Regarding Who reviews...

[carmen_lj]

If you read my Who episode reviews, you probably know I prefer Moffat Who to RTD Who and when writing up an ep will often make comparisons between the two, generally speaking in Moffat's favour cause, heh, I think it's better. I also prefer Williams to Hinchcliffe and Lambert to Wiles. And while I don't tend to name classic producer eras (except when hating on Hinchliffe, mostly done re new toy releases, though no-one complains about that), I will compare stuff in New Who favourably or unfavourably to stuff in classic. I did in RTD Who time too (and I don't remember anyone saying "stop comparing Doctor Who eras!" then either. Maybe they did and I missed it.)

If this is a problem for you, or harshing your squee or whatever, maybe skip the review? We are two and a half years into Moffat Who, and I've written something about every episode. It's not exactly a surprise I think in pretty much every respect Moffat is making better Who, and I ain't going to stop saying so.

ETA: And the stuff I talk about is relevant, because it's the first changeover of companions in Mofftiem and of course I, and other people, are going to be comparing it to the collossal fuck-up of what happened last time. It is not bashing to talk about what I don't like in a telly series I love, and yes, on the whole I do love RTD Who.

Please bear in mind that I am not going into anyone's journal telling them what to watch or how they are wrong or how to be a fan. I'm not having a go at anyone personally, either producers or fans in my posts. I'm not even talking about Who in a community. I am talking about my opinion of a television show in my journal. So I'd appreciate not being told what I should or shouldn't say in my own bloody space. Thanks.

ETA2: Just to respond to something specific that I can't now as it was deleted: many people may bemoan fans still watching the show despite not liking it any more while they criticise aspects of the show under the previous showrunner as they squee about new episodes but I AM NOT ONE OF THEM. So I don't see why this is aimed at me. Go right ahead and keep watching Who and hating it online! I don't care! It happens in every fandom, and it's something I particularly associate with Doctor Who since, heh, we've been hating on the show we love longer than most. So, please, take the complaint of double-standards to someone who's actually engaging in them.

ETA3: I mean, is it just RTD and Moffat that some would prefer I don't compare? Can I still have a go at Hinchcliffe (Hinchcliffe, who I say I hate btw, never said that about RTD)? Can I compare the writers and say I like Chibnall better than Gatiss? Can I explain why I think Evelyn is the worst companion ever? Why I hate Talons? Why Curse of Black Spot is cack? Is negativity permitted or is it just one must never express a strong pref re RTD and Moffat? ENQUIRING MINDS.

ETA4: I really am quite annoyed. I should go have some nice healthy pasta and pesto.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Oh, blimey. I disliked RTD Who, Ten, Rose and Donna, and I am not backward about saying so on my LJ. I am happy to be disagreed with (a friend of mine can be relied on to moan that all of new Who is dreadful the instant it is mentioned.) However, I have my reasons and you have your reasons and he has his reasons and all of them can be argued with some validity. I love your Who posts even when I disagree with them and think it would be a great shame if I agreed with you all of the time.

Disagreeing is fine. Telling someone to stop writing something is not. Period. As far as I am concerned, that's close to a comment banning offence...

[calapine.livejournal.com]

Not to stop writing, but to stop comparing stuff in Moffat Who to stuff in RTD Who where it reflects negatively on RTD. No mention if it's okay to go "Moffat that was shit, RTD did it better."

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I don't, to be honest, see the distinction. This commentator is telling you what to write/not to write. Fannish privilege at its worst.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Nobody gets to police your space but you. Period.

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

the stuff I talk about is relevant, because it's the first changeover of companions in Mofftiem and of course I, and other people, are going to be comparing it to the collossal fuck-up of what happened last time.

YES THIS. It's absolutely inviting comparison to the point where I think we'd be missing something out not to say "gosh, this is much better than That Other Time."

[calapine.livejournal.com]

No episode of Who is an island unto itself.

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

Except Ghost Light.

[eve11]

I always enjoy reading your reactions. Even if I don't post comments very much. :)

There are a lot of episodes where I go "I loved this!" and then proceed to take it down a few notches. This seems to be my default reaction for Moffat Who. And for most of RTD Who as well. It's always done under the auspices of the fact that I was entertained (and sometimes even somewhat enlightened!). If ever it gets boring I suppose I may drift away. Hasn't happened yet.

