Overthinking sporkage
Mar. 23rd, 2005 02:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momsalive1Sporkage mystifies me. I can easily explain it, but then quickly become confused when I try to apply the basis of that explanation to other things. I suspect much of the following will quickly cause my open-minded and gracious f’list to mutter “She really does twist herself up over this type of thing” and move on.
Here’s what I think people mean by sporkage. It is critical commentary with two defining characteristics: (1) the critic seeks out fanfiction they expect to be bad and (2) using ridicule, they comment on it to others sharing their criteria for bad fanfiction.
I get critical commentary. Even the most brutal feedback can be useful, as long as the criteria on which it based are clear, consistently applied and backed up by relevant examples.
What I don’t get is why people search for fiction they expect to be awful and then share it with others who will also think it is awful. Or, rather, I have a straightforward explanation for why people do this, but I get confused when I try to distinguish sporkage from humor and commentary I do like.
Here’s the simple explanation. Organisms have an awe-inspiring array of methods to identify self and non-self, and of modifying their criteria depending on the context. I will spare you the examples, and, should you ask, jump at the chance to provide them.
I am comfortable making the leap to human society from these examples. I spend a lot of time, and always have, on negotiating boundaries between myself and others. I change, other people change, my surroundings change, and each transition seems to require a review of my personal boundaries.
So. People need to know who they are, who is safe to include in their group, and who is outside of it. Sporkage allows a critic to confirm these boundaries by getting approving feedback from others who agree that the sporked author is clearly outside their group. Fanfiction that fits their definition of bad is therefore valuable, but only if it is shared with the right people. The more laughter they get from the satire, or approving nods of their scathing insight, the more clearly they show they belong in the group.
You can tell by the way I’ve written this that I don’t like sporkage, and usually scroll by it. So what? My issue is whether I can define my boundaries without resorting to sharing my witty ridicule of others with people who agree with me, and from whom I crave the approving laugh or nod. Can I define my boundaries without sporking?
Look at this post – I am identifying a group I’m not in by making it clear I disapprove. I want to confirm that I am in the right group by fishing for the approving nod from my beloved f’list. I don’t think I am being cruel, but I sure am being sarcastic.
I like to be clear, and so I have composed my LJ posts carefully. Still, I routinely delete them because I decide they are stupid or inappropriate or otherwise begging for ridicule. This is only one example among many of how fearful I am of scorn, whether it is from my group or not. Illustrates to me just how uncertain I am of where I stand, and how important it is to me to know. I’ll insist that I don’t care what other people think – but here’s a self serving remark about that. I do care, but make myself ignore that fact to do what I think I should. Aren’t I brave and mature? Want to be in my group? Can I come into yours? Please?
Despite this clever little ending, I want to assure those of you who have read this that I am not in desperate need of a hug to tell me I am an OK person. I always think about this stuff, and have learned not to let it get to me if I am not affirmed every minute of every day. But I am curious if this does or doesn’t make sense – both the confusion and the explanations.
Here’s what I think people mean by sporkage. It is critical commentary with two defining characteristics: (1) the critic seeks out fanfiction they expect to be bad and (2) using ridicule, they comment on it to others sharing their criteria for bad fanfiction.
I get critical commentary. Even the most brutal feedback can be useful, as long as the criteria on which it based are clear, consistently applied and backed up by relevant examples.
What I don’t get is why people search for fiction they expect to be awful and then share it with others who will also think it is awful. Or, rather, I have a straightforward explanation for why people do this, but I get confused when I try to distinguish sporkage from humor and commentary I do like.
Here’s the simple explanation. Organisms have an awe-inspiring array of methods to identify self and non-self, and of modifying their criteria depending on the context. I will spare you the examples, and, should you ask, jump at the chance to provide them.
I am comfortable making the leap to human society from these examples. I spend a lot of time, and always have, on negotiating boundaries between myself and others. I change, other people change, my surroundings change, and each transition seems to require a review of my personal boundaries.
So. People need to know who they are, who is safe to include in their group, and who is outside of it. Sporkage allows a critic to confirm these boundaries by getting approving feedback from others who agree that the sporked author is clearly outside their group. Fanfiction that fits their definition of bad is therefore valuable, but only if it is shared with the right people. The more laughter they get from the satire, or approving nods of their scathing insight, the more clearly they show they belong in the group.
You can tell by the way I’ve written this that I don’t like sporkage, and usually scroll by it. So what? My issue is whether I can define my boundaries without resorting to sharing my witty ridicule of others with people who agree with me, and from whom I crave the approving laugh or nod. Can I define my boundaries without sporking?
Look at this post – I am identifying a group I’m not in by making it clear I disapprove. I want to confirm that I am in the right group by fishing for the approving nod from my beloved f’list. I don’t think I am being cruel, but I sure am being sarcastic.
