neadods | Repeating Myself, with added eyerolling

Repeating Myself, with added eyerolling

There are now apparently six comms dedicated to critiquing the nominees for the Children of Time awards, so many run by sock puppets that the latest stakes its claim to fame specifically as the non-sock comm. (Why does CoT continue to soak up this nonsense? It's not like there are multiple comms SMOFing about

calufrax recs.)

I'm going to take this opportunity to repeat myself: by openly posting reviews under my name, I have gotten work. Semi-professional work. (Reviewing the Evidence, I Love a Mystery Newsletter) Paying work. (Once Written, Firefox News) Even the stuff that doesn't pay in cash or goods (Unreality SF) is adding to my portfolio so I can get more work (and things are being negotiated for future lines).

Four years of negative reviews in Reviewing the Evidence, and I have yet to be spit on or run out of (or even shunned at) Malice Domestic or Bouchercon. It hasn't been six days since I looked a professional author right in the eyes and explained why I gave her next-to-latest book a partially negative review. Mary Stanton was amazingly cool about it. We had a long conversation about those points in her series and her plans.

So frankly y'all, I have LESS than no sympathy for anyone who thinks that they "have" to hide their identity to "honestly" give an opinion.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

IAWTC

Yesterday I was told by a black author that she can't risk publishing her book reviews under her professional name because they include critiques of racism and she believes, especially post-RaceFail, people's reactions would srsly damage her career as an author. I've seen her reviews. They're mild and polite. There're crazy reactions from people, including Big Name Authors. Pseudonymity is a necessity for some people for excellent reasons.

Pseudonymity is a necessity for some people for excellent reasons.

*Pseudonymity* or *anonymity*? Different concepts.

If there's one trope I've seen play over and over in fandom, going all the way back to Star Wars, is that the fans were more upset about revealed sock commentators by a major factor than they were about negative reviews in the first place. Part was the inevitable shock of finding out that a friend was stabbing them in the back under cloak of anonymity, and a lot of it was the attitude of "if you're going to say that by writing *we're* open to any and all scrutiny, how come *you're* an exempt special snowflake?"

Pseudonymity is different in my eyes because so many people online use pseudonyms as identities. It's not so much the question of "is that your real name" as "does x stand for a person, and does that person stand for what they think?" If there's a background and a history, it doesn't matter if that's the same name that's on someone's driver's license. (Sock puppetry doesn't count as a pseud because the whole point of the sock is to have no history.)

she believes, especially post-RaceFail, people's reactions would srsly damage her career as an author.

Three comments there, to be expanded later because I have to get to work:

1 - There's a long history of authors using different pseudonyms for different types of writing. Who does she write for; what is their opinion on the subject and what do they offer their writers in terms of backup?

2 - Despite all the anger and resolutions to "never buy the work of X again!" I'm honestly wondering how much RaceFail is going to impact those author's bottom lines. I've seen a lot of righteous anger that burns itself out within a publishing cycle.

3 - One thing I have *never* seen is anonymous reviewing end well. Can't think of a single instance, whereas I've seen plenty of (read: all but about two) anon things flaming out.

a lot of it was the attitude of "if you're going to say that by writing *we're* open to any and all scrutiny, how come *you're* an exempt special snowflake?"

I think that's the heart of the matter right there, and that's exactly why, as you say, these things are never going to end well.

In what way is an idea or a series of ideas, such as a review, less open to scrutiny when it's presented without a name/pseudonym attached?

By being anon, the reviewer is not taking responsibility for his/her statements, and the reader inevitably asks why the reviewer saw the need to disown those statements. It raises a lot of questions about motivation, reliability, etc.

By being anon, the reviewer is not taking responsibility for his/her statements

I don't understand. What "responsibility" is specific to non-anonymous reviews?

the reader inevitably asks why the reviewer saw the need to disown those statements.

This reader doesn't. This reader is more interested in engaging with the ideas than the personality behind them.

It raises a lot of questions about motivation, reliability, etc.

The motivation for posting any review in an accessible form is to enable it to be accessed by people who want to read it, no? It doesn't force anyone to interact with the ideas in the review unless they choose to do so.

Why do you believe an anonymous review is usually more or less reliable than a review from a pseudonymous reviewer or a review from a legal-name reviewer? And, if you don't, what question of reliability did you mean?

I realise this comment will possibly appear argumentative to you but it's not intended that way. I honestly want to try to understand your pov because it's so different to mine.

