Criticism is part of how fandom functions. But there is a substantial difference between thoughtful discussion and hyper-fueled teeth-gnashing destructor mode. And when that sort of festering anger gets leveled at people over making a lukewarm piece of continuity? It’s ugly.
And it’s not what fandom is about.
Full disclosure: We’re all capable of getting a little cranky. When things are dear to you, you want to protect them, and when something bugs you, you want to speak up. So I’m certainly not coming at this from a place of innocence, pretending that I have some special high-ground on the subject. But it is important to talk about what we criticize and how we do it, and remember that while we can’t be perfect people, we can certainly try to keep the water clear.
David Gerrold (who is known for penning the famous Star Trek episode “The Trouble With Tribbles,” among other accomplishments) went to Facebook recently to discuss his issues with fans who take creatives to task as “the enemy” when those people don’t handle properties the way they’d like. The point he was trying to make is that creation is a complicated process, and no one sets out to make something horrible. Getting up in arms about this writer or that director as though they’ve personally slighted you and everything that matters to you is not only ridiculous, but simply isn’t constructive or productive for either the fan community or the creatives being taken to task. It’s fine not to like things. But it’s wrong to spew vitriol simply because something you normally like is currently not your cuppa tea.
The dividing line between criticism and keyboard-smashing rage is hard for some to parse out. And this is especially true because criticisms can get heated, particularly when the critique is centered on a group of people or subject that is often mistreated by fiction. And the fact is, angry criticism is not automatically bad criticism. Angry criticism might lack clarity on occasion, but that doesn’t make it incorrect by any means. However, the point of criticism is to direct our attention to places where the material might need work or deeper consideration—ways in which it’s perpetuating regrettable patterns and stereotypes or contributing to unfortunate trends, or simply falling down on its message and mission as a work of art, whether we’re talking about a Batman comic or a Virginia Woolf novel.
And criticism is not out of place in pop culture, no matter what anyone says. If I see one more internet comment telling someone to “relax, it’s just a tv show/movie/book/comic… why can’t you just have fun and stop dissecting everything?” then I’m going to keyboard-rage-smash until the internet turns into all-caps letter soup. See? When other people refuse to engage in a constructive manner and choose to deride helpful discourse, it just creates more anger, and then I’m suddenly becoming Strong Bad.
Just because something is meant to be fun and is intended to be enjoyed by a large percentage of people does not mean that it is above (or below) criticism. In fact, criticism becomes even more relevant when a piece of media enjoys widespread popularity because it then occupies such a substantial space in our culture. Not everyone will get to Berlin and see the Ishtar Gate—hell, they might not even see pictures of it in their history books… but chances are they’ve seen one Star Wars film. Whether or not someone thinks these popular stories deserve deeper treatment is a pointless argument; they exist in our very bones and won’t be removed.
And that’s appropriate because even the most base pop culture is capable of informing us about the world at large. Watching Star Wars opens viewers up to mythological structure and art and symphonic music. Batman comics harken back to film noir and Sherlock Holmes and the Scarlet Pimpernel. The Lord of the Rings can teach us about Viking folklore and World War I and linguistics. Pop culture helps to determine how we access our history, our humanity. Refusing to take it apart the same way we do “high art” is effectively declaring what we enjoy in common society is bankrupt of larger context, and that artistic value only existed in some glorious past. Remember, Shakespeare was writing his day’s equivalent of the blockbuster—he had no qualm with being a pop culture poet.
So, yes: criticism is a good thing in the world of pop culture, and has an important place in fandom at large. Then what exactly is Gerrold upset over?—it’s the keyboard-smashing rage. Rage that typically consists of YOU RUINED XYZ FOREVER AND I HATE YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD HATE YOU TOO, YOU ARE BAD YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD. It’s not exactly hard to recognize this as unhelpful. It contributes nothing worthwhile to any kind of discussion, and focuses on one—or several—specific human beings who are the targets of one’s ire. There is no constructive point to this; it’s an emotional reaction to having something that you love taken apart and rearranged in ways that seem inauthentic to you. And it’s a perfectly fair emotional reaction to have, of course, because that’s how emotions work. But this argument can get particularly nasty in fandom because fans claim a certain level of ownership over their obsessions. Not literal ownership, mind you, but perhaps a spiritual sort.
We’ve all had that feel, bro. This is not my Superman! That is not my Tolkien! They are not my Avengers!
J.J. Abrams is nothing but lens flare!
Brannon Braga knows nothing!
You are betraying the very soul of that thing I love!
But frankly, the worst case scenario here is simply deciding not to engage with said property until it morphs into something that excites you again. Outside of that, it seems as though the majority of the rage is directed toward the idea that other fans will come to the fold through this new version of your fandom and “not understand” what it’s about. But there are several problems that way of thinking in the first place:
- There are plenty of already-existing fans who do not share your opinions on the fandoms and things that you love. Just because you may think that the intentions you’re perceiving behind a work are correct doesn’t mean that the guy sitting next to you gives a hill of beans for your thoughts about the human metaphors implicit in Vulcan society. He was only in it for the space guns and cool prosthetics. And the lady sitting across from you was only in it because it was one of the few shows on television that featured people who looked like her. You all have different reasons for being here. You are not the only fan of anything (unless it’s a comic that you created and have never shown to anyone…)
- Many fans will go back to the thing that you love once they are introduced by way of the Shiny New Version. LOTR book sales rocketed when The Lord of the Rings became a film trilogy. Lots of New Who fans went back to watch classic Doctor Who. The fans who don’t go back into the original material? They’re not the kind of fan you’re likely to see eye-to-eye with anyway. If they do, you get new friends to talk about The Silmarillion with. Everyone wins.
- Conversely, the love you have for anything is not negated or lessened by it no longer being the most-current and/or popular version.
But maybe none of this is the point. Maybe you’re just upset with the people in charge for creating something that didn’t grab you. To which the answer is simple: Disliking something is fine. Hating a person, a human being you’ve never met, for no reason other than the creative choices they made? Even if they’re weren’t great creative choices? That’s pretty extreme. And openly attacking that human being? That’s unnecessary and damaging to all fandom communities. Choices themselves can be critiqued. But that person was doing their job, trying to make something that they were hoping you’d like. Regardless of how strong your feelings are, they do not deserve that level of fury and contempt directed right at them.
