You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “It Was On Fire When I Laid It Down”.
Article by Sylvia Bond
Sylvia Bond is a ten-year technical writing veteran with too many degrees under her belt to count. She lives in Colorado, but does not ski, preferring instead to spend her money and time at the annual Great American Beer Festival, taking road trips across the United States, and reading historical fiction from the comfort of her fluffy green arm chair. She has been involved in fandom since 1993 and been writing fanfic since approximately 1993. What she finds most amazing about fandom (besides the open heartedness of fans and the sheer amount of creativity) is how visible fandom has become. "In my day," she says, "we had to hide behind P.O. boxes to get fanfic. But nowadays, people wear t-shirts that shout their affiliation and share their shiny toys on the internet." It's a wonderful world. 63 Comments
Leave a Reply
Additional comments powered byBackType
Thank you, Emma! That's exactly right. I made judgments about each person's True Fan status, and found out that that was not the best criteria by which to judge the quality of an essay. It was like a little bet with myself, and sometimes I was wrong, and sometimes I was right. And each time I was wrong, I admitted it. So there, Buck Slabchest!
Anyway, you're right about the other thing too, I would rather read something written by a True Fan, because passion and heart and soul can take an essay a whole lot further than someone who's just out for what's hot at the moment.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
I appreciated reading this review, as I plan to read this book, but I also, like others, have to call you on the assumptions you're making. Sometimes "true fans" see their show in very particular ways — that doesn't mean that what they have to say isn't worthwhile, far from it — but it also doesn't mean that others can't say things about the show that are meaningful as well. Academics often use different interpretive frameworks than fans, and as a result, they sometimes see different things. Restricting discussion of a show to True Fans is a good way to restrict the kinds of things that get said (always recognizing that True Fans are a diverse group). I definitely plan to write on Supernatural myself — I'm both a True Fan, and an academic, and I love the idea of combining two things I love. But I also think things like "American Idol," "The OC," and "The Price is Right" are worthy of analysis, and I'm not a fan of any of those things. Nor do I have to be in order to speak about them, and, hopefully, say something interesting about them.
Dear Dorothy,
Certainly you have a point here, and I agree. Anyone is allowed to write about whatever they want, however, and wherever they want to, including professors and mechanics and fans and non fans. I think the point I was trying to make with my review is three fold.
First , that pop culture books like this tend to appear on the horizon just as things are going well for a show, and they cash in on that success. Now, I understand that if there's money to be made, people will find a way to make it. I myself have purchased pop culture books like this, as well, so I'm hardly one to do the whole pot/kettle argument. At the same time, pop culture books feel like thinly disguised hyenas to me. So, the book itself irked me.
Then there was the premise by which it was published, and in the way it asked fans (and the call did go out to fans last spring) to put their thoughts and words up for submission – only the lucky few would be included, and the rest would be rejected. Now, granted, any publisher is allowed to set its own criteria for inclusion into any book it publishes, but in light of the fact that fandom has talked about all of this subject matter for years, and that all of this type of discussion is out there on the internet, well, it seemed somewhat odd of them to try and corner the market on something that is available for free everywhere else. Rather like they'd tried to bottle air and sell it
And third, and this is personal and subjective, to be sure, I'd rather read something about fandom that was written by a fan, or by someone who was attempting to understand what it means to be a fan, than to read something by a non fan who's just out to support their own agenda.
Thank you for your insightful comments.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Thanks for the review! Just for the record, I =am= a very big fan of the show. Sorry that your friends didn't like my books.
Hi Sylvia, this is the person who didn't know your feelings about books like this and wanted to send you a copy for review because I thought you might appreciate it/like it; I'm also the in-house editor on the title (AND a *Supernatural* fan).
It’s always a bit of a questionable proposition for someone involved in a book to respond to a reviewer, but I did feel kinda compelled to comment on a couple of non *In the Hunt*-specific things.
I wanted to start, actually, with the idea that doing something "for the love" (doing something with passion) and doing something for money are mutually exclusive—that the main and driving force behind these books is solely money, that publishers aren’t sometimes fans too, who own all the DVDs and rewatch all the episodes, who read (and even write) fanfic, who deeply respect and value fandom and everything it has to offer. *Supernatural* is at a ratings high now, but when the book was conceived and put on the schedule a year and half ago—when the commitment to doing the book was actually made—that wasn’t the case. It was just a great show, with passionate fans, that we thought (because of it’s depth, and it’s quality) was worth spending the time and energy on to create a book. Would we have done it if we didn’t think we could make some money? Well, no, because we’re a business—and we like to eat. I’m just lucky enough to be able to pay for my meals by doing things I feel passionate about, like working on this book. And I specifically seek out writers for our Smart Pop titles who feel the same way.