[ragdoll.livejournal.com]

But surely you know that the only time that rule is allowed is when you're comparing Moffat!Who to RTD!Who and telling everyone HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN RUSSELL WAS IN CHARGE! *eyeroll*

It's ridiculous for anyone to think that you shouldn't (or worse can't) compare and contrast things to things what have gone before. That's how reviews generally are structured -- otherwise, you've got no standard to go by.

I freely admit I tell people who can only criticise and only watch the show seemingly to bitch about how it's all shit, and they hate it now, and it's ruined, and Moffat Is The Anti-Christ who did it all, that if they're that unhappy, maybe they ought to stop watching, but then again, I tell that to any/all fans of any/all things because I truly don't understand why anyone would be that masochistic. If I stop loving something for whatever reason, I walk away from it and don't spend all my energy bitching at other people who still enjoy it. I don't see it as double standards to say 'if you really don't like this, why are you bothering with it?' *shrugs*

[calapine.livejournal.com]

I stuck with SPN for about three years after I stopped enjoying it and House for two, so I get that "it's hard to give up" thing and, besides, back in the day GB was my online Who hangout.

It's ridiculous for anyone to think that you shouldn't (or worse can't) compare and contrast things to things what have gone before.

Because you're being bitter or bashing and making people who liked the stuff you don't unhappy. But I *am* bitter about the stuff that went on with Martha and it's not bashing, I'm not 'hating' for the sake of it, it's perfectly legitimate, reasoned crit saying why I prefer one to the other. And *I'd* be unhappy if I felt I wasn't honestly epxressing my views on my jounral. And of course it's relevant! One of my big fears was that Moff, too, was going to mess up the changeover and it'd be a bit silly to tlak about it and not compare and just...arg!

I should go watch Elementary and coo over Joan's outfits or something.

[eve11]

and making people who liked the stuff you don't unhappy.

Yeah, that's their problem. Like you said, you're not going over to their journals and harshing their squee; you're writing about it in your space, and you are being critical, in the analytic sense of the word. Honestly, I'd say you don't even owe fandom that. There is no obligation to deconstruct one's preferences; it depends on why and how people want to interact with the show. I mean, scientifically speaking, there are facts, and then there are opinions about facts. TV critiques are mostly the latter. But I also think that it is possible within the shifting sands of subjectivity for one to defend against an attack of "you're just a hater" with evidence to the contrary, and I think you've got that argument covered pretty well.

[calapine.livejournal.com]

Quite, hence my being rather annoyed.

[calapine.livejournal.com]

But surely you know that the only time that rule is allowed is when you're comparing Moffat!Who to RTD!Who and telling everyone HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN RUSSELL WAS IN CHARGE! *eyeroll*

I have had both that complaint and that any comparisons btwn the two are fuelling some manner of fannish war. So while not all comparisons should stop....something else should happen of which I'm not sure.

[elisi]

I remember back in 'the good old days' [when RTD was in charge] and pretty much every review I read was a rant about how awful a, b, or c was. There was always something, and I did a lot of defending him back then, because I like the show, dammit. I even liked Tinkerbell!Doctor and EoT and everything. (Disliked 'Midnight' though, just to be the odd one out when everyone fell adoringly at his feet. Still dislike it, and for the same reasons.) I much prefer Moffat, but that's something else.

ETA: Useful Moffat quotes (from before he took over):

'Actually, that's not fair. Most fans are delighted with just about all of Doctor Who: really, they are. But mixed in with that are some insanely vocal ones who go on about how they hated it every single week. Which raises the question, "Why are you fucking watching it then?" Many of those guys used to support my episodes, but they already think I'll fuck it up completely now.'

[On fan reaction to him being appointed head writer] 'The fans might be big supporters now, but watch that change! Like I say, I've given myself a deadline for when I divorce myself from fandom completely, but already I've noticed changes: it's been like seeing a big ship turn. It's not in-your-face, but fan opinion is definitely shifting.'

[rhipowered.livejournal.com]

It's rather appalling that people are making value judgments about you because they disagree with your take on telly.

(Have just realized that all my showrunners, past and present, not just Who, piss me off. Hmmm.)

[calapine.livejournal.com]

It's rather appalling that people are making value judgments about you because they disagree with your take on telly.