Just to bring an example: When you see one of those full-page ads in the paper supporting or condemning something, you look to see who signed it. If it's a list of people you recognize and respect, you tend to give it credence. If there are no signatures, you might scratch your head and say, "Well, they might be right, or they might be a bunch of wackos with an axe to grind." Yes, you can "engage with the ideas," but you're likely to try to do that by seeking more reliable, non-anonymous opinions and information.

Even if the anon reviewer has no axe to grind, the very act of being anonymous raises the question -- you're starting from a compromised position. WIth reviews, the only way for me to assess the fairness of a reviewer is to go out and read the reviewed fic and then evaluate the review -- which defeats the purpose of a review, which is to guide people toward fic they might want to read. (At least, that's my purpose in reading them, and I imagine many others as well.)

I don't rly agree with your first example. I think I'd be more likely to google for additional facts than take someone's word for X because even acknowledged experts tend to have personal biases that don't necessarily coincide with mine. But I understand that many people are swayed by personalities and rhetoric as much or more than facts and also that many people would dismiss anons in those circumstances out of hand.

WIth reviews, the only way for me to assess the fairness of a reviewer is to go out and read the reviewed fic and then evaluate the review -- which defeats the purpose of a review, which is to guide people toward fic they might want to read. (At least, that's my purpose in reading them, and I imagine many others as well.)

::nods understanding::

I can see how that might be especially true inside a community context, such as fandom, where a reader might know more of a reviewer than merely their reviews.

I have yet to find a reviewer who reliably likes the same fiction as me, in any context, so I tend to favour description in reviews over opinion reviewing if I'm seeking fiction to read although I do enjoy reviews which critique too when I'm engaged with the critique in its own right (whether or not I've read the work being critiqued).

Thank you.

I think I'd be more likely to google for additional facts than take someone's word for X because even acknowledged experts tend to have personal biases that don't necessarily coincide with mine.

I think in many cases it's a combination. You try to inform yourself as best you can, but in the end, some issues are too complex for the layperson to judge. But at that point it becomes a stupid analogy for fic reviewing because fic reviewing is not global warming. So....never mind. ;-)

Why do you believe an anonymous review is usually more or less reliable than a review from a pseudonymous reviewer or a review from a legal-name reviewer?

I believe anonymous reviews are less reliable because if the review is coming from an anon instead of an established name (real or pseud) you don't know if the review is what the reviewer really thinks or if it's an attempt to spike a writer the reviewer has a grudge against/cramp a writer the reviewer considers too tough competition/or is even simply a means of causing wankery in the fandom for the puppeteer's amusement. (The Jundland Wastes reviewer was guilty of the first two, repeatedly. She was eventually outed because people could match her negative reviews to people who'd disagreed with her or edged her out to get published.)

There's also the question of a track record; when it's an unknown number of people using the same sock name/pseud, you have no idea if Review A, which you agreed with, is really tied to Review B, which was judged by a different person's criteria. (For example, there was a Post reviewer who I found an almost 100% accurate barometer for me. If he loved a movie, I'd hate it, and vice versa. After a while it didn't matter if he called himself Tom Shales or Constant Reader; I knew what to expect and how to scale my reaction accordingly. If it had been Tom, Dick, and Harry all writing under the same name, I would have not been able to rely on the reviews.)

Hmm. It can't be judged in the context of the poster's other previous and later words, because it can't be connected to their work under their more common name(s).

That can be a benefit when someone wants just that piece of writing judged on its own stand-alone merits, without readers being affected by their own knowledge of the writer's other work and views and personality. (That halo effect, where people tend to bump up their assessment of how well someone they like does everything and downgrade their opinions of the accomplishments of those they dislike.)

The downside of course being that readers don't go into it with the advance warning that the author is a known dumbass who's expressed some horrendous opinions in the past and who may have learned from the previous resulting dogpiles how to camouflage their own less acceptable thoughts on the matter. Or that they're known to be intelligent people with earned credibility on this topic and others, who may be inadvertently streamlining some of their arguments because they're used to everyone being so familiar with the ground they've already themself covered. Or that they earned a bad rep in their brash n00b days that they haven't been allowed to outgrow even though they've genuinely matured since then.

So... you're saying the main, erm, let's call it a "disadvantage", as you see it, is that an anonymous review would have to be judged on its own internal merits? Cos that doesn't seem a suitable cause for hand-wringing to me... but possibly I'm being obtuse (it has been known)?