Which brings me to the second comment I wanted to make: I don’t know if charging for something means it’s implying that similar, free things are value-less. Obviously, in publishing this, we’re making a statement—that we think the contents, the work the authors etc. have put into it, is worth enough for you to pay a couple of bucks for it. That seeking out contributions from novelists like Tanya who might not otherwise have taken the time to write about the show, and some of the best-written work by fans who don’t normally write professionally, and having it all edited and put together into an attractive bound package, is value-added. If you agree, fabulous—buy it. If you don’t, fine—don’t buy it. But I hate to think doing so somehow *devalues* the work fans are doing for free. And honestly, I don’t think it does. I think it *encourages* that work: by potentially introducing meta to fans unfamiliar with the concept; by eliciting more of it (through, say, last year’s contest) that the writers can share with other fans however they so choose.
And one last idea I wanted to call into question: that great fiction writers, fan- or otherwise, always also make great non-fiction writers. Yes, I agree there’s a connection between smart fanfic and smart meta—that it uses the same mental muscles. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that person can take the same ideas that infuse their fiction, turn them around, and create a well-structured, compelling non-fiction piece from them. And that’s what we were looking for in putting together this book: passion for and knowledge of the show, plus the ability to communicate that passion and knowledge in interesting, surprising, and effective ways. Am I saying that there’s not plenty of free meta out there that does just that? Absolutely not! I’m saying that the value we think we’re adding is giving you a collection that’s all like that. I’m saying that we’ve tried to put together a collection that will interest and surprise you, even *if* you’ve got spn_heavymeta on your livejournal friends’ list and live and breathe *Supernatural*. Whether or not we’ve succeeded—well, that’s not for me to say. That’s what reviews are for.
Dear Leah,
No, you didn't know, and how could you? But I appreciate your taking the time to write and add your comments here. Publishing houses always seem so lofty to me, so it's nice of you to come by and brave the "never respond to the reviewer" rule.
Regarding whether publishers are or are not fans, it's sometimes hard to tell. I've seen so many books like this, typically they get churned out without the least bit of consideration for the heart and soul of the fandom. There's nothing to really convince me that the supposedly "fannish" writers weren't ghost writers just out to make a a buck, joining a bandwagon while the joining was good. So, in not knowing that you were a fan, too, which would have colored my review, I went with what I read and saw and felt and had experienced.
I love the idea of how you conceived this book, and part of me wishes that I'd know when I wrote my review, because yes it would have influenced me. Which is why I didn't seek any additional info out because I wanted the book to be able to stand or fall on its own merit. I think, personally, that the book can stand for those who like their meta polished and edited and in a nice binder. And, I must re-emphasize how clean the book was, well-edited and organized, plus I really did like the cover; the Impala looked cool. And kudos to you for being able to work with something you love; it's a position many would envy.
The very nature of publishing a book, however, any book, is the act of taking a stand. You make yourself and your firm the arbiters of quality; you're telling the public that they can pay you $15 so you can tell them what's good. Which implies (however vaguely) that what's not in the book didn't make the cut and is therefore not good. That's the nature of the publishing beast, but you can't pretend that you're not making a value judgment. Plus, most, if not all, fans know about meta. We get hammered with it all the time; this fandom seems to thrive on it. Which is why this book at this point in the life of this show, felt a bit like someone in the publishing industry had suddenly decided to validate Show by telling us what was cool and interesting about it. As if we didn't already know.
I don't know where I said that great fan fiction writers make great meta writers, exactly. I think my mention of Dodger Winslow's and K. Hanna Korossy's talent in both areas in the same sentence may have created this assumption; sorry if I wasn't more clear. Actually, you usually get writers who are good in one area or the other.
I don't think your sales are going to be overly affected in a negative way by my review. Sure some people aren't going to buy who would have because of it. But others, who weren't intending to buy it, might be pissed at what they feel is a negative review and buy the book just to prove me wrong. So those two should balance each other out. Plus, reviews like mine and conversations like this one create buzz that the search engines pick up on, which, in the long run, creates exposure for you and that's good for business. Long live Capitalism!
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Sylvia: Do you realize how nonsensical this statement is?
"The very nature of publishing a book, however, any book, is the act of taking a stand. You make yourself and your firm the arbiters of quality; you're telling the public that they can pay you $15 so you can tell them what's good. Which implies (however vaguely) that what's not in the book didn't make the cut and is therefore not good. That's the nature of the publishing beast, but you can't pretend that you're not making a value judgment."
