Hmm. Do I wade back into this mess?

[icarus]

Do I do it, or not?

People in the SGA fandom were really pissed off about Last Port Of Call. The discussion started out interesting, revealing, and turned ugly. There are a couple of theories about this kicking around.

1) The "young fandom" theory, where everything's fresh and new, but the controversies haven't cropped up yet; "the explorers are the ones with the arrows in their backs";

2) The "drunken luau" theory, where yes, SGA is a fun drunken luau, but the flip side of that is that serious, challenging stories are not acceptable, the way you don't discuss the Holocaust at a cocktail party;

3) The characterization of John was really off. If I were a new writer, I'd consider it, but... no, I don't think so. I've been writing quite some time now, and characterization has always been where I'm solid. Now if someone came after me with a pitchfork about my yerk-transitions, or the stripped-down scenery ("Hello, Icarus? This is not a one-act play with a tree and a bucket, tell us where they are") or sloppily using the same word fifteen times in three pages, yeah okay.

Besides, the reaction was just too strong for it to be a simple characterization issue. Poor characterization you just go *snerk* and walk. It doesn't launch a crusade. Nor does the story get recc'd by people whose opinions I respect.

Nah. The issue was content.

But that's not what this poll is about. Or it is, but only sort of.

You see, I have another probably-guaranteed-to-be-unpopular John-fic. An SGA story where the content might fan the flames. It comes from the question:

If Rodney screws up due to hubris and ends up blowing up a solar system, and Carson screws up due to his medical curiosity and far-too-flexible ethics for the sake of his bright-eyed good intentions and fucks up a sentient being, and Weir screws up by bargaining away her principles for the sake of 'pragmatism' and gives away the position of Atlantis -- how and why does John screw up?

Okay, there are worse things in life than being controversial. But I'm feeling gun-shy. This isn't what I expected of SGA, naive of me, I know. I haven't encountered a reaction this bad since I defended slash to a group of Lord of the Rings anti-slashers in 2002 (and the arguments were eerily familar).

So, to everyone on the f-list, not just the SGA fandom who might not respond (results are viewable by none but me):

[Poll #761572]


ETA: Adds "if Carson screws up." Because "if Carson screws due to his medical curiosity and far-too-flexible ethics" has a completely different meaning.

ETA2: Wow. I'm far behind on answering everyone's comments, but that answered the question pretty thoroughly. I did not expect "er, I kinda liked Last Port" to be the strongest response, not by a long shot. So either a) the people who hated Last Port Of Call don't read my LJ (a good possibility), or b) the ones who hated it were a strident, vocal minority, and I got the wrong impression about how the story was received. Those who liked it were shouted down by those who didn't.

Either way, there's enough interest to, okay, write the Sheppard Screws Up story. But I warn you: it's het. It might not be that bad, I just... I didn't think Last Port Of Call was that controversial either.

ETA3: I'm so glad this person stopped by. Yes. Perfect example. This is the tone and nasty attitude that I've encountered over Last Port Of Call.

I've made the poll viewable to only me so that SGA readers can feel free to respond without facing problems from others. Most of the responders are SGA readers.

Comments

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Not a single Harry Potter reader has been even remotely fazed by this story. Which, given I've been writing HP for the last four-five years explains why I was so surprised the reaction in the SGA fandom.

I'm disturbed less by the fact that people didn't like it (plenty of people hate my stories -- c'mon, Percy/Arthur?) than by how some felt the need to tell me how much they hated it, why, and attempted to sell me on the idea that John would nevernevernever do this.

I had the distinct sensation that the SGA fandom was being policed by some self-appointed... guardians of the fandom. That sort of chilling environment can only be very, very bad for the writers, and therefore, bad for the fandom. If this happens a lot then I can see why the fandom has a reputation for lite fic.

Not to say that I haven't seen this before. Back in 2002, the Ron/Harry pairing had some very big fans on FAP who "policed" their pairing on Fiction Alley and ff.net, and they really wanted warm, romantic stories. I took some heat from them over Primer to the Dark Arts because Ron was too mean to Harry (fortunately for me Ron/Harry wasn't the main pairing). I spoke with a couple authors at the time (I think one was switchknife) who said that they didn't write Harry/Ron anymore because of the complaints.

This effectively killed the pairing until they finally left HP around 2004, and then authors like helenish were left to write the pairing in peace. If she'd written "Close Enough" in 2002 she would've gotten an earful.

Icarus

[florahart]

See, and I'm seeing none of this, partly because, you know, not writing, and partly, probably, because of this whole writers I already know thing. Among the fics I've read so far are the long one in which Rodney goes home and teaches after John dies, then one where everyone deals with Rodney's death, and the one where Rodney's tongue is cut out. The author of those last two took flack for not warning about the tongue, though, so I guess maybe I am seeing it.

Anyway, uh, whee for HP not being the wankiest fandom? Or something?