I don't think it's quite like that. No-one's said "you're a shit person" or equivalent, and I don't think they think I am (er, I hope); it's more "bashing RTD in your Moffat reviews is making me sad, you should stop". Which I object to on the grounds that it's not bashing, it's crit and it's relevant. I'm not doing it for the kicks of having a go at RTD, I'm doing it because something in the current ep had made me think of something in another ep and comparing stuff is pretty normal, and, ffs, it's my journal and I'm not harrassing or having a go at anyone, I'm talking about my lovely telly show.

(Have just realized that all my showrunners, past and present, not just Who, piss me off. Hmmm.)

Have you seen classic Who? Verity Lambert? I mean she did think that all Who she didn't make was shit, but I can't remember anything really awful she's said.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

Is this related to my last journal post?

[calapine.livejournal.com]

Partially, yes. There were several things that prompted it. The thing I'm most referring to is a lengthy comment to my journal that I was unable to reply to due to the commenter deleting it.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

OK, seriously, on what planet does a wholly positive review of a Moffat episode rounded off with a suggestion that it might be "time to move on now, perhaps?" count as telling you (or anyone else) what they may or may not write about, or that you should stop, that you're a hater or harassing people or any of the other stuff you're saying?

This whole post and the bulk of the comments you've received really sum up why I dislike the whole RTD v Moffat fandom wars, which from my experience have cultivated an unpleasantly adversarial and hyperbolic atmosphere in fandom. I'm not even surprised with the folks above assuming you're talking about people who must hate Moffat and worship RTD because that fits in with "one side or the other" mood of fandom - who would ever imagine at least one of the people you're talking about has defended Moffat plenty, created a River Song comm (back when the hatred of her was vicious) and will NEVER tire of ranting about what RTD did to Donna or that woman who got made into a paving slab? No-one except me, because, well, it's me you're talking about, isn't it?

I've pretty much avoided DW fandom for the past few years precisely because I don't fit in for refusing to pick a side so I can't say I'm entirely sympathetic to how I'm supposedly bossing you around or something for being a bit fed up with the collective fannish inability to ever discuss Moffat without reference to RTD. (Not that no comparisons should be made ever! Just that I'd prefer to see Moffat judged independently a bit more!) And, yes, I absolutely stand by my opinion that this ongoing battle makes fandom less fun all around now you've taken my ever so mild comments, massively misrepresented them and held them up for scorn and ridicule - really not fun AT ALL.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

OK, seriously, on what planet does a wholly positive review of a Moffat episode rounded off with a suggestion that it might be "time to move on now, perhaps?" count as telling you (or anyone else) what they may or may not write about, or that you should stop, that you're a hater or harassing people or any of the other stuff you're saying?

Well, for me, because I like and respect you, and don't want to annoy you if I can possibly avoid it, I kind of took it seriously, and have been struggling with my post-episode post ever since.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

Well, it's lovely of you to say those things and I certainly have no desire to make your life difficult, but it seems this difficulty stems more from you being a considerate person rather than me being an awful one. I can relate to that and would be perfectly happy chat about it if that might help. Discussion and disagreement are cool, it's being cast as the villain of the piece I don't like.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

I don't think Calapine is casting you as the villain of the piece, so much as one of the triggers. I understand your perspective, but it's a bit much to make a post and then complain that people take it seriously.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

I would love it if people did take my post seriously and consider that a bit of a let-up in the ongoing RTD v Moffat wars might make fandom a bit more of a fun place, but based on current evidence that's even less likely than I imagined before I made my post.

[calapine.livejournal.com]

I've sent you a PM.

[calapine.livejournal.com]

OK, seriously, on what planet does a wholly positive review of a Moffat episode rounded off with a suggestion that it might be "time to move on now, perhaps?" count as telling you (or anyone else) what they may or may not write about, or that you should stop, that you're a hater or harassing people or any of the other stuff you're saying?

Sure, it's suggesting, not telling, I don't dispute that. But suggesting I don't compare one era of Doctor Who with another? Why? If I criticised Moffat and said RTD did it better, would that warrant the same suggestion? I often compare stuff in New Who to stuff in classic, should I move on from that too?