Do you realize that you're saying that *every* book that has ever been written or sold — every novel, every dictionary, every how-to book, everything — is "a value judgment" that everything that is not within that book's pages is "not good"?
By writing "The Old Man and the Sea," by that reasoning, Hemingway was actually arguing that Henry James was "not good." Or by writing "Outliers," Malcolm Gladwell was "making a value judgment" that "The Audacity of Hope" was "not good."
If people can't produce a work — a book, a play, a movie, a song — without arguing that everything else is crap, then we're all going to be a lot worse off. It's the same snotty attitude that lets 16-year-old punk rockers complain about how their formerly favorite band has "sold out," that the real value isn't in the work itself but in the implied moral purity (or "true fanness") of the creator.
I appreciate you making your perspective clear; I just think it's soul-killing.
But Sylvia's still right. Even with something as supposedly neutral as a dictionary. Samuel Johnson's dictionary was just one of many that competed for funds and publishing when it was being written in the 1700's. The simple fact that it won the financial backing to allow for it's completion over it's many rivals was a form of editorial decree that Johnson's dictionary was a superior work from others being collated at the time, and therefore an indirect indictment of all the others as being inferior.
How do I know this? A combination of Google, High School History, and Blackadder.
Dear Fred,
The original discussion had to do with the book's publication over on-line fannish works, not every other book in existence. Leah had asked whether the publication of her book meant that anything related to the topic that was available for free had no value. I answered that since she's publishing a book, that that was a value judgment that excludes on-line fannish writing. Not that every other book written was bad.
And I didn't argue that her book meant that every other publication was crap, only that the publishing of that book, as a matter of course, was making a value judgment. And making a statement that it had something newer and better to offer than what was already out there. Which happens, I think, every time something new is published – the writer or artist or whoever is saying, what's there is not enough, I'll make more. Which is part of the heart of creativity, and hardly a soul killing perspective.
Best Regards,
Syliva
“Publishing houses always seem so lofty to me, so it's nice of you to come by and brave the ‘never respond to the reviewer’ rule.”
Some people don’t respond due to loftiness—but I expect that as many others don’t respond because, really, what can one say that doesn’t sound defensive?
And don’t get me wrong—I certainly wouldn’t dispute the fact that not everyone involved in publishing pop culture books are doing it because they love the property the books are about. Or that, if they do love the property, they necessarily appreciate fandom. (Though I would argue, as I think a few people have pointed out briefly here, that not being involved in fandom doesn’t preclude loving the property or having something valuable to add.)
But this bit, I don’t know that I agree with:
“The very nature of publishing a book, however, any book, is the act of taking a stand. You make yourself and your firm the arbiters of quality; you're telling the public that they can pay you $15 so you can tell them what's good. Which implies (however vaguely) that what's not in the book didn't make the cut and is therefore not good.”
Absolutely there’s a value judgment involved in choosing to publish one thing and not another—but it’s not like we titled the book “The Best Fan Writing on Supernatural,” you know? I never thought of it as saying what’s already out there was not good; I always thought of it as saying, well, there’s a lot of fantastic stuff out there, and here’s some other stuff that’s also good (and that, hopefully, includes some things you’ve never thought of before, or new twists on things you’ve thought about a hundred times already—which is what any writer tries to do, whether they’re getting paid for their work or not, right?). I never looked at it as a competition, or as a zero-sum game.
I also think that you’re overlooking whole groups of fans who aren’t “Fans”—people who watch *Supernatural* (maybe even religiously) but *aren’t* involved online, whether because they don’t know all the ins and outs of online fandom or because they don’t feel like they fit in or relate to or like online fandom. There are a lot of people watching *Supernatural*, and I don’t think they’re all participating (or lurking) in online fandom, not by a long shot.
And lest I give the wrong impression—I think all the passionate comments this review has inspired is fantastic (or at least I did once the initial sting faded!). Granted, I’m looking forward to a few other reviews hitting, both Fan and professional (and reviewers that are both), but in the meantime, the discussion’s been pretty fascinating. If I had it to do all over again, I'd still ask if you wanted a review copy.
Dear Keith,
Thanks for being a good sport. And yeah, most fans I have spoken to on the matter do not like your two Supernatural novels. When then read them, fans ask themselves (among other things) who are these characters and what are they doing in my fandom? There's no relevance to the characters we see on screen, and, more importantly, there's no emotional payoff, which is what fans (who are the people who would be buying these books) are looking for. And if they can't get what they want from your novels, then they're going to keep giving and receiving it from each other. In fan fiction. Which they will anyway.