I should mention that this goes in both directions. Creators are fans, too, and sometimes, they don’t take rationally to any manner of criticism. Sometimes they turn around and attack the fan community for not being of one mind with their decisions. In this case, they need to remember that a) they will never get everyone to love the things they make; b) there might be some good points in outside criticism that could be valuable to them going forward; and c) once they step into the role of creator, they are now acting as a professional and should behave professionally toward fans and critics alike. Unless you are being outright harassed or abused, there is no call for deriding people who have opinions on your work. It is the nature of the beast.
We can’t help caring, and it’s all done out of love, some might say. But what we forget is that love isn’t only ever a good thing. Sometimes acting out of love can be destructive.
Fandom can make heroes out of all of us—lead people to start charities, form friendships, fight for change. And if your forays into fandom have led you in that direction, then that love is doing well for you. But if you find yourself maligning others in the effort to express how much you care, in order to prove that the ways in which you care are more or better than anyone else’s… then maybe that love isn’t helping you out so much. Maybe it’s time to consider what you’re actually bringing to the table. Claiming ownership over something also means being a caretaker. But your caretaking duties are not to the story itself—they’re to the people in your community.
Because you can’t safeguard stories, really: they’re made up of ideas and ideas are fluid. But you can safeguard people.
Irritation is understandable, of course; the entertainment industry at large is a trend-driven monster and often doses us with much-of-the-same. It feels good to complain sometimes, but it’s not worth anyone’s fury. At best, it is worth our well-considered critique. Our disappointment. Possibly even our dismissal. And none of that amounts to actively trying to hurt another person, regardless of their perceived mistakes. Trolls will do what they do, but no one is going to be fooled into finding their antics relevant or impactful, or smart, or cool. If anything, those “us against them” tactics are far sadder than a failed first season of television, or an over-simplified reboot. It makes it hard for fans with different tastes to unabashedly like what they like, and harder for others to criticize the work in a meaningful way.
So do fandom a favor: save your ire for plotholes and stereotypes and bad movie science. Debate with care and never forget that you are talking to and about other people. Contribute, rather than detract and threaten. And remember that even if you feel a certain amount of ownership over the stories that move you, that doesn’t give you leave to vilify anyone. Fandom should be the best kind of playground, not a never-ending game of King of the Mountain.
Emmet Asher-Perrin actually doesn’t get why lens flare became the worst of cinema offenses. You can bug her on Twitter and Tumblr, and read more of her work here and elsewhere.
Quible: “Refusing to take it apart the same way we do “high art” is effectively declaring what we enjoy in common society is bankrupt of larger context, and that artistic value only existed in some glorious past.”
Lord of the Rings is not just a great novel because of its context, because it informs us about Old English epic, and Star Wars is not a great movie because it gives people a course in Joseph Campbell 101. They are great texts in and of themselves. You don’t need to prove that they point to something beyond themselves to make the claim that they are worthy of serious attention/dissection.
@1 – I would have thought that the latter half of the sentence you quoted there would have suggested exactly that. Artistic value does not only exist in the past. But it’s also important to talk about the ways in which all art is an access point for culture, which is what that paragraph was meant to address.
Actually Shakespeare had plenty of qualms about being a pop-culture poet — he wanted to be a SERIOUS! poet, but he also recognized that he had bills to pay. Still, your greater point stands, and I wish everyone in the world would read this piece. :)
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
I’ll save my heckling for people who clearly fail to grasp the point of a book or a TV series in their rewites for sure. I certainly don’t hate the producers of such travesties. I just won’t waste money or time on their work.
That being said, if you can’t take feedback of all kinds on your efforts, its time to find a new hobby.
I can’t thank you enough for writing this article. I have a friend who thinks this way unfortunately. If someone makes a movie or TV show not up to his standards, the only reason said person – whether director, writer or actor – could have failed is because they are a terrible, greedy person who is only interested in money. Of course, he doesn’t think “good” creatives are concerned with money, provided they makes movies which meet his standard. I take your view that criticism is not only a way to help us better understand the work itself, but also helps us create better, more enriching works in the providing – without hating on the person who made the work in the first place.
Keep up the good work!
I think something needs to be added to this.
Art is about inspiring emotions. All art. Analysis will always diminish those emotions.
Critical analysis is important. But if you’re first observing a piece of art while analyzing it you’re already crippling the piece.
The first time you see a movie, the first time you read a book, shut off the critical part of your brain. Take the art in on a purely emotional level. You’ll enjoy everything you take in more.
It’s easy to analyze anything into the ground(for reference watch a few Cinema Sins videos.) Hating things is easy, and a great way to look smart on the way out of the theatre lobby. But it’s a terrible way to enjoy anything. So go in planning not to analyze. You can do that later, after you’ve gotten the full emotional spectrum of whatever art you’re supposed to be enjoying(Video Games, Books, Movies, Comics, Adult Films, etc….)
Holy cats, this is awesome. I am going to share this any time somebody gripes about properties being defiled. Damn well said.
Great article. I agree with most of Emily’s points. It is amazing how much vilification George Lucas has gotten for many later Star Wars decisions, despite the fact that he created the very property so many love. People get so emotionally attached to these properties. I do have to contest you on the Lens Flare issue with JJ. It just made the Star Trek reboot very annoying to watch. But we shouldn’t hang the guy for it. :-)
@@.-@,
That being said, if you can’t take feedback of all kinds on your efforts, its time to find a new hobby.
This sounds dangerously close to excusing harassment, IMO. A lot of things fall under the umbrella of “feedback of all kinds” and that’s a problem, as Emily so rightly points out. Feedback that ignores the basic personhood of the person it’s given to isn’t feedback.
Great article! I hope this actually reachs the people who really need to read it. The important thing to remember is that these new interpretations don’t change the originals at all. The only one I have a hard time with is the new Dune novels by Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson. I have to remind myself that no matter what they try and do to the Dune saga, the original six novels will still be there, waiting to be read.
Love it :)
And I’ll be honest, I can still recall (and even bring back if I focus hard enough) the rage I felt when I heard those fateful words, “The Ring will go to Gondor”. But, I still have (more or less) enjoyed Peter Jackson’s versions of Middle Earth. Although certainly am still disappointed by some of it and the fact that I didn’t get to see certain things on the big screen or that it didn’t always have the same message that resonated so strongly with me in the books. Well, I can still read the books, and they still touch me as deeply as ever :)
And of course, I remember all of the craziness surrounding the Star Wars prequels and various declarations and definitions of who the ‘true fans’ were and what the prequels SHOULD have done, and how they should have used THIS idea, and GEORGE LUCAS RUINED MY CHILDHOOD, and just on and on and on. (That said, I suppose you could argue that for the originals since he’s made getting the theatrical versions so hard to get…).