That was me thinking out loud, so to speak.

Like I noted, an "advantage" in terms of getting rid of the halo effect -- which cuts two ways, in terms of the unpopular with something intelligent to say getting heard on their statements' merits rather than automatically dogpiled by their enemies, and in terms of BNFs who may have grown lazy discovering that they don't get an automatic chorus of enthusiastic agreement when their name isn't attached.

A "disadvantage" in terms of the reader not having that baseline awareness of the author's known biases and previous statements, and of the author being able to make disingenuous statements under the cover of anonymity. (I think that latter is edging towards the border between true anonymity and sockpuppetry. Not actually saying what they honestly feel and are merely hampered by fear of retribution from speaking under their own name, but rather deliberate manipulation of public opinion through calculated dishonesty.)

That all seems reasonable to me, yes.

deliberate manipulation of public opinion through calculated dishonesty

Oh, I LIKE that! It sums up my opinion quite tidily of socks in general... and it's hard to see what the "good" of a sock puppet can be when you've seen the bad of socks and anons. (Including the anon meme; as far as I can tell from people talking about it, it's not at all mean to people except the people it's mean to, and it's not at all going to turn on the people who love it, except for the times that it does.)

Or, to say it shortly: when posting anonymously is too wanky for Fandom Wank, it is well past what a reasonable fan would consider reasonable discourse.

ETA: The only reason I haven't replied to your comments is I don't want to type IAWTC that many times. :)

Edited 2009-05-07 22:36 (UTC)

I'm definitely playing devil's advocate here -- I don't doubt that you've seen anonymity play out in horrifically wanky ways in fandom many times in the past, as it gets used as a cover for grudges and as anonymice get outed. But I'm also in agreement with the premise that sometimes an author comes with too much baggage for anyone to pay attention to their message if their name is attached, and that anonymity is another layer protecting someone from retribution for their statements on- or offline.

And I'm seriously vested in the premise that a longstanding pseudonym counts as a genuine identity. (I just googled FyrDrakken vs. my RL name again to check my results. That's six pages of FyrDrakken results all of which were me (I got tired of scanning and didn't check the later pages) and nine pages on my RL name that weren't me before I quit reading.) It's definitely worth noting that we all make the distinction between a "genuine" pseudonym/fanname/userID and a sock puppet.

In what way is an idea or a series of ideas, such as a review, less open to scrutiny when it's presented without a name/pseudonym attached?

I agree with a lot of what

stoplookingup says in this thread; it's an accountability issue. Yes, you can look at a statement and say "this is persuasive" and "this is not" - but at the same time, you don't know if a sock is taking advantage of shucking their name to perpetuate a personal grudge. Or if they want to game the fandom because they don't give a damn about what they say; they're going to pop up in another identity and prod in the other direction just to get everyone else to jump. (Via a good friend, I was front row for the Rat Patrol meltdown in which one very dedicated puppeteer created thousands of socks and swarmed it.)

Also, I notice that the people who feel free-est to be vilest in comments are the ones who are going anon, in any blog on the web.

Hang on - I've got a *lot* of reading to catch up on now!

I think that's the heart of the matter right there

In a nutshell, yeah.

While it's awesome that it's safe for you to share your thoughts, it's not safe for everyone. I don't think it excuses rudeness at who_anon or anywhere else, but, when people are tracking pseudonyms to real names and posting addresses online, I think anonymity is a legitimate option. The ideas are important, regardless of the source.

The only consequence to the racefail writers that posted personal information or defended questionable practices might be bruised egos, quickly soothed by friends or sycophants or Hugo awards. However, the consequences to authors and readers of color and fandom as a whole is much worse. Backlash on top of the original fail.

Edited 2009-05-07 14:39 (UTC)

when people are tracking pseudonyms to real names and posting addresses online, I think anonymity is a legitimate option.

Except that when people are that dedicated to finding out who someone is, anonymity is a short-term option. I haven't known a lot of sock puppets who managed to hold onto their identity for all that cosmically long.

The ideas are important, regardless of the source.

I'd love to agree in theory, but I've got friends in LoTR fandom and have heard about their difficulty, and a good friend was in Rat Patrol before the sock brought it down. One person, just one puppeteer was the source of both offense and defense AND the lurkers supporting both in email. (The LotR puppeteer created hundreds; the RP puppeteer created thousands. This is, incidentally, why I remain convinced that the anon meme has maybe a dozen people actually active in it, tops.)

