Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Panya ([info]naienko) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2005-11-28 08:44:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Snarky
Current music:"Close to you," Hamasaki Ayumi

in the grand tradition of the circle of wank!
I bring you verse #934709 of the usual fanfiction critique wank. This one also seems to have elements of "contemporary writers are better than any classical writer going" and "you can't have love without sex!"

I very strongly suspect that whatever entry /started/ this is buried under f-lock in some BSG2003 fandom journal, because nancy777ca writes like she's reacting to something.

Whatever it is, she starts off ranting about con-crit vs flames -- an old and familiar theme to us wankas. But somehow this quickly devolves into "It's only this narrow snobbery that makes people think that just because something is old, it's better than what's out now." and "I will very easily put up the least sexual of a passage of a writer of today up against your most intense passage of fiction written a hundred years ago."

Methinks miss nancy hasn't read much in the way of victorian erotica.

The first thread has shades of politiwank, as tobias_jacke screams in to object to lymiryc's creative use of "Republican", but that doesn't last long as nancy777ca comes in to support her lymirycy friend. But tobias_jacke is not daunted! S/h/it gets into it with carrielh in another thread, in the usual wanky verses, and nancy777ca also seems to suffer from last-worditis!

myalchod (whom I know and though whom I found this) hops in with a polite and short word about beta-readers, and both nancy777c and tobias_jacke leap upon her with all four feet, suggesting that their objection isn't to "suggestions" but to specific wording -- which appears to boil down to /not/ being snarky and/or sarcastic. (At which point I have to bodily restrain myself from leaping on nancy777ca's reply to myalchod because, /god/, nasty.)

hederahelix tackles the classical vs contemporary, while sentraaquila and ancarett both have so much to say that they make entries of their own. ancarett's post has a lot of "word" type comments but no wank there. Yet.

My favourite bit: All those writers you so highly praise were considered trash in their day. Every. Single. One. I gurantee you, guran-frakking-tee you that 100 years from now people will be praising Danielle Steel, Stephen King,Diana Gabaldon. Karen Moning, Paullina Simons, Jackie Collins etc.. as the greatest writers of their (our) time.

what.

EtA: I apparently missed nancy777ca's latest entry, wherein she basically repeats herself [c]ause the wordiness didn't seem to be working for all those who are such high brow classical enthusiasts.

EtA2: A HA. I have been led to at least some of the beginning of the wank, via myalchod: nancy777ca thinks smut is about character. She likes the phrase 'snobby cows'.

EtA3: The "fic" and reviews that apparently started the ball rolling. Badfic warning ahoy!




Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]llama_treats
2005-11-28 05:17 pm UTC (link)
Dear nancy777ca,

If everyone who reads your post, according to you, "misunderstands" it, maybe it doesn't say what you think it says. Perhaps you should get a beta reader.

Love,
Sane people everywhere

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 07:05 pm UTC

[info]kadath
2005-11-28 05:21 pm UTC (link)
[info]nancy777ca, from here:

My objection was to those who claimed those who like modern day writers over classical literature are somehow of a less intelligence.

Oh, my.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mcity, 2005-12-01 06:26 am UTC

kroki_refur
2005-11-28 05:22 pm UTC (link)
The only thing that makes people think the books that were written a hundred years ago are better than today's is this same high brow snobbish attitude that only shows how moronic you are.

. My objection is you putting down my tastes. Don't like what I do? Fine, I can respect that as long as you do it respectfully.

In this new and shiny world I appear to have stumbled into, calling people moronic because of their literary tastes is apparently respectful. I shall now strike out in search of chocolate trees and beer fountains.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2005-11-28 07:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]elanor_durall, 2005-11-29 02:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]baskinglizard, 2005-11-28 08:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]baskinglizard, 2005-11-28 08:33 pm UTC

[info]rosehiptea
2005-11-28 05:35 pm UTC (link)
Less is never more in fiction. Ever. It's all about show don't tell. Sex that is coy, or shy is frustrating. If you make us invest in your couple, you bet your ass there better be a payoff.