Fandom is a funny thing. I definitely have my own preferences and ideas about what a story is about, and there have been things my favorite fandoms have done that I feel goes against that (Star Wars EU is a good example fo this, but there’s so much EU out there it’s not too hard to pick and choose what you will follow). And this is probably all tied up in the idea of what is ‘canon’.
Edited to add: Of course, I always want more of what I like so, for example, witht he new Star Wars movies, if they aren’t ‘what I like’ (about Star Wars, at least)…I will be very sad.
@6, Sometimes YOU CAN’T turn off that part of your brain.
As a woman, if all I see of myself represented in a video game is as a disposable abuse toy for the player character, I can’t turn that off and “enjoy it for what it is” because what it is, is telling me it doesn’t consider me a person.
Love it.
I generally try to stay away from fan groups because of how hatefilled and vitriolic they get. I think the last time I tried was Mass Effect, then Mass Effect 3 came out and oh my god, never again.
Eeeeevvvverrrrrr.
Also, on that link about ORci’s rant against INto Darkness’ detractors, someone should link him to an article about this one writer who stalked her online critic and came off looking a psycho, don’t remember the story or the writer or the link otherwise I’d post it, but still. If you can’t deal with criticism constructively then you should probably just brush it off and try to find the portions that help.
But oh my god Mass Effect fans, and Transformers fans. I remember all the ‘BAY RUINED MY CHILDHOOD! MY CHILDHOOD HAS BEEN RAPED!’ net rage, the fact that groups apparently protested his offices (old offices.)…I’ve been a trekkie since at least ’91, and I’m still afraid to join in the Trek community. Lotta fans should read this article. Even the ones who defend whatever property that makes some angry to the death, again with Transformers, you’d have one or two who’d constructively say why they don’t like say Transformers 4, then be attacked for hating the movie and only liking the 1980’s Transformers, then you’d have them fighting the anti Bay Transformers crowd, that after a while you just stay far away.
With Trek and Nu-Trek alive, that’s why I’m afraid of joining that community. I mean what if you love both Trek and Nu-Trek? And the novels? Especially post-Nemesis Trek? ANd you think Vanguard is a sort of TOS DS9? And Seekers is a sort of TOS Voyager but only good? and you have factions who are fighting over all that?
Fandom is a funny thing.
Hi Emily,
thanks for this post, I quite enjoyed most of it. I do like the assumption that as fans we should try and appreciate that interest in what we consider precious – yup, that’s a pun ;) – is fueled by more creative interaction with it. And you are not the only one in recent weeks, months, nay, even years who has voiced such concerns hoping that something good would come out of it.
However, somehow I am under the impression both you and many of the good-will-commentators are missing out on some essentials – well, at least what _I_ consider essentials. I am well aware others do not share my views.
“But that person was doing their job, trying to make something that they were hoping you’d like (…)”
How do you know? In the age of “The Franchise, The Reboot and The Stockholders’ demands” your argument seems to be artistic integrity, that is, all those great people out there are trying to do some great stuff to please the fans. If you have a look at the 100 box office grossing films I beg to differ.
Some films and tv series and books and comics are simply made to make money. Even if the makers know it’s crap. In fact, with modern marketing elements of provocation are instrumentalised to attract publicity, interest and then cash again because if there is a row more people will know – and buy. So dishing out nonsense has become part of the marketing plan because if you follow up with a really great book/ film/ tv series etc. then people will be even happier… ;)
Do I need to read another rant, do I need to read someone threatening violence over some supposed insult to one’s fanatic’s ideals? Of course not. Would I condone that? Never. There is and always will be a place for reasoned criticism – as you so righly said – and that should be a help in future creative ventures to actually be better. And hey, yes, there are quite a few people out there who like to learn and get better. So kudos to that!
However, with the rise of social media and mass marketing what used to be a “fan base” has turned into a “marketing and let them buy shit base”; at least that’s how a couple of people feel nowadays. No, we don’t need trolls but I don’t need to be told by a Hollywood production company they’re acing out a great new film when even with trailers and pre-production material it becomes clear that this is just a waste of time.
Because they don’t seem to care that much anymore. Fandom used to be – and I’m well over my 40s so I’ve seen a bit of it – a two-way street and to this very day there are so many awesome people out there loving their fans and the fans returning that love and that’s how it should be. Even if some things don’t work out, next time it’ll be awesome again! No worries.
But if we are talking big buck shows, big buck franchises and you know from merchandising companies’ meetups when managers from the aforementioned companies tell you, verbatim, “we’re going to sell them so much shit it’s going to come out of their ears!” – well, then maybe it’s time to no longer be a fan of that particular “cult phenomenon.”
And yes. Things change. I think it’s time we tried to find a new word for “fandom.” Because it either has been changed into something people from 20 years ago wouldn’t recognise anymore or this isn’t “fandom” anymore and a new way of appreciation we need a new term for.
P.S.: And yes, Satan himself invented the Lens Flare. It’s true. It says so on the intenet :D
Emily, thank you for writing this article. I am a consumer of the work on this site and others of its ilk, but I don’t think I have posted a “real” comment in response to an article – like, ever. Your article, however, well-written, with beautiful language, and addressing a key reason WHY I tend not to engage in any online forum, is worth dollars per character. Courtesy and respect for our fellow persons is key, particular in the world of fandom, where emotions are rightfully strong. Thank you for putting this out there – I have no doubt that it will have an impact.
Just because something is meant to be fun and is intended to be enjoyed by a large percentage of people does not mean that it is above (or below) criticism. In fact, criticism becomes even more relevant when a piece of media enjoys widespread popularity because it then occupies such a substantial space in our culture.
Have you heard of Moff’s Law? I pull it up all the time when people protest intellectual discussions of fannish things.
Great article overall. On the other hand, if a creative continues to make creative choices that are racist. sexist, other ish, etc, etc, that leads me to trust less and less of them as a creator and suspect there are biases that person has which is refected in their art.
@16,
On the other hand, if a creative continues to make creative choices that
are racist. sexist, other ish, etc, etc, that leads me to trust less
and less of them as a creator and suspect there are biases that person
has which is refected in their art.
YES.