I like to be clear, and so I have composed my LJ posts carefully. Still, I routinely delete them because I decide they are stupid or inappropriate or otherwise begging for ridicule. This is only one example among many of how fearful I am of scorn, whether it is from my group or not. Illustrates to me just how uncertain I am of where I stand, and how important it is to me to know. I’ll insist that I don’t care what other people think – but here’s a self serving remark about that. I do care, but make myself ignore that fact to do what I think I should. Aren’t I brave and mature? Want to be in my group? Can I come into yours? Please?
Despite this clever little ending, I want to assure those of you who have read this that I am not in desperate need of a hug to tell me I am an OK person. I always think about this stuff, and have learned not to let it get to me if I am not affirmed every minute of every day. But I am curious if this does or doesn’t make sense – both the confusion and the explanations.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 11:29 am (UTC)FWIW, I hope you won't delete your posts - I always enjoy them ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 12:57 pm (UTC)**broods moodily about reality**
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 11:38 am (UTC)BTW you are so cute when you ramble about this stuff....no really you are, don't ever stop.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 11:41 am (UTC)I don't go looking for badness, but when I find it, it sometimes enrages me. Like, literally enrages me. (Again, with the hot temper!)
This is bad karma, I'm sure. I do sort of wish that I were a less critical person: I'm sure life would be more fun. But I'm not. I think that at least part of why I'm a critical person is that I'm a writer: I am able to recognize The Horror in others' writing because I am able to recognize it in myself, and I'm not sure I'd be willing to trade that away, although it would for sure be nice to not be angered by what I perceive to be bad writing.
Also, your in-group/out-group discussion is very interesting. As an avid consumer of evolutionary psychology theorems, I think that the need to define Us and Them is completely natural, and intriguing. Our brains still live in fifty-person bands on the steppes, and we will construct tribes for ourselves no matter what.
Anyway, interesting post. Don't delete! :)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 01:00 pm (UTC)I see now that sporkage isn’t necessarily cruel, at least if you assume the author will not see it. My mental analogy for sporkage, shooting fish in a barrel, doesn’t apply if the target is a plastic copy of the fish, who is happily oblivious in her pond.
I am not sure what I think when it is possible that the person will see it. Seeing a friend trashed, and trashed so gleefully, would have pissed me off even if every word was true. I didn’t read all of it, but what I did read seemed inane, irrelevant. The word that came immediately to mind was “vile”. On the other hand, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, don’t go in that barrel, and don’t stick your neck out. Otherwise, you have to expect to eventually end up headless, fried and served up on a platter.
**dances around in delight about how amazingly clever those last two sentences are, and how cunningly I have sporked myself before anyone else has a chance**
I can empathize with the anger over seeing someone butcher or ignore a process, a skill, you have, and that you know they don’t have. Claiming intelligent design is a valid scientific hypothesis does not make it one.
So what to do with that anger? And with our need to define Us and Them?
We could chat all month about evolutionary psychology and both learn a lot. But let’s assume we could agree on what “behavior” or “natural” means, and which traits would fit both descriptions in humans. And that we agree to ignore that there is no place in space or time where these behaviors would be frozen into a permanent, predictable suite of natural human characters. And that we could make a coherent argument that natural behaviors related to defining territory are homologous to the specific behaviors we are talking about here.
I doubt I would change my opinion, and agree that human behavior is determined by genes. Influenced by genetics, perhaps, depending on the trait. Sometimes difficult to ignore, absolutely. Impossible to disobey? That’s where you lose me, because I can’t think of an animal that cannot learn.
Back to fanfic sporkage. I don’t understand why the ability and desire to shoot (plastic) fish in a barrel means you absolutely have to do it. But is this because I am missing the point wyldestarr made, that sporkage can help you improve your writing?
what to write in an LJ
Date: 2005-03-23 12:09 pm (UTC)I take care with words everywhere else and this, this is my rebellion - hah!
As for fan fic critiques - I have sold for cash, worse stories than those that get slated routinely in forums.
Re: what to write in an LJ
Date: 2005-03-24 01:03 pm (UTC)I am much more likely to pull posts in which I have been clear, and that I decide might bring on the ridicule. I see this as a problem of self confidence, and a wonderful **rolls eyes** self-improvement opportunity to work on that problem.
When you write for one audience, it seems inevitable that you will bore, confuse or annoy many others. Why would members of one of those other audiences expect something not written for their sensibilities to be good enough to meet their approval?
Re: what to write in an LJ
Date: 2005-03-25 05:11 am (UTC)Everyone else? Screw em.
And I think you made a good point in your last set there: that some can't handle not being included in a group, and whether good or bad, feel the need to rip that which wasn't meant for them to begin with. If it's done blindside, it only shows them to be whining brattish children.