When you don't know who is spouting the idea; if they mean it or if they just mean to make trouble, it does make a difference. Especially if someone is hiding behind their anonymity to dogpile someone they have a grudge against. Hear about the Dead Sea Scroll guy? He socked one of his own opponents; went online under a close pseudonym and "made" his hated opponent "confess" to being a plagiarist, among other crimes.

*Extremely* important to know the source of that idea!

When there is a real risk of offline harassment, the choice is being silent or being unsafe. I'm glad posting your real name isn't a problem for you and admire people that take the risk, but I would rather not know a name or pseudonym, if it means that people wouldn't participate in fandom or speak out.

I don't suggest every anonymous thing is worth reading or that it shouldn't be kept in perspective, but the same can be said for posts with names attached. As we all know, posting under a steady name doesn't stop grudges or lies or generally sucking the fun out of fandom. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for compassion or change or apologies or actual responsibility, named or not.

I see what you're saying about abusing trust or ulterior motives, but people have been accused of elaborate sockpuppetry even when their identities were clear, their tones mild, and their messages heartfelt. I wouldn't blame them for not trusting anyone on the internet with their legal identity or for keeping interests under separate accounts.

Edited 2009-05-08 16:02 (UTC)

the same can be said for posts with names attached

That's very true.

At the same time, I can't help but think about offline harassment, this fortnight before MediaWest. MediaWest is where a lot of the Beauty and the Beast war was fought in person.

*Pseudonymity* or *anonymity*? Different concepts.

That overlap. "Anonymous" is a popular pseudonym. ;-P

If there's one trope I've seen play over and over in fandom, going all the way back to Star Wars, is that the fans were more upset about revealed sock commentators by a major factor than they were about negative reviews in the first place. Part was the inevitable shock of finding out that a friend was stabbing them in the back under cloak of anonymity, and a lot of it was the attitude of "if you're going to say that by writing *we're* open to any and all scrutiny, how come *you're* an exempt special snowflake?"

"Friends" backstabbing is, indeed, painful but, as you so neatly summarise, the pain is from the stabbing and the failure of anonymity not from maintained anonymity. It's also entirely possible to review/critique work without backstabbing or friendship being involved. An idea or a series of ideas, such as a review, is clearly not less open to scrutiny when it's presented without a name/pseudonym attached (which I presume is why you put that opinion into the hypothetical mouths of some other fans via " " instead of claiming it yourself). ;-P

As you know, you and I have different social models of fandom in our heads. You have far more "friends" (to various definitions of "friends") and more investment in them than I do. ::shrugs::

1 - There's a long history of authors using different pseudonyms for different types of writing. Who does she write for; what is their opinion on the subject and what do they offer their writers in terms of backup?

Backup for authore committing RaceFail or authors pointing it out?

2 - Despite all the anger and resolutions to "never buy the work of X again!" I'm honestly wondering how much RaceFail is going to impact those author's bottom lines. I've seen a lot of righteous anger that burns itself out within a publishing cycle.

The status quo does tend to be most successfully defended by relying on human inertia, yes... unfortunately for any people on the disprivileged end of the status quo.

3 - One thing I have *never* seen is anonymous reviewing end well. Can't think of a single instance, whereas I've seen plenty of (read: all but about two) anon things flaming out.

You should read more widely (from about the eighteenth century onwards). ;-P

Comment conclusion
I understand that you're mostly thinking and talking about intra-fandom behaviour in your original post but you then widened your examples to include all reviewing and, no, in that context your points aren't valid beyond a small subset of people including yourself but excluding almost every reviewer I know whether professional or amateur. And I know you were told similar before by more than one person in response to your previous similar post on this subject.

To go backwards,

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.

While I agree with some of the individual points you're trying to make, you aren't managing to construct them into a valid all-encompassing argument as you appear to believe you're doing.

Me (for context): I know you were told similar before by more than one person in response to your previous similar post on this subject.

You: Yes, but I obviously don't agree.

I can't force you to acknowledge hundreds of years of reviewing history, clearly, but not doing so is making you repeatedly appear foolish in public. Your choice though. ::shrugs::

I am learning a lesson from this post. It's not the one I'm supposed to be learning, but it's sinking in.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Repeating Myself, with added eyerolling

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject