(Post a new comment)

	pipssister 2004-07-06 08:09 pm UTC (link)
	Can we get a link? I don't know what book you're talking about. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	pipssister 2004-07-06 08:18 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, thank you. Yeah, that guy totally sounds like a "OMG! Josss killed TARA! Hee's s0 meen! He may have a point about "hero worship" in the first book, but that doesn't mean she's supposed to villify him either. That's just a different type of agenda. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lots42 2004-07-11 06:01 pm UTC (link)
	It always distresses me how people never let go of a character's death. Sure, I felt a tiny bit sad about Tara, for about a week. But she's not real so it's time to deal. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kindest_demon 2004-07-06 09:09 pm UTC (link)
	You know, the last time I was looking at Buffy DVD pricing, there was a pretty wanky "So You'd like To..." list made by someone with an axe to grind about the whole "lesbianism = witchcraft" and thus Joss is somehow saying lesbians are Teh Evil thing. I wonder if it's the same person. g (Reply to this)(Thread)

	rhi_silverflame 2004-07-07 05:25 am UTC (link)
	Doubtful . . . there's a whole gang of 'em. 's why I left the fandom, really. :P (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lots42 2004-07-11 06:02 pm UTC (link)
	I left the Buffy newsgroups because of sheer inabillity to comprehend the show. It was all 'OMG Why did this happen' when it was clearly explained why on the episode they just watched ... probably only hoping to see Buffy bend over again (Reply to this)(Parent)

Just the tip of the iceberg!

mediumdave
2004-07-06 09:50 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, I remember that list. I can't say whether it was the same person, but I'd say the odds are good. Didn't that list contain one movie that was actually a biography? Har!

Apparently this was just the tip of the iceberg; I just discovered that Buffy 'shippers are also warring on Amazon over the Buffy/Angel novelization called Heat: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/068986017X/ref=cm_rev_all_1/102-1952557-4944112?v=glance&s=books&vi=customer-reviews&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER

There's much damning and praising by people who haven't even read the book, accusations of a smear campaign... while a few poor souls try to inject notes of sanity but are mostly ignored... and then, the infamous "Ducks" gets wind of it all: http://www.livejournal.com/users/theantijoss/65701.html

... and is shocked, shocked that die-hard 'shippers are using slightly underhanded means to advance their agendas. *head-desky-thunk*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Just the tip of the iceberg! imbrium 2004-07-07 01:47 am UTC (link)
	See, when I saw this wank, my first thought was that it involved those reviews - the shippy wars on Amazon, which amused the living hell out of my when I was desperately trying to add something to my order there and get some free shipping. Now those buggers are wanky. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Just the tip of the iceberg! (Anonymous) 2004-07-07 04:22 am UTC (link)
	Mrrroowwww. . . fantastic avatar! :-) wanders off to delve into lovely Spike dreams serena_took on LJ (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Just the tip of the iceberg! imbrium 2004-07-07 06:24 am UTC (link)
	Wha? It showed up? Last I checked, it was all, well, not there. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Just the tip of the iceberg! lots42 2004-07-11 06:03 pm UTC (link)
	There's an AU novel where Evil!Willow keeps Loony!Spike as a pet. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Just the tip of the iceberg! jrs1980 2004-07-07 10:00 am UTC (link)
	Me, too. I've been seeing that on my LJ flist a little. I haven't actually gone to the review page yet, being a Spuffy-er myself, but I've heard things. I don't think I'm going to this wank, either. When they can't even bother to edit in the URL? Meh. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Just the tip of the iceberg! imbrium 2004-07-07 09:32 pm UTC (link)
	I'm studiously avoiding it as well. Partly because I too like Buffy with Spike, and partly because i have difficulty comprehending how people get stuck on the concept of fiction. It's just a tv show. Well, and a movie. Okay, there are also some books and action figures. But you get the point... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Just the tip of the iceberg! hitwoman 2004-07-07 04:18 pm UTC (link)
	the infamous "Ducks" gets wind of it all...... and is shocked, shocked that die-hard 'shippers are using slightly underhanded means to advance their agendas. Dude, the irony. The post and the comments cracked me the heck up. Good thing Miss Sunlight and Lollipops never ever ever did a single negative thing in all her fandom-y days. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Just the tip of the iceberg!

prima
2004-07-07 08:26 pm UTC (link)

It's crackin' my shite up.

Does she honestly believe that Holder isn't gonna get another writing gig ever again because folks are having a meltdown at Amazon* of all places?

Okay then!

[facetious]When that happens, I'll throw in the first can of Campbell's and the cardbox box for her and Mariotte to live in.[/facetious]

Anyhoo, I'm with the reviewer who said they were all nutcases.