@10
I appreciated the prequel novels by Kevin Anderson and Brian Herbert, and the followup volumes for Dune 7, for the information value. It was important to get the content of Frank Herbert’s notes to the world in the wake of the cliffhanger he left us with. However, the writing doesn’t compel me to read any of their more recent books. I certainly wouldn’t have been quite so literal with the “enslaved by machines” bit, even if that was the elder Herbert’s intention…. I think the phrase is an exceptional metaphor for today’s society.
On Star Wars Prequels: I stopped taking Star Wars seriously when George Lucas stopped taking it seriously. It’s a mindset that allows me to sit back and enjoy episode I-III for what they are.
On Star Trek vs. New Trek: There were some bad decisions made. I recall reading that Abrams had never watched Trek before taking the job. On that basis, I would not have hired him, but can’t fault him for failing to connect with a large number of existing Star Trek fans.
We have to remember that often it’s not the creative minds calling the shots… it’s the suits and the bean counters upstairs who are more interested in generating profits than in creating art.
@8 The Aandor Guy
On George Lucas I don’t give him a pass. He’s a hypocrite on the subject of changing movies. Spoke in Congress in 1988 about how movies are our heritage and shouldn’t changed blah blah blah. Then does exactly what he railed against. No pass for him. (I don’t personally care if Han shot first or whatever, but hypocrisy chaps my butt)
As for JJ Adams, maybe hanging is too much, but a good thrashing would probably suffice.
@18 Something I never got in regards to NuTrek and Abrams having never watched Star Trek (I thought I’d read he had watched some but wasn’t bowled over by it, he also prefered Twilight Zone) is the idea that the person adding to it has to have seen/been a fan of that franchise from the beginning. Harve Bennett hadn’t watched Star Trek before taking the Producer role for Trek 2 Wrath of Khan (he watched it after taking the role though. Same with Nic Meyer I think.) and modern pop culture loves Wrath of Khan today. Oh no, actually Bennett did see Trek The MOtion Picture and wasn’t impressed with it. Abrams hadn’t watched Star Trek, or just not as religiously as most Trekkies do, BUT Orci and Kurtzman claim to be big fans of Star Trek.
Abrams has an eye and a fresh outlook that Star trek the movie franchise desperately needed. I wouldn’t have hired Kurtzman or Orci to do the writing though.
Back to my original point though, I never got the idea that the director/crewmember/whatever had to be the ipso facto fan of that particular franchise, it helps if they do research, which any professional will do (unless you’re Stuart Baird and you do no research before hand because the suits said not to so you ‘make’ Nemesis) or should do. But sometimes a fresh perspective is definately needed.
I hope I haven’t been a ranter, but I do know I’ve parted ways with franchises that don’t have the same feel they used to. This has been more prevalent for me since the whole “reboot” concept took off, and I wonder if that concept’s rise has coincided with increased frequency and vociferousness of these rants? Where the reboots get to me isn’t what they choose to do with the property next, so much as the sadness of knowing the comfortable feel of the property I’d come to love has been let go of, never to be revisited again. My mantra to discourage rants in those moments is that actors age, stories need revision to suit new social mores, there are few constants of any kind in life, and – let’s face it – I’m just getting old.
@6, Aminar –
I gotta say, I used to agree with you, and to a certain extent I still do. I believe that an emotional – 0r to be more specific, an empathetic appreciation for movies and books, where you try to immerse yourself in the world created by the artist, is far more enjoyable than a more analytical, distanced appreciation.
But people are different. Some are more emotional, some are more analytical. They’re just wired differently.
@20 –
“Back to my original point though, I never got the idea that the director/crewmember/whatever had to be the ipso facto fan of that particular franchise, it helps if they do research, which any professional will do”
You’d be surprised at the number of superstar comic book writers that take over a title without bothering to do basic research, or even to consult with someone more knowledgeable than they are.
No, they’re not my Avengers either. My Avengers were John Steed and Mrs. Peel. They’re not my New Avengers, either! (Steed, Purdey, and another—completely irrelevant—guy)
@@.-@ “That being said, if you can’t take feedback of all kinds on your efforts, its time to find a new hobby”. Yep!
@9: No, it doesn’t excuse harrassment. The keyboard-rage is still completely inappropriate. But it doesn’t do anybody any good to try to engage their critics in this sort of case.
@10: “I have to remind myself that no matter what they try and do to the Dune saga, the original six novels will still be there, waiting to be read.” You can’t blame them. Papa Frank ruined Dune after Children of Dune. I actually enjoy the B. Herbert & Anderson novels as backgrounders. Very much as I find Christopher Tolkien’s Silmarillion important for Tolkien fans (admittedly, there’s much more of Dad’s work in that one than in the new Dunes).
Good article!
Something that might help would be sticking w/ the why . . . as in “I don’t like this because it does a disservice to the author” or “It does a disservice to the characters” or “Complex characters are more interesting unless a stereotype is shown for what it is and something more complex is presented” (cf. Charlotte Brontë’s works) and not bringing personality (anybody’s), although it is difficult sometimes! On errands one day when we saw a display of LOTR Pez at a drug/convenience store, my best friend had to listen to a few minutes’ worth of rant about why LOTR Pez is “just wrong” and why I didn’t see the adaptations after I’d heard about them (I probably used the phrase “disservice to the author”–I don’t remember exactly).
Most of the time I tend to be objective and focus on the meaning and the characters the author created for their own sakes because of what the author teaches us about whatever culture (or imagined world) their work is set in and all the valuable things we learn factually and otherwise and am not bothered by not having much if anything in common w/ the characters while still having “like this but don’t like that” preferences as per authors (well, the only authors whose work I don’t care for are James and Voltaire). But then as per adaptations there are times get rantish and I think “Nope, not gonna watch that” and don’t :).
@Ay-leen the Peacemaker – Absolutely. Though, calling a creator out on issues in their work that seem racist, sexist, etc. to me still generally falls under the criticism banner. For example, I wouldn’t count bringing up Joss Whedon’s little-girl-big-gun-this-is-how-I-do-feminism trope as a personal attack on him. I’d group that in with critical analysis, even if it does seem to say something about the creator by way of addressing it. (There’s definitely a reverse side to this, where fandom will viciously defend certain darlings because they are believed to be above any ill-word. Which is its own brand of incredibly harmful, imo.)
I meant to write “bringing personality into it (anybody’s)” as in “the adaptor or commentor is just being . . . .”
Not bringing personality into it may be a way of saying “Ok I don’t agree w/ what they did” w/out picking on anybody’s talent/character, etc. as in “Ok that decision makes them . . . ” something that’s negative.