I don't think she understands what "show don't tell" means. I also think she's encouraging badfic here. (And I say that as someone who reads and writes lemons.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]the_wanlorn, 2005-11-28 05:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-28 05:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_wanlorn, 2005-11-28 05:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-28 05:46 pm UTC
... - [info]the_wanlorn, 2005-11-28 06:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - kroki_refur, 2005-11-28 05:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-28 05:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jumble, 2005-11-28 06:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]livviebway, 2005-11-29 12:19 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 10:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 07:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rawles, 2005-11-28 07:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 09:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vigilanterodent, 2005-11-28 08:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 09:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vigilanterodent, 2005-11-28 11:39 pm UTC
... - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 11:51 pm UTC
... - [info]rawles, 2005-11-29 01:09 am UTC
... - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-29 02:32 am UTC
... - [info]rawles, 2005-11-29 03:39 am UTC
... - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-29 03:54 am UTC
... - [info]ladybirdsleeps, 2005-11-29 10:30 am UTC
... - [info]mcity, 2005-12-01 06:29 am UTC

(Anonymous)
2005-11-28 05:43 pm UTC (link)
I....we made f_w! This is truly a momentous occasion in the history of BSG fandom. For stuff that isn't about Starbuck's vagina, either.

Also, nancy is one spectacular breed of stupid. She makes up nicknames like 'Bam Bam' for Jamie Bamber. It's embarassing. I think she was reacting to an 'omgmeen!!!1" review I someone left on one of her friend's fic.

- loki013 @lj

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-28 06:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 06:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]myalchod, 2005-11-28 11:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 08:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-12-01 06:34 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 09:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]myalchod, 2005-11-28 11:09 pm UTC

[info]vigilanterodent
2005-11-28 05:48 pm UTC (link)
I will very easily put up the least sexual of a passage of a writer of today up against your most intense passage of fiction written a hundred years ago.

Are we allowed to go back more than a hundred? Because there are some 18th century novels which could show [info]nancy777ca a thing or two about writing awesome porn.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2005-11-28 07:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vigilanterodent, 2005-11-28 08:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2005-11-28 09:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladygoddess, 2005-11-28 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vigilanterodent, 2005-11-28 11:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2005-11-29 12:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vigilanterodent, 2005-11-29 12:26 am UTC
... - [info]mintsui, 2005-11-29 07:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jocondite, 2005-11-29 06:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]funwithrage, 2005-11-29 06:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sidhebastardess, 2005-11-30 08:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]moriath, 2005-11-28 11:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]skewed_tartan, 2005-11-28 11:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]skewed_tartan, 2005-11-28 11:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]castellated, 2005-11-29 03:10 am UTC
You don't need to go back further - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 03:46 am UTC
Re: You don't need to go back further - [info]zorayda, 2005-11-29 06:32 am UTC
Indeed! - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 11:31 am UTC
Part II - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 11:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hickorydickory, 2005-11-30 03:38 am UTC

[info]mouseybrown
2005-11-28 05:58 pm UTC (link)
The argument that the writers of classical literature created their works to say all these grand things about politics and society and were making commentaries on the world they live in. No. Most of them weren't. They were just writing a story. I know because so many writers talk about the fact that people see things in their stories that they never intended. It's only us now that seem to have to affix some sort of grand meaning to every single word because it was written all those years ago and must be important.

Erm ... Shakespeare wrote some of the history plays to make a point about what constituted a strong monarch (and to reinforce the legitimacy of the ruling monarch). Charlies Dickens wrote from a heavy conern about the social agenda. So did George Elliott. So did Elizabeth Gaskell. Dostoevsky was writing about the social conditions of his time. I could go on, but it's not as though nancy777ca would know who any of these people are.

Conclusion? nancy777ca should crawl back into her Jackie Collins cocoon of shitty pr0n and shut the fuck up.