*My favorite Amazon quirk has always been glowing reviews on products that haven't even been released yet nor have they seen any "previews" to make any sort of commentary on quality. The first Buffy game for XBox comes to mind.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Just the tip of the iceberg!

kate74
2004-07-12 07:05 pm UTC (link)

It's kinda funny when people think that their fan-girl shipper opinions are going to matter one way or the other. Personally I wouldn't buy the Buffy/Angel book, but not because Spuffy shippers say not to. More because
1) I can't be bothered buying the novels in the first place
2) I had the misfortune to own the Nancy Holder novelisation of City Of... and thought she wrote like a 12-year-old (it came free with a magazine, so I couldn't grumble really - but I will)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Just the tip of the iceberg! cantinera 2004-07-08 12:06 am UTC (link)
	Okay, this is wankier than the original wank. So. Much. Funny! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2004-07-06 11:30 pm UTC (link)
	Uhhhhh...it's so "subtle" I'm not even getting it. (Reply to this)(Thread)

iczer6
2004-07-07 03:54 am UTC (link)

I really hate to be the one to say 'this isn't wanky' but I kinda have to agree with anon here.

Sure there's a hint of wank here and there but I thought the reviews were pretty well written, and that the reviewer did have some legitimate gripes with both the books and the series itself.

[Also you can edit entries by clicking the little blue pencil icon at the top of the screen.]

Icz

(Reply to this)(Parent)

herongale
2004-07-07 04:02 am UTC (link)

Hello wank fans... I’ve got a good one for you.

Mediumdave: Psyche!

. I’m sure you’ve read a few of those axe-grinding customer reviews at Amazon.com that have little to do with the book in question, and everything to do with the customer’s personal agenda? Well, check out the “Spotlight Review” written by “Benjamin” from Seattle...

... in which a book is read, and critiqued for being too biased. Really off-topic for a book review, MD. Well spotted.

This is more subtle and well-written than most of the wanks posted here... but what makes it particularly priceless is that the writer isn’t half as subtle or clever as he thinks he is. Ben has an axe to grind, all right, but it’s not reallly about the “dangers of deification.” It’s some classic sour-grapes rambling from a disgruntled ex-fan.

Yeah, because statements such as "Someone who is awed by their biographical subject ought to choose another line of work. Good biographers, even flawed, sensationalistic ones like Randy Taraborrelli or Bob Woodward, approach their subjects as reporters, not fans" really seem to come from someone who only reads biographies in order to grind an ax, not out of any innate interest in the subject matter.

And why is Ben an ex-fan? There’s one clue in this review:

At one point she appears to equate Willow's lesbianism with her magic addiction, but Havens' writing is so unclear I honestly can't tell if she meant to make that point.

Uh-huh.

Oh, yes. It's entirely clear to me that this is evidence that Ben is an ex-fan... of shitty writing.

Riiiiight, Ben. Now where’s that customer guide called “So you’d like to... get over yourself ?

I'm sure he's waiting for you to publish it first. :P

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	iczer6 2004-07-07 05:08 am UTC (link)
	Oh, yes. It's entirely clear to me that this is evidence that Ben is an ex-fan... of shitty writing. Well naturally anyone who liked Tara or thinks her death was poorly handled must be some kind of nutty fan. Heck I'm not a big Tara fan and I had some major issues with that [IMO] poorly done storyline. (Reply to this)(Parent)

kannaophelia
2004-07-07 12:58 pm UTC (link)

With you here, hon. I have no opinion on Buffy beyond "Didn't grab me enough to keep watching", but saying in a book review that someone's writing is unclear would seem to me to be exactly what a reviewer should do, and ditto with calling a writer out on using speculation rather than research.

It's possible to disagree with someone without them being wanky. Not seeing the wank or the funny, here, just a background noise that might possible be metal-against-stone emerging from the OP here rather than the Amazon reviewer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	misswindy 2004-07-07 09:44 am UTC (link)
	Great. So. Where's the wank? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	iczer6 2004-07-07 10:16 am UTC (link)
	Well it's, er, um, hiding under the bed? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	spiderflower 2004-07-07 04:53 pm UTC (link)
	It's up his trunk! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Huh. mediumdave 2004-07-07 05:45 pm UTC (link)
	A fan has a favorite TV character. The producer of the show this character is on decides to kill off said character. The fan gets pissy about it and retaliates by panning the producer's biography. The wank is obvious to me, even if it is dressed up in intellectual language... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Huh.

iczer6
2004-07-07 08:51 pm UTC (link)

Why does disliking what someone did to your fave character equal wank?

I haven't seen him say 'Whedon is a big fat idiot for killing off my fave character' only he didn't like how he dealt with the question in the book.

Really doesn't seem that wanky IMO. And to be honest, you seem to be assuming that since the reviewer liked Tara he *must* be a wanky obessesive fan when I really don't see any evidence of that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Huh.

charabok
2004-07-07 08:54 pm UTC (link)

Or maybe he just thought the book sucked and wrote a well-argued review explaining why. There's about the same level of evidence to suggest the book was reviewed out of spite as there is to suggest that the reviewer once said something mean about Spike/your fanfic/your mother's dog so you're fandom_wanking him/her/it out of spite, and no one would ever suggest that, would they?.