@13: You didn’t mention TAS! YOU RUINED MY CHILDHOOD! (sorry) But, yeah. I sometimes wish someone would hold a convention of “Trekkers/Trekkies (either one) who really enjoy all or maybe just some of Star Trek and just want to hang out and talk about it without things getting all weird.” In other words, you are able to watch Shatner’s “Get a Life” SNL skit without getting offended because you know you have a life so he’s not talking to you and you know that Saturday Night Live is “just a TV show.”
What many fans don’t like to think about is that most of these stories, characters, etc., are someone else’s intellectual property and were created primarily to make a buck. Yes, even “my” beloved Star Trek which would have been nothing more than the fanciful musings of an ex cop if a major network and a scrappy redheaded comedienne who just happened to own a TV studio had not thought, “yeah, this might make some money for the shareholders.” It’s why “Firefly,” regretably, didn’t survive it’s first season. Sorry, but the nature of the business is business. It stinks sometimes, but that’s how it is. If there’s anyone to rail against, it should be network and studio suits who seem more concerned with making a buck than making a great product. But that is their job and if you hold shares of Paramount or Fox, you want them to do their job well. And if they’re smart, they won’t symbollically give the core fanbase the middle finger in the process, but sometimes they do (eff you, Fox!)
I do think there is more to J.J. Abrams than lens flare. I just can’t see it because of the lens flare! In a few years, Paramount could sell a lot of Blu-Rays (or whatever has taken its place) by offering digitally remastered flare-free versions (you’re welcome, Paramount).
Dave Gerrold and I have disagreed on a lot of things (before he banned me from his facebook wall.. or did I ban him? I forget. We disagree on a lot of things).
But on this he’s right on. Hating anyone because you don’t like their vision or performance of an artistic endeavor demeans and hurts yourself, not the person you suddenly disdain.
I appreciate the sentiment of this article very much, but as someone who was systematically harassed and driven from a online Trek fan site, I have little hope for this type of “fan” behavior of stopping.
I dislike JJ’s Trek and I made it known, but with two very important caveats: 1) I have very specific reasons for my problems with his interpretatio, centering around the selfishness of his characters and the lack of genuine heroism and 2) I am ready to say when I think something is good( I praised the likeable aspects of the films and performers and even defended the Kirk death scene because I felt it was one of the few times the films had genuine drama) and yet, I was branded a hater and insulted, threatened and trolled to the point that I had to stop posting there( and I was there since “Insurrection”).
I just think its a reslt of entitlement, consumerism and fanboy fantasy wish fulfillment, none of which is going to get better any time soon.
Great piece. I’m always really happy when I see people pushing for nuance and non-zero-sum. Putting people in boxes and then stomping on the boxes is always the enemy of progress, no matter what you’re trying to progress towards.
@20 –
I didn’t claim Abrams needed to be a fan. But when I go into a job interview, I need to demonstrate that I know what I’m signing on for, that I know something about the company’s business, etc. My goal, in putting out a Star Trek movie, would be to connect with the existing fans. The people in charge were more interested in generating box office revenue, and so chose a director that I wouldn’t have.
But after seeing Star Trek, and knowing Abrams is a Star Wars fan, I do believe he’s a good choice for that particular franchise.
Saying that a continuation
of a beloved series has missed the point and changed the series into something it never was and was never meant to be is most certainly what fandom is about and something the terrible new star trek you have in your opening picture most certainly did.
and wow do I disagee my job as a caretaker IS to take care of the story the story is largely what is important. People take care of themselves and it is their job to. Stories can not take care of themselves, and as they are where most people get meaning protecting them is extremly important.
One thing you have to remember though is that is pretty hard to dissasociate crap from the person who made the crap. It’s kind of like you’re saying that it’s OK to recognize that someone took a crap but not ok to go after the person who crapped all over the place. So according to this article it’s not OK to go after the person who crapped on my floor but only to object and disapprove of the crap itself. This thinking leaves the creators unaccountable in my opinion. Some franchises have millions of people who have a vested interest in them, emotionally and even financially. We don’t want to see something we so dearly love and have an investment in ruined. Especially when the things that have ruined it could have easily been avoiaded if those creatives in charge had done their job thoroughly enough. However, to the fan it just seems like the creatives have just crapped in our living rooms and we just have to live with it. That’s what this article says to me. In otherwords creative talents are telling us fans let us crap all over what you love and stay out of our way while we’re doing it. You don’t have to like me but don’t hold me responsible for my crap.
It seems people who hate always find something to focus on. Their inabilityability to empathize at worst sets in place religious wars that last generations,or cast systems. They just always find ways to break not build. The above piece is true and good,but one has to take the time to read it. I wish you all the best.
Great article, Emily. I enjoyed it.
@35 – But here’s where your analogy falls down. In the case of someone creating something, it ISN’T your floor. It’s a story (movie, book, etc) that does not actually belong to you. You pay your money to read, watch, listen but the story isn’t yours. You pay for the experience and that is the extent of the transaction. You may enjoy the experience or you may not, but your enjoyment is not ever guaranteed. Nor could it be. If you liked it, fantastic. If not, you were not robbed, cheated, ruined or anything of the sort. No one forced you to participate.
Money does not buy anyone the right to harass or otherwise attack another person. There is no excuse for such behavior.
I don’t think expressing dissapointment or criticism is the same things as harassment/attacking a person, though.
I can appreciate 35’s analogy in a sense (although I agree that ‘ownership’ of a story is a really fuzzy thing. Especially when a different group from the original creator starts taking it in a direction that is reasonably certain to be something the original creator would not have done or approved of. Who gets to say what the story really ‘is’? This is kind of similar to the ‘canon’ debate.)
For example, I certainly do not want to see the new Star Wars movies taken towards ‘grimdark’ (not saying I think they are going to, just using that as an example). I think it is reasonably arguable that this was not the intention George Lucas had when creating the series. So, if the new creators decide to jump on the grimdark train because that’s the new rage, then, yeah, I’ll feel like they kind of disrespected the work and the fans who are invested in it for what it already was. Like, one of the reasons I am such a fan of Star Wars is specifically because it’s NOT grimdark.
That said, maybe other people are into it for totally different reasons, so they’d be totally fine with all that and I’m not really the sole arbiter of what Star Wars is, and in fact, George Lucas doesn’t even really have that power anymore, since he sold it off.
