Previous Entry | Next Entry

a question of feedback

  • Jun. 13th, 2006 at 12:07 AM
cali: (books)
So I pretty much missed the whole hate meme phenomena, or at least the SGA one. A lot of people have been posting their outrage, and yeah. I just don't get it (hate memes that is, not outrage) because it seems like, at least in the supernatural threads, it was all about "blah blah blah I hate this person because they write stuff I don't like and they're obviously a huge bitch because other people do like it."

Um. Way to be self-sabotaging fandom! Hating people who are actively participating in fandom just because they're participating is not going to help anything. And what's up with the personal vendettas against BNFs? There's this really nifty feature called the scroll button when you don't want to read something.

Anyway, some people defend hate memes because they're like, the only opportunity for non-BNFs to be heard and anonymous commenting levels the playing field or something. Yes, it totally sucks that lj is more of a popularity contest than a cohesive community, but seriously, if you're yourself are actually involved in fandom, can you not see the good in encouraging everyone to participate? Because it seems to me that a lot of times creative people play off of each other and encouraging that should never, ever be a bad thing. One thing I do wish though, is that some of the stuff brought up in the hate threads could actually be discussed outside of the context of petty, spiteful commentary.

[livejournal.com profile] eleveninches posted the other day, I think in response to something that came up in [livejournal.com profile] sga_hate, about authors responding to feedback. She asked if people are affected by whether or not an author responds to their feedback. While I didn't see the original threads, I imagine some of the hate was directed at several prolific authors in the sga fandom who somewhat notoriously don't respond to feedback. In response to her questions I said this about my feedback habits:

I really try to leave feedback for everything I enjoyed reading, but if it's a writer who I know doesn't respond to feedback, I usually won't bother. Above and beyond any considerations of fandom etiquette and politeness, not responding to feedback (at least to me) seems to indicate a certain level of indifference towards even getting feedback at all.

And personally, I like writing feedback, I like picking out what I loved, and telling writers exactly what worked for me. So I usually spend a good amount of time trying to construct something more than a quick "thanks!" (not that there's anything wrong with doing that, sometimes it's all I have time for too.) Fandom is a reciprocal culture, if I don't feel like the time I put into feedback is appreciated, I won't leave it. And more than that, feedback is pretty much the best opportunity for readers to interact with writers, it's how a lot of meta gets discussed, and how a lot of people meet new friends. I don't think every writer has to automatically make friends with all of their reviewers, but I think it's nice when the channels of communication are at least open to that, even if all it is is a standard thank you reply, at least that's something.

Some of the best meta discussions I've had have come out of feedback threads, [livejournal.com profile] synecdochic is especially good at fostering those sorts of conversations when she posts fanfic. I know I've gotten to be better friends with at least half of the writers on my friendslist through conversations that started with feedback. And I know not all authors are interested in that or have time for that, but at least a thank you is, I think, called for when people give you a compliment. It just feels, at worst, rude and at least, like they don't care that people have left them feedback.

(stealing [livejournal.com profile] eleveninches' questions:) What do you guys think? Does anyone think a blanketed thank you is a poor response to feedback? Do you not leave feedback if the author doesn't say thanks? Do you get annoyed seeing an author saying a standard thank you to every comment left for them? Do you not care and leave feedback regardless of the author's actions? And, because I know there are several authors on my friendslist, do you guys all respond to your feedback? Do you feel like you have to? Or that it's a waste of time when all you can really say is "thanks" 40 times?

Tags:

Comments

[identity profile] cupidsbow.livejournal.com wrote:
Jun. 19th, 2006 02:50 am (UTC)
I take your point about these figures being a rough guide that may or may not mean anything at all, and I certainly wasn't preferring them as Ultimate Evidence (hence the "soap box" comment). Nonetheless, I think it shows the general trend of how much people tend to post on LJ, and that a 'normal' amount of traffic seems to be in the range of 4,000 to 6,000 responses over a few years. We obviously interpret what that means differently (which is fine), because I don't see how someone with 19,000 comments can be magically expected to have time to post more than the normal amount in reply, and furthermore, that no matter how much they reply it will always *always* look like they're playing favourites just because of the sheer volume of unanswered comments on their journal. From personal experience I know that I sometimes answer in a kind of potluck fashion, going for the most interesting comments (as I don't have time to answer everyone), and anyone casually glancing at the pattern of my replies could assume I was just responding to 'friends', and ignoring everyone else, when that isn't the pattern at all.

That's the main thrust of everything I've said here, really. That it's easy to read things into silence that aren't anything close to the intention of the person not speaking. Silence is not evidence, it's anti-evidence. I've run up against this problem before in academic work, because there tends to be a big silence in response to sf by women--those texts tend to get elided and fade away, except in feminist circles. It's really, really *hard* to argue against silence; you can point it out, you can suggest that the shape means certain things, but you can never get to grips with it satisfactorily. And at least in a case like that, there are cultural trends, like endemic sexism, you can point the finger to. With just one person's silence, it's hard to read anything into it but an untheorised absence.

For all I know, Pru's 'silence' could mean that she's a terrible, cliquey bitch. I just hesitate to make that interpretation, because it could be so many other things. Especially as she's posting within the normal range of comments, and no matter how hard she tries, she could never, ever reply to all the comments she's received. In fact, with that many comments, I could see how easy it would be to lose heart, be overwhelmed, and not even know where to begin.