Talk:FAQ: For Other People/historic

Stuff That Could Be Better
I'll try to get the ball rolling here, though I don't think I'm necessarily the best person for the job&mdash;I'm rather fond of this FAQ. Still, changing with the times and all.


 * I did see a complaint from a non-PPCer about the heading "The Gender Card" being an immediate turn-off, meaning they were unwilling to take the section seriously just because of that. I'm not sure what else to call it myself, but maybe someone else can think of something? See my response to Aster's comment.
 * There's "you" language abounding, which is always more confrontational than other kinds of phrasing. That sort of thing can probably be changed around to be more about what we think and less about what we think they think. This line is pretty bad:
 * And if, as I suspect, your "sugar high" has more to do with hormones and lack of self-discipline, you should write for the drawer until you're mature enough to go public without embarrassing yourself. Yes, that is pretty bad, isn't it? Still funny, though. I can definitely comb through and see how to tone down the second person. But I think there are a couple of things to take into account: using "you" when we're trying to get the badficcers to relate to us (e.g. the text under the "What's so wrong about my fic that you get this upset?" heading), and the "you" general that I talk about below under Aster's comments. We also need to make sure a sudden change to the third/second person isn't too jarring as the reader jumps from one heading to the next.


 * I think I may need to clarify what I mean by "you" language. The headings are directed at us, not the reader, so they're exempt; I'm only talking about our responses. It's not any use of the word "you" at all&mdash;as you and Aster have pointed out, there are times when it's okay&mdash;but rather, specifically the argumentative kind; putting words in the other person's mouth, addressing them instead of the issue, that sort of thing. It's the difference between "You're an idiot!" and "I don't understand."


 * "I" language is usually preferable in a persuasive argument, because it's less likely to get the other person's back up. The "What's so wrong?" section generally works because it's in the form of questions; it's hypothetical, not accusative. The last line, however, is different: "One really has to wonder how much of a FAN you are when you demonstrate zero knowledge about the canon characters." I realize that demonstrating zero knowledge isn't the same as having zero knowledge, but I doubt if the non-PPC reader of that line will make the distinction, especially when the implication is that any alternative interpretation of a character automatically means we get to question the writer's worth as a fan. Again, I know that isn't the intent, and that we're really only talking about egregious and unjustified mischaracterizations, but with the accusative tone of that line, I don't think others will. It's not much good to try getting them to sympathize with us only to kick them in the knee at the last second.


 * Much as it pains me to say so, someone has to: I've seen people call us on our writing skills, and frankly, even the Original Series wasn't perfect SPaG-wise. (So many ellipses with more or less than three dots. So many ellipses, period.) Some of us over the years have not been above-average writers. What I was talking about (and how I can rephrase this) is that we do not have a reputation for bad writing skills--especially on the level of the fics we mock. I wasn't trying to say that we haven't had a few bad apples over the course of a decade of spin-off writing. And I would still say that, considering the sheer volume of PPC work, the overall quality is still very high, not only compared to the badfic we PPC, but to the rest of fandom in general. What we are, though, are writers who are all willing to make an effort to improve. These bits might have to go, or at least be modified to account for that:
 * Furthermore, if we didn't write our PPC fics well, we would long ago have been called on the fact that we bash poor writing while writing horribly ourselves. We do not. Sorry to burst your bubble. I also suggest that we beef up our credentials a bit, namely instead of saying, "Yeah, we're good writers," we should give examples of PPCers winning various fanfiction awards. So instead the focus becomes, "Here are other people who think we're good writers."
 * Our only claim to superiority is this: if you are a badfic author, then we are better writers than you. The reasoning behind this whole paragraph is not as relevant to the quality of the writing itself, as it is to the intent behind it. I can still rephrase to avoid confusion.

That's all I've got for now. Hopefully people more worried about it than I am can point out some more specific things.

~Neshomeh 02:47, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Some Proposals:
Overall: A Focus on Critical Thinking vs Outright Superiority


 * I would add in a section about what criticism is. It seems a lot of this FAQ is basically defining that we are critics and satirists and not flamers, however defensively. It would save a lot of 'but we are better than you' talk not to focus on the fact that we are more experienced writers and therefore better than less experienced writers, but to focus on the fact that the PPC is a bunch of critical thinkers.


 * Not 'critical' as in 'we say things are bad.' Critical as in 'we examine the work carefully and determine if it makes sense or not.' We may not always have been better writers. We may not always have been superior in any way at all, actually. But we always have been critical thinkers that have deeply examined the facts of fic we encounter, match them up with the canon, and think about their implications. You don't have to be 'superior' to be a critical thinker.


 * Criticism itself has gotten such a bad rap: on par with being a 'naysayer,' a flamer, or a bully. Being told 'It's bad' or 'No,' is dreaded and hated nearly everywhere... when critics don't exist to tell people they suck (even if sometimes, it has to be said). Critics exist to point out where things went wrong: which we do, in our missions, our charge lists, and in nearly everything we do. In a perfect world, I'd like anybody who read a PPC mission and was offended, to be able to step back and then read it as a satire and then laugh at it, "Oh boy, that thing in the story is kind of silly, isn't it?" This probably can't happen; many writers have attachments to their work that prevent objectivity in that way... but we at least try and make enjoyable criticism. I think we should focus on that more than 'we all are better writers than some less good writers.' Aster, what you're saying here is so important that I think, with some re-tooling, it could be added to the FAQ, or as it will be known soon, the 'Frequently Addressed complaints.' Our critical thinking is important to who we are as writers.


 * Agreed. Also, a lot of the questions currently under "Miscellaneous" seem to have to do with us being bullies. Would a separate section for those questions, addressing the difference between attack and critique, be helpful? "You're mean!" probably properly belongs there, too, if so.

Renaming 'The Gender Card'


 * I would call it 'Misogyny Complaints.' Although I wish I could just call it 'ism' complaints, because there are probably more 'isms' that could be complained about... I do see Misogyny brought up in Mary Sue discussions a lot. Though I would say that for all complaints about Misogyny, there should be equal address for homophobia or other stuff... I KNOW there are slash writers that complain that badslash is empowering for the GLBT community and shouldn't be criticised, either...(we all know at the PPC that strong male characters being weakened for the sake of badslash/badyaoi isn't empowering at all, though.) If we are truly addressing this FAQ to the Suethors and badfic writers whose work we PPC, I would question whether the vast majority of them know what the term 'misogyny' is, to the point that they might skip this heading altogether. Maybe 'Complains About Sexism'?


 * I think the people making these specific accusations know what misogyny means. Also, bad writing does not equal not intelligent. That's one of the ideas we're trying to get away from here.


 * I agree addressing the complaints of homophobia would be good, too. I know Calista and Laburnum have been the target of that sort of accusation, and it would also help make the article less Sue-centric.

'You' Language


 * Most of the best points in the FAQ are sensible ones, ones that don't rely on insulting the person. However, there are some examples that require some 'you' not as an insult, but as an example. I likethe stage analogy under the 'if you don't have something nice to say' point, even though it uses 'you' language to put the recipient on the stage, in the place of what's being critqued. The difference is, I think, between the use of "you" general vs. "you" specific. If we were speaking Spanish, we could just use the "se" impersonal, but as it is, I agree that it's far too cumbersome to use the "If one were to to walk up on a stage...", etc., form of writing.


 * It's true, not all yous are created equal. See above.

Aster Corbett 04:02, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, guys. See my responses above in blue. Araeph 12:46, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Whee, colors! ~Neshomeh 17:16, November 14, 2011 (UTC)