Sorry it took so long to write this.

Um, so you got my assignment, and you are going to write a fic for me. That is so cool! Thank you! Look, more than anything, I want a good story. So, if you can't write a good story based on my suggestions, write a good story, and I will be super-pleased that you wrote a story for me. I am going to suggest many, many possible elements below, and if you can work two or three of those things in, that would be super cool. I often feel at sea (I'm supposed to give a personalized present to a complete stranger! Eek!) so I want to give you as much direction as you want. But, again, if you don't want any, don't take it and just write a good story.

I like farce, banter, and intensity of emotion (but not angst for angst's sake.) I like stories about two (or more) people trapped in a situation that no one on the outside can really relate to. (The Nine is like the most perfect gen story ever.) I like fanfiction that explores the science fiction aspects of its canon. I like alternate realities (where a change here and there in canon events creates big changes, and the story explores what those are.) I like happy endings, hopeful endings, and endings that punch you in the gut and hurt (but again, not so much with a villain randomly capturing people and torturing, if someone is beaten up, it better be because the villain is the sort to do the maniacal rape and torture in canon.)

I like canon. A lot. (Except for the last two Anita Blake books.)

I like mpreg, kidfic, eating, forced marriages, clan/family building, intrigue and politics, mysteries, melodramatic declarations of love, severely understated declarations of love, experimental story structures, and sex scenes that advance the plot.

( some dislikes )

( Wiseguy )

( Les Liaisons Dangereuses )

( The 4400 )

( Anita Blake )

I hope that my cluster is just down, but I'm kind of worried about whether or not someone has hacked my account. It said I had maxed out the number of times I could e-mail myself my password in a 24 hour period, and I hadn't ever done it.

I can't write as much as I'd like about this issue because a) I'm writing on a laptop which kills my wrists dead and b) it's midnight and I have to go to work tomorrow.

Some of the people with interesting things to say on this issue, although I don't agree with everything they say are:( links to discussion )Okay, so here's the part that, to me, and as someone who's been an LJ community maintainer (not necessarily a good one, but I did keep one more or less going for over a year) that people are not getting.

Public discussion, even on a community, means in public, it doesn't mean structured by the people, on any fucking topic of the people, and for the people of the whole goddamn world. Unless king community dictator chooses a constitutional monarchy. Like Britain. Or . is 's world, and you're just living in it. Or you know, not. Up to you. If you don't like the playground, you don't have to play. Take your ball and go home.( some more about this )

---

This community has driven home for me that we need a word for discussion of individual fanfiction stories which specifically implies that we are not talking to the fucking author. Because when anyone says, "Let's discuss stories!" that gets summarized to critique or literary criticism which gets abbreviated as crit which is then unpacked as </em>constructive criticism</em>. And you! Hey, you, Madame Artiste, over there! Ma'amselle Auteur, you, in the corner! I ain't talking to you. ( what I mean by that is )

so, yahtzee63 made a comment in idlerat's comment in zir own lj, on, of course kita's original post. I felt the need to respond like so.

While I understand, accept and enjoy the multiplicity of readings people bring to a text, I do strongly dislike the current tendency to behave as though the author's intent mattered least, as though everybody has had to take a number and the author is left holding #659860, and they're calling for #3.

I don't know that if an author came up to me with an interpretation of the text I would ignore it, but it is very rare for an author to actually do so, i.e. present arguments and conclusions based on the actual words printed or the actual scenes broadcast. Much more often, the author says, "I meant thus and such when writing" or "We would have put in X, but it cost 12% over budget, so just imagine more X there" or "This story is the precious burden of my soul because I have based the relationship of characters Zeta and Theta on my relationship with my husband."

When I'm looking for a reading of the text, I want people to say, "Because of this scene here, and that word choice there, and the particular shade of red repeated in shots 12, 17, and 76, one can infer thus and such, and so I draw this particular conclusion." In my experience, authors don't often do that. In this particular case, it sounds like Joss did, in fact, argue from the text: a) Spike and Angel hung out for many decades and b) Spike and Angel are big sexy perverts thus a reasonable inference is 1) and they had sex which leads to the conclusion that i) if you didn't notice that part, you're dumb, and the MEteam put that in on purpose.

