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]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
(stealing
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
- Mood:
curious
Comments
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.