and Blair

> held prisoner in the loft to draw Jim
>
> Any others??
>
> Angie T.

Actually, I have to disagree with one of these examples.

In Rogue, Brackett brought Blair along to "guide" Jim with his senses. Remember he
was the person who coined this phrase after reading Blair's papers on sentinels.
The threat of spreading the Ebola virus throughout Cascade made Jim cooperative.

Mrs. Fish


ZAguilera

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
>When I said Jim was emotionally stronger, I really meant that when
>placed in the same life threatening situations that the fanfic writers
>put Blair in, he doesn't display fear the way Blair does. Sure, he's
>emotional, but his emotions usually only show themselves as anger, so
>the Jim owies don't have the same emotional impact on the readers. If
>we took an angsty episode like Cypher, for instance, and reversed the
>characters, the show just would not have been the same. If it had been
>Jim who was kidnapped by Lash, I think he would have just sat there,
>clenched his jaw, and glared at the guy. If it had been Jim who was
>seeing golden fire people, he probably would have been trying to shoot
>them, but I just can't picture him bursting into tears. The only time I
>remember seeing Jim really show fear was at the end of Sentinel Too.
>
>I just think this may be one of the reasons why the writers pick on
>Blair more than they do Jim.
>
>Am I making any sense? You know, for someone who considers herself a
>lurker, I've sure been doing a lot of talking lately :).
>
>Sally

Really Sally, naughty, naughty. I think you're breaking the lurkers charter
somewhere. Heck but then so am I. And no, you're making complete sense. It's
just sometimes I get on the defensive when people talk about Jim. He seems to
be a lot of people's scapegoat. Some fans like to blame him for all the
problems that have been going on between him and Blair. I haven't heard it on
the ng, and I hope never to do. But I think there is a faction out there that
thinks of Jim as a cold, heartless, troll while Blair is some perfect demi-god.
And that is just not the case.

Zenia

ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
EC Therapy <doc...@sunlink.net> wrote:
> ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
> >
> > And good pt otherwise...actually, though, how many times in the show--not
the
> > fic but the cannon eps--has Blair actually been targetted with the specific
> > purpose of getting to Jim and/or the Cascade PD? I mean Blair specifically,
> > not like the Golden incident in BMB, that could have been anyone. Lash is
> > partly that but I always got the impression it was mostly just because he
was
> > in contact w/ Blair, he wanted to get on Ellison's nerves but his prime
> > purpose was getting Blair for the sake of Blair...
> >
>
> Ummm... off the top of my head?? and not necessarily getting the episode
> names right?
>
> * The Lee Brackett episode -- Brackett uses Blair to keep Jim
> cooperative
>
> * The Cassie Wells does Silence of the Lambs episode -- Cassie and Blair
> held prisoner in the loft to draw Jim
>
okay, I have to admit, I've seen less than half the eps so I was speaking thru
my hat anyway...

In the Silence of the Lambs ep...er, ratz, what was it? oh yes, Mirror
Image...I know I saw it but I can't remember it clearly. Did Chapel select
them and take them to the loft, or did he just barge in and take whoever was
there? I honestly can't recall...I'm trying to think of a situation that
turns up a lot in fic, someone targets Blair because they know he's Jim's
partner/Jim's friend and is trying to get back at Ellison for something.

(e.g. if you read missing scenes, there were quite a few folks that thought
this SHOULD have been the automatic response of the crazy git in Vendetta;
there's some lovely stuff with him taking Blair to get Jim's goat, but
unfortunately that wasn't in the show...)

ah well, there's tons of fic precedents unseen in the show, more's the pity...

XmagicalX, who'd like Jim to listen to Blair's heartbeat just once...though in
the end of Sen2, was anyone else completely unsurprised to hear Simon
desperately shouting to Jim about the heartbeat, and only realized sometime
later that Jim's never actually heard it that we've *seen*?

ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Okay *deep breath* please don't no one take this as a flame. (we all seem to
be saying this a lot lately. At least from my POV it loox like no one has,
and you have no idea how glad I am to find that we can stay on that level! =)
(now if we can keep from completely splitting into factions...)

anyway...
rhia...@raven.cybercomm.net (Sorka) wrote:

> Though I have NEVER sent Sharon negative feed back ever, and initially
> encouraged her when she was on Sentries-ff, I must catagorize myself as
> one of those people that can not read her stories. Why? Because I find
> the amount of pain and suffering that occured in her first series totally
> unrealistic. For someone to survive all of that happed in Happy Families
> with their sanity intact would take a major miracle.
>

A MAJOR miracle! This is precisely what I meant regarding believability.
Beyond the fact that though Blair might be a trouble magnet it's extremely
hard to believe so much happening to one person, it's even harder to see how
he could survive it, mentally, emotionally, or physically. Yes I know he
doesn't make it intact (and that does distress people...and I admit to being
one of those distressed...) but all the same more makes it than I would have
suspected possible...

> And while I do know a person in real life that has suffered horribly over the
> years, trust me, they are niether whole nor completely sane any more.
> With out serious councling, and a sturdy, unwavering support system,
> no one could survive what Sharon has Blair go through. And I'm sorry
> but in her stories, even though Jim usually is helping Blair at some point
> I didn't see anyone as Blair's support.
>

I think this might even be my bigger problem. Er. Umm, if you're one of
Sharon's big fans (or Sharon herself...oh geeze, tell me she's not lurking on
this list. I really really don't want to hurt feelings. But once I formulate
ideas I've got this here internal demon what forces me to pronounce them
aloud...)

Anyway...one of the things that disturbed me I think most of the little I
read of Sharon was her depiction of the partnership. I'm one of those sorts
who loves the whole Sentinel/Guide best friends thru eternity soulmates kind
of relationship. Whether or not that's what's actually pictured on our TV
screens, it's what I like to read (and try to write) Here's where it gets
antsy, because Sharon perhaps is depicting a more realistic relationship in
some ways, that J&B don't always depend on each other...or more of they
can't. Let's see, how do I say this--Jim is dependent on Blair, considers
him best friend and all else, but he never says this and doesn't express it,
to the point that Blair doesn't really believe it so. From the little I read
that seemed to be Sharon's Blair at least; he didn't believe he *could*
depend on Jim, and often enough he couldn't and didn't. The friendshipper
side of me cringed at this...

Or maybe I perused the wrong stories, or maybe I just have a different angle.
I personally found her rather too dark for my fanfic moods, which occur
usually when I want light-weight distractions. I stand by the fact that she
is a good writer, she has excellent angst, and whoever flamed her away from
senfandom was dead wrong.

None of this was meant to be harsh or fiery, I swear...it's almost wishful
thinking, hoping that she'd write something a little sweeter and lighter so
all the stick-in-the-muds smarmluvers could appreciate the excellence of her
writing as much as more intrepid angst-adorators. And Sharon herself, just
from the couple of little introductions I read, sounded like a nice person, a
lot friendlier than her stories! =) I feel sincerely bad for all her fans
denied her writing, and I wish there were some way to undo this...I can't
help but feel a little guilty, after all it was presumably a senfic reader
like all of us that drove her off! there must be a way to prove we're not
all like that...

XmagicalX
does anybody want to take my art history midterm for me?

zul...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to

>>Zulfiya wrote:
>>>Blair *does* have flaws. He's hyper and overeager
>>> and lies a lot.

>Then Angie T said:
>>Okay, the lying thing I can understand, he does have
>>skirt around the truth alot. But the hyperactivity
>>is something I just don't see. We often see him
>>sitting quietly, studying, meditating or just
>>observing the people around him. I really don't
>>think I have ever seen him *bounce* the way writers
>>often depict him doing non-stop. Sure, he gets
>>pretty expressive when he is excited, but its not a
>>perpetual state.

Actually, hyperactivity (or ADHD) isn’t necessarily a
perpetual condition. One of the warning signs of ADHD
is, in fact, a child who will sit and “zone” from
outside stimuli. [Not that Blair shows any of the
other symptoms - but I had to make the point.]

It’s more, in Blair’s case, that once he goes into hyper
mode - he *won’t* *stop*. Even after the point when it’s
clearly annoying others. He, umm, occasionally misses
golden opportunities to shut up. :)

I’ve never really noticed “bouncing” much myself. He
gestures a lot, not always just with his hands - maybe
that’s what they mean.