---

I, however, also have some thoughts that are sort of nagging at me from kita's original post. ( Read more... )

I liked Narcissus in Chains and Cerulean Sins. Anita's sex life, Anita's harem, and Anita's evergrowing list of superpowers are not turnoffs for me. While I am interested in the crime of the Anita Blake books, I am just as interested in the worldbuilding aspects, particularly the xenoanthropology, i.e. the cultural organization of vampires, weres, and faeries. I found both of those books satisfying on that level, I thought the porn was fine (especially since it usually served the purpose of character building, relationship building, or plot advancing), and I missed the crime but felt I could live without it.

( ID, otoh, is not so good for me. )

I have not attempted to make jf and lj flists largely similar. And, not only do I have a brain wipe about who's on my flist, but I am dead sure that not all of you will have the same username.

*le sigh*

something to do when LJ comes back up.

That would be me. I feel enormously better that my yuletide recipient didn't comment on his story, Hollow Lust, now that I know he didn't fulfill his yuletide responsibilities. It's sort of independent confirmation he's a fucktard, you know? (Or, he's been faced by some sort of longterm emergency which prevented both his writing and reading of Yuletide) In any case, I no longer feel like I did something bad to him and his request.

The request I filled was:

Request 1: Laurell K Hamilton - Anita Blake books (Edward/Richard)
Details: Slash please, sex prefered. Blood is also nice

There is no blood, but there is sex.

And it is really, really good. I say this, not just because of me, but because witchwillow loved it as she did beta, I got positive comments from the people who read my writing journal, and I got positive comments before authors were revealed. I know, I know what you're thinking. Anita's a Mary Sue, and you hate the fucking ardeur which makes everyone have sex all the time, and Richard makes you want to club him on the head like a baby seal, and…forget about it! This is a story which can be enjoyed by people who liked the series before and after Obsidian Butterfly.

I also wrote I need love pants for DWNOGA. It's a pretty good story, but nothing brilliant, the way I think the yuletide story is. This is because my request was for JoeC Happy ending SMUT! :) (or Nick/Lance, but I did JoeC.) I do not do happy smut, because I can't figure out how to plot people just having a good time.

What was brilliant was Irregularly Scheduled Programming by Fidela (DWNOGA, magic trickyfish) and Fenrir by Morgan )0(. Fenrir's a really awesome exploration of pack culture and what the hell Richard was thinking when he didn't kill Marcus and why Jason's a werewolf and why he seems content to be Jean Claude's wolf. Irregularly Scheduled Programming is just fun and cute and JC is adorable.

I still have not completed my 3 Ships story, but the challenge will go up on time, even if I have to get someone to pinchhit for my losery ass.

I am cutting and pasting what I wrote from last year. This isn't meant to restrict you, but if you looked at what I wrote and thought "OMGWTF???!!!!1111 KRAKH0R!!!!1111" then maybe this will help.

Um, but what I really want to say is, to the person who drew me for Secret Santa, the things that I like are this: snark, humor, communicative silences, genderfuck (deliberate genderfuck, not weird femmebot-ty-ness where suddenly the boys have started acting like 13 year old girls even though they haven't actually turned into 13 year old girls), treating girlfriends/wives/fiances like intelligent people who matter to the boys, epic-length stories, the guys actually being popstars, and all of the people in the band being in the story.

Things that I don't like are: hurt/comfort, Lou (even a little bit), people having sex with Justin or Nick in Germany and the story presenting it as okay (unless those people are Justin, Nick, Lance or AJ), whining, angst, people processing their feelings ad nauseum, wings.

Favorite writers include but are not limited to: Rhys, Lucy Not!Hale, torch, CJ Marlowe, the Sandy's, Kel, bitterchick, Helen, Arsenic Jade, and the chick who wrote the Sword & Sorcery story that went on *forever* as well as the story at band camp, and that other chick who wrote about all 10 guys getting Crunked.

I will be very happy with a story in any of my fandoms. I would like slightly different things in the different fandoms.

In Fastlane, I like things to be funny. Also, very slashy. Very, very slashy. That show was so gay. But remember that Deaq is not a retard.

In Anita Blake, it doesn't have to be slashy. It doesn't have to be a murder mystery. If it's sexy, that's cool. But I want it to deal with either shapeshifter and/or vampire culture/politics. I could also be made very happy with a story about animators and animating, and how they teach one another things and what it is they do and are. I enjoy the xenoanthropology and xenosociology of the books.

