From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: "vicious, sniping, mean-spirited, and arrogant" (was Re: Why is PAD...)
Summary: Another arrogant and elistist posting from Mr. Steve
Organization: Inland Sea
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 15:42:05 GMT

djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:

>People at conventions, people who write to the loccol, know that their words 
>will be read by the people who they're discussing.  People who write for RAC
>don't make that assumption, unless they're writing about PAD [who checks in
>here purt regular] or Harlan Ellison [who has his well-known spy among us].

>One of the things I used to admire about Timbo Maroney was that he *did* write
>about PAD exactly the same way he wrote about writers who weren't online.  I
>didn't agree with a lot of what he said, but that's not the point.

Dan'l mentioned elsewhere that the Compuserve groups didn't seem to
have the same amount of "vicious, sniping, mean-spirited, and arrogant"
commentary, and that many more creators subscribe.

It's not clear to me which is cause and which is effect.  To cite an
example from real life . . .

I used to be a big-time SF reader.  Through no particular goodness on
my part, my tastes changed to where I could no longer tolerate any junk
just because it happened to be SF.  That's not to say I developed any
taste, merely opinions. :-)

A lot of my friends are SF readers in the same boat (Oh God, we're all
turning 40 this year).  When we get together in private and discuss the
latest books, we're quite frank -- one might say brutal -- in our
opinions.  "Well, now that she's a big name she's moving all the stuff
that was laying around in the reject pile."  "Must have had some big
bills come due."  "Hasn't he written this story before?  Twice?"

We also have some friends who are writers of the stuff.  When alone, we
speak as frankly of their works.  But when in their presence we trim our
sails and make value-neutral comments.  This isn't to say we suck up;
we're polite to our friends.  Much the same way you'll make a neutral
comment about a co-workers horrid haircut -- you're respecting their
feelings without giving false encouragement.

This is not to say I will not criticize the works of friends.  But when
making such criticisms, *as a friend* I owe them much more detail about
*why* my opinions are as they are.  This is a fair amount of work, and
often it's not worth the effort -- some of these folks are just plain
hacks, and as such aren't interesting to me as a reader.  So unless I
feel that my remarks are going to be of significant use to the writer,
I don't make any remarks.  Again, not sucking up but the rather the
thoughfulness owed to a friend.

This is a generally true situation.  People are simply politer face to
face than they are in a more "private" situation.

r.a.c.m feels the same way.  With very few creators on the newsgroups,
we speak frankly, bluntly, and yes, arrogantly.  When a creator shows
up and makes an effort to participate, people gain some measure of
respect for that person and begin to temper their criticism.  When I
do the Good Week reviews and find a book with bad plots, I say "bad
plot" and that's about it.  But if it's a Peter David book, I feel
obligated to say a bit more as to why.  There are two reasons.  One is
that he is here and reading so I feel more of a need to justify my
opinion.  The other is that he has demonstrated he listens and responds
to valid criticm, and as such I owe him a more detailed statement.

But that kind of detail is real work.  So often his books don't get
reviewed by me.

Getting back to the original point, Compuserve seems to do a good job
of seeding their discussion groups by getting relevant people to
participate.  At one time they gave away accounts to appropriate people.
In either case, the creators are there from (almost) from the start.
This has a moderating effect on the discussions, and generates a
collegial rather than adversarial atmosphere.  As such, it is more
attractive to the creators, who bring in more creators, and a very nice
positive feedback results.

Another critical difference between CS and netnews is the cost.  When
colleges let out for Xmas, netnews volume drops tremendously.  This tells
me that a fairly large chunk of the participants aren't paying any
money for their news access.  As such, they aren't inhibited from massive
participation due to cost.  I think this makes them more willing to chime
in with trivia -- it costs nothing to say "me too".  Going back to the
private conversation analog, it's like six folks sitting in a circle:
the first person says "Boy, X's new book is really a dog" and three
people nod.  On compuserve, they nod at their terminals.  Here they
post.

Is there anything to be done about this?  Not really.  We just have to
accept that it's two different cultures, and decide where we want to be
and can afford to be as individuals.  Like Dan'l, I skip 70 to 90% of
r.a.c.m.  I can do this because my newsreader (nn) has great kill and
select features (anti-kill files -- all articles with a given topic or
by given authors are selected automaticly -- a great feature).  And
even though I'm reading at home, I don't pay for the connection or feed.
So throwing away 95% of the news that comes in is acceptable.
-- 
"When Dexter's on the Internet,    | "This is an ex-peanut."
 can Hell be far behind?"          |	   -- Mr. Peanut in "Monty Peanut's
      scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us	   |		Flying Circus"