>>>He can get so caught up in theory that he loses
>>>track of reality.

>>I disagree here. I think he just has a wider
>>perspective than most people.

And ZAguilera added:
>Yeah but sometimes in those wider perspectives he
>forgets there are real people involved. People with
>feelings, emotions, fears. He did it with Jim at
>their first meeting, and couple other times. I
>realize that it's just enthusiasm and/or coping
>mechanisms. But sometimes he really should think
>before speaking.

What Zenia said! :)

In his social mode, Blair is very empathic, however,
sometimes in academic mode, he’ll be somewhat
insensitive. And he fails to register how his actions
impact other people (as in the basketball ep when he
went off on a tangent investigation without telling
anyone and then popping the info without any
cushioning. Yes, it had the desired effect, but it
also bruised some feelings.)

>>>He whines.


>>Again, I disagree. I have yet to see the famous
>>puppy dog eyes. He uses words to persuade people and
>>if necessary he uses the words to wear the other
>>person down. But I can't say he whines. (Can you
>>give me an ep based example so I can see what you
>>mean?)
>Try "The Debt", you know the one where he moves in
>with Jim. Major puppy dog eyes going there. No real
>whining, but major pleading going on.

Let’s see (and I’m bad at quoting episode titles) ...

Another puppy-dog eyes instance would be in the second
season episode with Maya. When he was being held, he
kept giving this look to Jim like “why aren’t you doing
anything.”

I think the whining has popped up in the cold-and-wet
scenes. And occasionally when complaining about girl
troubles.

-S

-- )
|S A Rudy _,'| _.-''``-...___..--';
|Zul...@my-dejanews.com /, \'. _..-' , ,--...--'''
|http://www.eclipse.net/~srudy < \ .`--''' ` /|
| `-,;' ; ; ;
|"I'm not evil, I'm ... __...--'' __...--_..' .;.'
|differently motivated" (,__....----''' (,..--''

zul...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
EC Therapy <doc...@sunlink.net> wrote:
>ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
>> And good pt otherwise...actually, though, how many times in the show--not
>>the fic but the cannon eps--has Blair actually been targetted with the
>>specific purpose of getting to Jim and/or the Cascade PD? I mean Blair
>>specifically, not like the Golden incident in BMB, that could have been
>>anyone. Lash is partly that but I always got the impression it was mostly
>>just because he was in contact w/ Blair, he wanted to get on Ellison's
>>nerves but his prime purpose was getting Blair for the sake of Blair...
>Ummm... off the top of my head?? and not necessarily getting the episode
>names right?
>* The Lee Brackett episode -- Brackett uses Blair to keep Jim
>cooperative
>* The Cassie Wells does Silence of the Lambs episode -- Cassie and Blair
>held prisoner in the loft to draw Jim
> Any others??

Blair was a hostage in place of Maya in the 2nd season ep.

You could argue that his being grabbed in Night Shift had to do with
him looking easier to subdue than most of the cops.

Siege gets disqualifies for the same reason as the Golden incident.
He did that to himself.

-S

--
--
|Come visit the Comparative List of Vampire Mythology!
|http://www.eclipse.net/~srudy/myths.html

maha...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98
to
Blair Kennedy wrote:
>
> EC Therapy wrote in message <36258F...@sunlink.net>...
> >ek...@arctos.bowdoin.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ummm... off the top of my head?? and not necessarily getting the episode
> >names right?
> >
> >* The Lee Brackett episode -- Brackett uses Blair to keep Jim
> >cooperative
> >
> >* The Cassie Wells does Silence of the Lambs episode -- Cassie and Blair
> >held prisoner in the loft to draw Jim
> >
> >Any others??
>
> I would almost say "Nightshift," but I don't believe that guy knew who Blair
> was, just a convenient hostage.

Oh this is a good one... :)

Um, the episode that introduced Uncle Gustavo. His goons pin Blair down
on a work table and threaten to burn his hand with a blow torch if Jim
doesn't cooperate! EEEP! (I hate that scene! Poor Blair was whimpering
with terror while those baddies held him down! ACK!)

Mick C.


wolf...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Oct 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/15/98