If you're going to write another Supernatural novel, you'd come across as a bigger fan if you wrote like you cared about what happens to Sam and Dean and the Impala. Instead of just using them as two-dimensional cut-out pieces of your plot to be moved around for some showy finale.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
Don't get me wrong, I love reading spn_heavymeta, but sometimes fandom feels a bit claustrophobic, and I think it's interesting to read things about show by outsiders. I'm enjoying reading the book. That said, I admit the main reason I bought it was because I assumed other fans would be reading and discussing and I wanted to understand what they were talking about, so it's all about fandom for me in the end.
The dearth of discussion so far says a great deal about the growing irrelevance of books. I, myself, with 20 years as a used book dealer, rarely read books anymore, though I spend more time reading now than ever before.
Interesting review. Thank you.
Dear Maryann,
Hey, you're more than welcome and thanks for coming by. I agree with you about the fact that there seems to be a paradigm shift in the nature of book publishing (as well as newspapers and magazines) where readers have so many options as to where they can get their information, they almost don't even have to buy a book or a newspaper or a magazine. Which doesn't make the "printed" word (or the quality of it) any less important.
Interesting about the dearth of discussion about the book, but I guess since there's always so much that seem to be being produced in this fandom, fans hardly have time for what's new today let alone trying to keep up with what came out yesterday.
Best Regards,
Sylvia
To start with, I'm glad that you enjoyed my essay. But I do feel uncomfortable with the idea that you valued the book based on whether the writers were 'true fans' or not. Especially since you don't set out your criteria for what makes a true fan. It seemed to me that you based your assessment of “true fan” arbitrarily . And because you base your dislike of the book on the fact that it wasn't free and a fan effort, I feel that you decided that you wouldn't like the book before you even cracked the cover.
My own fan cred is probably as long as yours. I have a separate, fannish pen name for that part of my life. Fifteen years ago it wasn't as accepted as it is now for a professional writer to write fanfiction on the side. Some noted authors still frown on it. (I too would give my kidney to write for SPN. I'm saving my right lung in case Joss ever needs it.)
Since I come down on both sides of the fannish spectrum, I thought I'd explain to you why a book like this is worth spending money on. (For space reasons, I have to split it into a two-part comment)
Part the second:
When you pick up an anthology like this, you get something that has been thoroughly edited and polished to improve the quality. If I had posted my original essay to a meta website, it wouldn't have been as good (Mine went through three rounds of revisions). Yes, you can find meta on the web. You can also find fiction on the web. Just because you find fiction and fanfiction on the web for free doesn't mean it's edited and polished (some are, some aren't). It doesn't mean you should stop going to your local bookstore to buy Tanya Huff.
Which brings me back to your review. I really feel that if you had spent more time with the actual essays (instead of focusing on our 'true fan' status) you might have found the effort more worthwhile.
Do True Fans have more value than professional scholars and writers? Case in point is the swan death of newspapers because folks are getting their news from blogs instead of buying dead trees. Blogs are written by folks who are passionate True Fans of the issue, be it politics or restaurants. These True Fans are not filtered by the professional publishers who have boats not to rock and standards to uphold; True Fans report it all and they report the stuff folks really want to hear and know about. Why? Exactly because they are True Fans and they “get it”. But Blogs can be dicey because that passion can be nutty or even illiterate exactly because they are not filtered by any editing by the exact same professional publishers. The newspapers see the numbers plummeting and are shifting nervously from foot to foot and whispering to each other that something may be wrong with the herd.
So you get this book, which is edited and slick but has deliberately included True Fans as contributors.
Dear Cpilz,
Okay, you're cracking me up here. "Something may be wrong with the herd?" Hilarious. Sometimes I think that's exactly how the publishing industry (and many big businesses) think about the public at large, just a large, unruly bunch of hungry consumers who will eat anything put in front of them. And when they don't, in come the antibiotics. Okay, don't know where I'm going with that one, but I think I'm on a cow metaphor kick today.
I like your question about the value of fannish writing; why is it that the publishing industry dismisses it so readily when all along it creates the kind of buzz that they would pay good money for? And have. All along, they keep paying ghost writers and non fannish types to make and create things they hope to sell to fans. When all along fans are making and creating and then giving it away. I think that's what upsets and confuses them the most, that it's all free today. And tomorrow. And the day after that.
Plus fannish writing has no filters and is driven by passion, and accepted on quality alone. Quality that is judged by the individual reader, not some guy in a suit in New York somewhere. Who has, incidentally , been determining what the bookstores hold for years, and having seen what's in there, I'd say either he's falling down on the job and he needs to be replaced. Which he has been. By fans.
Best Regards,
Sylvia