Author:
Kira the Snarky Evil Eppy Empress
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 17:34:01 06/13/02 Thu
In reply to:
~Steve-o
's message, "Re: Episodic Quote of the Week" on 16:04:56 06/13/02 Thu
Dang, Steve. I'm really sorry to have set you off this way. I didn't mean to make you mad. My tone was decidedly not seriously defensive, just trying to explain and invite you all. How many smilies do I have to add to get that message across? Geesh.
>The entire time I spent with the Eppie I was
>constantly reminded that I wasn't a soap writer and
>didn't "understand" where they were coming from as
>writers.
If I prefaced my comments with this stuff, then it was because you were probably taking anti-soap shots, as you do here. Sniping at people who enjoy a different genre from you is not cool. And btw, working in a fantasy realm does not de facto make you more elite, more critically savvy, than working in a websoap realm. If you treat people that way, you'd better expect me to correct you.
And, choose you to admit it or not, most of
>the comments meant to seperate me from the soap
>writers were coming from you, Kira, not the other
>producers. You're the voice of the Eppie, and when you
>take a matter onto a personal level, it's the Eppie
>that's speaking.
I'll grant you that, somewhat. But I seriously think you were too sensitive to this, Steve. I'm almost sure I was just trying to act as a moderator between you and the others. But if I made you feel uncomfortable this way, then I'm truly sorry about that.
>Maybe it's the fact that your "community" is still
>aimed at soap fans and soap writers. Maybe it's also
>the fact that, since I've left, there've been very few
>additions to the site that aren't soap-oriented or
>that have value for non-soap authors.
Huh? Why? You don't have characters that can be profiled? You don't have episodes that can be recapped? You don't have plotlines that can be previewed? If you submit recaps to our site, we will publish them. It's not a member-only system. I don't see what you mean by this.
>Or maybe the fact that the only non-soap series that
>won "Eppie Awards" was Mu (Yes, I submitted Ford as a
>test of your seriousness. That fact was made public in
>my forum before I even submitted).
Hm, I don't remember Ford being submitted, as a matter of fact, but that could be my medications playing games with my brain cells. But here's a possibility: maybe, just maybe, it simply wasn't good enough (in the judges' opinions) to get an Eppy? Now don't get huffy at that remark: to be honest, sometimes producers sent in scenes that were poor indicators of the general quality of the site. (Seriously, some producers submitted scenes that were like, two paragraphs long. How the heck are we supposed to judge a character from that?) The judges can only see what you send 'em. I don't know if this was true in your case, but maybe next time, if you choose to enter, you can rethink the type or length of scenes that you submit.
Anyway, I'm not the only memory-challenged person 'round here. Eppy winner Stoney Grove ain't no soap opera, that's for sure, and neither is The Legacy. :)
>Or maybe it's just what I noted above, that you,
>through constant "good natured" jibes, seperate
>non-soap writers from the elitist group of Eppie soap
>writers.
Oh good lord, I "good naturedly" jibe EVERYONE, from soaps to fantasy to scifi to my sister. Maybe you need to accept that this is my tone and, like, get less serious. You seem to have plenty of jibing on your forums; why must we at the Eppy be deadly serious?
Man. I can't believe I'm getting tsuris for being pro-soap when I'm also getting angst from the websoap people for being anti-soap.
>Actually, I did read the whole thing. I also agree
>with JIM's statement that it sounded like a review of
>a fantasy story from someone who doesn't like fantasy.
Well, he's someone who didn't know fantasy. And again, so what? Many people don't know fantasy. The reviewer's entitled to his opinions.
>I know that you, personally, weren't responsible for
>the comment, but if you're going to offer up something
>on your site, you should at least be willing to stand
>by it, whether you wrote it or not.
HUH? Are you at all aware of the nature of these workshops? The premise is that a few producers get together and offer feedback/advice on each other's sites. Why should I "stand by" the results of these assignments? They don't represent the Eppy in any way. They're just people offering comments, not official proclamations from the editorial staff.
Besides, hell, I thought I was standing by it -- at least, standing by the reviewers' right to his/her own opinion, fantasy-admirer or not. That's what I was doing! But I'm not going to accept your judgment that because one producer in this one workshop doesn't seem to be a fan of the fantasy genre, Kira The Editor must perforce believe that all fantasy-based series suck ass. It don't work that way, bud.
>I didn't "cruelly cast aspersions" on anything.
>Everything I've said about the Eppie I've said quite
>publicly and plainly. Everyone who reads Ford knows
>what I've said and why. I don't "cast aspersions," I
>state my beliefs very plainly.
Oh. My. God. It. Was. Sarcasm. Sarcasm, y'know? Melodrama? Humor? The stuff upon which you and everyone else on these forums thrive? Do you seriously believe I thought you were being cruel?! Good God, you must have an even lower opinion of me than I thought.
Or maybe you just need a Mission Statement from me regarding myself and the Eppy. So here it is: I am not a braindead, humorless automaton. I use humor, just like you do. The Eppy is not a serious literary journal, it's intended to be a fun, lighthearted guide to web-based entertainment series. ALL web-based entertainment series.
You are all extremely welcome to take part in this however you see fit. I avidly, wholeheartedly invite -- nay, implore -- you all to send in episode recaps (visit http://www.episodicreview.com/styleguide/recapsformat.shtml for the template), and to send site news (for our EpiBlog news column) to me at the email address above.
>>Our workshop participants represent such newcomers.
>Why not? Shouldn't they be represented?
>
>Wow Kira, we're branching off into whole new
>territories of defensive retaliation now.
>Congratulations.