Les Liaisons Dangereuses is the original novel. Dangerous Liaisons is the name of one of the several movie versions. My favorite Merteuil is Annette Bening (with Catherine Deneuve on her heels), my favorite Valmont is Rupert Everet (with John Malkovich a close second), my favorite Danceny is Henry Thomas, my favorite Cecile de Volanges is Uma Thurman, my favorite Presidente de Tourvel is Michelle Pfeiffer, my favorite Madame de Rosemonde is Danielle Darrieux. Cruel Intentions is an amusing reworking, but the language is simply atrocious. If you do Dangerous Liaisons, it must be biting and cruel. Remember that Merteuil covets Valmont loves Tourvel. Remember that Valmont still wants Merteuil. Remember that they are bad people, very bad, but they are beautiful and attractive. And remember that the language should be very beautiful without being flowery. The Stephen Frears movie and the New York Public Library translation should tell you what I mean, by beautiful but not flowery. Remember that they get what's coming to them, but they aren't the only ones who are hurt in the process.

But, dude, if you come up with a fabulous idea in any of these fandoms, run with it. I want to read the best story you can do, more than one which caters to my every whim, y'know?

As seen chez pearl_o, who got it from mosca and callmesandy on livejournal.

You know how bands and artists pick their best songs for a "Best Of..." CD, well, that's how this works. Choose ten of your best fanfics (or fanart or original works or photographs). List them and explain why they're your best.

I am splitting it into two top 5's, the fictional and the non-fictional. The meta seems to come a little easier than the fic, although, as I was trying to find my tops, it seems that my best meta came in the summer and fall of 2002. Was this because that was when Smallville filled me most with hope? Or because I wasn't living with someone who drew out many of my most meta-like thoughts? Or maybe because I had more concentrated computer time. I do not know. In any case…

zvi's top 5 meta posts

1. Jazz in the Machine This was my fannish meta debut. Race and slash and sex, and how people are not viewing black characters the same way.
2. The Gayness of Smallville I'd been writing about Smallville and Clark and Lex' relationship all during first season, but this served as my sumup of that beginning on both a canonical and a supertextual level.
3. The Deliberately Maddening Love Interest I was trying to understand how AlMiles could treat Lana so poorly when they did Chloe so well. I think I make a pretty good guess. It's not an excuse, but it is an explanation.
4. Livejournal Dicta If everyone would do as I say, this whole journal thing would run so much more smoothly
5. Escapade: Slash the Slashers I had been hoping that Escapade would inspire some huge meta spark in me. This was the closest I got to that.

zvi's 5 best stories

1. das Märchen It's a complicated structure and morally ambiguous story. It also works extremely well as a remix.
2. Art of War It's so much fun, and it came at the original story at a complete right angle.
3. Do Your Thing My love letter to *NSYNC.
4. Get Next to You This was an extremely long story for me. And it's got that ambiguity that I like. Sort of European art house film, the cheap American version.
5. I Bet You Think This Song Is About You I love Lance. And Justin has grown on me so much. That's what this story is really about.

I think this selection is probably my best work, and serves as a pretty good introduction to me as a slasher.

This movie was quite lovely. The chiefest quality of a movie about the creation of Peter Pan and Neverland must surely be wonder and whimsy, and the filmmakers did not lose sight of the need to maintain that atmosphere. I think they went overboard occasionally. They used the same device in two ways. They filmed scenes both realistically and with the fantastic elements actualized, and intercut the versions of the two scenes. This was very effective in the scenes with Mr. Barrie and the boys at play. It enhanced the sense of wonder and allowed people to look very dashing, in a way they weren't quite going to manage in period clothing. (Pirate!Kate was terribly fetching.) However, they also filmed scenes realistically and in a way to elaborate how the ordinary stuff of life may have inspired specific parts of the Neverland plays and books. There is one scene where the boys' unkind grandmother is chastising them all with a finger, á la Ken Hutchinson of Starsky & Hutch. She is also berating them with a shiny, pointy hook.

The device is unsuccesful for two reasons. One, there's no particular attempt to get the audience to buy into these moments of inspiration. Audience cooperation is simply assumed. Two, I'm not sure that these are the most interesting bits of the Pan story to address; rather, they have chosen visually explicit details. Perhaps this would be more effective for me if I had ever seen the play itself; I instead know it through two mangled movie versions (the Disney cartoon and the Hook movie), and having read the first book. These visual nods don't work for me, and I wou ld have thought that the visual whimsy of the movie would be a strong part for me.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that the child actors were used well and effectively. They had a lot of screen time, but not too many lines, and they did not spend most of their time being either cute or atmospherically sad. This is not to say that any of them did an outstanding job, but they were all competent, which is unusual in a film with more than one large role for a child.

