Hullo, all.



I must say that I was very hesitant to post here, since I've seen the way some 'discussions' can go and I'm not quite sure what I can say to make everyone understand that I am not -- in any way, shape or form -- trying to start any sort of wank here. But I have a couple of points I'd like to put forward and a couple of questions to ask, and there's really no way to do it other than to just do it.

So, here goes.

First, I would like to commend those who go to the trouble to run these awards, those who give of their time and their effort and, in some cases, their money to see it continue. I have not been active in these awards in the past and, though I've heard plenty about how they are run and by whom, what I saw during my experience with them has been beyond reproach. I think these awards are run by honest people who really do operate with the intent of recognising authors who excel in their craft.

I think the only 'glitch' in the entire system that I saw up until the very end of the process was that I never got an email telling me I'd been nominated; the person who nominated one of my fics saw me on the list of those who had not yet accepted their nominations and wrote me to tell me. (And this actually was a little worrisome, because I write under two different names -- both of which had something nominated -- have two different email addresses on two different servers, one of which has no SPAM filters, so I know that the email was not, in fact, sent. I was also told last year by a friend that she had nominated two of my stories and I was never notified of those, either, though I didn't find that out until well after the deadline. This might be something the Committee should look into.)

Now, I will admit that I was a little leery of participating in these awards, just because of all of the things I'd heard about them. Mike Kellner and I had a big, long email discussion a couple of years ago, during which we exchanged opinions over why the 'Hobbit People' (of which I am one) seem to have so many problems with the process, and he told me at the time that real attempts were being made to clear up misunderstandings, but I wasn't sure if there had been any progress. Plus, my limited experiences with HA and HASA were not entirely pleasant, so I really had to sit down and think about it when I was made aware I had nominations.

But, the thing is, if no one ever gave it a chance, the 'Hobbit People' would keep believing what they believed, even if every one of their former complaints were rendered moot, right? How can you know unless you try? So, I figured that if I had the same experiences I'd heard from others, I just wouldn't participate again; if I saw nothing but honesty and a real desire to make the system work for everyone, I'd let others know. And as far as the process itself goes, the latter is exactly what I found. I don't know about others, but I believe everyone involved in this has the very best of intentions and tries their hardest to make sure it's all run fairly and smoothly.

But.

(And you probably knew there'd be one.)

I think there is actually a problem and I think the comment I received is indicative of what I saw as that problem before even accepting my nominations.

Now, I understand that judging is all on a voluntary basis and I also understand that judges are human and therefore subjective. But judging, by its nature, should at least attempt objectivity and those who put those volunteers into a position where they are asked to judge should be responsible for making sure those volunteers are capable of doing the job they've been assigned as fairly and as objectively as possible. Those judges should have a better knowledge of canon than most, a more-than-passing familiarity with the subject matter and characterisations they propose to judge, a good background in writing and a great deal of knowledge of grammar and the more technical aspects of writing. Otherwise, they really aren't fit to judge any writing, let alone what is referred to as 'The Best In Tolkien Fanfiction'.

Before I go on, let me say that I know a lot of you don't know me and have no reason to take what I say and believe it as truth; however, I would also remind you that there is also no reason to take what I say and immediately dismiss it as untruth. And I realise that you will either believe what I am about to say or you won't and there's very little I can do to convince you that I'm being perfectly frank and honest; all I can say is that I am and I hope you will hear me out:

I didn't expect to win. In any of the categories for which I was nominated. I didn't even expect second- or third-place. I expected exactly what I got, which was a couple of my nominations stopping at the semi-final level and an honourable-mention for those that made it into the finals. Please believe me when I say that even that was more than I expected and I was honestly happy with it. And truly, as far as I could tell (and I checked out the competition, because, duh) it was exactly the way it should have happened. Considering those fics of mine under consideration and those fics of others' against which they were being considered, I'd have been both surprised and maybe even a little disappointed if I'd actually won. I know I'm not the best writer out there and if I do have one, true, honest talent, it's recognising, appreciating and admiring greater talent in others. So, none of what I am about to say comes from disappointment or bitterness at not winning. Which, again, you will believe or you won't, and there's rather little I can do about that besides present my case.

I suppose I should do that now, eh?

*deep breath*

Okay, one of the things I was really looking forward to was the comments on those fics of mine that made it into the finals. I find objective opinions from people who don't know me and don't necessarily care how I feel about what they say to be extremely valuable, in that they tend to be more straightforward and blunt -- in other words, more useful. I know I sometimes tend towards using adjectives to a nauseating extreme -- a rather purplish blind-spot I have that I normally don't see until I pick up something that's a year or two old and cringe. I am also aware that I sometimes put my favourite character up on a bit of a Saint Frodo pedestal. So, I was really interested to hear the critique on my nominated fics and was looking forward to maybe learning a thing or two about my writing that I didn't already know.