(Also - if Jackie Collins is ever regarded as a great writer, you have permission to dig up my coffin to stop me from spinning in my grave)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pyrrah, 2005-11-28 07:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2005-11-28 07:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mouseybrown, 2005-11-28 08:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2005-11-28 09:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_pi, 2005-11-28 09:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]altoidsaddict, 2005-11-28 09:59 pm UTC
... - [info]pariforma, 2005-11-28 10:54 pm UTC
... - [info]altoidsaddict, 2005-11-28 11:22 pm UTC
... - [info]pariforma, 2005-12-01 05:47 pm UTC
... - [info]altoidsaddict, 2005-12-01 06:55 pm UTC
... - [info]jetwolf, 2005-11-28 11:57 pm UTC
... - [info]pariforma, 2005-12-01 05:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 08:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]napoleon, 2005-11-28 10:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 02:53 pm UTC

[info]dreamworld
2005-11-28 05:59 pm UTC (link)
If Danielle Steel is ever held up as a literary genius at some point in the future, I really hope I'm dead by then.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]photosinensis, 2005-11-28 09:37 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2005-11-28 06:09 pm UTC (link)
I've never had my name attached to wank before! A joyous day, this.

And word to loki013. Whoever calls Jamie Bamber "Bam Bam" gets no respect from my corner.

- carrielh @ LJ

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 08:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 08:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 08:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 08:36 pm UTC
... - [info]drworm, 2005-11-28 10:15 pm UTC

[info]wankprophet
2005-11-28 06:16 pm UTC (link)
Wow, what arrogance. I'm glad you have such a tidal wave of feedback that it's so tedious to reply to it all.

I'm glad real authors or actors for that matter don't share your opinion.

The 'point' is respecting the time the reader took to read your work and comment on it. Regardless of the size of the feedback.


I'm still fucking waiting for Borges and Chaucer to give me my long-overdue thank-you comments.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]nightwalker, 2005-11-28 06:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 07:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wankprophet, 2005-11-28 07:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 07:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kinneas, 2005-11-29 07:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]anatsuno, 2005-11-28 07:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wankprophet, 2005-11-28 07:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fourthage, 2005-11-28 08:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]littlebitca, 2005-11-28 08:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wankprophet, 2005-11-29 03:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jat_sapphire, 2005-11-29 05:03 am UTC

[info]angstymcgoth
2005-11-28 06:21 pm UTC (link)
This: I've always been about freedom of imagination and am a proud anti-canon whore. (laughs)

Followed by: Well written porn is ALL about character. They need to study more about writing and read more.

Makes me really worry about her fic. And her reading comprehension.

And she's 28 whaaaaatt??

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]nightwalker, 2005-11-28 06:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 06:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nightwalker, 2005-11-28 06:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rawles, 2005-11-28 07:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]minibalrogmum, 2005-11-29 03:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 08:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2005-11-29 12:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]myalchod, 2005-11-29 05:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2005-11-28 11:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nightwalker, 2005-11-29 03:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rawles, 2005-11-29 05:17 am UTC
... - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2005-11-29 06:08 am UTC

[info]pokecheck
2005-11-28 06:29 pm UTC (link)
All I want for Christmas is a "guran-frakking-tee." I wear a size medium. Thank you.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-30 04:15 am UTC

[info]wankprophet
2005-11-28 06:50 pm UTC (link)
You know, it's just too damned easy to start rattling off the names of great writers who do go for the "less is more" approach. So, instead, I will show rather than tell:

"Oh Bonnie Prince Pee-Wee," the redheaded -- that is, in possession of(in the sense that they were attached to her head (which, of course, was atop her neck, which was atop her buxom (that is, in possession of (much like her hair, but on her torso in this case) breasts (protrusions from the torso)) torso, which rested on a pelvis of the female (i.e. of the homo sapiens sapiens variety, in possession of (similar to the hair and buxomity, but more genetic (as in DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid))two -- that is, a larger aggregate sum than "one" but smaller than "three" -- "Y" chromosomes (see "DNA" by looking at earlier text (that is, the writing on the page) in this description) which was supported (in other words, held in defiance of (defiance in a passive (that is, not bellicose) sense) against (but passively (which means little thought (which would take place in the skull beneath the red hair (for which 'redhead' is an acceptable substitute (to the so-called average reader(vox populi(which is an analogous trope))))) gravity (Newtonian, not Einsteinian (though both are essentially the same in practical terms (since showing is practical)))) woman (see above (that is, look up (generally speaking, closer to the top, even if the page is horizontal (on a parallel plane (geometrically speaking, not avionically) to the earth's (possession in the same sense as the torso possessing breasts or the head possessing (a though which we haven't yet managed to complete) red hair (which this one does)))), "Show me how to fuck! And cut out the foreplay -- you're just confusing me!"