Kate Winslet was really quite delightful as the boys' mother (in ways other than a nicely fitting pirate costume.) She conveyed a sense of merry and of gentleness that set the tone quite well. She was also able to negotiate the difficult tight rope of projecting a strong sense of self while allowing her character's mother a strong influence in the life of the boys, however little desired by all concerned.

The element which keeps me from wholeheartedly endorsing the movie, actually, is Johnny Depp. He's very beautiful, and fey, and projects his gender as a sort of sexy neuter until very close to the film. He is marvelous with the children, and clashes admirably with the grandmother.

I just can't feel that his heart is in his work. This reads too much like Johnny Depp characters past. The performance isn't phoned in, by any measure, but it is less heartfelt than in Pirates or Blow or Ed Woods. One almost has the sensation that it was part that read well on paper but was actually a bit boring to play once he got on set. I don't know that this is true, but it is how the performance plays: this is good Johnny Depp, but not brilliant Depp.

In the end, that is how I feel about the film as well, good but not great. And it is a story that had the potential to be great, with just a little more life and liveliness in the film, most noticeably from Mr. Depp, but really, through the whole cast (excepting Kate Winslet.)

I've never seen the Rocky Horror Show, though I've seen RHPS with cast. It's not the same. I think the lack of solidity, the fact that the sets are largely imaginary (or, at least, they were largely imaginary at the small community theatre I went to see it at) means there's a higher level of audience buy in required, and I couldn't quite make that leap.

Also, I sat in the front row, and people tried to interact with me. Eep! This is always a possibility at Rocky Horror, but still, eep!

Rocky was too little to be a really credible Rocky. The guy playing Frank was much bigger and more attractive and I just had difficulty believing.

It was a fun evening, but not the best show ever, and I think more because the Rocky Horror Show is not ever going to be my cup of tea than because the actors weren't up to the task.

I like Britney Spears, I do. I applaud the directions she's been taking imagewise and musically on In the Zone. And I love the sound of the My Prerogative remake on her greatest hits album, which does the difficult balancing act of sounding different from the original while still evoking the original, which is something I think is desirable in a pop remake. (In a remake of a standard, you may want to get crazy and experimental and unrecognizable, but with a pop remake, you're not only re-playing a song, you're asking everyone to think about where they were the last time they heard the song.)

But the video for My Prerogative (director Jake Nava) is jacked up, and it took me several viewings to figure out what was wrong with the picture.

When Madonna was in a big slut video phase, her videos always had lots and lots of people in them. This was important because having loads of people in the video let Madonna be the central actor in her video, the subject of her art. Perhaps the most explicit demonstration isn't really a big slutty video, but the video for Material Girl. Madonna accepts and rejects suitors on a specific set of criteria she's set herself, and she has many as she wants, and they bow to her whims.

In the My Prerogative video, Britney spends the vast majority of the time alone, displaying herself to the viewer of the video. While choosing to display one's self is an action, the process of getting to the display is completely outside the scope of this video. For contrast, cf. Southside featuring Gwen Stefani and Moby, directed by Joseph Kahn, a video about making music videos.

Now, I'm not saying that Britney should have used a meta "making of" video treatment. But I am saying that by making the focus of the video Britney's display to the viewer, it undercuts the message of the song, which is one of self-direction. How does a viewer know that Britney is in control of the scene taking place on camera if Britney's posing like a Playboy bunny? Because Playboy bunnies are pretty much working under the direction of Hugh Heffner and Playboy Enterprises, Inc.

This mental disconnect does not, of course, stop the video from being pretty or sexy. It just makes it ineffective at communicating what I believe is the intended message.

This play sort of fucked me up.

No, okay, the play didn't fuck me up.

But there are some plays and movies, some really good plays and movies, that make one think, "I am wasting my life. If I continue on this path, I will be 60 years old, brilliant, bitter, and useless." Hedda Gabler was one. This is another.

To be slightly less subjective about the play's content:

I did not like the play's adaptation. The diction of the play's characters was contemporized, without attempting to communicate much about the actual Russian historical period to the audience. (I understand that a play should not be a history lesson, but I don't think it too much to ask that either the play be reasonably historically acurate or it go ahead and update the drama. The only contemporized yet historical piece I can remember working for me is Moulin Rouge, and that story is a) set in a place the argot of which would undoubtedly be incomprehensible to the contemporary artist and b) more a fairytale than anything else.)