Except this is what I got:

"Reckoning"

"Good use of detail, believable dialogue, solid characterisations."

"This is for the most part a very strong story with a few distortions of character. Why, in the 'regular warren' that was Brandy Hall, would Merry pick only Frodo to depend on as a child scared of the dark? This is never explained, nor is it necessary to justify their later friendship. During the first pages Sam comes across quite stupid, however in the (very well paced) climactic scenes he is well and convincingly written. Merry and Pippin are for the most part well drawn, however Tolkien wrote nothing to make it seem likely that Merry would insist on not being called 'Mister', as Sam's elevation to Mayor and Master of Bag End did not make him the social equal of a Brandybuck. I don't know where Merry would have gotten any idea of 'sanctified grace'; he might think of 'grace' perhaps, as that would be part of the medieval vocabulary of Rohan, in its original meaning of gratuitous kindness by a sovereign towards a subject. Sam's explanation of Frodo is (for th! e most part) brilliant, but Merry's conclusion that Frodo castigated himself for 'failure to die' makes no sense at all. Is this story a satire on Merry? Nor is it credible that Pippin, having been face to face with Sauron through the Palantir, could ever entertain the thought that a world in which Frodo had tried to 'keep' the Ring could be other than a nightmare. I like the parts of this story that I like a great deal, and wish that the lapses from sense were fewer."

What I wish is that the reviewer did not walk into this story with so many of his/her own ideas about the right and wrong ways to tell it.

I was disappointed, to say the least. And if you can't tell why, let me go through this, point-by-point, so that you can understand. I won't lie -- this is a little bit of self-indulgence and some of my responses are a bit on the yes-of-course-I'm-disillusioned side, but I think the points are valid and demonstrate what I see as a real problem with a system that's otherwise well-run with admirable intent.



"Good use of detail, believable dialogue, solid characterisations."

This is for the most part a very strong story with a few distortions of character.

-- Er… thanks?

Why, in the 'regular warren' that was Brandy Hall, would Merry pick only Frodo to depend on as a child scared of the dark? This is never explained, nor is it necessary to justify their later friendship.

--Why does it require an explanation? Is it something that's that difficult to believe? Tolkien exposed a relationship wherein Merry loved his cousin enough to watch him for seventeen years and then walk away from his home and into danger for him; why is it so difficult to believe that there was a bond while they were growing up? Does that sort of devotion come out of nowhere? And why is it necessary to give a detailed backstory that Tolkien didn't even provide in order for that bond to be believable?

And no, I don't think it was necessary to 'justify' their later relationship because that relationship is already justified by canon; it was necessary to the history Merry had with the clock and as such, it served its purpose.

During the first pages Sam comes across quite stupid, however in the (very well paced) climactic scenes he is well and convincingly written.

--I'm not sure what fic this reviewer was reading, but Sam wasn't even in the first few pages and when he does enter the story, he has a conversation during which he merely expresses to Merry that he doesn't know where a certain clock came from. His dialogue is no different when he enters the story than it is when he exits it, so how not knowing the origin of one of Frodo's personal items makes him 'stupid' is quite frankly beyond me.

Merry and Pippin are for the most part well drawn, however Tolkien wrote nothing to make it seem likely that Merry would insist on not being called 'Mister', as Sam's elevation to Mayor and Master of Bag End did not make him the social equal of a Brandybuck.

--Um… so? It's that unbelievable that Merry would prefer to eschew propriety -- assuming he holds with such things in the first place, which is certainly not a given -- and wish to be on more familiar terms with someone who carried his cousin up a mountain and made sure he didn't die?

I don't know where Merry would have gotten any idea of 'sanctified grace'; he might think of 'grace' perhaps, as that would be part of the medieval vocabulary of Rohan, in its original meaning of gratuitous kindness by a sovereign towards a subject.

--First of all, anyone who has taken even a fundamental course in creative writing would know that anachronism is a legitimate device of the narrative and that authors are allowed to use them in exposition; now, if a character actually speaks a word that's anachronistic, that's a different story. However, since we are in fact dealing with a fantasy world that boasted tea, silk, coffee and various other 'anachronistic' items, I'd say the term itself is pretty fluid and no one can say exactly what belongs and what doesn't. And since none of us are writing in Westron and referring to our characters as 'Maura' and 'Kalimac', we're pretty much all winging it, aren't we? I can't believe there was no Westron word for either 'sanctified' or 'grace' and for someone to not only assume the reverse but judge something 'wrong' because of it is incredibly short-sighted and biased.

All of that being said, 'grace' is circa 1100; 'sanctity' and 'sanctified' are circa 1600 -- both of these words, within the strictest constraints of anachronism, are proper in the ways I have used them.

Sam's explanation of Frodo is (for th! e most part) brilliant, but Merry's conclusion that Frodo castigated himself for 'failure to die' makes no sense at all. Is this story a satire on Merry?

--If this person had actually paid attention to the story and Merry's characterisation, I doubt they'd have the bad taste to ask that question -- superior and facetious undertones notwithstanding. Merry's conclusion is not exactly far-fetched to a reasonable and open mind, considering Frodo's words and reactions on Mount Doom in the aftermath of the destruction of the Ring and further considering his actions once he reached home post-Quest. Fanfic writers extrapolate -- that's the point of fanfic -- and Merry's conclusion was an extrapolation of what exists in the text and in The Letters; this reviewer's failure to understand or 'get' how that conclusion was made is not only anomalous but fairly indicative of the reviewer's unwillingness to allow a story to lead him/her to its own conclusions and not inflict his/her own as a guideline.

If the reviewer simply didn't believe it -- fine. That's a legitimate reaction and the risk an author takes when posting his/her work for public consumption or when allowing it to be scrutinised for awards purposes. Not everyone is going to 'get' everything and I wouldn't expect anyone to. What I do expect is that a person who places him-/herself in a position of judgement should at least entertain the possibility of doing so with an open mind.

Nor is it credible that Pippin, having been face to face with Sauron through the Palantir, could ever entertain the thought that a world in which Frodo had tried to 'keep' the Ring could be other than a nightmare.

--Again, the reviewer is inflicting his/her own preconceptions onto a story he/she is supposed to be judging as objectively as possible. How does anyone know what went on between Pippin and Sauron in the Palantír, besides what was exposed in the text? And what is in the text is so slim that one really can't take what was -- yes -- probably a horrific experience and declare it fact, because it's not exposed in the text as horrific.

But again, that's a little beside the point, because what Pippin says and does here is not the least bit unrealistic, despite whatever past experience he may or may not have had.

This reviewer has obviously never put him-/herself in the shoes of one watching a loved one die in great pain and still wishing for a few wild moments that the person remain here, regardless of the consequences; this reviewer has obviously never entertained the notion that when one is faced with losing someone he/she loves desperately, amazingly selfish, irrational thoughts can sometimes flit through that person's mind, with no real intent of follow-through.

Pippin's mouth runs away with him for a moment and he says something he doesn't mean -- he even says he didn't mean it and immediately regrets having said it at all. One doesn't need to have lived a similar experience to understand how someone might blurt something of this nature in a moment of stress; one needs only to look at it objectively and acknowledge that different people have different reactions to different situations and none of those reactions are the 'right' ones.



This is a person who is neither qualified nor objective enough to be placed in a position of judgement. And if the person who wrote this review is out there and reading, I'm sorry and none of this is meant to be mean-spirited, but you really aren't. Because too much of the above review is based on assumptions that are factually wrong. And to be perfectly frank, I expected a lot more from this experience than to have my work judged by someone who knows less about it than I do.

Now, again -- there is subjectivity because humans are subjective and there's no way around that. And there will be those who don't like something (or even everything) I write or will disagree with bits of it and so forth. And honestly, it can be informative and educational to receive intelligent critique from someone who doesn't like something I've written, and when that's happened, I really enjoy the debate aspect of the whole thing.

But there is no debate here and there is no critique -- none of what this reviewer says is helpful to the writing process, except that I now know that this person knows nothing about these characters, yet still has his/her own very set ideas on what their morals/beliefs/reactions/behaviours should have been, and has a stringent set of plot-points he/she might go along with. Which would only be helpful if I planned on writing everything I do from now on specifically for this reviewer. I don't even know what this person thought about the writing, and isn't the writing the whole point? The only thing I've learned from this is that this reviewer thinks he/she is a lot more educated than he/she has exposed him-/herself to be and not only did they discount words and points based on that lack of education, they didn't even bother to check their own facts and canon first to make sure they were right.

And really -- shouldn't we all expect more from an organisation that says it represents 'The Best'?

Thank you for listening.

Carole
(Aratlithiel/Daffodil Bolger)