I didn't say you were calling me a hater or harrasser, and if I've implied that, then I'm sorry. I think the bit you're referring to in the post is where I'm trying to emphasise that I'm writing my opinion about the show in my own journal and I'm not, for instance, leaving comments in someone else's journal telling them how wrong they are for hating the show, and yet people are still telling me I'm harshing their squee for expressing my opnion in my journal under a cut. To which I say, wtf?

This whole post and the bulk of the comments you've received really sum up why I dislike the whole RTD v Moffat fandom wars, which from my experience have cultivated an unpleasantly adversarial and hyperbolic atmosphere in fandom. I'm not even surprised with the folks above assuming you're talking about people who must hate Moffat and worship RTD because that fits in with "one side or the other" mood of fandom - who would ever imagine at least one of the people you're talking about has defended Moffat plenty, created a River Song comm (back when the hatred of her was vicious) and will NEVER tire of ranting about what RTD did to Donna or that woman who got made into a paving slab? No-one except me, because, well, it's me you're talking about, isn't it?

I hope I've replied to comments reasonably and not encouraged that in this post, at least. But, no, it's not primarily you.

And, yes, I absolutely stand by my opinion that this ongoing battle makes fandom less fun all around now you've taken my ever so mild comments, massively misrepresented them and held them up for scorn and ridicule - really not fun AT ALL.

Again, can I just emphasise this: I may have found the PSA a bit annoying, but it was not the main cause of this post.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

But suggesting I don't compare one era of Doctor Who with another? Why? If I criticised Moffat and said RTD did it better, would that warrant the same suggestion? I often compare stuff in New Who to stuff in classic, should I move on from that too?

Saying I wish for a let up in constant RTD v Moffat warring =/= saying there should never be any comparisons, ever. I'd hazard a guess that you wouldn't think ever letting an episode go past without a plethora of complaints about who it's better than/not as good as Classic or not as good as RTD was terribly fun either - and I'd agree! I just find so much of fandom jumping on every oppportunity to tell us how superior the current showrunner to the last one every bit as unpleasant as all the other options would be.

I hope I've replied to comments reasonably and not encouraged that in this post, at least

If I criticised Moffat and said RTD did it better, would that warrant the same suggestion?

No mention if it's okay to go "Moffat that was shit, RTD did it better."

And no argument with, f'rinstance:

But surely you know that the only time that rule is allowed is when you're comparing Moffat!Who to RTD!Who and telling everyone HOW MUCH BETTER IT WAS IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN RUSSELL WAS IN CHARGE! *eyeroll*

Is absolutely portraying dislike of RTD v Moffat wars as mean-y RTD fans being mean. Because just as it's easier for you to rant about "never" being "allowed" to compare RTD v Moffat than a suggestion that maybe everyone doing it a bit less would be a good thing, it's easier to allow the facade that your only critics are RTD-stans, rather than people who actually sometimes like and sometimes dislike both RTD and Moffat. And this exageration and selective presentation is very much symptomatic of sectarian fannish thinking and it's horrible that saying anything about it gets you pulled into the crossfire.

[calapine.livejournal.com]

I'd hazard a guess that you wouldn't think ever letting an episode go past without a plethora of complaints about who it's better than/not as good as Classic or not as good as RTD was terribly fun either

If someone was making regular reviews where they were comparing aspects of Moffat Who and finding them lacking compared to RTD, I'd stop reading those reviews. I wouldn't make a suggestion that they stop writing them. They aren't ranting (I assume, I'm not, so I'm assuming an inverse of my views here), they aren't making personal attacks, they're expressing a view in their own journal about what they think of the episode.

If they were comparing Moffat constantly unfavourably to classic, I'd keep reading. I do read stuff that does that. It can get tiresome, but, again, unless someone's gone seriously over a line (into, for example, personal attacks or racism) suggesting they make a content change to their own space is, I think, quite rude.

Saying I wish for a let up in constant RTD v Moffat warring =/= saying there should never be any comparisons, ever

Okay, but I don't see how my comments are 'warring' (and I assume you were at least partially referring to me reviews in your post? Were you referring to my post? If so, which of my comments did you consider 'warring' rather than legitimate comparison?). I'm making a fairly specific comparison and saying why I think one's better than the other.

Is absolutely portraying dislike of RTD v Moffat wars as mean-y RTD fans being mean.

Yeah, it is. I should've said something.

it's easier to allow the facade that your only critics are RTD-stans, rather than people who actually sometimes like and sometimes dislike both RTD and Moffat

But, from my perspective, almost all the crap I've got in fandom *is* from RTD-stans. I've had insults, harrassment, a delightful email campaign of hate, outright lies told about me. Personal, hurtful stuff not because I attacked in a similar way but because I didn't like fictional characters and stories in the right way. So, yeah, people who read my journal are going to swing that way, since that's what's happened before.

And this exageration and selective presentation is very much symptomatic of sectarian fannish thinking and it's horrible that saying anything about it gets you pulled into the crossfire.

What? Not replying sufficiently diplomatically to one comment in my journal is your symptom here? Ffs. I'm am clearly pissed off in this post. I have explained that it is *not* aimed primarily at you, but at a comment left in my journal ranting at me and not giving me the opportunity to reply.

And I don't like this attitude that we all have to play nice and not say anything *too* negative, or we have to be *balanced* in our negativity or it's being horrid and/or a personal attack on the fans of the era we're being critical of. Or that it's tiresome and immature to have strong preferences. I don't like being told I'm on one side of a 'war' that I don't feel any part of, or that I should self-censor my thoughts on a television programme because someone else thinks I'm...what? firing torpedoes or something?

You got "pulled into the crossfire" (again, I'm not 'at war' with anyone, I'm expressing my opinion of my show in my journal in the same what I've been doing for seven years) because you made a post, a part of which I felt was aimed at me. I made a responding post, a part of which was aimed at you (and surely you can tell the bits that aren't? It does get pretty specific. No-one is going to read those bits and look at your post and actually think I'm talking about you) and I'm accused of casting you as a villain, of exaggeration and selective presentation, being party to a fannish war, fannish sectariansim and so on.

You suggest I not write about something. I say, no, I'm going to keep doing that, I'm annoyed at that suggestion, and maybe you should skip the review. The other bits, as I have explained quite a few times, are not about you.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

You suggest I not write about something

I don't like being told I ... that I should self-censor my thoughts

OK, let's go right back to what I actually said:

every time there's what might be a positive review of a Moffteim episode that's peppered with direct or indirect complaints about the previous showrunner it kills a bit of the happy I have from that episode. Just putting that out there - time to move on, perhaps?

A comment so mild if it were cheese even the mice would't be fussed by it. I didn't tell you what to do, or anyone else for that matter, what to do, just pointed out that there is a pattern in fandom that makes it less fun for me. So, yes, it IS a total exaggeration for you to pointedly and repeatedly accuse me of telling you what to do, or even suggesting you not write about things, and it IS selective presentation to frame the whole thing as coming from RTD-stans when you know very well that I'm not one.

And, yeah, I know you've had people be horrible to you in the past and I've always been on your side and even got into rows defending you. Which, you know, doesn't oblige you to anything (because that would be Nice Guy-weird and totally unfair) but it does make your attitude all the more hurtful to me. Of course you're not obliged to change anything because I mention it's part of* a general pattern in fandom I find unwelcoming and you don't have to treat my feelings as super-special and important either. But making it clear that by so much as mentioning how I feel I've annoyed you into issuing a public rebuke - yeah, that goes past "not playing nice" and into "am I really so worthless?"

*_{In fact I'd say you were a very, very small part of that pattern and the good things you contribute to fandom massively outweigh the bad and I would have told you that had you addressed my post by talking to me like a friend instead of going into full-on attack mode. (At least, I thought we were friend but maybe that's just a lj-terminology based misunderstanding on my part. If so, apologies for the presumption.)}

[calapine.livejournal.com]

A comment so mild if it were cheese even the mice would't be fussed by it.

I have aid this Kind Of A Lot ow but your post was a part and a minor part of what riled me up. I've said this in numerous comments. I've explained privately what the main problem was and you've completely ignored it.

even suggesting you not write about things

But that's exactly what you said! That's the implication of your post! What else does objecting to "complaints about the previous showrunner" in reviews and suggesting it's "time to move on" mean if not that? Sure, I could probably find some less provactive words, but the meaning's still the same.

it IS selective presentation to frame the whole thing as coming from RTD-stans when you know very well that I'm not one.

I was responding to the comments made to/about me, not thinking about larger fandom politics. I am sorry to have mischaracterised you by implication.

Of course you're not obliged to change anything because I mention it's part of* a general pattern in fandom I find unwelcoming and you don't have to treat my feelings as super-special and important either.

But it isn't a general pattern in fandom you were talking about. It's pretty specific: you singled out positive Moffat era episode reviews criticising the previous showrunner. Which I do a lot. And you suggested it was time to move on from that. Okay, the language is mild, sure. But you're saying you'd like me to stop writing about a particular thing cause you don't like it. And, however politively phrased, I find that a bit rude.

But making it clear that by so much as mentioning how I feel I've annoyed you into issuing a public rebuke

You did exactly the same thing! You made a public post rebuking me for what I did in episode reviews! You didn't make a comment to my post. And now you're upset because I responded in a public post of my own! (Yes, it's about more than just your post and, yes, it is annoyed, but, repeating myself again, I think that's pretty obvious to anyone who's read your post and compared it to what I've said here, it's not all about you. I have made that clear from the first comment you made. I have sent you a PM to explain more details.)

[calapine.livejournal.com]

In fact I'd say you were a very, very small part of that pattern

And yet, despite that, it was my review that prompted you to make a PSA? (I'm being presumptive, maybe it didn't.)

At least, I thought we were friend but maybe that's just a lj-terminology based misunderstanding on my part. If so, apologies for the presumption.

I responded in kind, which I thought was appropriate: you, I'm guessing, didn't feel comfortable enough to make that comment in my journal. I didn't feel comfortable enough to respond in yours. Plus it was one of several things that smooshed together so covering them in one post, in my own journal, seemed a better idea at the time. LESS SO NOW.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

And yet, despite that, it was my review that prompted you to make a PSA? (I'm being presumptive, maybe it didn't.)

It was not, no.

I would try to explain better but, well, I think I'm only making things worse. I never imagined my comment could possibly be so angry-making and i'm genuinely confused and upset by how things have developed. Perhaps it really is my fault for being stupid or graceless or something I don't know. Clearly the "don't talk about DW fandom because it will end badly" policy I had over the past couple of years was a good one and I should've stuck with it.

I'm really sorry I made you so angry. I'll stfu now.

[calapine.livejournal.com]

It was not, no.

Okay, but what you said does apply to my posts, cause I do do that.

I'm not angry, and I never was. I *was* annoyed. I'm not now. I *am* confused that you're ignoring what I've said from the very first comment: that, yeah, I thought it a bit annoying, but no, what you said is *not* the main cause of this post. And I PMed you explaining what happened and why I was annoyed. Which you've also ignored.

Perhaps it really is my fault for being stupid or graceless or something I don't know.

No, you're not. I've explained what I was responding to and why. I've not attacked you or insulted you. I know you said earlier this was "full-on attack mode" but I don't think it is, I think I've expressed disagreement and annoyance in a fairly civil manner (course, YMMV), and, again, mostly it's *not about you*.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

I haven't responded to the pm because it contained something that makes me uncomfortable and that I never respond to. I'll send you a pm to explain why, which I probably should have done sooner. I'm sorry about that. I wasn't ignoring your point about me being only part of your problem, all my comments have been made on the basis that you've said I've been rude and annoying but that most of your annoyance was directed at someone else. I only ever thought it was partially about me, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear and made you think I was ignoring you.

At this point I don't know what else I can do except say that whether or not you choose to accept it my apology still stands. I've decided to stay out of DW fandom from now because I'm clearly terrible at it (no-one's fault but my own) so FWIW I won't be committing any repeat offences.

[calapine.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say "rude and annoying", I found it *a bit* rude, yeah, and I was *a bit* annoyed, but that's hardly an unusual thing for me in fandom. Loads of stuff annoys but I forget about it the next day. I wrote a post here because of a combo of the same annoyances happening at once. And the upset I've caused you seems rather a lot greater than the annoyance I felt, and I'm sorry about that.

I don't think you need to give me an apology. I just wanted to respond to what you said but clearly I made an error in conflating things that perhaps shouldn't have been conflated in this post. And it's all come across more aggressively than what I intended? I intended to express my POV and, yeah, in a kind of snarky way, but it wasn't meant to be something that made you feel got at or attacked (cause it's not like there haven't been a couple of people who've said pretty much the same as you). Or like you were rubbish at fandom. It was meant to be me saying I am not at one with with this particular fannish viewpoint PS I am really wound up about the way someone expressed this viewpoint.