So, I think feelings of dissapointment and sadness and maybe even betrayal are justified, but certainly I wouldn’t attack and harass the people involved if that is what ends up happening. I’d just stop following the new stuff and be a little sad that I don’t get new stuff to enjoy like other people do and probably look for more of the stuff I do like.
I think franchises are kind of a tricky thing, because while certainly creators are creative and should have that reign to tell their story, a franchise isn’t just about them, either – they are also playing in somebody else’s story so I think it’s fair that certain rules apply. No, I don’t think a person necessarily has to be a super fan, but it’s nice when they at least have a general respect and affection for the story, and do their research. Definitely some of the worst EU (Star Wars again) was written by authors whose agents thought it would be cool for them to write a SW story but the authors themselves didn’t even really care for it.
There is a tricky line between completely kowtowing to fan demands and letting fans completely dictate what the story should be (and no, they don’t always know best), and yet still meeting fan expectations in a general way, respecting their affection for the particular story, but still having room to surprise them or introduce a new perspective.
To take another example, I think the Lord of the Rings movies MOSTLY do a good job of this. There are definitely some areas where I wish they had thought about the fans more instead of general moviegoing audiences (such as most of the decisions in the Hobbit movies) but obviously that won’t put as many butts in the seats. But despite the diversions from the story I think there is still a love and reverence for the original works and world of Middle Earth that shows through, and that it generally hits the right beats and gets the same messages across.
(Except that you will never, ever, ever be able to convince me that Faramir would have taken the Ring. Ever. Still holding out hope that Peter Jackson decides to pull a George Lucas and release a super special edition with that whole part re-done, lol)
Lisamarie @38 –
It’s not, and I think that was Emily’s point. But in discussing this post elsenet yesterday, I was called “educationally challenged” because I kinda like the new Trek movies. That is an unacceptable personal attack, to me. The person saying this also essentially said that Abrams was desecrating their religion, which I find abhorrent. But fans calling other fans “educationally challenged” based on having different preferences – man, that is just not cool.
Oh, yeah, that is RIDICULOUS. I definitely saw the same type of thing in Star Wars fandom over if you liked or didn’t like the prequels and people declaring that all ‘true fans’ either HATED the prequels for descecrating the great Star Wars canon, or all ‘true fans’ must blindly accept and love the prequels and anything else George Lucas might put out, and brook NO criticism of the great Creator.
And that is putting it politely :)
(I guess it is similar in a way to religious groups battling it out; I’ve seen so many other examples of divisiveness, us vs them type behavior that, unfortunately, I think that for some reason it’s just a kind of ingrained thing we have to constantly work to overcome, and if we didn’t have religion, people would find some other thing to latch on to and fight over, and people would find other reasons to exploit that trait. I was going to say that at least the stakes are generally a bit lower and people don’t do heinous things in the name of fandom, but then I remembered all the Gamergate crap about who ‘true gamers’ are what gamer culture should be and all that horribleness, although that’s also a big mess of male privelege/misogyny. Which I suppose could then be argued is the fault of organized religion although in my view it’s the other way around – another unpleasant facet of humanity that has infected many different things, including organized religion).
Star Wars was a kids movie that came out when I was a kid. When Lucas decided to make the first three movies in the series when I was an adult, it took me a while to realize he was also making these for children as well, and I was no longer in his target demographic.
Would I like to see a Star Wars movie written by Glen Cook or directed by John McTiernan? Heck yes! Am I likely to get one? Heck no!
Am I going to freak out in private because of it? Hopefully not.
Am I going to freak out on someone (Lucas/Disney) because of that?
No.
These people have other things to worry about. If I’m not into what they’re doing, I’d rather spend my time hunting down someone that is telling a story that’s interesting to me, not beating down someone enjoying their own thing.
All humans deserve respect. Personal attacks are a vective that destroys creativity, and you’ll almost always kill the patient than get the doctor/director to come to your way of thinking.
If you’re a control freak that needs to have things “just right”, there’s always fanfic. ;)
Nice article.
Personally I blame people’s inability to distinguish valuable criticism from outright rage/abuse is our schooling systems. When English classes become more about “regurgitate what the teacher thinks or fail the class” rather than any actual literary analysis, then yeah. How will people ever learn what analysis or debate ever is?
On the matter of arguing vs debate as well — a lot of people don’t know the difference there either and it’s the same as above. People aren’t taught how to take criticism, analyze it, and formulate a response. They just freak the hell out that someone dare disagree with their idea. It annoys me to no end when people think I am somehow calling them stupid, or personally attacking them, just because I don’t agree with them.
And of course all this is amplified a thousand fold when you get these kids online in anonymous forums or other context where they can rant and spew all they like without consequence. It’s why I usually don’t bother unless I’m on sites like Tor where the commenters are rational people for the most part. But I still couldn’t count the number of posts I’ve deleted at the last minute even here just because I think “Is it even worth it?” since someone would likely see my opinions as some kind of attack on their world view. Shrugs.
Great article. I wish this was written as a sticky post in every fandom forum. It sure would avoid a lot of vitriol.
@@@@@Ay-leen_the_Peacemaker and @@@@@Aeryl I stop reading books from an author because of bigotry and bias that broke the story for me.
People attach emotion and meaning to all experiences in life, even if that meaning or emotion is to not care. Someone will care about every creative endeavor on any level, no matter the situation. Creators, fans, etc.
Personally, I like to analyze movies, books, and other forms of entertainment. I’m sure there have been times when I’ve been tactful about something I didn’t enjoy, and there are times when I’ve been less than tactful about something I didn’t enjoy.
On the other hand, I’ve been attacked within my circle of friends because I often think about a movie or book in ways my friends do not. For some reason I can’t shut my mind off about certain things.
I’ve also been attacked for not liking something a friend liked.
What have I learned from these situations? To be more tactful. To accept the opinions of others that are different than mine. These are just good life lessons. Not for fans and fandoms alone, but for numerous situations.
On a side note. I’ve also learned that I believe certain people in certain businesses aren’t very talented, despite their “apparent success.” Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 89 times, shame on me. Because really, some people just continually make stuff that isn’t quality.
Still, there are tons of other people who might dig something I didn’t. More power to them.
Interesting post and discussion.
@41: <i>If you’re a control freak that needs to have things “just right”, there’s always fanfic. ;)</i>
I’m not sure if you meant this as suggestion or sarcasm, but it’s a good idea. There are a lot of people out there who work through their ire and angst this way– “Fix-it” is a popular tag for a reason.
And it’s cheaper than therapy and generally seems to generate fewer arguments about everything but typos and grammar. :)
There is a thin line between ‘betraying the source material’s basic tenents’ and ‘just being a version of things that I don’t like.