I also found that the man who played Vanya (Mitchell Hébert) was not very comfortable with his lines. This is, of course, a hazard of attending preview week, but it seriously detracted from my enjoyment.

Also, Deborah Hazlett, who plays the stepmother, is a handsome woman, but her beauty is supposedly so arresting that everyone is enchanted by her. It was an ineffective conceit. Ms. Hazlett didn't act as if she were the most beautiful woman in the world, she acted as if she were frustrated, disturbed, and bored — all of which are completely accurate for her character — but she should also have acted as if every eye in the room would, naturally, follow her, and been perturbed when they did not. Aside from that, she was quite good in her role.

I did find the actress who played the daughter (my kingdom for my progam book! I'm doing this reviewe based off the website) quite effective. Her love for the doctor was palpable and embarrassing. Her conflicted feelings concerning her father could have been somewhat more foregrounded, but that is my only criticism.

The doctor was played by an actor who has done a marvelous job before and is doing a marvelous job now. If only I could remember his name.

Okay, this was a pretty sucktastic review, but I will say this—I did not enjoy myself, but there were parts of the evening that were quit affecting. If Chekov's intent was to shake up my complaceny, he suceeded. I can't recommend the play as an enjoyable theatre experience, but it was a thought-provoking, button-pushing one.

Clayton Fine Books is hosting a discussion by Rafael Alvarez, who worked on The Wire. This will be next Saturday, Sept 18, from 1-2 p.m. I believe he will be signing his book. This is part of the Baltimore Book Festival, I think.

Also, according to TV Tome, stars of the Wire will be bartending at The Brewers' Art from 5-8 p.m. on Tuesday, September 28.

The Mobtown Players will be presenting Hedwig and the Angry Inch from October 8-31. They aren't currently selling tickets online. I'm interested in going the 8th, 29th, or 31st if anyone would like to go in a group.

Spotlighters Theatre will be doing The Rocky Horror Show October 8-November 13. These are late night shows. If people are interested in going, let me know.

I don't believe I've ever seen a performance of MacBeth before, although I have seen parts and I have seen the numerous references and allusions that one does.

The first half of the story seemed to move very slowly. Partly, this was because I was in the mood for a tale of blood and guts and action, and the murders in the first half take place off-stage. Partly, I think that the story doesn't do a very good job of setting up the story of MacBeth's transition from a hero to a mad tyrant. His bravery and loyalty are told, but they are not demonstrated. Lady MacBeth's corruption of him didn't seem to cause her any difficulty to effect.

Lady MacBeth was played by Kelly Gillis(sp?) and her performance seemed adequate but not inspired. I think part of the problem is that so much of her role is in the exhorting of others to action, instead of taking it herself. I would like her better if she had killed the King, I think.

Andrew Long (one of my favorite company members) played MacDuff. This is the sort of role he gets and I usually don't like him in, the sort of stolid, martial, self-confident bordering on the edge of self-righteous guy he ends up playing about once a season. I actually liked it this time, and I haven't been able to put my finger on the difference. It may be that because when MacDuff's first long speech takes place after his sureness about his place in the world is shaken, after he has fled to England to join the Prince and left wife and children unprotected. From the beginning, he is vulnerable, although he doesn't necessarily realize his vulnerability. The audience knows, although he doesn't, that he has left his wife and children in grave danger, and thus, his self-confidence comes across more as delusional than overbearing. And, when he goes up against MacBeth, it is not a sense of righteousness but vengeance which drives him. I am always up for a good spot of vengeance.

The witches, also, were interesting. Their choreography took place over most of the stage. It was extremely mannered, almost like Commedia dell'Arte or ballet, in that the motions were so deliberate as to suggest that they made part of some code. I don't, in the final analysis, know quite what to make of them. They are a bit like the Greek oracles, in that their prophesying sets in motions those things they foretell and far removed from the other motion of the play.

In the end, I find this play and its production pleasing but a bit flat. MacBeth's transformation, the central drama of the piece, seems poorly supported, and his destructive behavior in Scotland is inadequately demonstrated. This play should be longer and more fully explain itself.