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]llama_treats, 2005-11-28 06:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lurker32, 2005-11-28 08:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2005-11-28 11:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]the_wanlorn, 2005-11-29 10:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-28 06:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wankprophet, 2005-11-28 07:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]anatsuno, 2005-11-28 07:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wankprophet, 2005-11-28 07:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]anatsuno, 2005-11-28 07:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2005-11-29 12:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]wankprophet, 2005-11-29 03:31 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 07:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wankprophet, 2005-11-28 07:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mmanurere, 2005-11-29 01:44 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 05:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mmanurere, 2005-11-29 06:53 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 08:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]deoridhe, 2005-11-28 09:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]here4tehwank, 2005-11-28 10:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]myalchod, 2005-11-28 11:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-29 06:12 pm UTC

[info]ingrid
2005-11-28 06:53 pm UTC (link)
*sniffle* My widdle fandom finally makes it here.

I personally stick to the Gaeta p0rn.

Of which there is not enough but all there is of it I will personally declare as classic.

*nods*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]photosinensis, 2005-11-28 09:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ingrid, 2005-11-28 10:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-30 06:42 am UTC

(Anonymous)
2005-11-28 07:03 pm UTC (link)
If Danielle Steele ever becomes known as a great writer of my age, I'll not only spork myself but any of my descendants!

(Reply to this)


[info]jail
2005-11-28 07:04 pm UTC (link)
Damn it, beaten to the punch!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-28 07:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 07:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-28 07:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 07:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chibikaijuu, 2005-11-28 08:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 10:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 11:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 07:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 07:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 07:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 08:00 pm UTC
... - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 08:01 pm UTC
... - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 08:03 pm UTC
... - [info]magic_lilybean, 2005-12-02 04:30 am UTC

[info]rawles
2005-11-28 07:10 pm UTC (link)
My sweet, little fandom, all grown up and wanking!

Actually, BSG fandom wanks all the fucking time, it's just so hilariously passive-aggressive that people outside don't notice. Well, that and all the friendslocking.

Now I sorta wish I hadn't held my tongue in an attempt to hold onto some of my sanity as I followed this wank. I want to be involved in our first big wank! Well, unless you count the recent RPF wank that totally originated in BSG fandom. Good times, good times.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 07:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rawles, 2005-11-28 07:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 07:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ingrid, 2005-11-28 08:00 pm UTC
... - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 08:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rawles, 2005-11-28 08:01 pm UTC
... - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 08:07 pm UTC
... - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 08:10 pm UTC
... - [info]rawles, 2005-11-28 08:15 pm UTC
... - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 08:17 pm UTC
... - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 08:21 pm UTC
... - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 08:25 pm UTC
... - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 08:30 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 03:06 am UTC
... - [info]rawles, 2005-11-29 04:08 am UTC
... - [info]jail, 2005-11-29 06:09 am UTC
... - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-29 05:01 am UTC

[info]swmbo
2005-11-28 07:35 pm UTC (link)
I am so excited about these glorious future days in which Danielle Steel finally puts Jane Austen in her place.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 07:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]swmbo, 2005-11-28 07:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 07:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 08:08 pm UTC
... - [info]chibikaijuu, 2005-11-28 08:58 pm UTC
... - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 09:02 pm UTC
... - [info]chibikaijuu, 2005-11-28 09:12 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-12-01 06:42 am UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 07:01 pm UTC
... - [info]snacky, 2005-11-29 07:26 pm UTC
... - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-29 08:55 pm UTC
... - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 09:09 pm UTC
... - dearladydisdain, 2005-11-28 09:10 pm UTC
... - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 09:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2005-11-29 12:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lillyv, 2005-11-29 09:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]annavtree, 2005-12-01 06:41 am UTC

[info]waterfront
2005-11-28 07:37 pm UTC (link)
100 years from now people will be praising Danielle Steel, Stephen King,Diana Gabaldon. Karen Moning, Paullina Simons, Jackie Collins etc.. as the greatest writers of their (our) time.

