|
Return To The Index (This does NOT open a new window) Note, to make reading multi-part stories easier, story links (links with dejanews.com or www.qz.to, NOT the review or profile links) will open up a new browser window. When you are done reading the story, or section of the story simply CLOSE the story window. |
|
Celestial Reviews 262 - February 28, 1998 Note: A Fundamentalist Minister in Alabama, sorely tempted, finally propositioned the Choir director one night after practice, when they were alone in the Church. "Where Reverend ?" she enthusiastically replied. "Right here on the floor." he panted. "It'd be too cold." she whispered. "How about standing up ?" "Good Lord girl. Have you taken leave of you senses ?" he shouted. "If anyone came in, they'd think we were dancing." Second note: There has been some discussion on a.s.s.d. recently about "the reviewing process." Since Celestial Reviews is the main source of reviews on this newsgroup, I guess some of that discussion has been about CR. Because the a.s.s.d. newsgroup is so full of spam and because AOL gives me no effective way to control spam within a newsgroup, I don't have time to follow a.s.s.d. carefully; and so I may have a distorted impression of the discussion there. In fact, I am almost CERTAIN that I have a distorted impression, because the main point as I understand it is so blatantly silly. What I see is a complaint that "the reviews" are having an unfortunate tendency to weaken the quality of stories by scaring away good authors. This happens, supposedly, because a clique of reviewers give low ratings in personal preference to stories that they find to be personally displeasing. These critics seem to think that a bunch of friendly people like myself and the guest reviewers, who receive no payment at all for their services, are supposed to rate stories based solely on their "quality," which can be ascertained independently of their content. Either that or we're supposed to selflessly boil down the plots of every conceivable story to just a few lines, so that people can find the ones that sound good without the annoyance of finding out whether we liked the story. {If that sounds silly, I warned you. I suspect I am dealing with a "straw man" here, but that still gives me a basis for making the following points.} First, let me try to point out the basic lack of logic in this argument. If I read a story in which a person writes coherent, complete sentences with a well-developed plot about how much fun it is to have his wife shove shit down his throat while he plays with his own penis, I think I have a right to perceive this as abnormal or dysfunctional behavior. To say that this is a well written story would miss the point: it's primarily a really silly story, and it's only appropriate that I should point this out in a review. As for personal attacks, I think we should avoid them. I personally dislike personal attacks when people malign me. When one "critic" berated me for "having no respect for author's rights," I was certainly annoyed. The attack was absolutely preposterous and the person who said it should have known better. On the other hand, he seemed to be a decent sort and probably had no idea how abrasive he could be. I let that comment slide, and I encourage others to let apparently hostile comments slide. These newsgroups give us a forum in which it is sometimes hard to judge the nuances and real meanings of what others want to say. I suppose I am viewed as abrasive sometimes by people to whom I intend to be friendly. So it goes. If the author in the shit-eating story I mentioned above insisted that his was a "true" story, I'm not sure that it would be out of the question to consider this author to be a bizarre person. If one of my guest reviewers states that he hated a story because it romanticized sociopathic behaviors, I am not going to insist that he say something nicer. I do NOT think that authors "get off the hook" with simple disclaimers that "these events are fiction." If a person writes a bdsm story that romanticizes cruelty and gives no basis for accepting this scenario as either realistic or a good fantasy - in other words, if the story itself pretty clearly says that it is fulfilling both to the victim and the perpetrator when one person is brutally cruel to another and gives no evidence to show why this is a sensible story - then it makes sense to be critical of that story. Keep in mind, however, that Edgar Alan Poe wrote GREAT stories in which the plots and personalities were bizarre. Some people on this newsgroup do the same. My humble advice is that when a responsible reviewer says a story sucks the author should at least consider the possibility that the story could stand substantial improvement. Certainly, there are other cases where the difference between "normal" and "dysfunctional" is not so clear. Pedophile and incest stories are a good example. As I have said many, many times, I think society's prohibition of these behaviors generally makes sense; and I would not be upset if people convicted of abusive pedophile behaviors received severe punishment. I also presume and pray that police officers hang around in cyberspace and track down perpetrators who abuse real-life children through the Internet. Having said this, I still think it is possible to write a good story about pedophilia or incest. For example, I recall a story by Ann Douglas in which a mother was afraid that her son would enter into a bad relationship and made tender love to him as a step in preventing a bad decision on his part. I also think it is natural for children to fantasize about sex with their parents - isn't that what the Oedipus complex is all about? In real life, however, I do NOT think that most mothers should play bury the salami with their sons; but I have frequently given high ratings to stories that give a sensible depiction of pedophile or incestuous behavior. However, I would venture to say that 90% of the pedo/incest stories posted to this newsgroup are childish gibberish - the output of adolescent or disturbed imaginations of people who are trying to find approval for behaviors that would be harmful to themselves and to others. I have no need to denounce these people as evil or as perverts; in fact, I assume most of them are good people. But it seems to me that it should not be surprising that a lot of these stories are not worth recommending. As a non-pedo/incest person, can I review these stories? Certainly I can. I just may not WANT to spend my time on them very often - because stories that are outright silly or that romanticize destructive behaviors are not a lot of fun for me to read. I honestly feel that I give a fair break to stories that are based on value systems, premises, and life experiences that are different from my own. Although many of my guest reviewers decline to review pedo/incest stories, I wish they wouldn't do that so often. I suspect the reason they do so is that they (1) find the task to be unpleasant or (2) feel they will say negative things about the story because it seems objectively negative to them. I think the first is a good reason, and the second not as good. Anyway, I hope you continue to enjoy these Celestial Reviews. If the "appeal to reviewer" rating bothers you, just skip it. Personally, I consider these "reviews" to be more than reviews. For example, I am not so stupid as to believe that my "review" of DG's "Call of Desire" was really a review of that story - it was a story itself, using DG's story as a jump-off point. At other times I inject anecdotes from my own life into a review or poke fun at an author. I believe I am generally writing essays that lots of people enjoy. I take great pleasure in doing this, and my readers seem to like what I write. Many of the guest reviewers prefer a different style of interacting with authors and reviewers, and I encourage them to keep right on being themselves. These stories can be fun, and the reviews can make them even more enjoyable. Final note: Remember: even though someone else may be posting my reviews for me, my e-mail address is still Celeste801@aol.com. - Celeste |