This gets another "huh?!" reaction from me. Defensive retailiation? How is that defensive? You seem to have completely misinterpreted the tone of my post, Steve. For which I guess I should apologize, because apparently I've upset you to such a degree that you can no longer read something by me without assuming a malicious intent. I assure you, there ain't none. I wasn't being defensive, I was just stating that there's no reason we can't have both nonfantasy types and fantasy types ... except, of course, the fantasy types have to actively participate. Like Jim is doing, Blessed Be.
>And if Eppie had been made more accessible to those
>who don't write soap operas, there would be some
>people hanging around still to take part. But since
>your prior behavior made it less than inviting for us,
>we're not there.
I see your mentioning "us" a lot. Y'know, there are other people in the nonsoap world other than yourselves. Folks like Dave, Joel, Mark, Richard, Bob, Brent, someone calling herself "Itsy," and yet another Mark who are all non websoap writers, and they're all finding a place for themselves at the Eppy. Jim is joining in now too, at least through his participation in the Summer Preview article and now the workshops.
So maybe your reaction is not universal? Maybe you can give us another shot?
I mean, if you don't want to, that's entirely your prerogative. But don't be actin' like it's because of my shunning every nonwebsoap producer away from the table.
>Don't tell us you're going to invite us in with open
>arms and then constantly remind us that we're
>different from you, as you did before.
I hear you. Fair enough.
>Then, again, you need to change tactics with the
>Eppie. If you want to draw in more non-soap series,
>which I personally would like to see despite what you
>may think, you need to make it more inviting to people
>who aren't soap fans, don't watch soaps, and have no
>interest in reading soaps. Right now, almost
>everything from your news section to the contents of
>your forums are soap related.
Because we need to hear from you. You seem to think this stuff happens in a vacuum, Steve. The Episodic isn't Entertainment Weekly, and we have a rotating staff of oh, about three. Because of that, we rely a lot on producer-submitted information -- admittedly, too much, but with such a small staff there's really no help for that. I compile the news section in part from producer submissions, as well as my snooping around. But there's a limit to how much I can look at, and it behooves producers to become far more proactive (yuck, I really do hate that word) if they want to promote their sites.
(Yes, self-promotion. It's not a Bad Thing, you know. You say you don't care about hits, but c'mon, that's not entirely true. If you didn't care, you wouldn't want us to cover your series, you wouldn't have submitted to the Eppy Awards, and you wouldn't be advertising your episodes via the Tidbot on the other League partner sites. It's the whole reason why you put your series on the Web! To Be Seen. That isn't a crime, it's the goal of 99.9% of every author. Sorry, I just don't see why it's a Bad Thing for a writer to want hits.)
As far as the Epiblog news page containing only soap stuff ... sure, sometimes that may be the case. But I've also included a LOT of information about other genres whenever possible, as well as general e-fiction, TV/web tie-ins, etc. I think you're not reading the Eppy regularly enough to judge this.
>You also need to start recognizing more series that
>aren't produced by Eppie members.
Again with the members thing. There aren't Eppy members. This isn't a private club. If you mean our Featured Series, we focus quite a bit on non-featured sites, as a matter of fact. If you check out our Summer Previews, you'll see a plethora of non-featured series included. Ditto with the recaps.
>You're the editor Kira, that's for you to figure out.
>It's up to you to make your site more welcoming for
>us, not for us to make ourselves at home.
Welllllll that isn't entirely true. At some point you have to come out and try the waters again. That's how communities work. Give and take. Again, the invitation is there. If you don't accept it, that's your choice.
>But, I've already told you the reason I left. You
>continuously seperated me from the soap writers with
>off-handed remarks. This after I pushed the Eppie
>heavily on the other writers I knew. And if you don't
>believe I was pimping the Eppie every chance I got,
>ask JIM and JR.
Er, I really don't like the word "pimping," but okay, I do believe you. Thank you for that. 'Course, if it was done in the manner of Jim's "soapy-soppy" crack, I can hardly blame them for not jumping in, hee. ;)
(Disclaimer: That's a smilie, by the way. That means I'm joking. I'm not really upset about what Jim wrote. Jim's comment was funny. Okay? Just makin' sure we're all on the same page this time...)
Anyway, regarding the offhanded remarks ... that's what I do. I'm snarky. Apparently you took this personally, for which I'm sorry. I wish you'd told me something, instead of letting the comments fester to the point where you now think of me as a bitter, twisted, evil gnome who lives to destroy every series that doesn't include a twin returning from the dead to start an adulterous affair with his half-sister.
>The defensive attacks aren't helping your case either.
>You're asking us to come join you, and you're asking
>us to come humbled. Why should we? What do we have to
>gain by being part of the Eppie? What specifically are
>you offering us that would make kow-towing to you and
>standing idly by while you call us tight-assed and
>self-righteous worth our time?
Errrr .... lemme get this straight: I'm the one who's defensively attacking? Me, not you? Oooookaaaay. (Backs away nervously.)
>I've got my own readers, and hits mean nothing to me,
>I write for fun. And I'm happy with my layout, so I
>don't need some Dreamweaver flunky telling me how to
>change it. I'm also in almost constant contact with
>other authors who I admire and who give me feedback.
>
>So why should I join the Eppie other than to get more
>abuse from you?
Um ... after reading this, frankly I kinda don't think you should join the Eppy. I think it'll just give you ulcers.
Seriously, you need to chill. out. It's a freakin' webzine we're talking about, not the Book of Judgment. I really don't think anything I wrote in my pretty lighthearted comments deserved this vitriolic response.
But if it did, mea culpa. I am very sorry that I made you feel unwelcome in the past, and all I can do is hope that someday I'll do a better job.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 