Tch, Nancy, given the quality of the writers included, I'm a bit surprised you forgot Christopher Paolini and Dan Brown.

That said, I. uh. I like Diana Gabaldon, so um. SO THERE.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-28 07:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 07:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]heddychaa, 2005-11-29 12:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mael, 2005-11-28 07:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]belafarinrod, 2005-11-28 08:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]influencethis, 2005-11-28 09:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - soula, 2005-11-28 11:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]funwithrage, 2005-11-29 06:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]myalchod, 2005-11-29 07:01 am UTC
... - [info]funwithrage, 2005-11-29 06:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pipssister, 2005-11-28 11:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 11:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pipssister, 2005-11-29 01:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]skewed_tartan, 2005-11-28 11:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]morwyn, 2005-11-29 02:54 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 04:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jocondite, 2005-11-29 06:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]heddychaa, 2005-11-29 12:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]funwithrage, 2005-11-29 06:09 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-30 03:42 am UTC

[info]charmian
2005-11-28 08:14 pm UTC (link)
Well written porn is ALL about character. They need to study more about writing and read more. Less is never more in fiction. Ever. It's all about show don't tell. Sex that is coy, or shy is frustrating. If you make us invest in your couple, you bet your ass there better be a payoff.

Hmm, so every time you write a romance, there needs to be mindboggling explicit sex? Whoa. No wonder the nineteenth century canon was pretty much a wash, according to her.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]white_serpent, 2005-11-28 09:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]charmian, 2005-11-28 09:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]white_serpent, 2005-11-28 10:27 pm UTC

dearladydisdain
2005-11-28 08:44 pm UTC (link)
Okay, I think this is actually my favourite bit:

A librarian agrees with Nancy that people just pretend to like the classics, because Nora Roberts is popular. Shakespeare is a hack. And Harold Pinter is a playwright? Omgz. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/nancy777ca/162926.html?thread=619374#t619374)

My soul is crying.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-28 09:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 02:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]waterfront, 2005-11-29 03:35 am UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 03:49 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 09:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 09:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]charmian, 2005-11-28 09:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2005-11-29 12:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 11:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zorb, 2005-11-29 12:24 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 02:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evanwaters, 2005-11-30 06:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]souris, 2005-11-30 10:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosina_alcona, 2005-11-30 02:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]platedlizard, 2005-11-29 06:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladybirdsleeps, 2005-11-29 10:41 am UTC

(Anonymous)
2005-11-28 08:46 pm UTC (link)
Oh my god. I was going to stay clear of the wank, but work is boring today and I've got nothing to do but read this and snark. Also? Rabid1st attacked Edith Wharton and that makes me see red. (Does that technically make me a "snobby bull" or am I just a cow with gender issues?) I hate the old "classics" argument, it reminds me of myself in high school. I too "hated" these so called "classics," until I read Wharton. "Classic" is a moronic, catch-all term that encompasses an enormous variety of work, purely on the basis of when it was written. Shakespeare in the same category as Wharton? Wharton in the same category as Nabokov? Only on the basis of age.

The problem I have with people attacking classic literature is exactly the problem that these people are claiming to have with the "snobby cows." You may or may not enjoy the work, but obviously enough people have enjoyed it that it has endured. I, for one, cannot stomach Jane Austin, but I'm not going to pretend like I know better than everyone who has contributed to the preservation of her work. Clearly, there is an enormous audience for it, and someday when I'm happy and in love, I'll probably re-read her stuff and see it differently.