You complained about something. I complained back. If that's enough to make you think you're terrible at fandom, I don't know what to say about that really. You're not terrible at fandom. You maybe didn't expect a casual comment at the end of a post to get a post responding to it and it all felt a bit arg cause you've been intermittent for a bit? I should wait until I've calmed down before making posts? I've become too used to the blogosphere way of things? I don't know. I do think it's all got a bit silly.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

And the upset I've caused you seems rather a lot greater than the annoyance I felt, and I'm sorry about that.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I feel like I'm terrible at fandom because I'm unable to predict the effect of my words, and because I'm ridiculously ill-equipped for these situations. It's not just your post, it's the responses and at least one post from another person all being unanimous how right you are to be annoyed and such - it's probably paranoia has me feeling everyone judges me Wrong and Bad for being too critical but you crit me (amongst others) and get cheered, but it feels like that anyway. So either I can conclude that you and everyone else are a bunch of rotten meanies keeping me down or I accept that, at very least, I've made a fundamental misstep along the way. The latter seems rather more likely. I just... don't understand. I mean, literally don't get it, like I don't know the rules of social interaction or something and, not for the first time, it's kind of like I've stumbled into a lacrosse game but I only know hockey. It's not the rowing per se 'cause I got into plenty arguments when I was into hp on account of acting mean and bolshie myself and that wasn't so bad, it's a combined sense of not knowing what I'm doing and I can't deal.

Anyways, it's not your fault, I just wanted to explain. I wish you all good times and happy things in DW fandom 'cos you deserve it, and I'll work on my social skills and finding someplace that's a fit for me.

[calapine.livejournal.com]

So either I can conclude that you and everyone else are a bunch of rotten meanies keeping me down or I accept that, at very least, I've made a fundamental misstep along the way.

Go for the rotten meanies option.

The commenters are agreeing, but the ones that won't agree won't have commented (cause, y'know, kind of scary disagreeing with both the post *and* all those people who might then comment to them saying "no, you're wrong"), but they will exist and think "wtf is she whining on about?" I honestly don't think anyone is judging you. If they look at your post it'll be to go "why the dickens is she [me] makng such a bloody fuss?" if they assume that's all I'm talking about.

But you didn't do anything wrong. What I think a bit off, others will think a perfectly reasonable comment on the state of fandom.

It's not really rotten meanies or you messed up, there's a whole sliding scale of options in between.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

The thing I'm most referring to is a lengthy comment to my journal that I was unable to reply to due to the commenter deleting it.

Which is, imho, pathetic, but never mind.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

You have every right to be annoyed!

The line Please bear in mind that I am not going into anyone's journal telling them what to watch or how they are wrong or how to be a fan. I'm not having a go at anyone personally really rings with me because I've recently had a similar incident at my journal, and the reaction was as if I had personally hunted them down in their own safe space to harsh their squee.

The whole POINT of a personal journal is to put personal thoughts in it, and if someone doesn't like what YOU say IN YOUR SPACE then it is not YOU with the problem!

Eat your pasta, I hope you feel better, and continue to say what you want in your own space.

[apple-pathways.livejournal.com]

You know, I read this post before I read your episode review (I hadn't yet seen the ep when you put it up), and so I read the review actually looking for the moment when you made unkind comparisons to RTD's Who: if I had blinked, I would have missed it. Discussing and comparing one companion changeover with its immediate predecessor is natural and, yes, relevant. The show has been around for 50 years, starring the exact same character: for anyone familiar with more than one of his incarnations, it would seem just a tad bit odd not to note how he may have changed over the years due to the influence of various writers and producers.

The mind boggles trying to imagine just what a review that could please all Who fans would look like.

But then, I will confess that I have little patience for the breed of fan who thinks anything less than 110% positivity at all times is unacceptable, or 'mean'. If the way someone enjoys a show is through squee and enthusiasm only, that's fine. For me, critiquing the things I love enhances my enjoyment of it. I don't expect others to agree with me, but I do expect them to let me have my say without accusing me of "making them sad".

I've said it before, but it seems the circumstance warrants repetition: I love your posts about the show. I love that your knowledge about the show's past informs your current love for it. I love to see a fan of classic Who who is enthusiastic about the current program! Your reviews are so far from being negative, I can only suggest that those who take offense to your occasional comparisons are being far too sensitive.