And quite vile, you're right.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 12:40 pm (UTC)While I couldn't tell you the origin of sporking, I can tell you somewhat of the people who enjoy reading it. Those very same people are generally fans of Elvira, JoeBob Briggs, and Mystery Science Theatre - the people who gleefully snark on horridly campy or just plain horrid films of most any genre. It's the same thing we probably do (I know I have) when watching a particularly campy/horrid film. We simply make witty (to us) or snarky comments on what's going on in the movie to amuse ourselves.
Fanfic sporking is simply this method of 'entertainment' for the written word. In fact, the better sporkings (funny rather than cruel) are often called MSTs, with the commentary by the original characters themselves (as written by the commentator, of course). With the one site that has recently hit some of our flists due to a commotion, it is a place for people to vent. Site rules state that those on that site MAY NOT leave a link to the author they are sporking...it's cruel and they damn well know it. While I'd like to think that most of the people who spork there do actually leave very kind and helpful constructive criticism for the authors, I couldn't say for sure. I know some of them do, in a genuine effort to help the authors improve, but the sheer badness of the fic drives them to spork elsewhere. It's a release of frustration from trying to find decent fics to read. Then it becomes habit, trying to find the worst you can to outdo the others.
Do I spork? Not really, though I've MST'd movies and it probably would've amused you. ^_^ Do I check out spork pages? I have one on my flist for kicks, but I don't go out looking for BadFic. I prefer to read something of quality, thank you. In some ways, it's an educational tool for me - to show me just what is too 'sue' or too ewww. In other ways, I truly have to wonder about humanity that people think some of the stuff on there, the stuff that gets chosen for sporking, is really good writing!
And it's not just the plot or serious lack thereof...it's grammar that's nonexistent, spelling that requires a translator, and punctuation...wait, there often isn't punctuation in BadFic. Most of these authors are 15 and up and it really says a lot about the school system that these kids can't figure out that puncutation is used to end a sentence or that quotes help distinguish dialogue. And when offered the services of a beta or even just some basic critique...they don't care to learn. That saddens me more than the fic itself. They aren't writing to actually write something; there's no desire to be 'good'. It's no longer the domain of 'creative writing' or even 'writing' at all. It's a jumbled mishmash of thoughts, ideas, and oftentimes bad bedroom fantasies, along with the rampant abuse of letters, punctuation, grammar, and story/movie characters.
Told you it was long...
Date: 2005-03-23 12:41 pm (UTC)*shrugs* Sporking is a vent of frustration to decry the character injustices. They love the characters as they are and want them to stay those characters - expound on them, place them in different venues, but leave them true to themselves and they'll be fairly happy. You will always have your anal critics, but most of those are quite narrow-minded and unyielding where AU is concerned. They don't want to know what if. In fact, sometimes I wonder why they read fanfic at all, as it seems they would only be happy and nonjudgmental on something the author wrote.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 01:09 pm (UTC)Excellent point – the joys of snarking. Watching something unbelievably bad - B-movies, speeches at the Republican convention – and snarking with like minded snarkers is way too much fun. And, in the case of the speeches, the only way I can deal with them. One reason my husband and I have lasted so long is that our snarking tastes are so similar: the targets and what we think is funny. Eddie Izzard and Monty Python just about sums it up, and they are world class snarkers.
“Site rules state that those on that site MAY NOT leave a link to the author they are sporking...it's cruel and they damn well know it.”
I didn’t know about this prohibition. But don’t the details of the spork leave plenty of clues about where to find it?
About being forced to vent in this particular manner – see my reply to meyerlemon. I don’t get why this is necessary.
“In some ways, it's an educational tool for me - to show me just what is too 'sue' or too ewww. “
This makes a lot of sense to me – reading creationist literature, or taking the opposite side of a debate can highlight all sorts of holes in my own thinking.
As you pointed out, the idea that writing is a craft doesn’t seem to have caught hold in the fanfiction world. It is sad. Most of what I have started to read is full of typos, inconsistent plot lines and clichés. Clearly, this is bad writing. But what’s the value in pointing that out? Isn’t it obvious? And why would anyone expect anything more of fanfic? It’s a gift that so much of it is readable.
Bad writing is easy to identify, easy to dissect. Why not spend time on the tougher issues? It seems to me that it takes a lot of skill to write good fanfiction because it is based on other work. Whether the aim is to stick to canon, or to expand it, or to mold it into something new, its all putting yourself in a pretty tight box, then trying to write your way out of it.
To my outsider’s eye, I’d think it would be very useful to debate methods and reasons for building, then getting out of, those boxes. Well-written fanfiction reflects careful thought, and I think writers expect to be able to explain, defend or modify their rationale when challenged.