Let’s look at a cople of examples:
Batman: The Animated series both revitalized the Batman fandom AND redefined Animation as we know it. The Emmy-Winning episode Heart of Ice recreated and refined the character of Mr. Freeze, and that character has been pretty solidly written in that origin from, oh, 1992-2011, when the New 52 rewrote him to make him a delusional scientist who had a ‘love disorder’. The New Mr. Freeze is not at all well-recieved by fans and the change is generally considered a poor editorial choice. It violates twenty years of generally accepted ‘good’ canon — Ie, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But did it violate Mr. Freeze’s inherent qualities? A man trapped in a suit that uses ice weapons whose love for a woman drives him to mad extremes? No. Not inherently. Thus, this becomes ‘it’s still recognizably that character, but we can criticize that while the change is valid it was still a bad change.’ Fans know this, and fans are allowed to critique what they’re given.
ON THE OTHER HAND… Man of Steel did this as Superman does not stay true to the Superman archetype. Superman is a god who loves man. Who loves the best things about us, and wants to emulate those things, because he was a well raised farm boy who loves his mom, dad, and Apple Pie. Instead in Man of Steel we got a handsome but distinctly ‘other’ Superman who is willing to kill to achieve his goals (an ABSOLUTE NO FOR THE CHARACTER completely violating his most basic character elements) and thus, Man of Steel goes from ‘this is a valid change to the character, still adhereing to his theme and general archetype’ to ‘ did you even read a single superman comic before you made this awful piece of trash’. I repeat: fans know this, and fans are allowed to critique what they’re given.
Fans are not stupid. They are allowed to make these distinctions, and they they are allowed to call out creators when they do these things, especially in the name of the almighty dollar or because Marvel is killing it with their movie line up.
If your Superman film won’t sell without him killing people, then maybe it’s not time for a Superman film. Maybe you should, I don’t know, be creative and make a film that will sell without tying a well-established, well-loved IP to it because you’re too afraid to try something new and original that fits the current movie going climate.
Will that be hard? Yes. Will it maybe not get funded? Possibly. Will you piss off less people who will vote with their dollars? Yeah, probably. But since I, as movie going public, knows that WB doesn’t respect it’s properties or have a basic understanding of what makes them good, tey do not see one red cent of my movie going money and haven’t since The Dark Knight.
Marvel does, and so I get first-day tickets for any marvel film, every time. It’s really that simple.
As for the issue of ‘rage’ versus ‘criticism’, the root can be found in online culture. People will howl and throw poop if they’re unidentifiable monkeys in a cage simply because they can get away with it. That’s just mob mentality. Teaching people this is unacceptable, especially in fandom – who often view the sacredness of their relative anonymity as inviolate – is going to be very long, very hard, and as the genie is out of the bottle, there may be no putting it back. All you can do is to roll with it, and creators are going to have to have safe guards in place when it goes from ‘critical argument’ to ‘abuse’… same as normal people who get harassed on the internet for a myriad of reasons every day. Creators aren’t the only people who get this, after all.
I’m a fan of a genre, not a franchise.
If you got anywhere near adulthood without learning that your adored stuff is a commercial product, and to many of the people who actually get it to you nothing else, you need some remedial education.
1. Fan is derived from the word “fanatic.” So if you were not expecting irrationality, then you need to revisit your dictionary.
2. J.J. Abrams – Star Trek would have been good without time travel. STID would have been good/better without Khan. Changes are okay if they IMPROVE the product.
3. Han shot first!!!
@45. VolceVoice
I was being both and sarcastic, since the same people that would be total control freaks likely look down their nose at fanfic. I don’t participate in a lot of it, but my not seeking it doesn’t equate to me writing it off as a worthwhile pursuit for those interested.
You’re right about the “cheaper than therapy” thing though. I have a friend that leads a Grey’s Anatomy fanfic group, and I think without it at least one of them would be up on murder charges and ABC would be down a couple writers.
Closing thought: The Dark Knight Returns is one of the most amazing pieces of fanfic ever written, and I’m fine if it never becomes canon. In fact, I’d prefer it didn’t, because then the future remains open.
This is an excellent article that could be summed up as “be mature enough to have compassion and empathy for other people.”
Part of the problem is that perspectives have changed over time. It used to be only die hard movie buffs would obsess over directors, writers, art directors, etc. I think the IMDB and DVD commentaries changed that for a lot of people. Now the behind the scenes is as much a part of fandom as the scenes themselves. I recall hearing Joss Whedon on “This American Life” reciting a poem he wrote about how he has to record a DVD commentary and he’d rather just have the art stand on its own merits.
So, people are getting more “inside information” about their favorite movies/games/books/TV shows and then social media is making it not just easy, but mandatory to share one’s opinions on all things related to that particular thing.
What do I mean by mandatory? This article is a great example: Ms. Asher-Perrin wrote a very nice, thought-provoking article. The only options I have to tell her so are: (1) here; (2) Twitter; and (3) Tumblr. These are essentially public forums. If I wanted to share an opinion privately, I guess I could contact Tor and ask them to forward an e-mail (or paper letter even!) to her. But, otherwise it’s public or not at all.
I’m not complaining. I understand why things are the way they are. Consider, though, the effect of having a whole bunch of fans all reading each other’s thoughts, emotional outburst, and arguments (well-reasoned or otherwise) — social filters often break down and the level of discourse devolves.
Many, many (many!) years ago, before the graphical web even, people hashed out some guidelines for interacting over the Internet. They were collectively called “netiquette.” This article is a good reminder of what netiquette is all about — remember that your target is another human being; don’t treat people online differently than you would face to face.
I don’t know J.J. Abrams. I do know that I liked his first Star Trek movie and really did not like his second one. I’d love to have a conversation with Abrams about that second movie, but if I imagine it happening face to face, I’m certainly not yelling at him in my imagination. I imagine a good conversation about artistic choices, character motivations, etc.
Good article. The internet, with its lack of face to face interaction, seems to bring out the worst in people. I do note that people are beginning to be called out for egregious behavior and comments, though. I suspect that the electronic equivalent of the Wild West is on its way to being tamed, and that a new body of etiquette will emerge.
Having been on the reciving end of one of Mr Gerrold’s “bits of keyboard smashing rage” (well actualy a couple) I confess that I was mainly amused. Frankly I reserve RAGE for things that really matter.
