And I know you were told similar before by more than one person in response to your previous similar post on this subject.
Yes, but I obviously don't agree. While it's intra-fandom that prompted the post about anonymity, I'm not the only fan who's in fandom and reviews both within it and outside of it, considering that half the work listed above came from recommendations or comments from people *within fandom* pointing me in the right direction outside of it. So I don't think it's that small a subset of people who straddle the line.
On the other hand, yes, I'm chasing two hares; one my experiences within fandom and the other my experiences in what is essentially a different type of fandom.
Backing up to the beginning:
"Anonymous" is a popular pseudonym
*bronx cheer* You know what I mean. A screenname is a pseud, but it's also an identity (to the point that Pers got her book personalized to her screenname because I brain-farted on her "real" one.)
It's also entirely possible to review/critique work without backstabbing or friendship being involved
Agreed wholeheartedly. But it has been my consistent experience that anons feel free-er to be nastier simply because they're anonymous... to the point that I made a public retraction about Tossed when it turned out I was wrong predicting them doing that.
you and I have different social models of fandom in our heads.
We've been in different fandoms. Different fandoms, different cultures, different countries, etc. But the fandoms I go back in go back a very long time, and cover different fringes as wide as media, costuming,print, and online. And I've seen the same tropes playing out in all of those *plus* in completely different arenas - mystery fandom, children's book collecting fandom - heck, someone sent me an article about sock puppetry among Dead Sea Scroll scholars! It's all gone to give me a rock-solid belief that there are certain things that are just inherent in humanity that will play out the same ways regardless of the catalyst.
Backup for authore committing RaceFail or authors pointing it out?
In this instance, I was thinking of the author you cite who feels that she is not safe to state her opinions on racism under her real/writing name. Would the site/publication for which she reviews give her backup? Would it defend her, would it give her PR help if one of her reviews was turned into a firestorm?
Because if they wouldn't, I can certainly see why she'd pick a different pseudonym to write those reviews under. But I don't see one writer with multiple noms de plume as the same as a sock puppeteer. The former is often reacting to the market, such as Jo Rowling hiding her gender, while my experience is that the latter is trying to get the chosen area to react to *them.*
yes... unfortunately for any people on the disprivileged end of the status quo
*nods* I'm not saying there *shouldn't* be a reaction/consequences, especially for the people who were posting names and addresses. It's just... once again, I've seen a lot of boycotts fizzle like a damp firecracker. And it's so terribly easy to mistake the couple of hundred of people who are involved online with the many thousands of people who are also part of sales and ratings, etc.
You should read more widely (from about the eighteenth century onwards). ;-P
A palpable touch! *another bronx cheer*
That said... if today's cell phones had been around two generations ago, there would be no more questions about the grassy knoll.
To be more serious, neither anonymity nor a sock name is any kind of defense in a world where people are determined to "out" people to the point of names and addresses.
no subject
And I know you were told similar before by more than one person in response to your previous similar post on this subject.
Yes, but I obviously don't agree. While it's intra-fandom that prompted the post about anonymity, I'm not the only fan who's in fandom and reviews both within it and outside of it, considering that half the work listed above came from recommendations or comments from people *within fandom* pointing me in the right direction outside of it. So I don't think it's that small a subset of people who straddle the line.
On the other hand, yes, I'm chasing two hares; one my experiences within fandom and the other my experiences in what is essentially a different type of fandom.
Backing up to the beginning:
"Anonymous" is a popular pseudonym
*bronx cheer* You know what I mean. A screenname is a pseud, but it's also an identity (to the point that Pers got her book personalized to her screenname because I brain-farted on her "real" one.)
It's also entirely possible to review/critique work without backstabbing or friendship being involved
Agreed wholeheartedly. But it has been my consistent experience that anons feel free-er to be nastier simply because they're anonymous... to the point that I made a public retraction about Tossed when it turned out I was wrong predicting them doing that.
you and I have different social models of fandom in our heads.
We've been in different fandoms. Different fandoms, different cultures, different countries, etc. But the fandoms I go back in go back a very long time, and cover different fringes as wide as media, costuming,print, and online. And I've seen the same tropes playing out in all of those *plus* in completely different arenas - mystery fandom, children's book collecting fandom - heck, someone sent me an article about sock puppetry among Dead Sea Scroll scholars! It's all gone to give me a rock-solid belief that there are certain things that are just inherent in humanity that will play out the same ways regardless of the catalyst.
Backup for authore committing RaceFail or authors pointing it out?
In this instance, I was thinking of the author you cite who feels that she is not safe to state her opinions on racism under her real/writing name. Would the site/publication for which she reviews give her backup? Would it defend her, would it give her PR help if one of her reviews was turned into a firestorm?
Because if they wouldn't, I can certainly see why she'd pick a different pseudonym to write those reviews under. But I don't see one writer with multiple noms de plume as the same as a sock puppeteer. The former is often reacting to the market, such as Jo Rowling hiding her gender, while my experience is that the latter is trying to get the chosen area to react to *them.*
yes... unfortunately for any people on the disprivileged end of the status quo
*nods* I'm not saying there *shouldn't* be a reaction/consequences, especially for the people who were posting names and addresses. It's just... once again, I've seen a lot of boycotts fizzle like a damp firecracker. And it's so terribly easy to mistake the couple of hundred of people who are involved online with the many thousands of people who are also part of sales and ratings, etc.
You should read more widely (from about the eighteenth century onwards). ;-P
A palpable touch! *another bronx cheer*
That said... if today's cell phones had been around two generations ago, there would be no more questions about the grassy knoll.
To be more serious, neither anonymity nor a sock name is any kind of defense in a world where people are determined to "out" people to the point of names and addresses.