Sporkage seems to miss this opportunity entirely. Is this an unfair summary? “I think [insert stand on canon]. She thinks [insert another, opposing view]. And look! She’s writing as if [insert another, opposing view]!! How dare she?!?!” The next step, “lets look at what she did, and why, and how I think it should be done better, and then lets listen to her response and maybe everyone will be a little wiser at the end of the day” just doesn’t happen.
Admittedly, this is work. Fun is good, silly is good, snarking is good. I am delighted when I think I have snarked well. It just seems that someone’s poor writing is so obvious, and so dull a target that it wouldn’t be fun to lampoon. Maybe the key thing here is that I don’t write fanfiction, so I don’t get the humor.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 01:49 pm (UTC)I dealt with this to a ridiculous extent in the church. There is such a need to find devils under every rock, and this overpowering need to feel secure, that we tamp down the group, weed and filter out any real or imagined threat until there's no one left but ourselves, and there is no one to mistrust. Or to trust.
My recent unpleasantness had to have some positive results, and for the thinkers, it will. For those who are reactionaries, knee jerkers (I'm sorry to say I was temporarily among "them" when I bolted rather than wheeling on "them" and tearing off a head or three as I would have done had I thought first) who will snarl and spit, and cause more pain rather than learn something, it won't matter a damn. Nor will preaching. "That kind" doesn't learn.
I did.
I learned that you can't get away from "them". No matter how hard you try, it's not possible.
You see, this particular "sporkette" backed down when confronted by one or two whom she thought were on "her" side, but called her on the carpet. (I did see another familiar face there; thank you,
be that as it my, in a perfect, thinking, world, all points are valid. Ever the fan of the underdog, IRL as well, no one knows who is behind that keyboard, age, sex, location, these mean nothing unless we trust the person to be truthful about themselves; that makes us rather wide-eyed, doesn't it? Even when we try to have polite consideration for one we may not agree with, the little tallyman in our heads still takes quiet notes. This one is okay, this one is not, this one is slipping today, don't know what side of the board (s)he'll be on in the future, but a thinker, at least, won't lash out in order to inflict pain as a discernment tool. A thinker, one with a soul anyway, will remember how good/bad something feels (because that is after all, the first thing: feeling, then thinking) and act accordingly. That's learning.
We'll always be separate, in one way or another.
It's a matter of survival.
You're not the only one who overthinks, hun.
You're "one of us".
*snicker*
(I'm now going to put the cork back into the bottle; this is probably the longest response I've ever typed!)
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 04:00 pm (UTC)you're so welcome, dearie...*smooches back* I have read quite a bit of ROE and I like what I've read. I can't stand unfair criticism... as wyldestarr said, especially of the things that I love dearly. And it seems to me that the unfair criticism of Boromir is now being applied to those of us who love the character and understand his underlying strengths and weaknesses.
Mom, you go on thinking and rambling...I'm learning much from you and from the responses to said ramblings *hugs*
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 01:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 01:05 pm (UTC)I agree with the church example. Like nationality, ethic identity, etc., this stuff gets dangerous when people in the group have the means to destroy who they want.
Just to be difficult, I sometimes wonder if my love of seeing all points of view as valid highlights the fact that I don’t really have any convictions I’m willing to defend. Is open-mindedness a virtue, or an excuse to stay out of the line of fire?
**broods moodily about the possibility that I am a chickenshit**
Well...
Date: 2005-03-24 01:29 pm (UTC)Why would you brood about being pleased?
Re: Well...
Date: 2005-03-24 04:59 pm (UTC)I agree with you that all points of view are valid, as long as they meet some ground rules. Like consistency with a reasonable reading of "the facts" (another can of worms, but I won't go there); rational, internally consistent arguments; and a clearly defined set of values, respect for others among them.
All the things sporkage, or I suppose most types of humor, are not. I don't think the view that your writing is bad, for example, is something that can could be supported.
I don't think the view that non-canon writing is evil is a valid point of view. Having a strong opinion one way or the other, sure, deciding that non-canon really isn't fanfiction and shouldn't be labeled as such, fine, but not rejection of the concept of working outside the canon as an illegitimate form of expression.
The remark about being pleased was an smirk at my tendency to dither endlessly over things that I should just let be.
**hugs tightly**
Re: Well...
Date: 2005-03-25 05:30 am (UTC)To see them spatting over imagined typos and the odd mispelling (and I could point out at least three the sporker was guilty of, right off the bat. Is the use of ALT keys so foreign?) when the entire site encompasses some 11 million keystrokes simply boggles the mind.
And I still stand by the idea that all points are valid. BUT (slipping into Georgia mode here) you'd best be able to back up that point with intelligence, not stupidity. I hate battling with an unarmed opponent.
For fans of the Princess Bride:
"You see a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."
"You seem a decent fellow, I hate to die."
Perhaps I should have said, "all points are valid until one of us learns something."
*hugs you back*
no subject
Date: 2005-03-23 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 01:04 pm (UTC)