Star Trek, while important in some ways, and a very useful example to hold up (because 1)it’s so widely known, and 2)it’s one of the first exhibits and still the best exhibit of fan power over “the suits” that decide what makes the cut and what doesn’t) isn’t exactly War in the Middle East, or who is going to run this country for the next four years. Rage is a little silly.
I’ve seen things to get enraged about (I spent 20 years in the Military most of it on submarines, and of what was left, all of that either as a military cop, or running a military corrections facility, I was a cop for eight years, and I went through two divorces for reprehensible behavior) Life changing or life ending events, those are things to get enraged about.
Entertainment? Beatch, please. Yeah, I’m old school, Han shot first, the only thing keeping the Klingons from dieing was the Vulcan’s forbarance (because the humans would have surely ended them, and with Vulcan destroyed, in the reboot universe may just, which will complicate dealing with the Borg no end…) and while we fought on the loosing side, still not sure it was the wrong one. But at the end of the day, while it may show some truths about the human spirit that can’t be as easily shown in real life (fiction has to make sense, unlike real life) and may, I hope, inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, explorers etc etal, it’s not the end of the world. Unless of course you start to control it and use it as propaganda, then it can help bring about the end of the world, at least as we know it. That I stand foresquare against.
Thank you so much for writing this, Emily. It’s been a looong time coming!
Especially this paragraph!! (One day when I’m big)
“Pop culture helps to determine how we access our history, our humanity. Refusing to take it apart the same way we do “high art” is effectively declaring what we enjoy in common society is bankrupt of larger context, and that artistic value only existed in some glorious past.”
Pop culture aside, I actually thought the article was going to centre more around how fans and geeks interact with each other, whether in person or via the net, both of which can be incredibly, distastefully cruel. If I may be so bold, your article is perhaps a subset or branch of the underlying sociodynamics and psychologies of geeks themselves.
I have had close encounters with this strange species at various points in my life, and despite the affinity and affection I feel with and for them I have found the vitriol and mean-spiritedness pretty offputting – the prime examples being D&D players, though that’s just my experience and neither here nor there. And this, btw, is in quiet, unassuming South Africa, not even the US, which let’s be honest does everything way bigger and badder.
The way I’ve heard them talk to each other (I mean face to face) is usually far removed from the more innocent “jock” and “cool kid” type banter, which is really just regular bonding, with affections masked by teasing.
Maybe if we were to use the premise/stereotype of geeks being less socially adaptable, we might find this to be the reason, or a part of the reason, why they behave the way they do. It would seem they never quite got the hang of teasing back in a jovial way, or at worst were bullied so cruelly that they cannot now view teasing as an acceptable mode of interaction, and so when confronted aim straight for the heart and soul of their target.
@3 — “Actually Shakespeare had plenty of qualms about being a pop-culture poet — he wanted to be a SERIOUS! poet, but he also recognized that he had bills to pay.”
I’m curious to know what makes you say this? Everything I’ve read about Shakespeare suggests that we know so little about the man that we can’t guess his motives about any of his decisions, ever — and, for my own personal opinion, Shakespeare’s plays are the works of a man who is completely comfortable with writing for a mass public audience (even as he didn’t “dumb down” anything for them). I’m interested to know why it feels the opposite way to you, though.
Great article Emily, and probably one of the biggest reasons that I don’t get into fandoms at all, been there done that and wanted to bash my head into my keyboard. I find it nerve racking that there are some people out there that can’t understand that not everyone has the same opinion or outlook on things.
Excellent post – thank you for writing it. To me, it seems like bashing in general has become more socially acceptable over the past decade. I sometimes see it in arts or entertainment contexts but more often in politics, religion and in debates about social issues such as marriage equality. It was especially noticeable during the election seasons of the past 7-8 years. Whether among fans or in larger society, I hope we can return to a place where it’s possible to disagree with someone without giving into an urge to hurt, defame or destroy.
Whenever I hear or read some version of, “It’s just human nature to be violent/territorial/racist/whatever,” I remember Capt. Picard’s line, “And that is what it is to be human. To make yourself better than you are.” We owe it to ourselves and everyone around us to be better.
“But frankly, the worst case scenario here is simply deciding not to engage with said property until it morphs into something that excites you again.”
I’ve read this article several times and I still do not understand the rationale behind this statement. Refusing to pay money to the people and companies that put out products that you do not enjoy is the strongest and loudest vote you can make. I’ve watched two Star Trek films helmed by JJ Abrams (as well as several other of his films). I now know that i do not apprectiate his aesthetic and I don’t like his interprestation of the Star Trek universe. I can say the same thing about the screenwreiters Abrams hired. So, why on earth would I pay money to go to a film that evidence indicates I will not enjoy?? Because others (fans or not) have paid to see it and it made a lot of money?? That wasn’t any indication of the quality of Star Trek: In To Darkness. I anxiously await someone else taking over the reigns for Star Trek and will talk to people whose opinions I value to find out if the new film is worth seeing. I will enjoy the Star Trek already produced that I enjoy and, if it never gets back to being about exploration and discovery (either in the universe or within ourselves), then I will be greately disappointed, but glad that it was for a time, about that. But I will lnot financially support a blockbuster Star Trek that is all about destroying ships (and cities) and fistfights.
Many thanks for writing this article. I recently posted a reference to this article to the Discussion Board of Greg Bear’s website, in response to some rather uncontrolled (and profane) language directed toward Mr. Bear by someone objecting to some aspect of one of his books.
Thank you for posting. I have long admired tor for being a forum for quality critique and discussion of genres that, let’s face it, are troll bait. That should be the by-line for the site: tor.com: happily troll-free since 1990-something.
What I find most irritating about the type of anger-fueled criticism I believe you are referencing here is the laziness of it. Any time one sits down and writes out a complaint in complete sentences, using actual words and spell check, it is almost inevitable that (process of writing) will be calming. The writer gains some objectivity, loses some of the harshness.
Yes, artists and writers should have thick skin. Yes, all press is good press. Sometimes, though, people forget that artists are people. Just people. Sometimes people make lousy stuff. Everyone has bad days.
Most importantly: art is not a leisure activity. Curse Puritainical society’s stain on our modern thinking! Art is not a vacation. It is hard work. It is important work. Artists do not play for a living. Maybe if people didn’t feel like choosing to write a book or act in a play were some kind of indulgence set aside for the chosen few, we wouldn’t have so much energy wasted on rage-filled, mindless social media crack posting. Of course you could do it better. So, DO IT!