[settiai]

What is with this fandom today? :-/

You're getting comments in your journal telling you to stop comparing RTD and Moffat. I'm getting comments in my journal telling me that I must be an idiot if I enjoyed the most recent episode. Why on earth do people seem to not realize that we're allowed to talk about whatever we want in our own journals or, similarly, ask that certain things be kept out of our own journals? I'll admit, I tend to skip some of your posts because I know the level of criticism in them isn't to my tastes, but... it's not that I'm asking you to not make them. If I think that a post might not be for me, I don't read it. Simple as that. I don't tell someone what to post/not post in their own journal. The only journal I have any right to police is my own (and, believe me, I do).

[calapine.livejournal.com]

I'm getting comments in my journal telling me that I must be an idiot if I enjoyed the most recent episode.

:( I've had that on occasion, but I don't mind so much (I have at ye old skool fanboys reaction to my Time Monster love). So long as there're not swearing at me. It was rly bad at the start of s5, a bunch of people made posts like yours cause it was just getting ridic the levels of "hdu you like this episode?"

I'll admit, I tend to skip some of your posts because I know the level of criticism in them isn't to my tastes, but... it's not that I'm asking you to not make them. If I think that a post might not be for me, I don't read it..

Quite. I mean, I know people aren't mindreaders, but I'm not exactly SUBTLE about my prefs. If you've realised my Who posts aren't fun for you, scroll on.

[dqbunny.livejournal.com]

I've had to unfriend a very nice person because while she was a Moffat and River-hater, she was really nice to Moffat/River fans ... but her commenters are viscious toward Moffat and River even though they know their comments are being read by those fans.

I loved both RTD and Moffat Who. I also have issues with both of them. That's just normal. Nothing can be perfect. But, I do wish people respected the fact that you have fans of something you like possibly in your vicinity. It's OK to say you don't like something or you disagree with someone. It's another to badmouth them in such a way that you're attacking their fans as well.

BTW, I throughly dislike Chibnall's script for "The Power of Three", largely because he seems to have forgotten that Amy and Rory's daughter ever existed. I vastly prefer Neil Cross giving us loads of Classic Who references and homages without the Doctor being a goofball. However, I will thank Chibnall for giving us Brian and fighting to work up a back story for Rory.

[erisinia.livejournal.com]

As someone who also finds Moffat-Who to be exactly my flavor, I feel you. It's natural I guess for people to be protective of the things they love and see criticism as attack, but differences of opinion are what makes fandom interesting! Give me moar meta, differing thoughts, contrasts and comparisons, yesss I love them all precious...

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

Personally, my absolute favourite Doctor Who series was Series Five. However, I've been a bit up and down about the series since then. Still, regardless of whether I agree or not, it's been a joy to read your squees over recent episodes (since I often have at least a few squees in common with you).

To be quite frank, anyone criticising you for being too negative (never mind 'negative in the wrong way' or whatever nonsense) is an idiot. And if the criticism is that you are being too positive then they can eff RIGHT off, y'know?

And comparisons are unavoidable. Telling you not to make comparisons is akin to telling you not to write your opinion at all. Stuff that. Keep right on writing whatever you like, because you always have a very upbeat and happy demeanour, even when you criticise. :)

[cartimandua.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about the frustration caused when people can't tell the difference between preferring one style/writer/actor over another nd a value judgement against the people involved...it's subjective, guys - if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to watch (FWIW, I miss Tom 'chewing on the scenery' Baker, mainly because he's the Doctor I grew up with, but I don't feel the need to validate my choice by claiming that everyone else's is based on idiocy).

However, I take issue with your choice of pasta and pesto. Everyone knows that true, classic pasta MUST be served with tomatoes and mozzarella and to do otherwise is to ignore the great heritage of...
...why can we see a statement like that as silly but hold major, hurtful feuds over something so ephemeral?

[iamrman82.livejournal.com]

To tell you the truth I prefer the Moffat Who to RTD Who. I wasn't to impressed when I heard about who's returning for the 50th anniversary either.

[scarlettgirl.livejournal.com]

Pfft...Ain't nobody got time for that. Fandom just needs to eat a piece of pie and calm the fuck down.

Although I going to sit here quietly and judge you about Evelyn.

*judge*