( cross-posted from my livejournal )

Lance ficathon entry for weredonut
She requested Lance/Justin, post-NSA, fun, with no MPREG

( I Bet You Think This Song Is About You )

Lance ficathon entry for weredonut
She requested Lance/Justin, post-NSA, fun, with no MPREG

---

( Pop Roots )

rosenho talks very wisely about participating in an exchange challenge. And, like, 99% of what she said struck me as wise and righteous. But I hit this one bit that made me go What? and then made me go Has everyone been seeing green while I thought I was looking at orange polka dots? Here it is, emphasis added:

5) Exchange challenges are not the time to decide to release your inner critic.

…this is a gift exchange. You don't tell Aunt Margie-Lou that the sweater she knitted you is a bad color and she dropped a stitch; you shouldn't mention in your LiveJournal and other wide-open spaces how much the exchange gift you got sucked. …

</blockquote>

First of all, I will say that in the case of Secret Santa challenges, I am right there one hundred percent with Hope. One thousand times at the door of Secret Santa challenges are gift exchanges, and you should say thank you in public, and if you really like it you should squeal loudly and jump up and down in public (NB: that entry was public when first posted) and at least say thank you even if you were horrified at what was done to your perfectly simple request of your favorite happy OTP with schmoop. Because, you know, the name on the door is Santa. Which means presents.

But is your ordinary ficathon entry a gift? Because I've always thought of it more like, well, fanfic socialism. The state organizer assesses the needs of the citizens challenge participants, and doles out assignments according to professed ability. You put in what you can, and the state challenge organizer does her best to meet your minimum requirements.

Now, to be completely 100% honest with you, I am somewhat confused for two reasons, one of which has nothing to do with fandom and the other of which has to do with my view of all fanac.

So, fandomless reason first. In my world, you give gifts because you want someone else to have this thing (or engage in this activity) that you think they would enjoy (or, you know, in the case of practical gifts, couldn't live without.) So, it doesn't count as a gift if you have to ask the person what they want. Now, you pick up the giftgiving pace on certain holidays, but, you still have to figure out what it is you think will make the gift-getter happier for having it. If they just tell you, and you get exactly the thing requested, then you're just, well, trading shit at approved intervals. Which is fun, but is not the same thing as giving a gift.

Why does Secret Santa not trip my trading trigger? Because it says Santa. I get to be Santa. You get to be Santa. Now, in order for us to be good Santas for people who may well be perfect strangers, they have to give us a starting place. Otherwise, people get a lot of potholder making sets and pet rocks and other junk that they just keep to give back into the White Elephant Gift Exchange pool. So, you know, you write a letter to Santa, and you hope he comes through for you. (Shut up! Santa lives.) When you are Santa, you try your best to come through for whatever little kid is trying to stay up real late on Christmas Eve to see if reindeer really know how to fly. (Shut up! Christmas songs rock.)

You may think that names for things don't matter, but check out the gay marriage debates and then we'll talk. 'Santa' on the label makes all the difference in the world.

A ficathon, on the other hand, is work, yo. I work on something and I get something back. And, like, it's mine and personalized and I should say thank you and I totally have to turn mine in or I have basically stolen from my fellow citizens challenge participants, but it's not, like, a gift. It's a payment or a trade. I mean, if I get sidewinder to make a bracelet that fits me exactly with my birthstones that has a subtle Z shape to it, it's mine and she made it for me and no one else, but I got it because I told her there'd be X amount of dollars in it for her if she did.

Okay, so reason number one. Reason number two: I feel like, if anyone is getting the thing she wants here, it's the challenge organizer. Like, dude, I totally appreciate that victoria p. is on the verge of histrionics and that LaT nearly had to beat people up and I am sort of nervously biting my fingers because I have 16 family ficathon participants and, like, one backup. And some of the requests are for fandoms I simply cannot backup because I saw one episode of the show two seasons ago and thought, "no. definitely not." But, at the end, I will have 15 stories about BSOs with family! My evil plan will work! I will rule you all! LaT wanted some short fiction, and short fiction did she receive. victoria wanted the chance to try that cool remix thing she saw the sparkly kids doing, without the icky dancing boys, and lo, she was mixed and she got her mix on. So, basically, like any challenge or any other fanac, people are getting the thing they want out of doing the fanac. I'm not saying they don't want other things to happen, but that the fanac is, or is expected to be, fulfilling of itself. So, a long way around to say that, however much I bitch and complain about the horrors of fulfilling a ficathon requirement, I get something out of writing the stories, and I fully expect to get a story at the end. Which just doesn't seem gifty to me. It's all expectation-y, which is the opposite of gift-receiving, I think.