Nancy777 seems to be running for Prom Queen of the BSG fandom. I don't know her personally, so this could probably be considered character assassination, but if you post things in a public forum, then I guess the public is entitled to an opinion of you. Aside from making up cutesy names for Jamie Bamber (Bam Bam? SERIOUSLY.) she seems to want to be everyone's friend and everyone's cheerleader. There's nothing inherently wrong about that - hell, aside from being grating, it's not even a bad thing - but when she acts superior because of it, she completely undermines the act.

This is turning into a slightly epic ramble, but in essence, I'm seeing exactly the same snobbery in her replies that she claims to despise in others. Is her counter-review any less of a flame than the original review of that story? I'd say not. If she really wanted to practice what she's preaching, she would've constructively told the reviewer why she found them unhelpful - obviously, she didn't do that. Hypocrites make me crazy.

-raedances @ LJ

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ingrid, 2005-11-28 09:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 10:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]myalchod, 2005-11-28 11:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 09:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 09:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2005-11-28 09:45 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 09:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]beccastareyes, 2005-11-28 10:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jaina, 2005-11-29 04:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2005-11-28 11:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 02:24 am UTC
... - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2005-11-29 02:43 am UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 06:42 am UTC
... - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2005-11-29 09:37 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 03:04 am UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 06:42 am UTC
... - [info]sideofzen, 2005-11-29 09:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kinneas, 2005-11-29 07:55 am UTC
... - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2005-11-29 09:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_pi, 2005-11-28 09:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 09:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_pi, 2005-11-29 06:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]crysiana, 2005-11-28 10:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 10:10 pm UTC
... - [info]nekoneko, 2005-11-28 10:20 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-28 11:29 pm UTC
... - [info]charmian, 2005-11-29 12:28 am UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 12:52 am UTC
... - [info]charmian, 2005-11-29 01:48 am UTC
... - [info]pipssister, 2005-11-29 04:31 am UTC
... - [info]chibikaijuu, 2005-11-28 10:21 pm UTC
... - [info]cleolinda, 2005-11-29 02:12 am UTC
... - [info]morganmuffle, 2005-11-29 02:31 am UTC
... - [info]oneiropolos, 2005-11-29 03:58 am UTC
... - [info]nekoneko, 2005-11-29 06:56 am UTC
... - [info]pipssister, 2005-11-29 04:33 am UTC
... - [info]cleolinda, 2005-11-29 07:27 am UTC
... - [info]rachel_pi, 2005-11-29 06:33 pm UTC
... - [info]semiotics, 2005-11-30 07:50 pm UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 07:15 pm UTC
... - [info]funwithrage, 2005-11-29 06:53 am UTC
... - [info]rachel_pi, 2005-11-29 06:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rachel_pi, 2005-11-29 06:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kerukeru, 2005-11-30 07:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rosina_alcona, 2005-11-30 02:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]myalchod, 2005-11-28 11:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]nekoneko, 2005-11-28 11:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]myalchod, 2005-11-28 11:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 12:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]morwyn, 2005-11-29 03:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]naienko, 2005-11-29 06:00 pm UTC

[info]white_serpent
2005-11-28 08:54 pm UTC (link)
It does seem to be a very highschool atmosphere, filled with a bunch of 'snobby cows' who seem to think if they act highbrow

...so...close... to invoking Snacky's law. So close!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]rawles, 2005-11-28 09:03 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2005-11-29 12:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rawles, 2005-11-29 04:45 am UTC
... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 03:33 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2005-11-28 09:06 pm UTC (link)
From her bio:

"I love to read (currently reading the number one New York Times Best Seller A Breath Of Snow And Ashes by Diana Gabaldon)"

Only losers read number two New York Times Best Sellers!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jail, 2005-11-28 11:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]castellated, 2005-11-29 04:05 am UTC

[info]wrongly_amused
2005-11-28 09:43 pm UTC (link)
Well, I agree with the idea that age doesn't necessarily mean quality or make the material any less beyond reproach, but that doesn't make [info]nancy777ca any less of a moron.

Especially since her screename annoys the hell out of me.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]nekoneko, 2005-11-28 10:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]littlebitca, 2005-11-29 02:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]wrongly_amused, 2005-11-29 06:49 am UTC


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map