Anyway, where exactly is teh funny hiding?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Huh. oysteria 2004-07-07 09:31 pm UTC (link)
	What intellectual language? "Equate"? It seems fairly straightforward to me. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Zzzzzzzzzzzzz (Anonymous) 2004-07-08 05:17 am UTC (link)
	Wank! Wank! Wank! Don't you EVER stop? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Zzzzzzzzzzzzz oysteria 2004-07-08 05:56 am UTC (link)
	After a long, hard day of wanking, I roll over and fall asleep. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	peeksie 2004-07-07 09:34 pm UTC (link)
	I think the wanker was the one who posted, and not the guy who wrote a thoughtful review of the book. It still isn't funny, but it's closer. (Reply to this)(Thread)

mediumdave
2004-07-07 10:33 pm UTC (link)

Well... never let it be said that fandom_wank is predictable; this is exactly the opposite of the reaction I expected to get.

So, this could be the place where I say, "OK, I was wrong" and snack on a little crow. Or where I promise to actually read the book and disappear for a while.

Of course, option 1 is quicker. Yeah, I'll go with that. And all right, it's possible I'm unclear on what this community considers to be wank. Sooner or later someone will post another HP slash wank and bump this down, but 'til then y'all can still entertain yourselves with the still-ongoing wank* over Nancy Holder's Heat: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/068986017X/qid=1089228247/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1952557-4944112?v=glance&s=books

*Which, at least, everyone seems to agree is wanky.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mindset 2004-07-07 11:48 pm UTC (link)
	Dude, blue pencil above. Edit your post (with "ETA", natch) so people don't have to search comments to find links to the wank. Otherwise your description of wank may be (or apparently, is, to some) inadequate. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mediumdave 2004-07-08 12:14 am UTC (link)
	Thanks mindset for the advice... I actually tried to edit it without success twice previously. But I'm loathe to blame my problems on technical difficulties. Anyway, fixed the damn links and modified some (admittedly) unnecessary snark at the end of the post. :) For what it's worth. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2004-07-07 11:49 pm UTC (link)

"Oh!" exclaimed Faith. (Because "oh" is an expression of surprise.) "But I was under the impression that you were desperately in love with either Angel or Spike."
"Oh no! Not at all! It's you, Faith, only you..." Buffy caressed her lovers cheek gently. "It doesn't matter, anyhow, my darling, because NONE OF US ARE REAL!! We are FICTIONAL CHARACTERS! Fictional."

I speak for the anonymice, for the anonymice have no code:

That is some seriously funny shit, yo. And also, like, deep. Or something.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2004-07-08 05:28 am UTC (link)
	You don't speak for me, hOR! I don't find that funny. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2004-07-08 06:00 am UTC (link)
	Fuck y'all and the horse you rode in on. I AM THE QUEEN ANONYMOUS. BOW DOWN. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2004-07-08 06:08 am UTC (link)
	My horse died of starvation 5 days ago, bitch. I've crawled on hands and knees ever since to get to this oasis. It is an oasis, right? Actually, what's that awful smell? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	oysteria 2004-07-08 06:11 am UTC (link)
	Okay, somebody get out the anonymouse traps already. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2004-07-08 06:17 am UTC (link)
	I thought you'd gone to bed, wanker? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2004-07-08 07:21 am UTC (link)
	Nah, we're a bit like roaches. When the FW armageddon strikes, it's going to be us and an armadillo in a gas mask. Still trying desperately to be funny. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2004-07-08 07:15 am UTC (link)
	Welcome to the land of milk and honey. If milk = spooge, and honey is street slang for broken dreams... (Reply to this)(Parent)

kannaophelia
2004-07-08 06:42 am UTC (link)

And all right, it's possible I'm unclear on what this community considers to be wank.

Can't speak for the hive vagina, only myself. But as far as I'm concerned, thoughtful book reviews you happen to disagree with=not wanky, no matter what the person's fan background. Saying over and over "But I don't agree with him! And he's a Tara fan and gave a critical review, so it must be wank! And he used words of two syllables, so it's intellectual!" = quite wanky.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	notamemberoff_wsincetheyeardot (Anonymous) 2004-07-09 11:09 pm UTC (link)
	comes out of lurker's purgatory to surrender to the icon-love YAY! A don't eat the neighbours icon! My world is a happier place...thank you (Reply to this)(Parent)

	hasanyone seen this? (Anonymous) 2004-07-07 11:37 pm UTC (link)
	http://www.livejournal.com/users/stewardess_lotr/47387.html?page=2#comments (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: hasanyone seen this? iczer6 2004-07-08 06:39 am UTC (link)
	Hmmm, seems like good wank oh anonymous one, since I'm bored I'll post it and see what happens. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lots42 2004-07-11 05:58 pm UTC (link)
	In my experience, the stalkers are the first to accuse others of malefasence (Reply to this)